Changing the Concept Of The Rational Moderate

[Wetzelbill]

Mods, if this excerpt is a little long, I wrote it, have the rights and give permission for use of the few extra paragraphs.:)

Bill Wetzel: Changing The Concept of The Rational Moderate


Here I am at my keyboard this morning, catching up on all of the latest news and planning on writing an essay based loosely on the topic of "Work," which a prominent American Indian author asked me to contribute to an anthology she is editing.

My plan is to write about my grandfather, Walter "Blackie" Wetzel, former chairman of the Blackfeet tribe and President of the National Congress of American Indians. My grandfather was personal friends with such progressive icons as Jack and Bobby Kennedy, and former Montana Senator and Senate Majority leader Mike Mansfield. Lots of interesting material to work with, for sure.

However, first, I am going through my morning newspaper/magazine/various website reading routine, digesting all of the news and events which have been resonating for the last month or so, and collecting my thoughts before working on my essay.

Obviously there are consistent themes in any news cycle. Some resonate throughout several news cycles, lasting months, even years or decades. We hear them often. National security strength. Various cultural and social issues. The ugliest rear their heads during election years. Still, I try not to let the largely ignorant level of political discourse annoy me too much.

Well, guess what? I have decided I have finally had enough of one topic in particular. The reason is because the line of thinking is both stupid and dangerous. And, too often, progressives -- and even the few honest brokers in the media -- allow the wrong-headedness of this issue to continue on, unchallenged and unabated. The perpetuation of this myth prevents rational debate, and inhibits solutions to even the simplest of problems.

I am talking about the utilization of the words "Moderate" and "Center," as well as any derivatives.

http://worldnewstrust.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=4022

[ERF]

1. Excellent article. Very good points. Only disagreement is

on bashing Friedman. Sorry, but I tend to agree with him 98% of the time. He is outstanding in putting things down in a way that makes it hard to argue with - because he is right.

People on the left call him a right-winger. Those on the right call him a left-winger. He must be doing something right.

PPMs are in issue in free-trade. Everything else is just an evolutionary process that has happened countless times in countless countries.

[bryant69]

2. I agree with the analysis on Lamon/Lieberman

I think it goes a bit further off the rails in the second half.

"We should not be suckered into destructive, Orwellian labels. The only "Right, Left, and Center" we should be concerned about are the Right things to do, the people who are being Left behind, and the issues that are at the center of our lives."

The counterpoint to this is that Conservative Moderates and Liberals all believe that they are doing the right things, helping people left out and so on.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[MrModerate]

3. Well, yes and no . . .

It's surely no secret that politician abuse language ("Macaca" anyone?). And I certainly wouldn't equate support for the fiasco in Iraq with a moderate point of view. Nor would I sit still for anyone telling me that Ned Lamont (and by extension, anyone who opposes said war in Iraq) is a far-left radical. Pure bullshit.

The Republican playbook has been focused for some time on dragging the "center" to the right. The intent is to cast socially regressive policies as the norm and progressive policies as wacky and far-left.

So they're using language against us. Shocking.

But before we abandon these useful terms (just as we've been counseled to abandon "liberal" because of the right's successful denigration of the term), let's not forget that a lot of non-political-junkie voters consider themselves moderate or centrist, and for them the terms still have meaning: a meaning that's closer to progressive beliefs than regressive.

Instead of abandoning these terms, let's revive them. To win nationally, dems need self-described "independent," "centrist," "moderate" voters, and if we eliminate them from consideration by OUR use of language, then we may well lose their votes. We need to hammer home the points in your article: Iraq war fervor = radicalism; Preemptive war = extremism; diplomacy = moderation and centrism; and the American values of live and let live, generosity, liberality, reason and proportionality, and care for our fellow inhabitants of the globe are core -- which is to say "central" -- American values.

Let's not surrender the battle over these powerful, politically useful terms.

[ERF]

4. Good post! n/t

[BeFree]

5. Surrender?

Shoot, we are beaten to a bloody pulp. Surrender as an option means we just roll over and get over it.

Which is what most people are doing. Face it, they have all but won the game: we are in the two minute warning portion of the game, the last batter in the ninth, the final 15 seconds of the last half.... it's justabout over.

We are the wacked out crazies on the left, only because we have worn the paint so applied. So lets get it on.... this is it, our last chance, we either make a name for ourselves and reform the government, or we are dead meat.

The elections were stolen. There are no two ways about it. How can one be moderate about having our democracy ripped from our hands?

[MrModerate]

6. Stealing elections is hard and far from a sure thing . . .

We can overwhelm their efforts by more successful GOTV programs and by pointing out to less-fanatical 'Lican voters that the 'Licans are, in fact, no friends of theirs.

Also, the dem leadership has finally cottoned onto the fact that they need to win back some of the Secretary of State posts (California, are you listening) they've let slip into 'Lican hands over the last few years.

We don't need a revolution (and despair is useless): we need organization, inclusiveness, confidence, and clear messages.

While the gutless media remains a challenge, they are 1) only in it for the money and 2) sheep-like in the extreme. If they get the hint that the wind is blowing in a progressive direction, they'll turn like a school of fish.

[BeFree]

7. Hard to steal?

You must have way too much confidence in the gutless media because all the media with any guts at all is claiming the elections were stolen.

You see, your attitude/opinion is what causes the despair. You potificate that elections were not stolen when I know better and you casually dismiss my knowledge and tend to accept that bushco wouldn't steal elections thereby playing right into their hands.

Your assumptions and the like a a great cause for despair. Sickening, in fact.

[MrModerate]

8. Read my post a little more carefully . . .

I have little confidence in the media, except that they will behave true to form and change direction the instant they detect influence flowing to "the other pole," in this case the dems. I think this is happening now.

"Media with guts," aka Rolling Stone, serves as an early warning of a possible reversal of the media's enthrallment to the 'Lican power structure.

As I said, I'm convinced that the elections (we're talking 2000 and 2004 presidential) WERE stolen. I didn't dismiss anything you said, I just didn't detect that you had displayed your knowledge of anything. I've reread your posts and still can see where you come up with that complaint.

Of course Bushco will steal elections if allowed to do so. Doesn't mean it's easy to do -- in fact, it's pretty difficult. And here's one way to make it next to impossible: get enough votes that 'Lican twiddling at the edges of vote counts is inadequate to turn the result. If Kerry, f'rinstance, had eked out another percent or two, that would have made 'Lican vote stealing irrelevant. The sheer numbers would have swamped 'em.

Buck up. Despair is useless, and ill-considered attacks on those who basically agree with you more useless yet.

[BeFree]

9. Well, excuse me....

When you wrote:
Post #6. "Stealing elections is hard and far from a sure thing ". . .

I took it that you didn't have a clue. But now I see you write:
"As I said, I'm convinced that the elections (we're talking 2000 and 2004 presidential) WERE stolen."

But, frankly, now I'm confused.... the two statements don't seem to have come from the same position!

[MrModerate]

10. Stealing elections is by definition a conspiracy . . .

And conspiracies fail all the time and they get ratted out all the time too.

They just barely stole Florida in 2000 by a series of political and legal maneuvers largely focused in that state (although voter suppression techniques were visible wherever 'Lican party organizations had the wherewithal to employ them). And then of course, the biggest political maneuver of them all -- the Supreme Court putsch -- closed the deal.

By 2004, voter suppression/theft initiatives by 'Lican operatives were more developed and more widely deployed. Ohio was key, but wouldn't have been had some of the other states expected to come Kerry's way ended up in his column. Nevertheless, the evidence of voter fraud was plain in Ohio, suggesting that the difficulty of stealing elections makes it very hard to pull off undetected.

That's my whole point -- you CAN steal elections, but it's not easy and you always risk detection. And, if either Kerry or Gore had been more successful campaigners (even by a percentage point or two) the numbers would have overwhelmed 'Lican frauds and history would be completely different.

Which is why I support the most vigorous GOTV efforts we can manage in November, because with 'Licans dispirited and Dems energized, we're have a chance to rack up the numbers that will make 'Lican frauds irrelevant.

[BeFree]

11. Very good

So now, if you will, try to answer the question I posed earlier:

The elections were stolen. There are no two ways about it. How can one be moderate about having our democracy ripped from our hands?

[MrModerate]

12. Don't think I can answer this in the context you originally posed it . . .

Which was in response to my opinion that we shouldn't let anyone hijack the concepts "moderate" and "centrist," because they are too useful to progressives.

I don't think we'll get anywhere by playing to 'Lican stereotypes of wild-eyed lefties. I, personally, am not especially wild-eyed. Language like "democracy ripped from our hands" -- whether a defensible description or not -- won't do us any good. A substantial portion of the people to the left of Joe Lieberman (i.e., people we can reach with progressive messages) will hear such language and just stop listening. They don't want intemperate, angry people running their government.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm furious at the criminal and criminally stupid acts of the Bush administration. I've been infuriated since early November 2000 and at a low boil since the Supreme Court handed the keys to the White House to George Bush in December. I often go ballistic and was outraged and appalled when we engaged on the wicked and stupid Iraq adventure. When I went to Iraq, I found it 10 times worse than I had expected, but just as hopeless.

However, now I want Dems to win elections, so I chill. To win, we need to appeal to non-political-junkies who don't follow these issues on a minute-to-minute basis, and who have much less intense feelings about the political direction this country is headed. People who share many of my values, who are amenable to progressive ideas, but who may have voted for Bush and other Republicans because they believed what he said. People I'd call "centrists" or "moderates." People I can live with in a "coalition of the reasonable."

Many people did (and do!) believe Bush to be no more untrustworthy than any other politician, but their eyes are opening now. I want to reach these people. And one of the tools we should be using is the very useful concept of the "political center." 'Lican zealots have tried to drag the center to the right (and thus make the term useless). I say grab it back -- make it possible for people with whom we have substantial affinity to vote with us in November and the future.

I don't want to throw away language tools that can be effective, and the terms "moderate" and "centrist" are among those tools. Besides, no one gave those goniffs on the right persmission to distort reality that way. I want reality back -- back in my life and back in politics.

[BeFree]

13. Yeah, reality... what a concept

And the reality is that our democracy has been ripped from our hands via the stolen elections. Its the truth you do agree. So why be mealy mouthed about that fact? Why not tell the truth, loud and clear?

It's funny folks go around saying we must watch what we say or we'll piss folks off and they won't vote dem. When, in fact, they did vote for the dem but 'twas stolen, and now they don't want us telling the truth because we must be moderate and all that.

Well, son, that's what the pink tutu wearing dems have done these last ten years and look where that's got us?

In meetings with the tutu wearers, yes, don't scare them too badly.... but here on DU I say let 'er rip. Sing it loud and sing it clear: The elections were stolen!

[MrModerate]

14. Moderate is not synonymous with mealy mouthed . . .

And convincing people is more than shouting their mistakes in their faces. Subtlely, psychology, and yes, maturity are all political tools. Do you really think we'll achieve anything by shrieking like banshees over the stolen elections?

Someone once said (probably the first time was 10,000 years ago), "don't get mad, get even." Well, I still get mad -- but I want to get even.

And let's talk about how effective yelling from the rooftops that the elections were stolen would be. We have to face the reality that MOST AMERICANS DON'T BELIEVE IT. It's quite likely that no amount of statistical analysis, anecdotal evidence, or even a case laid out in a major national publication by a national figure with irrefutable and cogent arguments will move them. It's too big an idea for the average person to embrace. It'll need to be much more blatant before a critical mass of voters believe they've been disenfranchised.

Or . . .

We take back the House and the Senate (as I said before, through majorities too big to steal). We start the investigations. We smoke them out. And some of the perpetrators come forward with explanations of how it was done. I'm not talking voter suppression (which the people think all parties do if they can, and so dismiss from consideration), I'm talking about vote fraud. Until we have the software programmer on the stand, or the guy who hacked the tabulator, or the CIO of Diebold or Sequoia, we're not going to be heard.

In the meantime, let's win some elections, so we're in a position to call those hearings and start those investigations. Which we're not going to do if we squander our credibility on what the electorate considers a crackpot theory.

It's harsh, but let's be real.

[BeFree]

15. Singing loud and clear

Is not screaming like a banshee. Geez.

You say "lets win some elections". Well, son, we did. But they was stolen!

Waiting until the big guy drops before telling people about it is kinda foolish, don't you think? If we followed that line of reasoning in politics we'd never get anything done - or educate anyone. Say we waited until everyone was already dead from global warming before we started to sing about that?

Oh, most Americans will believe it, if they don't already. They just don't know what to do about it. That's where leadership comes in, that and education. So let's get even, lets turn the bus around and start telling people about the stolen elections and let's start figuring out how to keep them from stealing any more. I'm sure you have some moderate ideas on how we end the fraud, I'd like to hear those ideas.

[MrModerate]

17. We're actually pretty close here . . .

But there's a divide between us I don't think we can bridge.

Based on my observations of human organizational behavior, there're some strategies (and tactics) for getting your point across, getting the truth out, that just don't work. I'm convinced a tactic of talking about stolen elections will fail with the electorate. The truth of stolen elections will eventually suffuse the America's consciousness and become the received truth, but it ain't there yet.

And I don't think it's profitable -- at this point -- to try to accelerate the process, at least as a party strategy. I would welcome an RFK jr./Rolling Stone-type article every two weeks in successive major publications, chipping away at the electorate's disbelief, but not as a core tactic for November.

Most voters would dismiss anything more direct, and we'd be beaten up by the 'Licans as sore losers. Instead we need to send the message that the country has been seriously damaged by bad leadership and wrongheaded ideas, and it's time to get reasonable and capable people back in office before more damage is done (and so we can start repairing that damage).

We need the levers of power back in our hands before we can do much squeezing of the perpetrators of vote fraud. As aggravating as it is, we need to put vote fraud aside for a time until we have the wherewithal to handle it and make use of it. Once the 'Licans are out of power, no longer able to stymie investigations, a thousand rotting corpses will tumble out of their closets, only one of which will be vote fraud.

I say let's get there first.

[BeFree]

18. Yup, there's a divide alright

You are afraid to speak the truth about stolen elections and I'm not.

You think that the theives are constrained and will let fairness rule again.

I don't, I know they will never be fair and we will never win again because we are failing to put real constarints on the accessing of power through stolen elections. They will steal it again.

They remain unconstrained because we, for the most part, follow your advice to remain quiet about the theft.

[Armstead]

16. I agree -- This process has been ongoing for over 30 years

Being in my mid-50's I've seen this process evolve.

In the 70's, the CONservaties and Corporate Elite successfully defined many of the problems the country was experiencing as dur to the "liberals."

In reality, what had happened is that the scales had become more balanced in terms of a humanistic counterweight to what would happen if Corporate America had no restraints.

They successfully removed those restraints by characterizing lioberal humanistic values as "bad for America" and reasserting Corporate right wing values -- Profit Uber Alles -- by claiming that they would benefit everyone...."If we cut yuour wages and benefits, you will be better off."....."If we ship your job out of America, you will have a better job."....etc.

Unfortunately, the left half of the spectrum -- from moderate liberals to lefty progressives -- ceded this battle instead of fighting back for our beliefs.

The result is the orwellian mindset that exists today that if you are even a moderate liberal you are part of the "whacky left."

The way to counter that is to simply state the truth -- Liberal'Progressive Values are Mainsgtream Values.