The Unbearable Lightness of Liberal Politics

[LeahMira]

http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0403/article/040311a.html

Will the resounding commitment of liberals and progressives to the notion of
"Anyone But Bush" do any more than guarantee the re-election of Bush for another
four years?

The Democrats are in danger of sidelining their most principled
voices and once again (as in the Clinton-Gore years) appearing
to care more about what's popular than what's principled, with
the possible consequence of becoming less popular.

(snip)

The fact is that you cannot win Americans over to an alternative to the radical ideology of
the neoconservative Right that has been the foundation of the Bushites' success by
providing them with a variety of cautious half-measures lacking any coherent intellectual
foundation or vision. The unbearable lightness of the Democrats—their inability to stand
for anything at all—has been with us since the 1990s, when Congressional Democrats
were unable to construct a liberal or progressive alternative to Gingrich's very effective
(though from our standpoint reprehensible) "Contract with America," which boosted
Congressional Republicans to majority status in the 1994 elections. Even in 2002
those Democrats managed to take a perfect moment for re-ascendancy and present
themselves as the party that had no unifying theme or message.

It was in reaction to that unbearable lightness that many people became excited about
the candidacy of Howard Dean. Because he opposed the Iraq war consistently from
before it had begun, Dean seemed to be the one candidate who had the antiwar
understanding and backbone to challenge the Republicans. Other Democrats pointed
out that Dennis Kucinich, Carol Moseley Braun, and Al Sharpton all had these same
characteristics—that they too had opposed the war consistently and that they had a
considerably deeper understanding of the problems facing the country. Yet, when the
media told us that Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and Carol Moseley Braun were not
electable, and that therefore we should stop listening to them, many liberals and
progressives did. In fact, the media guaranteed that the non-internet–literate crowd
would stop listening to them by simply refusing to report what they said. When, after an
eight or nine-person presidential debate, the New York Times, Newsweek, and other
media reported only what the candidates they deemed electable were saying, liberals
and progressives went along with this because there was no point in fighting to hear
the words of the unelectable.

(more...)

1. kick

This is a good article.
Kicking it back to the front page.

[struggle4progress]

2. Agreed.

:kick:

[cprise]

3. Lite-ness (snicker)

As in Repub-Lite.