Posted on 12/11/2004 11:13:39 PM PST by neverdem
Democrats Must Revert To Resisting Oppression
Some liberals simply cannot control their reflex to look down their upturned noses at the American electorate. Writing in the American Prospect, a liberal monthly of which he is co-editor, Robert Kuttner, in a thoughtful analysis of Democrats' difficulties developing a distinctive values vocabulary, argues that "when Democrats fail to articulate pocketbook issues as values, class resentments become cultural ones," and Republicans prosper. Then, in his penultimate paragraph, his own cultural resentments against the American majority, as he imagines it, drive him into a ditch:
"Bill Clinton won election by declaring, as a matter of values, that people who work hard and play by the rules should not be poor. Middle America forgave him for treating gays as people."
Ponder that second sentence.
Kuttner could not resist a spasm of moral vanity. He had to disparage "middle America," which means most of America, as so bigoted it denies the humanity of gays. If liberals like Kuttner keep thinking like that -- they have been doing it for so long they cannot easily stop -- in December 2008 they will be analyzing their eighth loss in 11 elections at the hands of voters weary of liberal disdain.
A better analysis of the Democrats' difficulties comes from Peter Beinart, writing in the New Republic, which he edits. His "An Argument for a New Liberalism" actually argues for an old liberalism, that of 1947. Beinart focuses on foreign policy, to which Kuttnerism -- the belief that most Americans are viciously ignorant -- is pertinent.
In 1947 Americans for Democratic Action was founded by anticommunist liberals who, galvanized by the onset of the Cold War, were contesting with anti-anticommunists for control of the Democratic Party. The ADA, said one of its founders, historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., believed that...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
He won because of Ross Perot plain and simple. no way clintoon gets in against Bush 41 in a 2 way race
OK. The politics of Satan.
Oooppps it read RE-defining. I thought it said defining. OK redefining....The politics of Satan and the rest of the demonic hoary hosts of the underworld.
Hmmm...yes that is better.
The only reason there WAS a Ross Perot was because of Bush 41...it's like Bush I handed the baton off to Clinton and the RATS.
Pssst, the secret is -- there is no more liberalism. There is no rallying cry. There is no single issue or bundle of related issues that connect those on the left. There's only a lot of talk and a few actors looking for cheap publicity.
We need a responsible and patriotic Left in this country. Peter Beinert should be under no illusions about the enormity of the task confronting him. Until the Left gets serious about promoting freedom and opposing Islamic expansionism, it is doomed to wander for a generation in the political wilderness.
If only the Democrats would forgive all the rest of us for respecting the rights of ALL HUMAN BEINGS, from conception to the natural end of life!
Liberalism is for whack jobs.......
Democrats need to embrace homosexuals more closely. Atheists, too. And the ACLU.
Redefining to liberals is a very pragmatic act. All they have to do is rename themselves. Now they will be known in the future as Progressives. You will note over the coming months that the term Progressive is being substituted for liberal in every forum.
The nation needs a 1947 liberalism -- anti-totalitarian but without what Beinart calls the Bush administration's "near-theological faith in the transformative capacity of U.S. military might." Wish Beinart well.
The modern democrat party reminds me of mid 30's Stalinist Soviet Union. The five year plan here, is to prepare the party for Hillary I think, and to do that, there must be party unity no deviation from party line. There is a command economy at work in the party, and it is suffering from the same problems as say Magnetigorsk.
Recall Hillary's plan for health care. The part that always struck me as drawing a straight line into the heart of her thinking was the carefully crafted legal(prison) penalties that would obtain to those seeking to offer or procure services outside of the health care commune(alliances, bwhahahahaha)
At any rate the analogy is that while they have the plan, the fact that anyone could criticise the party is seen as massive disloyalty. It was called sabatoge in Stalinist USSR, but it is at work in the party. Recall, the Clinton years, and the enourmous solidarity of the party. Also recall Paul McHale, and what happened to him when he dared to question the propriety of Clinton's behaviour.
The party has succeeded in weeding out, silencing or punishing those who might offer them the truth. And so while they are obstructing any thing they can, they are keeping their good guys on short leashes. The ones who might actually have the stones to oppose them are destroyed, or leave and the party continues to march off into the future that has one goal.
The only one who will be allowed to make the proper conservative noises to appeal to "middle America" will be Hillary, and everyone else will have to keep quiet. Much as Lieberman was allowed to criticise Clinton but be counted on to vote the right way, gave the party some moral cover, Hillary will have this dispensation. This will allow her to appear to be the transformative candidate that will recapture the party's glory. I sure hope we never forget who these people are.
/paranoia, but had a little fun with this analogy.
Abso-effing-lutely. Clinton didn't beat Bush 41. Perot did.
So many people and all of the Dims seem to forget this. Clinton and co. are sneaky bunch . I heard on FOX they were part of the reason behind the Perot run. Which doesn't surprise me .
I'm just hoping Dean gets DNC so he can do the service back to us for ,08 ;)
Many phone conversations between Perot and Clinton headquarters, when Perot started to surge in polls, he developed his infamous withdrawal and fear of trouble, until he was not a threat to win. Then he came back and pulled as many votes from Bush as he could. Bush to be fair did not campaign as well as he could have either.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.