For decades, politicians, the mainstream media, and most of the country has signed on to the left/right, liberal/conservative model to describe our politics. Those on the left and right were seen as two major factions competing for the hearts and minds of the American people, and the two sides were so fundamentally different that working together was considered concession.
The Independent Progressive Movement seeks to break this model. Arianna Huffington of the HuffingtonPost is one of the great leaders of this movement. A former McCain supporter, she does not believe the left/right dynamic is helpful for our politics. Neither do I. We can progress - move forward - on many issues by focusing on our common humanity and common interests in a better world. This does not mean that we don't have deeply held convictions about values or policy.
Like most progressives, I believe everyone should have health insurance. I believe everyone who works should have a living wage; that people shouldn't go bankrupt when they get sick; that we should uphold our constitution; that our government should look out for the little guy, not just big corporations; that the middle class should receive tax relief; that lobbyists should have less influence on our government; that education is the great equalizer of our society and should be made more accessible for more people; that America should be a light to the world, not just a missile; and, finally, that no matter who you are, where you were born, who your parents were, how much money you make, what your religion is, or who you love, the opportunities of this world should be open to all and the policies of governments all over the world should recognize everyone's god-given potential and right to equality under law.
In approach, I believe where bridges can be built, they should. I believe that when either party veers away from these values we should call them on it. And that one should not support a position just because it's the position of a party or a candidate. But most importantly, we need to speak the truth. And we need to be respectful. And we should approach politics with the premise that we are all trying to do what we think is right for the country we love.
1 comment:
“For decades, politicians, the mainstream media, and most of the country has signed on to the left/right, liberal/conservative model to describe our politics.”
Decades? Why so pessimistic? This has been around since the French Revolutionary assembly (another “movement” which you Leftists thought would go well – I guess Maximillion “Hussein” Robespierre disappointed you).
“ Those on the left and right were seen as two major factions competing for the hearts and minds of the American people,”
Correction: The right was competing for their mind. The left was competing for their private parts and their sense of guilt while pretending to compete for their heart.
“and the two sides were so fundamentally different that working together was considered concession”
Oh, now this is hilarious. You accuse us of not wanting to “concede” to the Left – please explain how the hell we’re supposed to do this with a group that labels itself as “progressive” – the same label that people like HG Wells (who advocated “liberal fascism”) and Margaret Sanger (who supported abortion because it would kill off the black population) applied to themselves. Yeah, sure. I guess Mussolini isn’t THAT bad.
“The Independent Progressive Movement seeks to break this model.”
Have fun with that. When you’re done, can you make our lungs stop requiring Oxygen?
“Arianna Huffington of the HuffingtonPost is one of the great leaders of this movement. A former McCain supporter, she does not believe the left/right dynamic is helpful for our politics.”
No, you’re right. She doesn’t. This is the woman who railed against media “objectivity” because some reporters had the gall to suggest that her opinion was not the only viable one EVAR, especially where the War in Iraq is concerned:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/huffington-rails-against-false-neutrality-of-media/
“Neither do I. We can progress - move forward – “
Who says we need to move forward? Personally, I’d be more than happy to move back a few decades to when our economy was strong, at least. Or even better, back to before the Warren Court, when the Supreme Court actually had that old-fashioned idea about following the Constitution. Oh, Oliver Wendell Holmes, where are you now that we need you?
“on many issues by focusing on our common humanity”
Kumbaya, my Lord…
“and common interests”
What common interests? We can’t even universally agree on the next “American Idol” – hell, we don’t even have universal interests in the two parties!
“in a better world. This does not mean that we don't have deeply held convictions about values or policy.”
No, that just means we shut the people up who are sick of being condescended to by insipid little moderates who fancy themselves visionaries when they’re just repeating talking points from the Jimmy Carter campaign in 1976.
“Like most progressives, I believe everyone should have health insurance.”
Everyone? Even the genocidal murderers in Sudan?
“I believe everyone who works should have a living wage;”
If you can define this nebulous term, I’m sure the committee in Stockholm will be in contact with you.
“that people shouldn't go bankrupt when they get sick;”
OMG, conservatives believe that too, as a matter of morality! The trouble with you progressives is that you buy into the fallacy that just because something is moral, that means the government has to do it, and anyone who opposes that isn’t moral. It’s almost as if you think Republicans don’t want people to eat because we don’t support nationalizing the supermarkets.
“that we should uphold our constitution;”
Finally, something we CAN agree on!
“that our government should look out for the little guy,”
…never mind, apparently you didn’t read the part about “Equal protection of the laws.”
“not just big corporations;”
Okay, firstly, the Government does not only look out for big corporations – if they did, there would be no debate over this ANWR drilling mess because obviously, more oil means higher profits, along with…well, more oil. But even so, consider this: what incentive does a Government have to look out for the little guy, when big corporations pay everyone’s campaign bills, and will find ways to continue doing that no matter what sort of free-speech violating campaign finance laws you try to impose? They have none at all – most of the regulations today are drafted to keep small businesses out of the market because they impose prohibit fines as barriers to entry that only established companies can afford – yes, this includes things like the minimum wage and emission standards. If you want the government to stop looking out for corporations, tell it to get its head out of the market entirely and let those corporations live or die on the basis of their competitive edge.
“that the middle class should receive tax relief;”
Why just the middle class? Why not everyone?
“that lobbyists should have less influence on our government; “
Again, get rid of government interference in the economic sphere, and lobbyists will have no purpose at all.
“that education is the great equalizer of our society and should be made more accessible for more people;”
Lovely! Let’s start with vouchers, then start making states pay for their own education systems, and crack down on all these idiotic teachers’ unions who spend more time teaching self-esteem than the subjects they’re supposed to teach! Sound good?
“that America should be a light to the world, not just a missile;”
…that was so saccharine, I can’t even begin to mock it.
“and, finally, that no matter who you are, where you were born, who your parents were, how much money you make, what your religion is, or who you love, the opportunities of this world should be open to all and the policies of governments all over the world should recognize everyone's god-given potential and right to equality under law.”
Lovely! So in other words, we should get rid of progressive taxation, because it’s a patently obvious violation of equality under law?
“In approach, I believe where bridges can be built, they should.”
Thanks, but I think my party already got in trouble for building a “bridge to nowhere.” Intellectually, this is basically the same thing.
“I believe that when either party veers away from these values we should call them on it.”
In other words, since both parties have diametrically opposed values, we should make that aforementioned bridge-building impossible. Apparently “consistency” is not one of your values.
“And that one should not support a position just because it's the position of a party or a candidate.”
Watch next week as Captain Obvious defeats Professor Obscure!
“But most importantly, we need to speak the truth.”
Something you seem to have trouble doing…
“And we need to be respectful.”
Of everyone? Even if they don’t deserve it?
“And we should approach politics with the premise that we are all trying to do what we think is right for the country we love.”
“White America, US of KKKA! America’s chickens are coming home to roost! God DAMN AMERICA!”
Sorry, the sound of your party’s spiritual mentor of the past twenty years was a bit loud for me to hear that last bit, could you repeat it?
Post a Comment