obama reaches for the right, will democrats bring him back?

throughout obama’s campaign, i stated repeatedly that i thought obama was far too conservative, so it was no great surprise to see him surround himself with “center-right” DLC types.  especially with the amount of press being given to the idea that we are a *center right* nation.  regardless of what polls actually show (that most americans actually support leftist policies).  his eagerness to reach out to conservatives, over the left which help put him where he is, worries me.  don’t get me wrong, i’m not a democrat.  i don’t put party first, but i ~am~ a leftist and i am fully cognizant of the fact that conservatives are 1) unwilling to work with democrats when the situation is reversed, 2) that a progressive agenda will never be supported by them, and 3) that they believe it is in their best interest to fuel anger…

from The Obamathon Has Begun: How Long Will The Honeymoon Last?:

48% of the country did not support Obama. He knows that and hence his symbolic attempts to neutralize his opponents with smiles and civility, a preacher at the ceremony, and a few Cabinet positions. Will that assuage the hard right “movement activists,” the Limbaugh ditto heads or the Hannity hard heads?

I doubt it, but for now, they are on the defensive. Bill Clinton says he thinks the days of ideology are waning, that the polarization of the past will go away because the right has to become more pragmatic to return to power.

I don’t buy his consensus of the center viewpoint for several reasons.

The right radio heads and Foxoids don’t go venomous because they believe their rants. They do it to build audience among disaffected wingers and whiners. It’s a marketing tactic, not necessary an act of conviction. Posturing fuels controversy; controversy builds anger and audience. They need this strategy to stay in business, just as tabloid journalism needs sensation and trivia to sell newspapers or build ratings.

Continue Reading...

Blogged, Politics, Comments (0)
Tagged as: politics,news,obama,economy,conservatives,liberals January 29, 2009 @ 04:08 pm

have you oppressed a conservative today?

my attention was drawn to this article about a republican in liberal hollywood.  the author first says that when he’s confronted with liberals discussing politics, “I don’t respond.  Some of you might think that is cowardly.  You might be partially correct, but with a family that depends on me, I just pick and chose my conversations where the audacity of my political opinions at least won’t be relegated to the pigeonholed compartment of Nazism and or racism.” (emphasis mine)  i can certainly understand that, having worked in a conservative company where your opinion could get you fired.  but something is amiss… the author is posting his opinion quite clearly on the internet AND, though he won’t have lunch with liberals… he’s inviting liberals to have lunch with him and “broaden your open-minded horizons”.  in hollywood.  where his job depends on his not flaunting his opinions.

After the too often:  “Ernie! You’re a musician! How could you be a Republican!? (As if creativity is reserved for liberals only.) I generally smile, ignore their prejudice, and engage them in some great conservative principles like;

1. Freedom of opinion.

(This engages them, but then confuses them, as my opinion is assuredly not theirs. Their eyes start to wander looking for way out of this uncomfortable talk.)

2. Protection of my children (and this most important television show) with a strong national defense.

(They eagerly scan the horizon looking for a more important person to have lunch with.)

And I usually lower the boom by asking if they have any understanding or appreciation of what those basic principles are. Usually, in a one on one, they say, “Well in a way…sure…”

I smile, extend my hand, and welcome them to the Republican party.

okay, i’ve covered the “entitled to my opinion” thing previously in this post.  the person making the “i have a right to my opinion” statement is using it as a way to either justify their claim (which it does not) or to end any debate by giving weight to their claim (which it does not).

“protection of my children”... as if liberals want to feed children to wolves.

i suspect that the conversations go something like this: 

Liberal:  “so why are you a republican?”

Republican:  “if you care anything at all about freedoms, which bush is sending our boys to protect, and if you care anything about children, which must be protected by defeating the terrorists over there so we don’t fight them over here, then you would have to support conservative principles.  we must do everything we can to promote *america* and *democracy* and *let freedom ring throughout the world*!  are you even aware of these conservative principles?!”

Liberal, backing away from man supporting 100,000+ deaths and trillions in wasted spending on a needless war and justifying it as merely an “opinion”:  “uh, yeah.  sure.  sorta.  gee, it’s getting late, gotta run.”

i’d be backing away, too. 

Blogged, Politics, Comments (0)
Tagged as: politics,conservatives,liberals January 17, 2009 @ 03:51 pm

more on ~the difference between liberals and conservatives~

in a previous post the real difference between liberals and conservatives, i linked to a video from TEDtalks, which discussed the five basic psychological foundations of morality:  harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, purity/sanctity.  basically, liberals are said to score strongest under harm/care and fairness/reciprocity, while conservatives score strongest under ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity.  they’ve found that arguments between liberals and conservatives center especially around issues involving ingroup/loyalty and purity/sanctity.

as a continuation of that, i went to yourmorals.org and took their “moral foundations questionaire”.  my results were exactly as i would have expected. 

my results

,

liberals

,

conservatives

Blogged, Just for Fun, Personal, Politics, Comments (2)
Tagged as: politics,me,conservatives,quizzes,liberals October 02, 2008 @ 01:55 pm

the real difference between liberals and conservatives

“Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we’re left, right or center. In this eye-opening talk, he pinpoints the moral values that liberals and conservatives tend to honor most.”

seen on the atheist media blog.

Blogged, Just for Fun, videos, Politics, Comments (0)
Tagged as: politics,videos,conservatives,liberals September 22, 2008 @ 08:00 am

yes we can, but first we must grieve.

ahh.  finally someone articulates what it is that i’m feeling.  and they do so much better than i’m able to.  i am frustrated with politics, but unlike someone recently suggested to me—“yes, it’s frustrating when you just can’t get the idiots to like your candidate”—there is much, much more to it.  it isn’t a matter of these two candidates: obama and clinton.  the larger picture is still askew and it saddens me. 

The sorrow of which I speak flows not from the fact that liberation has not yet been achieved but from a fear that the possibility of liberation may be lost forever, that our world may have passed the point of no return, psychologically and ecologically. Such fears are not grounds for abandoning politics, however. If you believe there is something to what I’ve said, it suggests only that we should think more carefully about where we put our political energies. I believe that the last place we should be sinking our energy is into presidential politics. When the political leaders vying for our votes make it clear they are committed to systems and institutions that keep us locked in the death trajectory, why should we offer them anything that is precious to us?

The most common response I get to that challenge is the claim that these candidates actually have a more radical agenda but realize that they must keep it under wraps in order to get elected. Just wait, I’m told, until after an election victory. That is likely to be a long wait, for there is no historical precedent for such a development, and nothing in the biography of either candidate that suggests a break with history. This observation typically is dismissed as cynicism, but I am not cynical. I am simply trying to deal with reality.

If only a center/right candidate who p lays to the greed and delusional self-indulgence of the United States can win, that is more evidence that this empire cannot be transformed into a decent society in the time available and that it is time to say of conventional politics, simply, “game over.” If that is the case—and I believe it’s a reasonable account of our society—more than ever the work is not to turn over our time, energy, and resources to any political candidate but to build alternatives on the ground. That is a political response to a political problem. It isn’t a question of hope v. no hope. It’s a question of reality v. delusion. To believe that an unsustainable system can be sustained indefinitely—and to support political candidates who believe that—is a sign not of hope but of desperation and defeat. To be realistic and hopeful, one must be radical.

read the entire article: The sorrows of race and gender in the 2008 presidential election by Robert Jensen.

Blogged, Politics, election2008,
Tagged as: politics,culture,elections2008,obama,liberals May 06, 2008 @ 08:02 am