COMMENTS: 100
Third Way Is the Wrong Way
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Third Way's seminal political philosophy is set forth in the "The Politics of Polarization," written by Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck, which informs Third Way's perspective and direction. "The Politics of Polarization," which Third Way rolled out under the banner, "Third Way Releases Groundbreaking Report," is a long document, but it is predicated on one core premise -- a premise that I think is not only utterly fallacious, but one which attempts to lead Democrats in the wrong political direction. The core premise of "The Politics of Polarization" is that more people self-identify as "conservatives" (32%) than "liberals" (20%), so polarizing the electorate favors Republicans, not Democrats. Thus, Democrats must trend toward the center and/or conservative positions to attract the "moderates," and avoid supporting clear, but polarizing, "liberal" positions.
If the fact that more people self-identify as conservatives were used only as description, there would be no problem, but the problem arises from the failure to understand why this is so, what it means and doesn't mean, why it is not immutable and what we should do about it.
The fact that more people self-identify as conservatives, of course, should surprise no one and required no poll: Conservatives have had the benefit of a huge infrastructure -- approximately $400 million per year -- attacking liberals and advancing "conservatism" for nearly 30 years, with little response from Democrats or the left in defense of "liberals." Even today, with the tide shifting to Democrats, I don't hear Democrats calling themselves "liberals." Indeed, most of us call ourselves "progressives," at least in part to avoid being designated as "liberals." So, with a viciously effective 30+ year attack on the very concept of "liberal," it should surprise no one that more people self-identify as conservatives.
But what does this mean? Indeed, what does it even mean to be a "conservative?" "The Politics of Polarization" doesn't help much here, as the terms "conservative," "liberal" and "moderate" lack any definitions in it. And, here is where "The Politics of Polarization" and Third Way makes their first big mistake: They fail to understand or factor into the analysis the single most dominant political fact of the past 30 years, to wit, the radical change in the meaning of "conservative." What conservatism meant to Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, or even Barry Goldwater, is radically different than what it means today in the Bush/Cheney world of phony-conservatism.
To put the point another way, I can even imagine a world where I might be happy with 32% conservatives if we could get back to Teddy Roosevelt's environmental conservatism (he called it "conservation") or Eisenhower's understanding of the limitations of military power and his distrust of the Military-Industrial complex. But that would require dealing with content, not just categories and self-definition, which "The Politics of Polarization" fails to do.
By accepting the content-less self-identification landscape as a given, "The Politics of Polarization" and Third Way essentially accept and "lock-in" the conservative/liberal status quo disparities. What "The Politics of Polarization" and Third Way choose not to do is precisely what made the conservative movement so effective: Challenge the existing status quo and educate the public about a new vision. What "The Politics of Polarization" and Third Way fail to do is precisely what progressives need to do: change the underlying terms and norms of political discussion.
"The Politics of Polarization" and Third Way back away from any such ideological confrontation because, in their opinion, "polarization" works for conservatives but it won't work for progressives. What flow from this, predictably, are policy positions which don't stray far from conventional wisdom -- see the Iraq example, which follows below -- despite the fact that conservatives in a relatively short period of time moved from the downside of 2-1 disparities to a dominant position in American politics by challenging then-conventional wisdom(s) and pushing the electorate in their direction. What "The Politics of Polarization" and Third Way miss is that the public is elastic and willing to move in the direction of new ideas, even liberal ideas, if they make sense and progressives promote them. While this has worked best for conservatives in recent years because they invested in, and disseminated ideas, it is neither inevitable nor permanent that conservative ideas will prevail -- unless, of course, we "lock in" current perceptions, fail to challenge them, and move millimeter-by-millimeter to attract center/moderate/conservatives, accepting many conservative assumptions in the process.
The DLC, Third Way and why their politics don't work any more
The Democratic Leadership Council, from which Third Way has descended ideologically, has long contended that Democrats need to align themselves with a so-called political center, and, to some extent, the election of Bill Clinton validated this strategy. The problem with continuing to adhere to this strategy, however, is that nearly two decades later, there is not much of a center to attract. The conservative movement, by declaring ideological warfare on Democrats, destroyed any remnants of a center consensus.
Conservatives recognized what they had wrought sooner; in fact, former Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd wrote Karl Rove a game-changing memo in which Dowd marveled that the unaligned "center" of the American electorate had disappeared, and, as political scientist Tom Schaller has well pointed out, in the 2000 presidential election, the number of split-ticket voters, which historically had been close to one quarter of the electorate, was 6%; the middle had disappeared. Soon thereafter, Bush's "compassionate conservative" theme disappeared and Rove announced publicly that he and the conservatives would target 4 million "likely Bush" evangelicals; by 2004, in an interview with The New Yorker magazine, Rove made clear that he didn't believe the center was a significant electoral factor and that, in any case, the "center" moves to the party which states its ideas with greater force and resolution, which Bush proceeded to do, while Kerry struggled to define himself as standing for anything. Mushy ideas do not beat clarity and conviction.
Third Way is quick to point out that the electorate is close to evenly divided, but, as Schaller also has argued, an evenly divided electorate does not mean a centrist electorate. Political scientists have been observing for years a more uniform and consistent set of ideologically divergent opinions among voters.
In short, America is more polarized and the focus on converting "centrist" voters is becoming less and less effective. Second, converting non-aligned "centrists" is very expensive and the results are highly over-rated. Many "converted" voters are unreliable voters, not only ideologically, but also in terms of voting at all; they may vote in a Presidential election, but they miss other elections, and may need much encouragement even to vote in the next Presidential election. By contrast, appealing to base voters is ideologically easier and more consistent with a party's self-identification because it doesn't require the sort of policy distortion and compromise which, in the long run, repels rather than attracts voters, and base voters, once motivated, are more likely to become permanent voters. Chasing the illusion of the center, as conservatives move further and further to the Right, doesn't work. It digs a deeper hole.
And a strategy to move toward the "center" clashes with the investment in civic engagement and voter mobilization, particularly in minority, women and working class communities. Such a strategy is particularly risky for Democrats because Democrats have a much greater potential for base mobilization growth than do conservatives because a larger percentage of the conservative base already votes, while a far greater percentage of the progressive base does not vote. In fact, as Schaller notes, the only demographic on the Democratic side which are relatively better mobilized are women relative to men and union members relative to non-union voters. Every racial minority -- with the possible exception of Cuban-Americans -- and non-union working class voters are under-mobilized, as are unmarried women and especially working class minorities: African-Americans reliably vote 90% for Democrats; Native Americans 80-90%; Latinos 55-65%; even Asian-Americans, whom Bill Clinton lost by 24 points, voted for Kerry in 2004 by a 17-point margin. The Democrats' "evangelicals" are working class minorities, particularly unmarried women, but all are short-changed by Third Way's theory of centrist-driven change.
The ideological war declared by the Right has caused Americans to take sides. The core question is what progressives have to offer. Only the old Democratic consultancy class and short-term thinkers like Third Way think the so-called "center" remains the key to victory. Republicans figured this out years ago, while the Democrats failed to learn the appropriate lessons from their 2000, 2002 and 2004 defeats. Amazingly, some groups like Third Way are proving equally incapable of learning from the 2006 victory, as well.
Iraq: A short case study
Up to this point, I have been discussing mostly political theory, but where does Third Way political leadership and messaging lead, in fact? Let's look briefly at Third Way's wandering and ineffective path on Iraq to see where pandering to the center goes.
Third Way supported the War in Iraq (all history of this support has been wiped from its website); Third Way has continued to tout its association with Ken Pollack, who, among other things, wrote "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq," which was one of the major intellectual underpinnings for invading Iraq. With polls running against the war, Third Way moved with the polls, but slowly: In June, 2006 Third Way did training for the DCCC and advocated a "Tough and smart Iraq strategy -- one that protects our national security interests, calls for an exit based on events, not the calendar, and gives Iraq a real chance to succeed." At the time, George Bush was saying, "We will not put a date certain on when each stage of success will be reached -- because the timing of success depends upon meeting certain conditions."
Can anyone identify the differences in the Bush/Cheney and Third Way positions? I can't.
Ironically, the poll on national security released by Third Way last fall found that 30% of Democrats were unsure where Democrats stood on Iraq or which party would do a better job. Could the fact that Third Way at the time was training House members to espouse a position on Iraq that was indistinguishable from George Bush's have contributed to this voter confusion?
On March 29, 2006, three months before Third Way published its Iraq training materials, the House Democratic Leadership had released its "New Direction for America" platform, which among other things, called for 2006 to be, "A year of significant transition to full Iraq sovereignty ... with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces."
So, while the public was confused about where Democrats stood on Iraq, Third Way was promoting positions on Iraq -- ones without timetables -- that the House Democratic leadership had repudiated! Events have moved to favor the imposition of timetables and the Democrats have become reasonably united on this approach, but Third Way, while claiming national security expertise and leadership, provided neither. Should Democrats follow an organization that has had a hard time differentiating itself from Bush/Cheney on Iraq? Should Democrats take advice from an organization that is trying to teach them how to mumble?
Third Way's later stuff on Iraq has been better, but it is tactical -- mainly attacking operational performance -- not the underlying assumptions of the war, and often missing the best arguments. Its most recent statements also have been written by someone with no apparent credentials on national security.
Without my launching into a long discourse, let me just mention a few things that the Third Way materials seem to have missed about Iraq. Third Way has argued that "Timetables are not popular," but this misses two very big, readily available, arguments: (1) 72% of GIs on the ground in Iraq think the US should withdraw in 6-12 months; and, (2) in the latest Pew Poll, 82% of Iraqis want the US to withdraw within 12 months and 61% say that killing Americans is justified. Why are we planning to stay in Iraq indefinitely if the guys on the ground know staying is futile and the Iraqis, for whom we allegedly are fighting and dying, don't want us to stay and, by a large majority, say it is OK to kill us?
More fundamentally, anyone with a passing knowledge of Middle East history (except, apparently, Ken Pollack) should have known the U.S. was walking into a hornet's nest in Iraq with virtually no chance of success. Iraq is not a natural nation; it is a nation cobbled together by European imperialists 90 years ago for purposes of oil exploitation and the underlying religious and sectarian conflicts predate the US invasion by at least 600 years.
If Third Way understood the historical landscape, they would have understood how fundamentally ridiculous Bush's "stay-the-course" and "victory" claims are; there simply is no way the US can outlast the religious, sectarian and regional conflicts that exist, and have existed for hundreds of years, in Iraq. The only remaining question is how many American soldiers and Iraqi citizens will be killed and maimed, and how deep America will be driven into financial insolvency, before sanity and rationality prevail. My prediction is that it won't be long, but Third Way has been in the way, not leading the way.
Here is the point of this recitation of recent history: At the same time the Democratic leadership was moving cautiously toward the inevitability of timetables for withdrawal, Third Way was telling Democrats to stay away from timetables ("Our exit must be based on events, not the calendar...."), and criticizing Bush for "not planning for victory," as though "victory" was actually possible (sound like John McCain?). Instead of explaining how hundreds of years of religious and sectarian conflict in a country cobbled together by European imperialists would make "victory" impossible, Third Way wrote, "The decision to go to war is a debate for historians," as though the historical forces that were making the American misadventure in Iraq fail were simply irrelevant.
And this is not all: In response to the charge that, "The situation in Iraq is a full-scale civil war, and our troops are just ducks in a shooting gallery. We have to get them out of there," Third Way counseled Democrats to defend the war and told Democrats the correct response was, "The situation in Iraq is very, very serious, but it is not a full-scale civil war, and I don't believe that it will be as long as our troops are there." By the way, Webster's Dictionary defines civil war as, "War between factions or regions of a single nation." In short, Third Way accepted the fundamental assumptions that underlay Bush's war. To put it another way, Third Way managed to lag behind the Democratic Party on Iraq! Third Way managed to be even more cautious, less visionary, more ahistoric -- and more fundamentally wrong about policy -- even than the Democrats. That is a pretty amazing accomplishment, but not one we should want to replicate.
Of course, by failing to criticize the assumptions of the Iraq mistake and, instead, claiming "victory" was possible, groups like Third Way open up the Democrats to the post-war claim -- which the Republicans are certain to make -- that the war was winnable, but for the fact that the appeasers and Democrats did not provide full, unflinching, unending support (the same claim they made about Vietnam). If future follows past form, Third Way will blame Democrats for not being sufficiently "tough and smart."
In the recent fight against the troop escalation in Iraq, some members of the broad coalition opposing escalation reached out to Third Way for support. Third Way did not support the coalition against escalation, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, or even return phone calls, and apparently did no lobbying on the bill.
Remember, Democrats were able to pass the bills by one vote in the Senate and just a handful of votes in the House. Third Way is an organization that touts its connections in Congress and claims expertise and leadership on national security and foreign policy, but it was missing in action on these crucial votes. I have also been told that on other issues involving national security and foreign policy, Third Way does not collaborate or share information with other progressive organizations. Collaboration is supposed to be a progressive value, but you wouldn't know it watching Third Way.
Blowing up public housing is not a progressive value
Recently, Third Way's President, Jon Cowan, made a presentation to the Democracy Alliance, a center-left organization that is attempting to build progressive political infrastructure. Cowan spent his speech shouting at the audience and half his time explaining that when he worked at the Housing and Urban Development Department under Andrew Cuomo, he worked to "blow up public housing" and replace it with two and three-story public housing. He characterized his work as "modernizing" progressive ideas.
What Cowan failed to explain, however, is that much of the public housing blown up was sitting on valuable urban land and was replaced, not by low-income housing, but by developments of mid and high-priced condominiums, while the poor were moved farther from cities, and that some of the blown up housing had been recently built and was in good condition. More significantly, Cowan failed to acknowledge that the number of replacement units did not match the number of housing units blown up and thousands of low-income tenants were left homeless by this "modernization." The next day, Deepak Bhargava, Executive Director of Center for Community Change, an organization that works on behalf of low-income people, called this demolition of public housing, with the insufficient housing replacement, "immoral."
Blowing up public housing and leaving thousands homeless may be Third Way's idea of "modernization," it may even appeal to some Democratic real estate developers, but there is nothing progressive about it.
Conclusion
The question for progressives is not whether we want to influence the Democrats -- of course we do. The question is do we want to invest precious time and resources on inside-the-Beltway cautiousness, bad policy analysis that makes no waves, takes no chances and doesn't differentiate itself from the conservatives, or do we work to build something more real, vital, honest and progressive -- based on better policy -- ideas that change America because they change the terms of debate, not simply pander ineffectively to a mythological, out-dated concept of the "center." If we don't, if we think that type of ideological myopia is counterproductive, we better keep watch on Third Way.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rolomax on May 14, 2007 12:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mainstream media is responsible for most conservatives that exist today. They don't report the issues that affect the 90% of americans who are the backbone of the counry.
If the mainstream media really did their jobs, then the American people would be informed enough to actually make a difference. AKA 'a government by the people for the people'.
'Freedom of the press' ,fails, once the press becomes a corporation that looks out for itself.
People identify themselves as conservative because they are uninformed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Third way is the wrong way
Posted by: talkville
» Traditionally "third way" has meant Proto-Fascist!
Posted by: citizenjoe
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richholland on May 14, 2007 1:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Europe i.e there or many parties but in reality:
the main stream is: 1.liberals( your republikans)
2.conservatifs ( your republikans)
3.christen democrates
4.socialists
5.the green parties.
So I would advice America in order to become a democratie
a THIRD party
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 2 parties only is no democrazy
Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: 2 parties only is no democrazy
Posted by: talkville
» RE: 2 parties only is no democrazy
Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: 2 parties only is no democrazy
Posted by: talkville
» RE: 2 parties only is no democrazy
Posted by: hms2004
» And only one party is even worse
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: And only one party is even worse
Posted by: jpom22
» RE: 2 parties only is no democrazy
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» I must strongly object
Posted by: themotie
» RE: I must strongly object
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» Completely agree, with the technical exception that our Republic--not our Democracy--is poorly...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: 2 parties only is no democrazy
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker on May 14, 2007 2:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing in American society is more important right now than ending Bush’s insane war of choice. Those of us who oppose it should be rioting in the streets. Why that hasn’t happened is a separate issue subject to much debate. But one thing is clear from Saperstein’s article. If TTW had its way, there would be no public protest. Instead, we citizens outside the Beltway should be content to let Republicans and Democrats in Congress play their self-serving political games while our kids in the Middle East are being blown to hell.
Sorry, TTW, but I don’t think so.
For the TRUTH about Iraq, Bush 43 and his treasonous neocon cabal, visit the following websites managed by U.S. war veterans opposed to the continuing occupation of Iraq.
King-George.biz (only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption)
OpTruth.org (Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America critical of Iraq War)
VAIW.org (Veterans Against Iraq War)
VoteVets.org (promotes candidates for Congress who are both Iraq/Afghanistan vets and critical of the Iraq War)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Third Way is no way at all.
Posted by: talkville
» Hugh. Make some sense.
Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: Hugh. Make some sense.
Posted by: talkville
» RE: The Third Way is no way at all.
Posted by: jack alexander
» I'm a Vietnam vet, too, Jack. If you know about any protest groups our guys have started...
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
» Why aren't we in streets? Because we're in front of computers
Posted by: haystack1317
» Dear Haystack. I've done a helluva lot more than sit at my computer screen. For example...
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
» RE: Dear Haystack. I've done a helluva lot more than sit at my computer screen. For example...
Posted by: haystack1317
» RE: Why aren't we in streets? Because we're in front of computers
Posted by: dauphin534
» RE: Why aren't we in streets? Because we're in front of computers
Posted by: haystack1317
» Biding my time for a real revolt
Posted by: truthteller
Comments are closed-
Posted by: talkville on May 14, 2007 3:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Correct. Blair was famous for his "3rd Way" rhetoric and platform.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: THIAHB on May 14, 2007 3:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you are conservative, you believe that the status quo is immutable (and as you become more wealthy, perhaps it becomes ever easier for you to believe this because the status quo is pretty good for you!).
Conservatives look at the problems of today (read, other people's problems) and simply shrug their shoulders and say, there's nothing we can do to change that - or worse yet, that's the way it was meant to be.
If you are liberal, you believe the status quo is a starting point, a less than desirable situation that can be built on and improved.
And therein lies the difference: liberals look to the future and see possibilities; conservatives look to the future and see more of the same.
Call me naive, but as a liberal I live for change, no matter how messy it might be, in the hopes that things will get better. Throughout history, there are examples of people who were considered naive in their day for daring to challenge the status quo: Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr spring to mind. You might also call them "liberal".
So, I don't know about this Third Way nonsense, but let's not allow ourselves to get confused over the meaning of words and be sidetracked into a debate about symantics. Liberal and conservative are perfectly good terms, and if conservatives have turned "liberal" into a dirty words, then let's stand up and tell everyone what "conservative" really means.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» What about moderates like me who fiscally conservative and socially liberal?
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
» Fiscally conservative? It is a nonsense
Posted by: THIAHB
» Fiscal conservatives believe in paying government bills with cash on hand, not their...
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
» RE: Fiscal conservatives believe in paying government bills with cash on hand, not their...
Posted by: THIAHB
» Again you're wrong about me; I'm a MODERATE! You're also wrong about Reagan. As...
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
» RE: Why I am a liberal
Posted by: jazz35
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Universal on May 14, 2007 4:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's the deal: If, as the Enlightenment Liberals, revolutionary liberals, not its betrayers, the class Liberals, both conservative and liberal class parties, class ideologies had in fact carried out the goals of the principle of inclusion, universal standards, there would be no class standards, double standards, class hierarchies, or Class empires, with their class nationalism. The democratic revolutions of Europe against the feudal class order, with its corrupt clerical class elites, the Catholic, clerical hierarchies, was supposed to have terminated class society, and its class elites, permamently, based on the classical, universal laws of Reason, Science and Morality.
This could only be accomplished with a universal mechanism, through the nation states as the link and means, with their inclusionary revolutionary principles, of democracy and social wealth prinicple, a universal middle class, without class masters above, and exploited, unpaid labor below, because such a universal middle layer, holds within it the universal moral center, inherently, providing that they had the complete necessary theoretical tools to make it happen, to establish just such a permament universal mechanism and social prinicple, with its original revolutionary Liberal, universal values to sweep the world through true internationalism, the creation of universal, revolutionary linked nation states, universal nationalism, instead of today's class nationalism.
Like 2000 years earlier, the mistake the Enlightenment made was to assume that it could, like Plato, just graft democracy or the democratic revolutions onto existing class society, which would negate, "wither" the class despotism as an automatice process. A partial and "new middle classes" under the emerging new oligarchy, plutocracy, class society, with its merchant, commercial classes, which put property rights over human rights and democracy, would easily reporduce the class mechanism again, by subordinating, corrupting its new middle layers, thus shifting their revolutionary moral center to the right, between totalitarian capitalists, or just plain despotic class democracies, never moving towards real democracy or later, the heirs of the Enlightenment, Marx and the socialitst, never moving towards socialism as claimed in Europe, all ideologies becoming the appeasers of corporate fascism, proving that Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler is not a correct "individual" phenomena, but a Chamberlain in spades as class whores appeasing class despotism, class Empire. Therefore this argument that the center is between class liberals and class tnugs, is only the same kind of corruption that took place within the Enlightenment, its middle layers, and continues to do so within their false moral claims, as well as their false claim to the social principle of development, and wealth.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Universal
Posted by: jack alexander
» RE: Universal
Posted by: Universal
» RE: Universal
Posted by: Blade
» RE: Universal
Posted by: Universal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: greentime on May 14, 2007 4:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Because.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: the islander on May 14, 2007 5:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: haystack1317 on May 14, 2007 6:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drmflorida on May 14, 2007 6:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The solution is not become more like them, but rather to refuse to engage in the theatrics. For example, the video that Evan posted with the mayor of SLC debating Sean Hannity. Evan saw it as a moment of eloquence for the mayor, I saw it as him being trounced. Does that mean that Sean Hannity would make a better mayor? Of course not. So why play in his arena? Can you picture Barbara Eirenriech or Noam Chomsky debating Ann Coulter? Of course not, they are thinkers, not entertainers, and it would be demeaning for the progressives and legitimizing for the conservatives.
Perhaps liberals have an image problem, but our voters have different motivations from their voters. More of our voters show up for compassionate reasons while their voters show up for hateful reasons. If the political climate gets ugly, the compassionate voters start to feel less generous, and the hateful voters feel more hateful. That is why we lose.
I think that we should confront conservativism, but on our terms, not theirs. They run a smear campaign, and we counter that solid proposals for programs to lift people out of poverty. They start petitions to criminalize homosexuality, and we point out the rhetorical links between that and efforts to criminalize interracial marriages or anti-semitism. They call us a bunch of egghead intellectuals and we offer them free education so they won't feel so intimidated anymore. That is how we win.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Great comment, drmflorida.
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
» RE: how we win
Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: how we win
Posted by: Joshua Holland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on May 14, 2007 6:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What do you expect????
Posted by: richholland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mwildfire on May 14, 2007 6:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: one point
Posted by: notinKansas
» RE: one point
Posted by: mommy64
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 14, 2007 6:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1- Modern Representative Democracy was a liberal, even radical, idea at the time America set up it's government. The Bill of Rights was widely considered outrageous outside the United States.
2- Abolition of slavery, the ending of child labor, the right to organize labor, the right of women to vote, pensions, the 40-hour work week, employer provided healthcare and freedom of religion were all liberal ideas.
3- Universal public education, Land-Grant Universities, federally guaranteed student and home loans, wildlife refuges, National Forests, levee districts for flood control, rural power co-operatives, public broadcasting, child nutrition and vaccination programs, and public roads were all liberal ideas in their day.
4- The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the creation of the EPA, the FDA, the SEC and the FDIC, EEOC and the Endangered Species Act were all liberal ideas.
5- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were all liberal ideas.
6- The modern Civil Rights Movements- from that of African Americans through today's struggles for Civil Unions are largely from the liberal thinkers.
Make them tell you exactly what liberal/progressive advances that they themselves have benefitted from that they now oppose. Many of the biggest Neo-Con trolls grew up in FHA or VA purchased homes powered with co-op or TVA power, went to public schools, attended Public Universities on a Federal grant or loan, drive public roads to work, hunt or vacation on public lands, and work a 40-hour job with benefits and breathe cleaner air because of the very liberal ideas they vote against.
I'm proud to be called a liberal/progressive and do not shy from it. When forced to choose between darkness and the light, I will always side with fairness; respect; dignity, freedom; peace and justice. I embrace hope instead of fear. I try to always keep in mind that one of the great concepts this country was made upon is that of the second chance. That alone is a very liberal idea.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» In 1776, liberals fought for freedom while conservatives stayed home. Like Bush did in 1968.
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
» RE: The L-Word
Posted by: Gma1
» Bravo!
Posted by: WhatNow?
Comments are closed-
Posted by: notinKansas on May 14, 2007 6:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 14, 2007 6:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason is obvious: many self-described liberals look to many successful self described conservatives who can't conduct an honest conversation about an issue, and then build on that, figuring if they too can "frame" the issue...ooooh...just...so...that they will recapture some percentage of the voting public.
Beyond lack that, many self-described liberals have fundamental, glaring challenges with the idea of liberty enjoyed by the people. The more liberals trend toward statism (see the interesting but flawed historical Sven-ish diagram accompanying the headline) the more they trend away from the best aspects of liberalism. One of the more liberal ideas that this country was founded upon (though initally poorly practiced) was that the state should not favor one individual over another, but many "liberally progressives" feel that the state should use its police powers to force a healthy 30 year old named Julie to subsidize a healthy 40 year-old named Bob's healthcare, his housing, his food, and other things based on factors such as whether Julie put off working to attend school, puts in overtime, lays awake at night thinking about a better business model, or any other thing that might result in an income differential between the two, at any time during their lives.
The liberally challenged progressives cling to the trappings of liberalism on a few issues such as letting a woman destroy her unborn child, recognizing that any two consenting adults should be able to put their naughty bits where ever they want and engage in what ever state-sanctioned ceremonies that the rest of the citizens enjoy, and a few other issues that are mostly no-brainers if you adopt the idea that free people should be mostly left alone by their government when the government isn't actively protecting their lives or property.
I've got no problem describing myself as a liberal. It seems to be more of a problem of statists looking for ways to frame themselves as anything other than Socialists who find themselves among the rank-and-file of the liberally challenged. Ideas above ideology, people of politics, business and the business of politics, and the State last of all, only when necessary.
Liberally yours,
ABF
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oh but Phrames are Phun!
Posted by: Gma1
» Nope.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Oh but Phrames are Phun!
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SteveB on May 14, 2007 8:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And who can blame them? Political parties are always focused on short-term electoral success, and so they tend to accept public attitudes as a given, at best trying to "reframe" their ideas to fit within those attitudes.
Challenging the existing status quo and educating the public about a new vision is actually the job of social movements - and many of them, on the left end of the political spectrum, are successfully doing this right now.
Do many people have bigoted attitudes about gays and lesbians? Yes they do, and that's why we have a gay rights movement - to educate the public and move public opinion away from bigotry towards a new vision of equality.
Are many Americans confused or unconcerned about the threat of climate change? Again, yes, and that's why we have an environmental movement - to move people to concern and a new vision of a environmentally sustainable economy.
Political parties have their uses, but we shouldn't expect too much of them. Challenging the status quo and educating the public is something millions of people are already doing. They're not waiting for the Democrats to do this, and neither should you.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: We should expect everything from our political parties
Posted by: THIAHB
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rjm on May 14, 2007 9:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
picture a clock face. functional democracy exists at 12 o'clock, absolute dictatorship exists at 6 o'clock.
anything to the right of 12 is conservative, anything to the left is liberal.
anything between 10 and 2 o'clock, democracy will continue to function. move to the left of 10, or the right of 2, and you begin to see a breakdown of democracy.
the graphic at the beginning of this article is a step away from the grossly misrepresentative linear model but still falls short of the mark.
democracy is a balancing act, we need a lot of weight on the left side of the scale to bring us back to the middle.
tks,
rjm
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nonsense
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on May 14, 2007 10:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Well put, RedBrown. The Third Way is like someone knocking off your eyeglasses and arguing...
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ekipnrut on May 14, 2007 11:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Third Way supported the War in Iraq (all history of this support has been wiped from its website); Third Way has continued to tout its association with Ken Pollack, who, among other things, wrote "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq," which was one of the major intellectual underpinnings for invading Iraq. With polls running against the war ......
Ummm...What exactly is there to chat with them(Third Way) about , other than the fact that they are enablers of and accomplices to a war crime. Does a rape victim sit down with her (presumed) attacker a couple of years after the incident and go over how he selected her? Having once abused POWs,what credibility..at any level...would those who carried out the crimes have in subsequent debate about trying to at least minimize atrocities in the conduct of war? Oh....BTW:
MANAGEMENT TEAM
[Apparently ALL White, with one exception. No Latinos. No Asians. This bunch isn't even demographically credible much less operationally viable.]
Jonathan Cowan
President
Matt Bennett
Vice President for Public Affairs
Jim Kessler
Vice President for Policy
Nancy Hale
Vice President for Strategy and Leadership Development
Rachel Laser
Director of The Culture Project/
Senior Policy Advisor
Anne Kim
Director of The Middle Class Project/
Senior Policy Advisor
Sharon Burke
Director of The National Security Project/
Senior Policy Advisor
Rob Keast Senior Policy Advisor
Nancy Jacobson Senior Advisor
*Scott Winship Senior Policy Advisor
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Lewis B. Cullman Scott Delmar John Dyson
*Robert R. Dyson David Heller Peter Joseph
*Rob Katz Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy (Ret.)
Derek Kirkland Reynold Levy Thurgood Marshall, Jr.
*Susan McCue Herbert S. Miller Howard Rossman
*Bernard L. Schwartz Adam Solomon
*Barbara Manfrey Vogelstein John Vogelstein
Joseph H. Flom (Advisor to the Board of Trustees)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Do you even read what you write?
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Fabricate lies...words..whatever......
Posted by: ekipnrut
» My bad. Feeding a troll.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» bye... 'literist' :O)
Posted by: ekipnrut
» toodles ekkkiprunt
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Follow the Money
Posted by: leafsong1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on May 14, 2007 1:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MIKHAIL BAKUNIN
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I suggest we get rid of government
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on May 14, 2007 1:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Oh, please don't try to leave out the role of GHW Bush in all of that Iraq business...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Liberals also brought us the NATO/Kosovo War...CLINTON?
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Liberals also brought us the NATO/Kosovo War...CLINTON?
Posted by: Joshua Holland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: douglashoyt on May 14, 2007 3:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This will never happen. America will have a violent revolution first.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: New Constitution.
Posted by: wishninja
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kpaxson on May 14, 2007 3:53 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrats need to tell people what they stand for and why.
To define what Democrats stand for and why is the most powerful grassroots building, vote-getting, party-building strategy we can devise.
"Why We Are Democrats" lists 11 points of what Democrats stand for and why. This is not about policy or agenda. It is a short list core values that build a vision of how the Democratic Party views our country, our democracy and our future. (The Republican counter part lists 8 points)
The link is: http://www.kimpaxson.com/Vision/VisionLRApril30.pdf
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: alicelillie on May 14, 2007 4:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much better. You can locate yourself on it (in complete privacy) on LP.org.
http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: healinghawk on May 14, 2007 4:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» But you've never effectively proven the so-called vote fraud
Posted by: freedomlover
» RE: But you've never effectively proven the so-called vote fraud..It was established (ad nauseam)
Posted by: ekipnrut
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ericksonml@sbcglobal.net on May 14, 2007 5:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on May 14, 2007 5:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gdonald on May 14, 2007 8:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a person that many would consider conservative but I want nothing to do with the neo-cons and their self destructive ways because it is also destroying this great Republic. I am also a person who wants nothing to do with the far left because this group is just as destructive to this great Republic as the neo-cons.
I travel a lot and talk to people all the time. I can tell you that while I can not boast any scientific study, I can say that the majority of people I talk to are like me. Some consider themselves liberal and some conservative but they are disgusted by how this Republic has been trashed by the neo's of both sides. We're fed up with the neo-cons and the neo-liberals because neither of these groups represents what this great Republic was and is supposed to be.
It's time to stop whining and crying over either of these two extremist groups and to start doing what any wise and prudent person should do, which is to run for office as independants and take the system back before both sides destroy us.
Name calling is just a sign of frustration and if you're frustrated then do something about it. Go get elected.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Truth told. Strawman arguments, belittling and bigotry are not restricted to neo cons.
Posted by: utilitarianist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: utilitarianist on May 14, 2007 8:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When they find an issue that has about equal numbers of supporters on either side, the liberals grab the nearest one and the conservatives the other. The people who support the party due to 1 issue get dragged into supporting other issues that party is using to gain votes. Eventually you end up with a patchwork of ideals that have no clear bearing on each other. Generally both major parties have some sort of impetus to use proper scientific method to figure out the most utilitarian method of running the country, but that extent ends when they feel they must pander to the needs of action groups.
So what's the solution? For a start don't look at the political landscape as an ambiguous 1 dimensional slide rule which you must pull as much as you can to the left or right in order to make the world a better place. Look at the world as it really is and don't be afraid to delve into sophisticated research in order to find the answers you need. Save emotive arguments and quibbles till after you have presented the core logic of it in the most concise manner possible without using terms most people haven't heard of. I have only ever been convinced by arguments that actually have a basis, even when I had strong emotions otherwise. Since I am not a liberal zealot you can either assume I am an "idiot" or an "ignorant hick" (I'm not even from America!) or you can trust in this criticism and take it seriously.
Look at yourselves, you are so afraid of "accepting many conservative assumptions in the process." you have become incapable of criticising yourselves and changing what you might be getting very wrong. I bet as you read this you are thinking "this is an evil plot by a conservative to make me assume something which isn't true", when you learn to recognise such thought stopping conjecture maybe people will take you more seriously.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: herbal on May 15, 2007 12:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Give us 'progressive' as a legitimate shift in emphasis that elucidates a call to action in these fundamentally mutated days that beg for a real alternative to the old tool tradition of the oil based technology (in an anthropological sense). Reinvent the world.
Liberals no longer exist except as collaborators like the DNC. Screw the liberals, the bourgeoise aspiring to upper middle class, and give me a radical anytime who is not one of the mass of the timid apologists for speaking out of turn. 'Liberal' is a Democratic party term that is made irrelevant by the obsolescence of the Party. This day is not made for synthetic timidity and retecence; let us make heroes of those who would emulate Eugene Debs and Emma Goldman.
"Profound social change usually occurs only when broad-based grassroots movements force the hand of those in power. Rights-based environmental justice movements have arisen around the world to support historically disenfranchised communities to stop being used as dumping grounds and sacrifice zones." – Lois Marie Gibbs from Bioneers 2006
Please don't lament the passage of a sickeningly moderate label; let 'liberal' go joyfully.
'Conservatives' defy the definition. A real conservative is someone who balances budgets and conserves the environment. Like Jim Hightower cajoles us to agitate, we need to make sense of the English language and take it from the Goebbels and Hayakowas of the plutocracy that has ruined the Republic. Lets realize and celebrate the radicalization of the populace that is taking place through the new media that is at-once word of mouth and quicker than ever before possible, the internet.
Cry out; take to the streets and lobbies and fracture the decorum of the deceivers, war profiteers and corporatists. Attack the roots of corporate control, not wasting time with the symptoms of war and puppets. Get in their face, but don't be a liberal; get radical. Fight like banshees or democracy is as dead as Iroquois and Ben Franklin. Yes, the '3rd way' is dead wrong and sickeningly liberal.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on May 15, 2007 4:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rchapanis on May 15, 2007 10:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Third way is the wrong way
Posted by: Bobsays
Comments are closed-
Posted by: citizenjoe on May 17, 2007 8:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rolomax on May 14, 2007 12:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mainstream media is responsible for most conservatives that exist today. They don't report the issues that affect the 90% of americans who are the backbone of the counry.
If the mainstream media really did their jobs, then the American people would be informed enough to actually make a difference. AKA 'a government by the people for the people'.
'Freedom of the press' ,fails, once the press becomes a corporation that looks out for itself.
People identify themselves as conservative because they are uninformed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Third way is the wrong way
Posted by: talkville
» Traditionally "third way" has meant Proto-Fascist!
Posted by: citizenjoe
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richholland on May 14, 2007 1:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Europe i.e there or many parties but in reality:
the main stream is: 1.liberals( your republikans)
2.conservatifs ( your republikans)
3.christen democrates
4.socialists
5.the green parties.
So I would advice America in order to become a democratie
a THIRD party
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 2 parties only is no democrazy
Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: 2 parties only is no democrazy
Posted by: talkville
» RE: 2 parties only is no democrazy
Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: 2 parties only is no democrazy
Posted by: talkville
» RE: 2 parties only is no democrazy
Posted by: hms2004
» And only one party is even worse
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: And only one party is even worse
Posted by: jpom22
» RE: 2 parties only is no democrazy
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» I must strongly object
Posted by: themotie
» RE: I must strongly object
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» Completely agree, with the technical exception that our Republic--not our Democracy--is poorly...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: 2 parties only is no democrazy
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker on May 14, 2007 2:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing in American society is more important right now than ending Bush’s insane war of choice. Those of us who oppose it should be rioting in the streets. Why that hasn’t happened is a separate issue subject to much debate. But one thing is clear from Saperstein’s article. If TTW had its way, there would be no public protest. Instead, we citizens outside the Beltway should be content to let Republicans and Democrats in Congress play their self-serving political games while our kids in the Middle East are being blown to hell.
Sorry, TTW, but I don’t think so.
For the TRUTH about Iraq, Bush 43 and his treasonous neocon cabal, visit the following websites managed by U.S. war veterans opposed to the continuing occupation of Iraq.
King-George.biz (only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption)
OpTruth.org (Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America critical of Iraq War)
VAIW.org (Veterans Against Iraq War)
VoteVets.org (promotes candidates for Congress who are both Iraq/Afghanistan vets and critical of the Iraq War)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Third Way is no way at all.
Posted by: talkville
» Hugh. Make some sense.
Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: Hugh. Make some sense.
Posted by: talkville
» RE: The Third Way is no way at all.
Posted by: jack alexander
» I'm a Vietnam vet, too, Jack. If you know about any protest groups our guys have started...
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
» Why aren't we in streets? Because we're in front of computers
Posted by: haystack1317
» Dear Haystack. I've done a helluva lot more than sit at my computer screen. For example...
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
» RE: Dear Haystack. I've done a helluva lot more than sit at my computer screen. For example...
Posted by: haystack1317
» RE: Why aren't we in streets? Because we're in front of computers
Posted by: dauphin534
» RE: Why aren't we in streets? Because we're in front of computers
Posted by: haystack1317
» Biding my time for a real revolt
Posted by: truthteller
Comments are closed-
Posted by: talkville on May 14, 2007 3:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Correct. Blair was famous for his "3rd Way" rhetoric and platform.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: THIAHB on May 14, 2007 3:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you are conservative, you believe that the status quo is immutable (and as you become more wealthy, perhaps it becomes ever easier for you to believe this because the status quo is pretty good for you!).
Conservatives look at the problems of today (read, other people's problems) and simply shrug their shoulders and say, there's nothing we can do to change that - or worse yet, that's the way it was meant to be.
If you are liberal, you believe the status quo is a starting point, a less than desirable situation that can be built on and improved.
And therein lies the difference: liberals look to the future and see possibilities; conservatives look to the future and see more of the same.
Call me naive, but as a liberal I live for change, no matter how messy it might be, in the hopes that things will get better. Throughout history, there are examples of people who were considered naive in their day for daring to challenge the status quo: Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr spring to mind. You might also call them "liberal".
So, I don't know about this Third Way nonsense, but let's not allow ourselves to get confused over the meaning of words and be sidetracked into a debate about symantics. Liberal and conservative are perfectly good terms, and if conservatives have turned "liberal" into a dirty words, then let's stand up and tell everyone what "conservative" really means.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» What about moderates like me who fiscally conservative and socially liberal?
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
» Fiscally conservative? It is a nonsense
Posted by: THIAHB
» Fiscal conservatives believe in paying government bills with cash on hand, not their...
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
» RE: Fiscal conservatives believe in paying government bills with cash on hand, not their...
Posted by: THIAHB
» Again you're wrong about me; I'm a MODERATE! You're also wrong about Reagan. As...
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
» RE: Why I am a liberal
Posted by: jazz35
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Universal on May 14, 2007 4:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's the deal: If, as the Enlightenment Liberals, revolutionary liberals, not its betrayers, the class Liberals, both conservative and liberal class parties, class ideologies had in fact carried out the goals of the principle of inclusion, universal standards, there would be no class standards, double standards, class hierarchies, or Class empires, with their class nationalism. The democratic revolutions of Europe against the feudal class order, with its corrupt clerical class elites, the Catholic, clerical hierarchies, was supposed to have terminated class society, and its class elites, permamently, based on the classical, universal laws of Reason, Science and Morality.
This could only be accomplished with a universal mechanism, through the nation states as the link and means, with their inclusionary revolutionary principles, of democracy and social wealth prinicple, a universal middle class, without class masters above, and exploited, unpaid labor below, because such a universal middle layer, holds within it the universal moral center, inherently, providing that they had the complete necessary theoretical tools to make it happen, to establish just such a permament universal mechanism and social prinicple, with its original revolutionary Liberal, universal values to sweep the world through true internationalism, the creation of universal, revolutionary linked nation states, universal nationalism, instead of today's class nationalism.
Like 2000 years earlier, the mistake the Enlightenment made was to assume that it could, like Plato, just graft democracy or the democratic revolutions onto existing class society, which would negate, "wither" the class despotism as an automatice process. A partial and "new middle classes" under the emerging new oligarchy, plutocracy, class society, with its merchant, commercial classes, which put property rights over human rights and democracy, would easily reporduce the class mechanism again, by subordinating, corrupting its new middle layers, thus shifting their revolutionary moral center to the right, between totalitarian capitalists, or just plain despotic class democracies, never moving towards real democracy or later, the heirs of the Enlightenment, Marx and the socialitst, never moving towards socialism as claimed in Europe, all ideologies becoming the appeasers of corporate fascism, proving that Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler is not a correct "individual" phenomena, but a Chamberlain in spades as class whores appeasing class despotism, class Empire. Therefore this argument that the center is between class liberals and class tnugs, is only the same kind of corruption that took place within the Enlightenment, its middle layers, and continues to do so within their false moral claims, as well as their false claim to the social principle of development, and wealth.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Universal
Posted by: jack alexander
» RE: Universal
Posted by: Universal
» RE: Universal
Posted by: Blade
» RE: Universal
Posted by: Universal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: greentime on May 14, 2007 4:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Because.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: the islander on May 14, 2007 5:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: haystack1317 on May 14, 2007 6:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drmflorida on May 14, 2007 6:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The solution is not become more like them, but rather to refuse to engage in the theatrics. For example, the video that Evan posted with the mayor of SLC debating Sean Hannity. Evan saw it as a moment of eloquence for the mayor, I saw it as him being trounced. Does that mean that Sean Hannity would make a better mayor? Of course not. So why play in his arena? Can you picture Barbara Eirenriech or Noam Chomsky debating Ann Coulter? Of course not, they are thinkers, not entertainers, and it would be demeaning for the progressives and legitimizing for the conservatives.
Perhaps liberals have an image problem, but our voters have different motivations from their voters. More of our voters show up for compassionate reasons while their voters show up for hateful reasons. If the political climate gets ugly, the compassionate voters start to feel less generous, and the hateful voters feel more hateful. That is why we lose.
I think that we should confront conservativism, but on our terms, not theirs. They run a smear campaign, and we counter that solid proposals for programs to lift people out of poverty. They start petitions to criminalize homosexuality, and we point out the rhetorical links between that and efforts to criminalize interracial marriages or anti-semitism. They call us a bunch of egghead intellectuals and we offer them free education so they won't feel so intimidated anymore. That is how we win.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Great comment, drmflorida.
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
» RE: how we win
Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: how we win
Posted by: Joshua Holland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on May 14, 2007 6:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What do you expect????
Posted by: richholland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mwildfire on May 14, 2007 6:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: one point
Posted by: notinKansas
» RE: one point
Posted by: mommy64
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 14, 2007 6:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1- Modern Representative Democracy was a liberal, even radical, idea at the time America set up it's government. The Bill of Rights was widely considered outrageous outside the United States.
2- Abolition of slavery, the ending of child labor, the right to organize labor, the right of women to vote, pensions, the 40-hour work week, employer provided healthcare and freedom of religion were all liberal ideas.
3- Universal public education, Land-Grant Universities, federally guaranteed student and home loans, wildlife refuges, National Forests, levee districts for flood control, rural power co-operatives, public broadcasting, child nutrition and vaccination programs, and public roads were all liberal ideas in their day.
4- The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the creation of the EPA, the FDA, the SEC and the FDIC, EEOC and the Endangered Species Act were all liberal ideas.
5- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were all liberal ideas.
6- The modern Civil Rights Movements- from that of African Americans through today's struggles for Civil Unions are largely from the liberal thinkers.
Make them tell you exactly what liberal/progressive advances that they themselves have benefitted from that they now oppose. Many of the biggest Neo-Con trolls grew up in FHA or VA purchased homes powered with co-op or TVA power, went to public schools, attended Public Universities on a Federal grant or loan, drive public roads to work, hunt or vacation on public lands, and work a 40-hour job with benefits and breathe cleaner air because of the very liberal ideas they vote against.
I'm proud to be called a liberal/progressive and do not shy from it. When forced to choose between darkness and the light, I will always side with fairness; respect; dignity, freedom; peace and justice. I embrace hope instead of fear. I try to always keep in mind that one of the great concepts this country was made upon is that of the second chance. That alone is a very liberal idea.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» In 1776, liberals fought for freedom while conservatives stayed home. Like Bush did in 1968.
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
» RE: The L-Word
Posted by: Gma1
» Bravo!
Posted by: WhatNow?
Comments are closed-
Posted by: notinKansas on May 14, 2007 6:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 14, 2007 6:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason is obvious: many self-described liberals look to many successful self described conservatives who can't conduct an honest conversation about an issue, and then build on that, figuring if they too can "frame" the issue...ooooh...just...so...that they will recapture some percentage of the voting public.
Beyond lack that, many self-described liberals have fundamental, glaring challenges with the idea of liberty enjoyed by the people. The more liberals trend toward statism (see the interesting but flawed historical Sven-ish diagram accompanying the headline) the more they trend away from the best aspects of liberalism. One of the more liberal ideas that this country was founded upon (though initally poorly practiced) was that the state should not favor one individual over another, but many "liberally progressives" feel that the state should use its police powers to force a healthy 30 year old named Julie to subsidize a healthy 40 year-old named Bob's healthcare, his housing, his food, and other things based on factors such as whether Julie put off working to attend school, puts in overtime, lays awake at night thinking about a better business model, or any other thing that might result in an income differential between the two, at any time during their lives.
The liberally challenged progressives cling to the trappings of liberalism on a few issues such as letting a woman destroy her unborn child, recognizing that any two consenting adults should be able to put their naughty bits where ever they want and engage in what ever state-sanctioned ceremonies that the rest of the citizens enjoy, and a few other issues that are mostly no-brainers if you adopt the idea that free people should be mostly left alone by their government when the government isn't actively protecting their lives or property.
I've got no problem describing myself as a liberal. It seems to be more of a problem of statists looking for ways to frame themselves as anything other than Socialists who find themselves among the rank-and-file of the liberally challenged. Ideas above ideology, people of politics, business and the business of politics, and the State last of all, only when necessary.
Liberally yours,
ABF
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oh but Phrames are Phun!
Posted by: Gma1
» Nope.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Oh but Phrames are Phun!
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SteveB on May 14, 2007 8:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And who can blame them? Political parties are always focused on short-term electoral success, and so they tend to accept public attitudes as a given, at best trying to "reframe" their ideas to fit within those attitudes.
Challenging the existing status quo and educating the public about a new vision is actually the job of social movements - and many of them, on the left end of the political spectrum, are successfully doing this right now.
Do many people have bigoted attitudes about gays and lesbians? Yes they do, and that's why we have a gay rights movement - to educate the public and move public opinion away from bigotry towards a new vision of equality.
Are many Americans confused or unconcerned about the threat of climate change? Again, yes, and that's why we have an environmental movement - to move people to concern and a new vision of a environmentally sustainable economy.
Political parties have their uses, but we shouldn't expect too much of them. Challenging the status quo and educating the public is something millions of people are already doing. They're not waiting for the Democrats to do this, and neither should you.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: We should expect everything from our political parties
Posted by: THIAHB
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rjm on May 14, 2007 9:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
picture a clock face. functional democracy exists at 12 o'clock, absolute dictatorship exists at 6 o'clock.
anything to the right of 12 is conservative, anything to the left is liberal.
anything between 10 and 2 o'clock, democracy will continue to function. move to the left of 10, or the right of 2, and you begin to see a breakdown of democracy.
the graphic at the beginning of this article is a step away from the grossly misrepresentative linear model but still falls short of the mark.
democracy is a balancing act, we need a lot of weight on the left side of the scale to bring us back to the middle.
tks,
rjm
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nonsense
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on May 14, 2007 10:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Well put, RedBrown. The Third Way is like someone knocking off your eyeglasses and arguing...
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ekipnrut on May 14, 2007 11:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Third Way supported the War in Iraq (all history of this support has been wiped from its website); Third Way has continued to tout its association with Ken Pollack, who, among other things, wrote "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq," which was one of the major intellectual underpinnings for invading Iraq. With polls running against the war ......
Ummm...What exactly is there to chat with them(Third Way) about , other than the fact that they are enablers of and accomplices to a war crime. Does a rape victim sit down with her (presumed) attacker a couple of years after the incident and go over how he selected her? Having once abused POWs,what credibility..at any level...would those who carried out the crimes have in subsequent debate about trying to at least minimize atrocities in the conduct of war? Oh....BTW:
MANAGEMENT TEAM
[Apparently ALL White, with one exception. No Latinos. No Asians. This bunch isn't even demographically credible much less operationally viable.]
Jonathan Cowan
President
Matt Bennett
Vice President for Public Affairs
Jim Kessler
Vice President for Policy
Nancy Hale
Vice President for Strategy and Leadership Development
Rachel Laser
Director of The Culture Project/
Senior Policy Advisor
Anne Kim
Director of The Middle Class Project/
Senior Policy Advisor
Sharon Burke
Director of The National Security Project/
Senior Policy Advisor
Rob Keast Senior Policy Advisor
Nancy Jacobson Senior Advisor
*Scott Winship Senior Policy Advisor
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Lewis B. Cullman Scott Delmar John Dyson
*Robert R. Dyson David Heller Peter Joseph
*Rob Katz Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy (Ret.)
Derek Kirkland Reynold Levy Thurgood Marshall, Jr.
*Susan McCue Herbert S. Miller Howard Rossman
*Bernard L. Schwartz Adam Solomon
*Barbara Manfrey Vogelstein John Vogelstein
Joseph H. Flom (Advisor to the Board of Trustees)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Do you even read what you write?
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Fabricate lies...words..whatever......
Posted by: ekipnrut
» My bad. Feeding a troll.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» bye... 'literist' :O)
Posted by: ekipnrut
» toodles ekkkiprunt
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Follow the Money
Posted by: leafsong1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on May 14, 2007 1:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MIKHAIL BAKUNIN
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I suggest we get rid of government
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on May 14, 2007 1:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Oh, please don't try to leave out the role of GHW Bush in all of that Iraq business...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Liberals also brought us the NATO/Kosovo War...CLINTON?
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Liberals also brought us the NATO/Kosovo War...CLINTON?
Posted by: Joshua Holland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: douglashoyt on May 14, 2007 3:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This will never happen. America will have a violent revolution first.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: New Constitution.
Posted by: wishninja
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kpaxson on May 14, 2007 3:53 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrats need to tell people what they stand for and why.
To define what Democrats stand for and why is the most powerful grassroots building, vote-getting, party-building strategy we can devise.
"Why We Are Democrats" lists 11 points of what Democrats stand for and why. This is not about policy or agenda. It is a short list core values that build a vision of how the Democratic Party views our country, our democracy and our future. (The Republican counter part lists 8 points)
The link is: http://www.kimpaxson.com/Vision/VisionLRApril30.pdf
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: alicelillie on May 14, 2007 4:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much better. You can locate yourself on it (in complete privacy) on LP.org.
http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: healinghawk on May 14, 2007 4:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» But you've never effectively proven the so-called vote fraud
Posted by: freedomlover
» RE: But you've never effectively proven the so-called vote fraud..It was established (ad nauseam)
Posted by: ekipnrut
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ericksonml@sbcglobal.net on May 14, 2007 5:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on May 14, 2007 5:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gdonald on May 14, 2007 8:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a person that many would consider conservative but I want nothing to do with the neo-cons and their self destructive ways because it is also destroying this great Republic. I am also a person who wants nothing to do with the far left because this group is just as destructive to this great Republic as the neo-cons.
I travel a lot and talk to people all the time. I can tell you that while I can not boast any scientific study, I can say that the majority of people I talk to are like me. Some consider themselves liberal and some conservative but they are disgusted by how this Republic has been trashed by the neo's of both sides. We're fed up with the neo-cons and the neo-liberals because neither of these groups represents what this great Republic was and is supposed to be.
It's time to stop whining and crying over either of these two extremist groups and to start doing what any wise and prudent person should do, which is to run for office as independants and take the system back before both sides destroy us.
Name calling is just a sign of frustration and if you're frustrated then do something about it. Go get elected.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Truth told. Strawman arguments, belittling and bigotry are not restricted to neo cons.
Posted by: utilitarianist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: utilitarianist on May 14, 2007 8:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When they find an issue that has about equal numbers of supporters on either side, the liberals grab the nearest one and the conservatives the other. The people who support the party due to 1 issue get dragged into supporting other issues that party is using to gain votes. Eventually you end up with a patchwork of ideals that have no clear bearing on each other. Generally both major parties have some sort of impetus to use proper scientific method to figure out the most utilitarian method of running the country, but that extent ends when they feel they must pander to the needs of action groups.
So what's the solution? For a start don't look at the political landscape as an ambiguous 1 dimensional slide rule which you must pull as much as you can to the left or right in order to make the world a better place. Look at the world as it really is and don't be afraid to delve into sophisticated research in order to find the answers you need. Save emotive arguments and quibbles till after you have presented the core logic of it in the most concise manner possible without using terms most people haven't heard of. I have only ever been convinced by arguments that actually have a basis, even when I had strong emotions otherwise. Since I am not a liberal zealot you can either assume I am an "idiot" or an "ignorant hick" (I'm not even from America!) or you can trust in this criticism and take it seriously.
Look at yourselves, you are so afraid of "accepting many conservative assumptions in the process." you have become incapable of criticising yourselves and changing what you might be getting very wrong. I bet as you read this you are thinking "this is an evil plot by a conservative to make me assume something which isn't true", when you learn to recognise such thought stopping conjecture maybe people will take you more seriously.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: herbal on May 15, 2007 12:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Give us 'progressive' as a legitimate shift in emphasis that elucidates a call to action in these fundamentally mutated days that beg for a real alternative to the old tool tradition of the oil based technology (in an anthropological sense). Reinvent the world.
Liberals no longer exist except as collaborators like the DNC. Screw the liberals, the bourgeoise aspiring to upper middle class, and give me a radical anytime who is not one of the mass of the timid apologists for speaking out of turn. 'Liberal' is a Democratic party term that is made irrelevant by the obsolescence of the Party. This day is not made for synthetic timidity and retecence; let us make heroes of those who would emulate Eugene Debs and Emma Goldman.
"Profound social change usually occurs only when broad-based grassroots movements force the hand of those in power. Rights-based environmental justice movements have arisen around the world to support historically disenfranchised communities to stop being used as dumping grounds and sacrifice zones." – Lois Marie Gibbs from Bioneers 2006
Please don't lament the passage of a sickeningly moderate label; let 'liberal' go joyfully.
'Conservatives' defy the definition. A real conservative is someone who balances budgets and conserves the environment. Like Jim Hightower cajoles us to agitate, we need to make sense of the English language and take it from the Goebbels and Hayakowas of the plutocracy that has ruined the Republic. Lets realize and celebrate the radicalization of the populace that is taking place through the new media that is at-once word of mouth and quicker than ever before possible, the internet.
Cry out; take to the streets and lobbies and fracture the decorum of the deceivers, war profiteers and corporatists. Attack the roots of corporate control, not wasting time with the symptoms of war and puppets. Get in their face, but don't be a liberal; get radical. Fight like banshees or democracy is as dead as Iroquois and Ben Franklin. Yes, the '3rd way' is dead wrong and sickeningly liberal.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on May 15, 2007 4:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rchapanis on May 15, 2007 10:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Third way is the wrong way
Posted by: Bobsays
Comments are closed-
Posted by: citizenjoe on May 17, 2007 8:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




