|
Edited on Wed Feb-27-08 11:16 AM by Armstead
I'm an Obama supporter, but I have the same problem with him that I've had with Clinton, Kerry and Gore in recent elections.
The are so scared of being considered a "liberal." While the GOP defends their conservatism, which is the philosophical basis of that party, the Democrats make liberalism to seem like an unwanted stepchild. Thus, it has no philosophical or ideological basis to campaign on.
It's not just a matter of words. Everything else flows from how you define your basic political stance and values. Liberalism is a totally valid and important political philosophy as a starting point.
Last night, one of the questions was about Obama being labeled by a center-right publication as having the most Liberal Voting record in the Senate. Rather than saying something like "I'm fine with that," he did the old dodge and weave of explaining how he wasn't really a liberal and thate label is meaningless.
It's the same kind of shit Hillary did when asked if she were a liberal. She dismissed the definition of it in modern American politics and returned to the conservative roots of liberalism. "Well, I'm a liberal in the orginal definition, in terms of believing in free markets...blah,blah'blah."
Just like Kerry did in 04 when asked. "I'm not concerned with labels and I don't it's relevant. I was a tough prosecutor in Massachusetts.....blah,blah,blah."
Jeezum Christmas people. Get a clue. Liberal is good. Liberalism is what is needed to balance the power of conservatives and oligarchs. Liberalism has a proud tradition and it is what protects the interests of the majority.
Yes, I realize Obama's strategy. He wants to unify and move beyond those labels. But he can accomplish that by remaining true to a political philosophy and defending it. It is possible to be liberal and to be reasonable and accomodating.
Get back to basics. Liberalism should be the foundation of the Democratic Party, and its' candidates ought to be establish that instead of running away from it.
|