For 40 Years We Have Stood Stiff-Necked In Idealism

[The Lone Liberal]

While the right has kicked our asses. I love the philosophy of Chomsky, but we cannot point to one victory engineered by Chomsky. Unless the we learn to become more pragmatic and adept at politics the left will become a cartoon of history, marginalized and more impotent than we have been the last 4 decades.

Holding to the philosophy of all or nothing we are going to end loosing everything that the left shed blood to gain. The question to be asked are we willing to fight the fight again to gain back that which we have lost because we forgot the art of politics.

[The Traveler]

1. Liberals need to read

The Book of 5 Rings. The introductory chapters of "The Art of Jheet Koon Do". They need to read Clausewitz. Liberals need to understand the difference between strategy and tactics. Liberals need to rejoin the real world, because the real world desperately needs them.

We agree.

[clonebot]

4. another good read

sun tzu's art of war, of course (though significantly different than 5 rings) .. and hagakure while we are on the topic ;)

[The Traveler]

9. Yeah, that's a good one

The art of war. Not familiar with the other .. tell me more?

[hughee99]

10. also,

Machaivelli's "Art of war" and "The Prince" may help.

[Fenris]

2. Idealism is positive when taken in controlled doses.

However, idealism often leads us to develop a sense of partisan zeal that is problematic in the long run. One must recognize that, for better or worse, the nation will never be strongly united behind either side of the political spectrum (certain instances notwithstanding). True, over the last century there has been favoritism among the populace for one group or another, but such periods of overwhelming support are often short and shaped by external events.

Those who consider themselves to be part of the middle or far left of the spectrum, those who are idealists, must accept that a large portion of people of the United States, at this particular time in history, are either ambiguous about politics (centrists), lean right, or are hard-core reactionaries. When one examines the political trends since the fall of Nixon and the end of Cold War liberalism, one sees conclusive evidence that the country has been moving in a rightward direction.

At this point in history, the idealist liberal contingent is preaching to a vacant crowd. The left is seen, unfairly, as a rabid force of screaming heads, complaining about every little thing and speaking with an air of elitism. This is, no doubt, reinforced by the right wing of the media, specifically through talk radio and cable news. But this association of liberalism with elitist idealism is harmful to the overall image of non-conservative politicians.

American history, on the whole, affirms that the country is, and has been, a mostly conservative nation. There are major exceptions: the agrarian Populist movement, the Progressive Era that followed the Industrial Revolution and the Gilded Age, the New Deal Era, the Cold War liberal movement. However, these represent only short bursts of liberalism, mostly the result of economic hard-times or war.

The plan should be to be pragmatic. Just as we look upon the screaming extremists of the left with derision, the center and right look upon the screaming left the same way. Unfortunate, yes, but we must accept what we cannot change, and what we cannot change is America's psychological history. If we want reform, we must be willing to compromise with our opponents.

[Egalitarian]

3. Nice summary of where we're at...

Probably one of my biggest faults at present is that of which you speak. But, that being said, nail me on a cross if it'll help.

[Christ was Socialist]

5. We need more ideals

Chomsky should be philospher king. Look at the christian right, it's possible to win the white house with just the evangelical vote. The rethugs apeal to the far right. The rethugs will get on national tv and say gays aren't equal, and preach the bible. 80% of the people on this site, can't even stand the leftists, nor does the party appeal to them.

Leo strauss
Tim lahaye
billy graham

amongst others hold sway, talk about ideals, they want a damn theocracy. But the dems aren't an opposition party, They did the same as the center in hitlers germany with the enabling act, i wish the party would get a backbone. The socialist have always had one.

[greatauntoftriplets]

6. What?

We have to become what we despise and what we have fought against for more years than I can remember?

[Michael_UK]

7. I agree

I lived in Britain for 18 years under Tory rule as the Labour Party became more extreme. Most members of the voting public are moderate and don't want idealistic policies. They want credible alternatives. I disagree with Blair over Iraq, but let the tories back in? No way.

[KG]

8. Stiff-Necked?

more like spineless.

heck, i'm trying to identify a single ideal the dems have actualy stood for in the last 20 years. their failure to stand for anything has them out of power.

the RW has stood up for their ideals, and they've won. there is a lesson to be learned in that.