HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Centrists are by no means...

Tue May 29, 2018, 11:07 PM

 

Centrists are by no means even close to a threat to Democracy. Lack of centrists is

Our polarized and partisan political divide today is toxic and breeds demagogues who compete with each other to be even more extreme.

The long ago days of collegial words for
The opposition and true compromise on a broad set of
Issues happened because our country had many more moderates so that you could have long time Republicans all over Nee England and lots of Democrats elected in the Deep South.

Moderation is a good thing for stability. Moderates or centrists may be vanilla yogurt when it comes to promoting new ideas or revolutionary change, but centrism doesn’t lead to the downfall of democratic institutions.


BTW, many Liberal voices couldn’t stand Barack Obama because he was a centrist

66 replies, 7900 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 66 replies Author Time Post
Reply Centrists are by no means even close to a threat to Democracy. Lack of centrists is (Original post)
blake2012 May 2018 OP
lapfog_1 May 2018 #1
pnwmom May 2018 #11
Honeycombe8 May 2018 #12
disillusioned73 May 2018 #22
Honeycombe8 May 2018 #23
PDittie May 2018 #37
Blue_true May 2018 #2
DURHAM D May 2018 #3
blake2012 May 2018 #4
DURHAM D May 2018 #5
blake2012 May 2018 #6
LostOne4Ever May 2018 #7
blake2012 May 2018 #9
Kentonio May 2018 #31
standingtall May 2018 #8
blake2012 May 2018 #10
Honeycombe8 May 2018 #13
angrychair May 2018 #14
blake2012 May 2018 #17
PDittie May 2018 #39
blake2012 May 2018 #42
PDittie May 2018 #47
blake2012 May 2018 #54
Garrett78 May 2018 #63
angrychair May 2018 #45
PDittie May 2018 #48
OilemFirchen May 2018 #53
angrychair May 2018 #57
Garrett78 May 2018 #64
Garrett78 May 2018 #59
angrychair May 2018 #66
Garrett78 May 2018 #62
Stonepounder May 2018 #15
blake2012 May 2018 #18
JCanete May 2018 #16
blake2012 May 2018 #20
demmiblue May 2018 #24
disillusioned73 May 2018 #26
demmiblue May 2018 #29
Garrett78 May 2018 #60
disillusioned73 May 2018 #19
blake2012 May 2018 #21
disillusioned73 May 2018 #25
ck4829 May 2018 #27
disillusioned73 May 2018 #28
ck4829 May 2018 #33
Hortensis May 2018 #34
disillusioned73 May 2018 #35
Hortensis May 2018 #36
disillusioned73 May 2018 #38
Hortensis May 2018 #40
disillusioned73 May 2018 #49
Hortensis May 2018 #50
disillusioned73 May 2018 #51
Hortensis May 2018 #52
blake2012 May 2018 #43
Hortensis May 2018 #30
Kentonio May 2018 #32
Uncle Joe May 2018 #41
blake2012 May 2018 #44
Uncle Joe May 2018 #46
GulfCoast66 May 2018 #55
OilemFirchen May 2018 #56
blake2012 May 2018 #58
Garrett78 May 2018 #61
pampango May 2018 #65

Response to blake2012 (Original post)

Tue May 29, 2018, 11:11 PM

1. The problem is that today's centrists... the few that are around... are yesterday's far right.

you can't compromise with today's "right"... first they want NO compromise themselves... and second, if the left did compromise, it would leave the US not as a centrist nation... but as a right wing shadow of a democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapfog_1 (Reply #1)

Wed May 30, 2018, 01:43 AM

11. I don't think that's true. They would have been more on the right in the past,

but not on the far right. The far right were people like Goldwater, and they would not be centrists today.

Goldwater and a centrist like Joe Manchin would have little in common.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapfog_1 (Reply #1)

Wed May 30, 2018, 01:51 AM

12. I don't think that's true at all.

A centrist is generally pro-choice, socially liberal (though not as much as progressives), balanced in fiscal opinions, etc. That's not the old far right at all...the Republican platform hasn't changed that much, I think. It was always pro-life, socially UN-liberal, religious, fiscally for-the-rich and pro-business, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #12)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:16 AM

22. "fiscally for-the-rich and pro-business, etc. "

 

isn't that where most of the shift has occurred?? And thus created our economic quandary, when criticism comes from the left it is mainly in regard to fiscal and economic policies..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disillusioned73 (Reply #22)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:17 AM

23. The Republicans have always been this way, in my memory.

They are the pro-business party. And their policies favor the wealthy. Nothing has changed, except maybe the degree of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapfog_1 (Reply #1)

Wed May 30, 2018, 10:16 AM

37. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Original post)

Tue May 29, 2018, 11:13 PM

2. A lot of people are at the point where they want to burn shit down.

I don't think that they have seriously thought of what comes next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Original post)

Tue May 29, 2018, 11:31 PM

3. Could you provide a list of demagogues on the left?

Thank you in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #3)

Tue May 29, 2018, 11:32 PM

4. Not a fan of getting my posts hidden--so no

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Reply #4)

Tue May 29, 2018, 11:35 PM

5. I don't believe such a list would be hidden so

I am guessing you don't have a listed of elected Democrats who are demagogues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #5)

Tue May 29, 2018, 11:36 PM

6. I do. And I had a post hidden for just such a statement

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2018, 12:17 AM

7. Yesterdays Radical Left is todays centrism Yesterdays centrism is today's Radical Right

And Todays Radical Left will be tomorrow's centrism, and todays centrism is the tomorrows radical right.

BTW, many Liberal voices couldn’t stand Barack Obama because he was a centrist


Whatever you do don't tell Obama that. Cause, based on the positions he took he is a hardcore Left Liberal himself:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm



Personally I like what MLK JR. (your avatar) said about moderation and extremism in a letter from Birmingham Jail.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.


-Martin Luther King Jr.

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LostOne4Ever (Reply #7)

Wed May 30, 2018, 01:39 AM

9. By their very definition, moderates are slower adopters of change than radicals

 

Which I noted in my post. But that doesn’t mean they are the greatest threat to democracy as another post had stated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LostOne4Ever (Reply #7)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:33 AM

31. Completely disagree with..

 

"Yesterdays Radical Left is todays centrism Yesterdays centrism is today's Radical Right"

That's true if you're only considering social policy, but is absolutely not the case for economic policy. The country used to have a much stronger organized labor grounding, and people were much more conscious about the struggle between worker and employer. Today right wing media has managed to convince half the country (at least) that the super rich are superstars who deserve every penny they twist out of the poors fingers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2018, 12:32 AM

8. Centrist are to slow in recognnizing extremes

and therefore ineffective in combating them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to standingtall (Reply #8)

Wed May 30, 2018, 01:39 AM

10. Broad brush, much?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to standingtall (Reply #8)

Wed May 30, 2018, 01:57 AM

13. To the contrary, I think they're the first to notice.

I am not a centrist, but I'm more moderate than many Dems. I noticed how far right the Tea Party was from the start, and that the left was getting farther left...right away.

That's because they got farther away from the moderate's view, when they were not THAT far away not too long before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2018, 02:08 AM

14. Im a Democrat

Wanting equality for all, to include reproductive healthcare and voting rights and a fair and honest system of justice no matter the color of your skin, does not make me an extremist.

You want to make a deal with trump or his followers? You think they are honest brokers? You actually think that ANY republican, in this environment, in this congress, is going to make a fair and honest deal?

I’m not saying that there is never a time a deal can be made but I thunk it should be done with this ideal in mind:
Compromise is great as long as you are not the one being compromised

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #14)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:03 AM

17. No. If deals were to be made, it is with moderates on the other side of the aisle

 

It is noteworthy the “gang of 8” was broought together on a number of issues to try brokering deals to move forward in important legislation because there are so few moderates left in the Senate.

Of course, most of their ideas were torpedoed by radicals in both sides of the aisle (usually in the House after the senate passed a bill).

But I have no problem stating unequivocally the right is more in the thrall of extremists and normal civil society should steer into that storm and hope the radicals can be broken. We keep trying and waiting but things seem to get worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Reply #17)

Wed May 30, 2018, 10:42 AM

39. Disagree

You wouldn't have deals with conservative Democrats -- like the "Cornhusker Kickback", to use one example -- if that were accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Senate

It would be accurate to say that the GOP enforces a stricter caucus discipline overall than Democrats; testament to Nancy Pelosi's 'flexibility' on pro-life Dems like Dan Lipinski. Only when a Republican is retiring (Jeff Flake, Trey Gowdy just this morning) -- or facing death, such as McCain -- do they begin to tell the truth, especially when it deviates from Republican orthodoxy.

The Democrats nearly always begin negotiations from a weaker position because of their centrists. (I understand the rationale: w/r/t to Cornhuskers, 'a Ben Nelson is better than a Ben Stasse'.)

But this is NOT the fault of those Democrats on the left side of the party. They are not radicals, and your calling them that -- lumping them in with Republican radicals on the extremist, racist, far right in a false equivalency -- is divisive and unhelpful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PDittie (Reply #39)

Wed May 30, 2018, 10:57 AM

42. I very clearly did not give the farther left in Dem caucus the false equivalence

 

With the radical “burn it down” radicals in the right. My thesis was clearly defending a centrist and pragmatic political philosophy—not tearing down another group. It was quite evident in my post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Reply #42)

Wed May 30, 2018, 02:27 PM

47. Disagree

Quoting you:

"most of their ideas were torpedoed by radicals in both sides of the aisle"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PDittie (Reply #47)

Wed May 30, 2018, 05:26 PM

54. Ugghh. If that's what you want to hang your hat on

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PDittie (Reply #39)

Thu May 31, 2018, 06:12 AM

63. One person's radical is another person's reasonable.

I recently asked people to define "centrist," and I mostly got vague platitudes in response. We're all guilty of using terms without putting much thought into what they might mean.

See post #59 in this thread, as well as this: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10676831.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Reply #17)

Wed May 30, 2018, 11:22 AM

45. The gesture is admirable

It’s not that your point is lost on me it’s just I do not believe there is such a thing as a “moderate” republican.

Republicans by there very nature are authoritative religious extremists and always have been.

They want to control women

Keep people of color from voting

Brutally oppress the LGBTQ community

Make their religious views mandatory doctrine of the land

That is not a new phenomenon but is the very founding principles of the GOP.

Think, at what point were republicans most likely to compromise? When they were not in control of Congress and had few options or opportunities.
How has compromising worked out for us since 2010?

I have a hard time with Democratic Party principles being viewed as “extreme” as well.
Many, many countries have solid healthcare, paid family leave, free or very low cost higher education and living wages and retirement with dignity and their economies are not collapsing. These are not “extremist” principles, they just are not republican principles.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #45)

Wed May 30, 2018, 02:28 PM

48. Agree. Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #45)

Wed May 30, 2018, 05:21 PM

53. "... and always have been."

Bullshit.

Here's a blurb from the obit of Chuck Whalen, who was my Congressman from 1966 to 1978:

Mr. Whalen had served in both houses of the Ohio General Assembly before he won election to the U.S. House in 1966 as a representative from a district centered on Dayton, a largely middle-class factory town. During his 12 years in office, he built a reputation as one of the most liberal Republicans in the House.

He served on the Committee on International Relations (now Foreign Affairs) but was perhaps best-known for his years as the most vocal Republican dove on the Armed Services Committee. He was one of the panel’s “Fearless Five,” known for raising the ire of Chairman Mendel Rivers (D-S.C.) for insisting on scrutiny of military spending requests.

Mr. Whalen also co-sponsored several Vietnam troop-withdrawal bills and the unsuccessful 1971 Nedzi-Whalen amendment, which would have cut off military spending for weapons.

He was an early and outspoken proponent of ending military conscription in the United States. In 1967, he and four other members of the Wednesday Group — an informal group of liberal and moderate House Republicans — wrote a report describing how the country could successfully build an all-volunteer Army within five years.

I could name hundreds of others, and plenty of knuckle-dragging Democrats as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #53)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:02 PM

57. There is one-offs in everything

Last edited Thu May 31, 2018, 10:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Outliers do not make a trend. Even if you can name two dozen. Plus to be fair, the guy so identified with the Democratic Party that he changed his affiliation after he retired from congress.

That is not the norm with republicans though which is what I’m speaking too.

The Republican Party platform and their actions, throughout the years, are antithetical to Democratic Party principles and our much hailed American values in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #53)

Thu May 31, 2018, 06:17 AM

64. And Eisenhower spoke out against the military industrial complex.

Still, angrychair's overall point stands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Reply #17)

Thu May 31, 2018, 05:55 AM

59. Things get worse because the dominant narrative is absurd.

We live in a society in which the dominant narrative says the likes of Collins and McCain are "moderates," while The Platform of TM4BL (as an example) is "extremist." That's severely f***ed up. There has not been sufficient pushback against this narrative, ceding turf to the GOP as a result (even as the Democratic Party platform gets increasingly progressive in nature). This is what compromise, or "reaching across the aisle," has looked like over the last several decades:

<img src="" alt="Image result for obama and republican compromise cartoon"/>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #59)

Thu May 31, 2018, 10:32 AM

66. +10000000000000. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #14)

Thu May 31, 2018, 06:06 AM

62. This cartoon sums up what compromise has looked like over the last several decades:

<img src="" alt="Image result for obama and republican compromise cartoon"/>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2018, 02:10 AM

15. I truly think that part of the problem is that the Internet tends to keep the two sides from talking

Several years ago I joined a very Conservative discussion group. Once they got past the idea of a liberal in their midst and became convinced that I was there to discuss and not to tell them they were all wrong, we had some fascinating discussions. These were not deplorables, but true conservatives, but our discussions made both sides think hard about our positions and be able to give real reasons for why we believed what we did. I didn't convert any Conservatives and they didn't convert me, but we were able to listen to each other and come to understand that the other side had real, reasonable arguments, because - damn, this shit is complicated!

Can you imagine that sort of thing happening now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stonepounder (Reply #15)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:04 AM

18. Perfect illustration and I agree about not only the internet but our overly curated lives

 

Where we studiously avoid people of other milieus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2018, 03:58 AM

16. the problem with centrism is that it exists between the left and wherever the fuck the right decides

 


to draw the line about where it stand. And no, the left is not as extreme as the right. There's nothing extreme about the mainstay proposals of those on the left, or even what might often be termed the far left. I'm not particularly excited about finding a middle ground between reasonable left-wing policy proposals and crazy.


Also, I'm not confident that those centrists you laud would be as effective at whatever progressive change they have moved forward over the years without people on the far left making noise and bringing these issues to the public.
It may be the centrists who hold onto power and slowly make progress, but not at all in a vacuum of those outsiders making noise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #16)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:06 AM

20. Agreed. Which is why MLK said the arc of history is long but bends toward justicd

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #16)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:18 AM

24. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Reply #24)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:25 AM

26. I love this..

 

thanks you..

Although the colors are backwards..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disillusioned73 (Reply #26)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:28 AM

29. I know (she is a cartoonist from Australia).

She should do an American version... it would make a great t-shirt!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #16)

Thu May 31, 2018, 06:00 AM

60. See post #59.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:04 AM

19. The problem with "centrism"..

 

is that it has shifted.. you are probably speaking of 1970's or 80's centrism.. it is hard to win a game of tug-of-war when your side hasn't been pulling for a while..



This is an interesting little question/ test to give you a round about location on the "political compass" of where an individuals views reside.. personally, I found it quite accurate for myself

[link:https://www.politicalcompass.org/test|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disillusioned73 (Reply #19)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:10 AM

21. My values have gotten more liberal since the 80's and others have too. Key policy areas show

 

AmericNs becoming more socially liberal as a nation (from gay marriage to marijuana use). I do think fall of unions has contributed greatly to the pain and suffering of American working class and has tilted a lot of frustrated and confused Americans to the right on economic issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Reply #21)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:24 AM

25. I agree..

 

most of the shift I speak of has been on fiscal matters - pro-business, anti-union.. it's why getting money out campaigns has been such a prominent issue on the left.. politicians are being bought like collectables. Ppl on the right have been propagandized into believing that these so-called "tax & spend liberals" have brought about our economic woes.. it's the old adage of punching down and to the left instead of the true "enemy" with all the power & the $$$$$$$ above you..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disillusioned73 (Reply #19)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:25 AM

27. +1. Some of us have started to recognize this skewing...

One of my pals made this line that went something along the lines of...

"Far left" decades ago - "I like the USSR!"
"Far left" years ago - "I want everyone to have healthcare!"
"Far left" today - "I'm pretty sure those kids who survived school shootings aren't crisis actors, guys!"
"Far left" tomorrow? - "I'm pretty sure throwing virgins into a volcano to appease the 'job creators' or putting Muslims in camps aren't good ideas."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ck4829 (Reply #27)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:28 AM

28. Yup..

 

I know folks won't like me using this - but it is honestly how I have felt for some time.. at times, we are our worst enemy..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disillusioned73 (Reply #28)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:40 AM

33. A pretty apt description

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disillusioned73 (Reply #28)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:44 AM

34. No, I don't like insidious fake-disillusionment messages.

Russia does, and this is classic RT message. GOP does. Koch alliance of close to a thousand ultrawealthy hard-core conservatives does. Trump does. Bannon does. Their agents in the MSM do. ALL big time.

Not that there's anything opaque about the effect of this insidious poison on the vulnerable.

Maybe dig deep and see if you can discover some latent conviction to grab onto? Something worth fighting for besides defeat?

COUNTDOWN TO PUTTING TURNING THE TABLES ON ALL OF THEM: 159 days!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #34)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:53 AM

35. There is nothing "fake" about it..

 

I have just been paying attention for almost 2 decades.. I haven't been propagandized by anyone, the facts bare it out..

"Maybe dig deep and see if you can discover some latent conviction to grab onto? Something worth fighting for besides defeat? " - I don't get what you are saying.. pulling the party to the left is what some have been attempting, advocating for "centrism" is conceding defeat by my estimation.. so maybe we agree??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disillusioned73 (Reply #35)

Wed May 30, 2018, 10:04 AM

36. Particularly vulnerable for 2 decades, targeted for 2 decades.

There's nothing new about the campaign to destroy belief in goodness in order to conquer. The methods and their efficacy have merely improved over that time.

This reminds me of what happened to Roseanne. She would have been the same person 30 years ago, of course, but a better version of herself, not the close to the worst the insidious propaganda directed at her has brought out. To the point that now she can't keep it bottled up, even if it destroys her.

Keep your commitment to defeat bottled here, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #36)

Wed May 30, 2018, 10:37 AM

38. Vulnerable, no.. targeted, only after opening my eyes..

 

& from an unexpected direction..

So what goodness do you speak of?? The goodness of sacred resistance warriors voting to pass legislation to help Trumps agenda?? Including more war funding, more surveillance powers & repealing Dodd/Frank - among others.. Or the "centrists" that kept Obama from fulfilling his truly progressive intentions?? Like the Lieberman types?? I'm cornfused..

I love internet psychoanalysis - fun times..

Since you want to jump all over the place.. Here's the thing about Roseanne, see folks don't just become - or get turned to bigotry - she is, what she always was.. it's a bit of an excuse to say she's been turned into something.. see, white privilege has it's excuse makers.. "bad joke", "what happened to Roseanne" - you can parse it & spin it anyway you like.. it's all the same, she is a bigot & always has been..



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disillusioned73 (Reply #38)

Wed May 30, 2018, 10:50 AM

40. Wouldn't criticizing our use of power be more satisfying

than criticizing how we don't use almost no power?

Just hold your don't-bother-voting messages until AFTER November 6. Then have fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #40)

Wed May 30, 2018, 02:40 PM

49. I never said "don't bother voting"..

 

I'm all for leftward swing - push - pull, drag.. what ever it takes.. voting is always on the table.. but, I have stated before I have no problems with primary challenges as well..

FYI - Criticizing around here has become tough.. it's why I stick to short comments or gifs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disillusioned73 (Reply #49)

Wed May 30, 2018, 03:00 PM

50. So, you're going to vote and talk 3 others out of it?

That'd be -2, Disillusioned, or whatever your actual multiplier will be. You seem to have been at this for years, most of it probably elsewhere. Time to understand that our actions have consequences?

159 days to November 6.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #50)

Wed May 30, 2018, 04:36 PM

51. I have no nefarious hidden agenda..

 

I wasn't anywhere before coming here - maybe huffpost & politico with too many righties for my taste.. I hope more people START paying attention and get engaged.. but with all the distractions afforded by society & our corporate news/ infotainment - I will not hold my breath..

Let us not forget there are primaries before Nov. 6..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disillusioned73 (Reply #51)

Wed May 30, 2018, 04:59 PM

52. Of course you don't. That's actually part of the point.

Disillusioned people don't have agendas. God. I've forgotten where this started anyway.

Have a nice evening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #36)

Wed May 30, 2018, 10:59 AM

43. This

 

👍

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:29 AM

30. Of course. This is evil-right's noise as they figh for existence.

The mainstream majorities are breaking its control by starting to fill that big rift they created.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2018, 09:37 AM

32. This would suggest centrism represents a true center. It doesn't.

 

The supposed center has drifted slowly to the right until now the supposedly moderate status quo is wildly unfair to a huge percentage of the population.

That is why you're seeing such supposed 'extreme' partisanship now, and people turning away from the establishment. Left and Right deal with it completely differently of course, but you're seeing it on both sides because regardless of which party they support, the poor are getting screwed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2018, 10:53 AM

41. Prolonged massive economic disparity is the greatest threat to Democracy

History has proven this over and over.




You're not imagining it: the rich really are hoarding economic growth

(snip)

The chart above shows how much the incomes of each group grew, on average, every year from 1980 to 2014. The two lines show both pre- and post-tax incomes.

The implication is clear. People at or below the median income saw their incomes rise by 1 percent or less every year during that period. That isn’t nothing, but it’s hardly great. At the very bottom, some people have seen incomes fall pre-tax; while most poor households get government assistance to help with that, programs like food stamps or the earned income tax credit fail to reach about 20 to 25 percent of the people they’re meant to help.

But the rich? Boy, the rich made out like bandits. The top 1 percent, but really the top 0.1, top 0.01, and even top 0.001 percent (that last group included only 2,344 adults in 2014) saw really fast, dramatic growth in their incomes after 1980. Contrary to some recent commentary, the large increase in inequality isn’t due to the top 20 percent; affluent, educated professionals with low-six-figure salaries and nice homes in good suburbs aren’t driving this. Their incomes are growing about 1.5 percent a year — not bad, but not that much better than the middle class either. The major spike is in the top 1 percent (adults receiving an average of $1.31 million per year each out of national income) and above, where annual income grew by 3, 4, 5, even 6 percent.

This doesn’t appear to have been the way the economy worked from, say, 1946 to 1980. On the request of the New York Times’s David Leonhardt (who has a knack for smart suggestions for research from empirically minded economists), Piketty, Saez, and Zucman reproduced the same graph for every 34-year period from 1946 to the present. Here’s how the 1946-1980 graph compares to the 1980-2014 graph:

(snip)

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/8/16112368/piketty-saez-zucman-income-growth-inequality-stagnation-chart




It can and does exacerbate all other tensions, stress, and cultural fault lines, that's the dark truth behind trickle down economics.

Thanks for the thread blake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #41)

Wed May 30, 2018, 11:02 AM

44. You're welcome and I agree with your post

 

Economic inequality is quite literally driving all factions politically mad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Reply #44)

Wed May 30, 2018, 11:31 AM

46. Well I disagree with your post of equivalence, being mad and getting mad are two different things

The former being propaganda induced brainwashing and the latter being righteous anger.

The underlying problem with prolonged massive economic disparity is that as the middle class shrinks and their influence is continuously diminished the mega-wealthy and major corporate conglomerates in order to protect their economic interests use all their lucre and propaganda power to maintain an increasingly authoritarian agenda moving the status quo to the right.

They will play fault line politics to the hilt in order to keep the people fighting among themselves to divert attention from massive economic disparity; something rarely by the economically conflicted corporate media conglomerates.

As the perceived center is moved to the right, moderates/centrists; are slower to recognize or react to the danger because coming from a predominately pragmatic point of view they're closer to the right than progressives or liberals; the canaries in the coal mine.

Progressives and liberals approaching from a more idealistic point of view know what could or should be a more just society than centrists or pragmatists trying to work within the existing status quo; whatever that is at the time.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2018, 05:29 PM

55. Almost all our problems are caused by the religious takeover of the republicans

Economically I am pretty left and admire parts of the Nordic and German model. But since I realize not all Americans are that far left, And we don’t have a parliamentary system I am willing to compromise and go slow. This makes me a centrist to many here, but there is still mutual respect and shared goals at the end of the day.

The Republicans used to operate the same way and until the 80s we had slow but steady progress to a more equitable society. Too fast for republicans, too slow for liberals. But progress.

Then the Republicans politicized the evangelical nuts. And I grew with them and as one. So I know. They equate comprise with sin, believe the US is gods own enterprise, capitalism is one of God’s commandments, whites are superior biblically and they truly hate the opposition(that’s us).

I do not know how to change that.

Because when you are dealing with people that truly believe that about 5000 years ago a 600 year old man built a wooden boat and saved all life on earth while it flooded...these people are detached from reality. And there are a shit ton of them. Many are my kin.

The irony of irony’s is that the politician who warned about their danger was Goldwater!!







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2018, 05:33 PM

56. Here's a flash-card reference point:

By the standards of contemporary neo-leftism, any capitalist is, at best, a centrist.

And no, it wasn't always so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #56)

Wed May 30, 2018, 10:03 PM

58. Well put. I agree

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #56)

Thu May 31, 2018, 06:03 AM

61. The issue with capitalism is it's rooted in the principle of neverending growth on a finite planet.

It'll end whether people support it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blake2012 (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 08:14 AM

65. Just got back from a trip to Berlin. Lots of history there of one scenario of when the center fails

to hold.

Sometimes the center 'deserves' to fall but that should not hide the fact the consequences of this 'deserved' fall can be pretty bad.

The center in the US in the 1920's and early 30's 'deserved' to fall and, fortunately, was followed by FDR. In other countries the center fell and its successor was not pleasant at all. I am tempted to conclude that liberals should work to move the 'center' as far and as fast to the left as we can and leave the dumping of the center to the far-right and far-left since they frequently benefit from the collapse of the center.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread