home

"Pragmatists," Like Centrists" And "Moderates," Are People Who Agree With Me

The Great "Pragmatist" Revolution against Dems is in full bloom. I've always called myself a "Centrist" not for descriptive reasons, the term describes precisely nothing, but rather for posturing purposes (though to be fair to myself, I am a free trade/Afghan war supporting hawk, so there is some basis for my claim of "Centrism.") What always get me about us self proclaimed "centrists" and pragmatists" is how we always claim to be the moderate, centrist pragmatists and everyone who disagrees with us is an extremist. Funny how that works out. Anyway, I found this amusing from a "Pragmatist:"

I am a pragmatist. And I understand that lifting ourselves from the kind of economic ravine we find ourselves in is not accomplished easily, and it cannot be achieved without compromise. [. . .] But there comes a point where compromise on policy equals compromise of principles. [. . .] Compromising to allow the very wealthiest in our nation to benefit while those who can bear the burden least -- of those who are caught in the tentacles of circumstance -- is a compromise not only of policy. It is also a compromise of the very principles that should remain the bedrock foundation of the Democratic Party. There are lines, and there are lines. [. . .] The things worth fighting for are worth fighting for in their own right. Win or lose.

It absolutely pains me to say this, but if the President compromises that away and capitulates to the Republicans on the issue of the tax cuts, he has lost me.

I'm not sure what "losing me" entails. Won't vote for Obama in 2012? Will support a primary? My own thinking on this is pretty well documented:

As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.

And this is true in every context I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for President. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.

In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.

Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

Obama can't "lose me" because he never had me. I suspect I'll be voting for him in 2012 and not supporting a primary challenger (I imagine I won't even have a choice to support a primary challenger.) But as always, I'll criticize him when I think he is wrong, and praise him when I think he is right. I honestly think that's what everyone should do. It's the "pragmatist" in me.

Speaking for me only

< The Retreat From Clintonism | How To Triangulate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Since neither the Democrats nor the (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 12:23:03 PM EST
    Republicans are giving me the policies I want, what difference does it make anymore what I call myself, or how anyone else wants to label me or categorize me?  It's not changing anything, not making anything I want happen, not moving things in a direction that I find encouraging.

    I think the Democratic party thinks I'm still part of the base, but if the party isn't listening to me, if they aren't interested in what I think or what I want, I think I am less part of the base than I am something for the elites to stand on so they don't get their feet dirty.  And I'm sorry, but I won't be anyone's - on anything's - doormat; I'm not going to lie here and think of England.

    So, what am I going to do?  Well, I'm certainly not going to "punish" the Democratic Party by voting Republican - that would be like asking to be stabbed in the eye after being run over by the bus, I think.  

    I will vote judiciously, not reflexively; I will vote third party if I think the candidate offers me something the other parties don't, and I will sometimes choose to not honor anyone with my vote, in the belief that one does not attain excellence by voting for mediocrity.

    I will think, I will ask questions, I will stay informed - even if I have to do it while on intravenous Xanax...

    Maybe the party will wake up one day - maybe there will be enough disaffected Democrats to form a viable third party.  

    And maybe I will win the MegaMillions lottery!  I think the chances are about the same.


    Keeping in mind that (none / 0) (#7)
    by oldpro on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 01:01:26 PM EST
    there's no chance at all unless you buy a ticket.

    Nevertheless, I agree with your assessment of the odds.

    Parent

    BTD, I don't think that you (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 01:02:15 PM EST
    are a centrist in an operational sense.  Centrists, at least as they've operated in recent years, have no real core values other than that which compels them to pick a place in what they call "the center" based almost entirely on what they see other people doing around them.  

    You may "fall into" the center of the political spectrum based on your unique portfolio of views, but I wouldn't say that you could qualify as a centrist in terms of how you approach politics.  I've never seen any evidence that your core political beliefs or policy positions are subject to change because the Tea Party would object or because something could make John Boehner unhappy...

    Yes, what they see going on around them (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 01:30:21 PM EST
    and who they prefer to identify with. I think that's why the windsurfing and other costume videos hurt John Kerry - people looked at him as an object of ridicule and just did not want to identify with him. It is what helped Obama in the middle - his persona was one people wanted to associate themselves with.
     

    Parent
    The issues! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 01:39:34 PM EST
    from the OFA via Firedoglake:

    Yesterday, he announced a proposal to freeze pay for non-military federal employees for two years -- a plan that will lead to $60 billion in savings over 10 years. It's one of many tough choices the President has made to cut costs in the upcoming budget to begin to put our nation's fiscal house in order. And it follows directly from this administration's dedication to stretching federal dollars and reining in the long-term deficit.

    Now, if you listen to some talk radio hosts or a few of the talking heads on cable news, you'll hear a very different assessment of our fiscal policies. These voices ignore the irresponsibility of the past while pinning the blame for "reckless spending" solely on this administration. It would make a good fairy tale if it weren't so dangerously untrue.

    But these voices -- as loud as they are -- are spreading bunk. Cutting costs and spending responsibly has been a cornerstone of this administration's record. And we need your help to get the truth out there.

    Will you take a few minutes and write a letter to the editor today to set the record straight?

    Feet on the ground for federal pay cuts!

    The funny thing is, if you're going to do something dumb like this, shouldn't you make it look like you pissed off the left?  Why would you ask for their support?

    Oh, gee! (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 01:49:17 PM EST
    A whole $6 billion a year in whopping savings!  Really stupid.  I'm almost sorry that I told OFA a long time ago to stop calling me and to take me off their email list, because I'd love to yell at them about this one.  Maybe I should sign up again, just so I could remove myself (yet again) from their list, and tell them why.   ;-)

    Parent
    Puzzling to me (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 02:09:16 PM EST
    It's puzzling to me that they taut the 10-year savings for a policy they only intend to abide to for 2 years.

    I guess it's because $60B sounds much better than $12B, and the public believes the lies.

    Clear Skies, Healthy Forests
    Health CARE reform
    $60B $60B $SIXTY B

    Parent

    think its sort of good to see stuff like this (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 11:22:22 AM EST
    Compromising to allow the very wealthiest in our nation to benefit while those who can bear the burden least -- of those who are caught in the tentacles of circumstance -- is a compromise not only of policy.  It is also a compromise of the very principles that should remain the bedrock foundation of the Democratic Party.

    at orange. not that it will make any difference.  but at least they are starting to get it.

    BTD, didn't Obama have you "tepidly"? (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 11:55:00 AM EST


    That would depend on how tepid (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 01:12:54 PM EST
    your definition of tepid is :)

    WOW, I think I'm ready to try triangulating :)

    Parent

    School uniforms was Bill Clinton triangulation (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 01:14:18 PM EST
    The problem is that the Dem Party (none / 0) (#3)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 11:55:54 AM EST
    knows their base will still vote for them.  Same with Repubs.  They do not have to fear losing their base.  Add to that gerrymandering and no term limits we have Congresspeople who serve 40+ years and are at almost zero risk of losing their jobs.  The problem America has right now is that the solution to most of our problems require policy that is to the left of the Dem party.  It is impossible to accomplish right now.

    We need more options than Dem vs. Repub.  I have not felt this way most of my life, but I am there now.  Until politicians see more competition, it will be difficult to move the needle much on policy because no one fears failure, they just fear pissing off the wrong special interest group and only need to accomplish being superior to the one other opponent their base despises.  

    It will probably have to be two additional parties not just one - a more moderate Repub party, and a Progressive/Liberal party.

    How does Sen. Feingold's defeat (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 11:58:43 AM EST
    fit into your theory?

    Parent
    One tough loss in a purple state (none / 0) (#5)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 12:02:07 PM EST
    in the biggest wave election year the Repubs had since the 1930s.  I would argue that if the Dem party had to fear a progessive party and could find some support for progressive policies with moderate Repubs, the policy would have been better and the outcome would not have been so difficult for Dems.

    Parent
    BTD, i'm curious as to your basis (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 01:30:44 PM EST
    for supporting the afghan war, our first illegal invasion under bush?

    How in the world do you justify the invasion (none / 0) (#16)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 02:21:47 PM EST
    of Afganistan illegal?  We had the support of Congress, both political parties, an overwhelming majority of the American people, and the entire international community.  Hell...even Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon supported the Afgan invasion.  How was it illegal?  I am troubled with our current policy (unlike BTD)...but just troubled.  I do not know enough yet to come out strongly against it.  But after 9-11 to get the Taliban and Bin Laden?

    Parent
    I opposed the invasion on Sept. 12, 2001 (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:39:34 PM EST
    My placard on the steps of the Wisconsin State Capitol, "War is still dumb" ran on the AP wire and in hundreds of newspapers*, but I never considered it illegal, just dumb.

    *Including the Chicago tribune. Did a then obscure Illinois State Senator picked up on my phrasing, or re-invent it?

    Parent

    I knew it (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:49:51 PM EST
    Eventually you would be exposed or expose yourself :), and all of this is your damned fault.

    Parent