Mario Cuomo's 1984 DNC speech, "A Tale of Two Cities."

[merrily]

Cuomo turned down the opportunity to run for President and the opportunity to sit on the Supreme Court.

FYI: "city on a hill" is a term from the biblical Sermon on the Mount that was used in a 1630 sermon by Winthrop. (And the concept was perfect for Boston's Beacon Hill.)

Over 3 centuries later, Winthrop's fellow Massachusetts resident, JFK, used it in the speech in which JFK first announced for the Presidency. But, of course, St. Ronnie gets more credit for the term than Jesus, Winthrop and JFK combined.

In this speech, Cuomo took the concept of a shining "city on a hill" to the "tale of two cities," foreshadowing the "two Americas" concept that figured so much in the politics of John Edwards.

[Waiting For Everyman]

1. Thanks for posting this Merrily.

Earlier today on another forum site, an altogether non-political one, someone brought up this speech in reference to Cuomo's passing, and said that he considers it the best he ever heard in his lifetime. It surprised me to see such a strongly positive comment, outside of a Dem group. But then, it is quite a speech.

[merrily]

3. Ideas like this resonate with all kinds of people, if they are put clearly and without slant.

Especially if people from both the nation's largest political parties are not pooh poohing them, or worse. Since Cuomo didn't want seek higher office, I guess there was not much reason to belittle his views once he left office and even less reason now that he is dead.

[Enthusiast]

2. Kicked and recommended! I remember watching this live.

[sabrina 1]

4. That is a great speech. Cuomo was a great orator.

He didn't hesitate to criticize Republicans or to be proud of Democratic Party policies were, unlike today where our Dems seem to feel we must try to appease the rabid Republicans and not speak of the accomplishments of the Dem Party for ALL Americans.

He could make that speech today and it was be as relevant as it was then, which is sad.

I wonder what might have happened had he run for the WH.

[merrily]

5. Dems today are not appeasing Republicans. They are doing what they see as being in their own

interests.

This may be simplistic, but it is not irrelevant: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12772162#post16


And not only are they getting away with it, but excuses galore are made for them and those who criticize them are the ones getting bashed and/or thrown under the bus. So, what ,exactly would be their incentive to change?

As I take look back on history, the times the ruling class of this country, be it comprised of plutocrats or oligarchs, has acted most strongly in favor of the 99% have been the times when they were in fear: right after the revolution they had a large role in fomenting, after the crash of 1929 (not very long after the Russian revolution) and, in the 1960s, when a coalition among the Civil Rights movements, the economic justice movement, and the anti-War movement looked as though it could form. Meanwhile, untold trillions, not to untold lives, limbs and minds, were spent by this nation and others to "prevent the spread of communism."

[sabrina 1]

6. I agree, however their public stance has been that 'politics requires compromise'.

And unfortunately that seems to work as an excuse for far too many loyal Dems who defend it. Which is why they don't come right and tell us the real reason why they are supporting policies no Democrat should be willing to do.

[merrily]

7. Is the term, "plausible deniability?"

Of course, politics require compromise. Also jawboning. Also wheeling and dealing. It requires lots and lots of things. Always has, even when there were theoretically no political parties at all and even when Democrats ostensibly had FDR-era sized majorities in both houses.

But it doesn't require telling WAPO that entitlements must be cut, or nominating a Geithner instead of a Volcker, or a Daschle instead of a Dean, or lobbying Democrats to vote for repeal of Glass Steagall, etc. I could go on, but you know the litany better than I do.

And, because of the wheeling and dealing, compromise doesn't always go only in one direction. That's not even compromise; it's either complicity or surrender. (The 60-vote cloture rule seems to be a much more insurmountable obstacle for Democrats than it is for Republicans, emphasis on "seems.&quot

So, at some point, plausible deniability gets less and less plausible.

I don't believe in the grammar police, but I do believe very much in the power of words.

If we really don't believe that Democrats are truly only "compromising" and only as much as they absolutely need to and they are getting something in return for their part of every compromise, then why say so? If we don't believe that they are simply terrified of Republicans or simply getting outsmarted by Republicans again and again, why say so?