Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

There Is No Political Center, There Are No Centrists

By George Lakoff, AlterNet. Posted August 20, 2007.


"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor which marginalizes the progressive cause, and it is time to bury it.
Advertisement

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care.

The progressive view of government is simple. Progressive government has two aspects: protection and empowerment. Protection is far more than the military, police, and fire departments. It includes consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, public health, food and drug safety; social security, and other safety nets. It also includes protection from the government itself, and hence a balance of powers, openness, fundamental rights, and so on.

Empowerment include roads and bridges; public education; government-developed communications like the internet and satellite communications systems; the banking system; the SEC and institutions that make a stock market possible, and the court system, mostly about contracts and corporate law. Progressive government makes business possible. No one makes any money in this country without the progressive empowerment by government. A progressive foreign policy is not based solely, or even mainly, on the state -- about the "national interest" defined as our military strength and GDP. Progressive foreign policy focuses on individual people's interests as well as national interests: on poverty, disease, refugees, education, women's and children's issues, public health, and so on.

These are simply American values. The progressive movement is a patriotic American movement. People who call themselves "centrists" share progressive views on important issue areas, but have conservative views on other major issue areas. The areas vary from person to person. There is no single moral perspective, no single set of agreed upon issues.

The very idea that there is a "center" marginalizes progressives, and sees them as extremists, when they simply share fundamental American values. The term "center" suggests there is a "mainstream" where most people are and that there is a single set of views held by that mainstream. That is false.

The fallacy matters in terms of Democratic electoral strategy. The Democratic base consists of people who are mostly or totally progressive, just as the Republican base consists of people who are mostly or totally conservative. How does the Democratic Party as a whole, and how do Democratic candidates in particular, speak to those who are biconceptual?

I am a cognitive scientist and believe that people's brains play a significant role in elections. From the perspective of brain science, the answer is a no-brainer. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) You speak to biconceptuals the same way you speak to your base: you discuss progressive values, and if you are talking to folks with both progressive and conservative values, you mainly talk about the issues where they share progressive values. What that does is evoke and strengthen the progressive values already there in the minds of biconceptuals.

And of course, you don't negate or argue against the other on their framing turf -- remember Don't Think of an Elephant!

That was the winning strategy of Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Brown is a thoroughgoing progressive who never moved one inch to the right. He talked about the issues where he agreed with his Ohio audiences -- and legitimately spoke for them.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: centrism, centrist, dlc, progressive, framing, george lakoff

George Lakoff is the author of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate' (Chelsea Green). He is Professor of Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and a Senior Fellow of the Rockridge Institute.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Good article, but...
Posted by: mizipi on Aug 20, 2007 1:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our politics have become dominated by aristocrats and wannabe aristocrats. Money, money, money is what it is all about. In my home state, once someone is elected, it is pretty much a lifetime appointment. Think Jim Eastland, John Stennis, Trent Lott and Thad Cochran of the senate and pretty much the same for the house, though redistricting (we lost a seat a few years ago), did change that make-up.

Advertising, not character, now gets someone elected. Only our politicians can change the laws, and the laws now protect them from any serious challengers. We elected a Democratic Congress last year, and what has changed?

I agree, there is no 'center.' No left or right. Only politicians. Character is no longer respected and very seldom allowed in the political discourse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I Disagree Posted by: pdxstudent
» Amen Posted by: mizipi
» RE: Amen Posted by: Basenjis
» Ask any 'dittohead' Posted by: mizipi
There is a progressive social center & all else is a right class center
Posted by: Perfectclue on Aug 20, 2007 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is both the liberal and neocon class elites, who have mislabeled the social and moral center, the extreme left.
The social center represented the classical macro theories of the Enlightenment, revolutionary libeals, who believed that the middle class and the nation state would be the social mechanism, for a principle of social wealth, along with its democratic moral center.

The concept of a fully developed middle class, uncrippled, not distorted by an oligarchy, like the Feudal class order, and its clerical servile middle layers, was based on the notion of an independent social middle class, not subordinated by class relations. If the agency of a revolutionary social middle class had succeeded in accumulating the social forces, that started with a national revolution, the nation state, against the array of all existing class forces, on an international level, such an independent international social middle class would have achieved a successful international democratic revolution.

Instead, both the existing patriarchial, traditional class orders, from previos class history, and the new emerging capitalist classes, the merchan class, industrialists, combined to dominate, on the international level, the array of class forces, and then to betray and corrupt the national revolutions, of revolutionary liberals, subordinating the middle classes, iinto the same corrupt class mechanism, between itself and the new capitalist oligarchy. Once this betrayal of all Western democratic revolutions took place, by intstitutionalizing class laws, property rights, over universal rights, where slavery for profit, unpaid labor became the norm of Commercial capitalism, the revolutionary concept of an independent social middle layer and its nation state, were transformed into the regressive classs nationalism, of all class states, reproducing the same Feudal class structure, only in new capitalist clothes.

The revolutionary social center, social principle, moral center were corrupted by international class forces and transformed revolutionary national beginnings, by transforming the middle layers into class elites, that today make up the class liberals and class conservatives, tweedle dee and tweedle dum, Stalinized class alternatives. Their class ideology shifted the moral center, of the revolutionary liberals in the Enlightenment, towards the class center, where all class centers lie, to the right of a social universal independent middle class that has lost its independence to the oligarchy.

Therefore these class ideologists reclassified their class centers, class ideologies, as the "responsible" left and right", and smeared the original social center of a revolutionary middle class with the false label the "left", often also called the "extreme left". Once Western revolutions had imploded into class regimes, it was the Hegelians and Marxists, of the Post Enlightenment who reclaimed the social moral center of an independent middle class, with its real claim to social wealth and democracy. Of course the same fate awaited the socialist movement, when its deformed middle classes corrupted the meaning of Marx and the Enlightenemnt, when so called "socialists" voted for the Kaiser and his imperial war. The same fate, national corruption, by international class forces corrupted the Third International, where Marxism degenerated into Stalinism, with the enabler of the dictator, just as his predecessor Napoleon had done. Both Napoleon and Stalin corrupted democratic national revolutions, by enabling the combined international class forces to overwhelm national demoratic beginnings. This historical account explains why were have had failed national democratic revolutions, a false ideological framework, when the social framework, is a social moral center, and everything else, all class forces are to the right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

3.7
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 20, 2007 4:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments:

1. There may not be a living, breathing center, but there's a statistical center. I'm sure it could be determined on any number of issues. Saying everybody is different doesn't mean there isn't an average. And I'm sure that's what the DLC is aiming for. They're playing a numbers game where they think pissing off the least number of wing-nuts and liberal yuppies is the ticket, and where playing some wishy-washy "voice of reason" will make them appear realistic, practical, level-headed, etc., unlike those cheese-eating progressives.

2. The problem with that is the polarization of the right, most of whom can't even spell "realistic" or "practical". Maybe the DLC will fool the liberal yuppies, as Hillary seems to have done. But they'll never appease the right, because the right are a bunch of wackos. If you're a wacko, what's the point of picking the wacko-lite candidate? Rove may be fat and slimy, but basically he had the right strategy, and I think it would work again.

3. Good topic, though. The article was a bit goody-goody, but it provides lots of food for discussion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DLC not standing up for the people
Posted by: Democritus on Aug 20, 2007 5:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Howard Dean had it right when he said he came from the "democratic wing of the Democratic Party." Rahm Emmanuel and the DLC stand for vested interests and not the people. Just as the old Southern Democrats became Republicans, the DLC has morphed into "Republican Lite." The DLC should take Pogo's maxim to heart: "We have met the enemy and he is us." Unless the DLC gets back in line with democratic values, they're in line for the "thumping" that the GOP received last November when Karl Rove did not read the will of the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why Democrats are losers...
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Aug 20, 2007 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well here's just one reason anyway..

The Democratic wing of the Money Party likes to talk about "issues" an awful lot. What they don't seem to understand is a great deal of voters really don't care too much about the "issues". I would argue that many, if not most, people cast an "identity" vote and not an "issue" vote on election day. The Republicans may be assholes but they are the winners of the game being played right now. The Democrats are a bunch of pussies and have a loser mentality despite their "victory" in 2006. When you get right down to it a lot of Americans want to think of themselves as winners and never, under any circumstances, will they side with the pussies. Until the Democrats understand this more visceral component of electioneering they will continue to be a party of losers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why Democrats are losers... Posted by: talkville
When you stand in the middle of the road...
Posted by: sausage on Aug 20, 2007 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...yer bound to get run over.

The Democratic Losership Council and Blue Dog Dems haven't figured it out yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am a moderate.
Posted by: Vaxalon2 on Aug 20, 2007 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are moderate positions on many issues, and I think a lot more people hold those moderate positions than the media would like us to believe, because uncompromising drama is more exciting than sitting down and working things out rationally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I am a moderate. Posted by: owleyes
» RE: I am a moderate. Posted by: talkville
Clintons = DLC
Posted by: defrag on Aug 20, 2007 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Clintons are the unmentioned "elephants" in this article.

Bill Clinton was a driving force in the DLC all thru the '80s and up to '92. His election as president was pretty much an accident -- Ross Perot got him elected. But Bill attributed his win to his "centrist" triangulation and DLC values. He didn't even get over 50% of the vote in his RE-election. And since he still got impeached, it's at least questionable how effective his triangulation was. Getting NAFTA across was his first goal, and probably his main goal.

Hillary is trying to keep her distance from the DLC, but you know she's in that mindset.

Lakoff has a good pro-Obama puff piece here, but let's put the blame where it belongs!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Clintons = DLC Posted by: talkville
Thanks, but no thanks!
Posted by: neoanachronism on Aug 20, 2007 9:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I agree that there are no 'centrists', I do so for different reasons. The definitions of political orientation have been (purposefully) so contaminated by the Republicans, Democrats, and the media, that, rather than devising a newer (and just as confusing) definitional scheme, we return to the originals.
I proudly define myself as a Leftist. I do not fit into Mr. Lakoff's schema. I believe in classical Marxist Socialism, and am rather militant. The term 'progressive' lacks definition. When you can get both Russ Feingold and Ed Schultz placed in the same category, there's something wrong. Part of the problems we've had politically over the past 30 years have resulted from this muddying of the language. By allowing the Republicans to define the Democrats as liberal or 'the Left', they can then portray themselves as being 'moderate' or 'conservative' in comparison. Let's define folks where they stand. Bush and the current crop of ruling Republicans are FAR RIGHT EXTREMISTS!. Hillary, Obama, Edwards, etc. are (at best) moderates. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate representative of the Left, and that's the near Left. I don't even consider myself part of the 'far Left', they being Maoists, Leninists, or Stalinists. The vast majority of people (and perhaps Mr. Lakoff as well) don't have the foggiest idea what those distinctions represent. However, they are real and important.
Thanks Mr. Lakoff, but I'd rather not be lumped in with your amorphous "progressives".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thanks, but no thanks! Posted by: mercianomad
» RE: Thanks, but no thanks! Posted by: YogiBear
There's a FAKE "center" put up by both political parties but no REAL one if
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 20, 2007 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that's what the author meant. As I see it, the only thing that gets called a "center" these days is caving in to rightwing extremists.

By the way, like the book "Whose Freedom?" which Lakoff wrote. It's bad enough to lose freedom but it's far worse when the real idea of freedom is lost just like our Constitution being subverted then destroyed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By the way, forgot to mention the Blue Dog traitors and I'll tell you the experience of meeting one.
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 20, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My wife's sister learned the hard way that while these Blue Dog traitors will act nice on the outside, the minute you question any of their policies which she did when she stopped by Norman Sisisky's office back in the late 1990s to question his support of destructive GOP policies, they rudely tell you to get out or threaten to call security to escort you. That kind of rude and threatening behavior by the Blue Dog motherfuckers makes the GOP look "nice" in pale comparison !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Binary Distinction
Posted by: ray burchard on Aug 20, 2007 10:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While the article’s author belabors the point, his assertion that political party distinctions are self-serving metaphors and a directionally linear spectrum just lends spatial hemispheric analogous as cerebral appeasement.

Its historically obvious that America’s founding fathers created a governance “of the people, by the people and for the people” that gives the authority for directional control to the majority through the equality of the individuals (a living breathing entity that can initiate voluntary movement) vote, as apposed to non-voting, hand puppet entities like America's corporations. Corporations as appendages designed to facilitate the human experience and as such have been precluded from the right to a vote.

Therefore America’s political representation has become; "one party is for corporate rights and one party is (ostensibly) for human rights" The key word here is (ostensibly) where appearance is a tactic like the observed “rhetorical mantle of populism” is a tactic, and both are designed to extend the illusion of differing political directions. When in fact the Democratic and Republican candidates are as, “The two sides of the same coin”, and therefore they travel in unison. Therefore, their bought and paid, directional congruent mindset is a roll reversal with the belief that the value of America is in the wealth and prosperity of corporate America and the American populace is then, just a subordinate supporting roll to be minimized and manipulated for the betterment of corporate America.

The real dichotomy is then expressed by Hillary’s statement on corporate lobbyist campaign financing, where she states, “they should be heard, their people too” . Well Hillary, and others, the corporations aren’t people too, their principles are, and as such have a right to be heard through their equal vote. That’s why America’s founding fathers precluded corporations as non-living entities from a right to vote, their voices already can be heard through their principles vote. Then corporate America circumvents this vote preclusion to dominate America’s governance agenda and push biased corporate legislation by buying the politicians directly through corporate lobbying campaign financing, and surprise, surprise, the politicians justify and sanction the sale

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Binary Distinction Posted by: Lincoln fan
A minority of one
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Aug 20, 2007 10:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In order to have government of the people, by the people and for the people", we must each recognize that he. is a minority of one. In this scheme then, on each issue there are others who agree with him.. Those are more than likely not the same people on each issue. Thus on each issue he. is part of a different minority or majority. In a perfect democracy then he. would win on those issues in which the majority agree with him. and lose on those issus where the majority disagrees with him.

Some issues are of little concern to the majority of voters but are very important to different minorities. The ideal democracy would take into account the importance of these issues to each of these minorities and attempt to solve them on the basis of the majority of those to whom each issue is important.

I believe that the way to reach this ideal is for each person to tell both parties his. stand on his. most important issue,before the election and let the parties decide which issues they must back on their platforms to win.

At present, I think that both parties would tend to continue to ignore the wishes of the voters and continue to work for campaign contributiions instead of votes. I believe that this tendency can be overcome if each voter threatens to cast a protest vote rather than vote for a candidate who doesn't support his. issue.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The left went out......
Posted by: NumberSix on Aug 20, 2007 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Centrist? Are you kidding me? You are kidding me, right?

No, these days, it's ultra-far looney right, ultra-far right, far right and right. Leftists, socialists, um, old-school Dems? Headed for the same shelf as the Dodo or the Passenger Pigeon, yes, extinction.

Hence, I wish the Dems would drop the name, and instead, call themselves "right" and get it over with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The left went out...... Posted by: Jordonquits
Lakoff's Disturbing Omissions
Posted by: Earthian on Aug 20, 2007 12:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This essay is good as far as it goes. But the references to Obama are a bit disturbing to me for what they leave out and, therefore, what they suggest.

He says of Obama, “Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas - the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care.”

and

“Think about Barack Obama going to Rick Warren’s megachurch and getting a standing ovation from evangelicals because he talked about the places where he agreed with them, he activated his values in them (values they already had), he came across as a man of principle, and he didn’t get in their face about where he disagreed.”

The key phrase here is “came across.”

Obama has some progressive domestic policies, but doesn’t advocate either progressive electoral policies like proportional representation or removing money from our electoral processes, or progressive foreign policies. In fact, Obama advocates corporate, conservative, criminal, militarist, genocidal foreign policies. (See Paul Street’s superb exposé of Obama’s militaristic policies at Znet.)

What disturbs me about the two positive references to Obama in Lakoff’s article is that he implies that Obama is one of us, a progressive. He isn’t.

And also, by saying Obama “came across” as a man of principle in emphasizing his agreements with the evangelical group, Lakoff fails to warn us that he actually isn’t: Obama will speak deceptively to progressives about certain of his progressive domestic policies, and thereby attempt to come across as a man of progressive principles, while he co-opts “progressive” by calling himself progressive even as he advocates empire, militarism, war crimes (attacking Pakistan and Iran), ignoring international laws, and generally fully supporting the corporate, criminal, immoral foreign policies of the current corpocracy that rules America. Let us beware of biconceptuals posing as “total” (or “true”) progressives such as Obama. Let us beware of seeing Obama as a person of principle while he tries to co-opt our identity, having already commiting war crimes by verbally threatening the attack Iran with nuclear weapons, by saying “all options are on the table” to get rid of their (actually legal and commercial) nuclear program. Let us beware of the co-opters of our identity like Obama, Edwards, Clinton and Richardson. Let’s expose them as non-progressives. Let us recognize and support those *with* our values like Kucinich.

The other thing Professor Lakoff said that I question is this:

“American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas - the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit.”

This ignores the long list of policies that directly, deliberately, and blatently violate basic progressive foreign policies. A progressive foreign policy is both benevolent and embracing of the global rule of law.

The United States government has not embraced a progressive foreign policy since they gave it serious consideration during the great debate of 1819 in the House of Representatives over the invasion of Florida. After 12 days of debate the House voted 100 to 70, on 2-8-1819 not to eliminate presidential invasions of other lands. And we continued to engage in such invasions intermittantly up to WWII, and continuously since then.

So for George Lakoff to say that “American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas . . .” ignores the entire history of US foreign policy, which has been, on a regular basis, illegal, immoral, and has caused millions of deaths of innocents and 10s of millions of injuries and suffering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Right/Wrong
Posted by: liblady2008 on Aug 20, 2007 2:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hate any centrist, triangulating, etc type talk. It's why I'm leery of Hillary.

So what is centrist according to the baseline the media has helped promote? Only let the rich steal half as much from the rest of us? Only start half as many illegal wars?

The tax code needs to be changed, we should have universal cheap health care like every other civilized country, everyone should have equal access to a college education. That is all doable once the playing field is leveled. It is time for change for the good of all of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

eyes still rolling
Posted by: Belegandir on Aug 20, 2007 4:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Essentially what is happening in our country is a hybridzation of the Plot lines to 1984 and Brave New World.

Brave New World: Society being tailored for total 'social stabililty', bypassing free will and features of the human psyche. A land bent on pleasure and ingrained unconscious consumerism.

1984: Straight forwardly, a government bent on keeping the status quo, even if it means, "wag the dog" tactics. Fear mongering, withholding resources from their very comrades.And altering historical facts and information to suit its own purposes.

If anything is for certain. The Presidential Election has become a contest. Who can fool the populace first. The Idea that the DNC has the progressive bases interests at its ideological core is altogether laughable. Never since the mid seventies has that been true.

This country has been in intellectual melt down for a long time. I don't mean who can solve Binomial coefficients in a speedy fashion. But basic critcal thinking.

If say a Democratic or Republican candidate promises that they will fund and help institute programs for alternative energy for mass consumption. On the other hand it s well known that they are taking campaign contributions form Exxon Mobil or Shell. As a concerned citizen having both bits of information The conclusion that the candidate would make good on their promises is no promise at all but camel puckey.

If people were to use their minds and not their hearts they will find that half of the candidates are in it for the power and not the honored responsibility to carry out the will of the people and to protect and uphold the constitution in spirit and in writ.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eyes still rolling Posted by: talkville
Hillary vs. Godzilla? Hmm… That’d Be Tough
Posted by: NeoCogito on Aug 20, 2007 4:26 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Repubs are in a win-win. All they need to keep a sister in the white house is keep the 2,000,000 pages of the Clinton’s political activities secret until AFTER the election, as she’s demanded.

July 31 (Bloomberg) -
Attorneys at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis - home to Clinton’s relentless persecutor, Kenneth Starr, have donated more money to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign than to all the top Republican candidates combined. Yeah! , Google it. Huh!?, if I didn’t know better I might think there really was a “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” -that’d be the hard right conspiracy led by Clintonista “democrats.”

With Obama, Edwards -and god forbid, Kucinich, they’d be forced by an *Authentic Democrat to end a decade and one-half of battering the populace. The other candidates fear Hillary for good reason- the political arena is strewn w/casualties who tried to expose the Clinton’s right-wing extremism. Bill, the “Uniter,” actually DID unite us under a Non-participatory (totalitarian) regime and if they have their way-and their power is ubiquitous, it’s gonna stay that way.

This makeover didn’t happen overnight. In the 90’s, as the whole world watched the heavy hand of Market Imperialism made us the World’s Public Enemy # 1. I mean were you expecting GWB to resurrect corporate integrity, the public trust or bring back consumer protections? Bill, I know you feel our pain but, where! was your finesse’ when the U.S. really needed it. Osama went public w/his plans to attack the U.S in ‘98 on the heels of the sweeping NAFTA foul play & genocidal punishment for Iraq’s imagined “WMD’s.” Just two of many unrestrained right-wing reforms. Come on democrats-we have a right! to see Hill’s record, and not be pressured to ignore past performance and blindly rely on the cunning demagoguery of Hill & Bill Clinton

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Consider the US Constitution
Posted by: macdon1 on Aug 20, 2007 6:00 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for a thought provoking article. If our Constitution were to be put before today's congress it would never pass.
It is far too progressive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is Sherrod Brown really what we consider a "thoroughgoing progressive"?
Posted by: hnorr on Aug 20, 2007 7:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lakoff says: "That was the winning strategy of Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Brown is a thoroughgoing progressive who never moved one inch to the right."

Yeah, right - what do we call his vote, during the 2006 campaign, for the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the atrocious bill that stripped detainees of the ancient right of habeas corpus, "legalized" torture, gave Bush and his friends retroactive immunity, and so on?

To his credit Brown now promises corrective action in the future, but it remains to be seen what that will be, since there's no serious movement to repeal the MCA. In any case, the fact is that when the chips were down, Brown moved not an inch but a mile to the right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So succinct
Posted by: YogiBear on Aug 20, 2007 8:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The losing strategy is to move to the right, to assume with Republicans that American values are mainly conservative and that the Democratic party has to move away from its base and adopt conservative values... you offend your base (thus hurting yourself), and you give the impression that you are expressing no consistent set of values... Why should the American people trust somebody who does not have clear values...?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As long as leftists try to BS their way around overpopulation, their message is muddled.
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Aug 20, 2007 11:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can you be for ecological sustainability and pretend that endless human population growth is irrelevant, simply to appease your own "base"?

The fundamental duplicity of that leftist "Big Lie" has far-reaching real-world ramifications. For example, most Americans are fed up with endless mass immigration being shoved down our throats as we're ordered to "celebrate" it.

It's fine to fight for social justice, but you don't have to be a damned fool about it. I can't think of anything more self-defeating that to pretend the entire human race doesn't need birth control, NOW.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A paradigm shift back to reality
Posted by: lpericol on Aug 21, 2007 3:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a very good article. America, since its inception, is synonymous with Progressivism. The colonists rebelled against a monarchy that had historically derived its power by dominating the resources and the wealth that were meant for all (land, especially, and everything else that flowed from that). Taxation Without Representation was merely a symptom of the greater ill: the domination of wealth and resources. So when conservatives talk about conserving, they are, in actuality, talking about conserving the old European economic foundations that developed and existed prior to the Age of Enlightenment and the subsequent liberation movements that took place in America and France. It's just that in America, Corporations have become the new monarchies. And as everyone knows, the conservatives are the ones who want to maintain the same old power structure. Obama has shown a remarkable intellectual insight and commitment to truth when he declares that liberals, conservatives, and centrists are irrelevant. I would certainly like to see Obama's paradigm shift take hold in the minds of the majority of Americans. As far as I'm concerned, this paradigm shift accurately identifies the conservative/corporationist/monarchists as anti-Americans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Which was the reason...
Posted by: opeluboy on Aug 21, 2007 6:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... Will Durst's article, in which he yearned for the center, pissed me off so much.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Which was the reason... Posted by: talkville
» RE: Which was the reason... Posted by: opeluboy
Metaphors and Imagination
Posted by: talkville on Aug 26, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Concepts are elastic. Human cognition does not only express itself metaphorically. We meet Reality -- head on! Descartes bi-furcated us into the Res Cogitans and the Res Extensa. Thus we extend cogitations. Always in relation to the Subject, as "objective" as this may be made to seem. Each of us is multi-conceptual and living in a very constructed (that is asserted) world. Progression implies moving forward AS HUMANS. Capitalism wants to recuperate Ozzie and Harriet at the same time as it destroys Ozzie and Harriet. This is where we are -- conceptually. If we want progress, then we must progress-- walking we make the road. Mr Lakoff is correct and he is incorrect; there is no center and there are only centers. Do we face our present or do we back into it? A better world is possible -- walk forward as a HUMAN being and join with others to do it. Living is not a metaphor, politically, socially, culturally, economically. And metaphors are only a small part of it all-- they are reductions. Any Frame is an imposition from One to the Other. Progress is a human becoming more human and not less, as Messrs. Bush and Clinton and many, many others are advocating. Might will never be Right. Progress, not Liberalism (or Conservatism) is what is missing; we must all walk into a better society - that would be progress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]