It took about 40 years for conservatives to build the movement that they have today.

[LoZoccolo]

[ClassWarrior]

1. And it'll take us 400, the way so-called "centrists" keep dragging us to the right.

NGU.

[LoZoccolo]

6. The Green Party has done the best job of that so far.

[ClassWarrior]

9. The Green Party has dragged us to THE RIGHT??

:rofl:

Up is down. Bad is good. Wrong is right.

(Damn, the second Orwell reference on DU today.)

NGU.

[LoZoccolo]

12. They helped put us in the hole and encourage the left to be more expensive than the center.

[ClassWarrior]

16. ~sigh~ Here we go again...

Why do RWers tell us to chase "centrist" voters, yet fail to take their own advice?

It's a trap. "Centrism" is a myth.

No Center, No Centrists
by George Lakoff

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views...

The very idea that there is a "center" marginalizes progressives, and sees them as extremists, when they simply share fundamental American values. The term "center" suggests there is a "mainstream" where most people are and that there is a single set of views held by that mainstream. That is false...

I am a cognitive scientist and believe that people's brains play a significant role in elections. From the perspective of brain science, the answer is a no-brainer. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) You speak to biconceptuals the same way you speak to your base: you discuss progressive values, and if you are talking to folks with both progressive and conservative values, you mainly talk about the issues where they share progressive values. What that does is evoke and strengthen the progressive values already there in the minds of biconceptuals...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

32. .

[ClassWarrior]

43. .

[LoZoccolo]

52. I didn't see anything in the excerpt that wasn't just a personal assertion.

[ClassWarrior]

57. If you'd read the entire article, you'd learn...

...that the author is a distinguished professor at a major university who has thoroughly researched the subject.

:shrug:

NGU.

[LoZoccolo]

59. That sounds like an "argument from authority".

[ClassWarrior]

66. That sounds like...

...you have no absolutely clue what you read or how to respond, so you made up something.

:rofl:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

"It's the Green Party's fault for scooping up our supporters when we abandoned them!!"

And I thought constantly avoiding personal responsibility was just a Rape-Publican trait.

NGU.

[LoZoccolo]

33. The right has been disciplined enough to acknowledge progress toward their goals and persist.

[ClassWarrior]

37. The right has been disciplined enough to relentlessly cater to its base...

...because (1) that's consistent with the values they share, and (2) it's a winning electoral strategy.

The right doesn't dismiss its staunchest supporters time and time again, and then wonder why they don't kiss its leaders' asses.

NGU.

[LoZoccolo]

45. Abortion is still legal.

[ClassWarrior]

56. And they use that to raise funds. They don't run from it, like... say...

...single payer or taxes on the wealthy.

NGU.

[LoZoccolo]

60. How do they not run from it if they never get anything done about it?

[ClassWarrior]

68. Reading comprehension is your friend.

NGU.

[yarn_chick]

47. This line is complete bullshit. n/t

[jpgray]

2. It will take a few bad deals to squander what took liberals sixty years to build

Just as the body takes decades to grow to maturity but may be cut off in an instant, how easy it will be to gutter the work of generations by a few compromises of short term expediency (at best).

[ClassWarrior]

3. +1

NGU.

[LoZoccolo]

8. That's all the more reason to build a solid infrastructure like they have.

[jpgray]

14. Social Security and Medicare are not part of our infrastructure?

The best way to build a solid infrastructure, presumably, is to build on a solid base. As the GOP builds on favorable policy for wealth and industry, we in the past built on support for the majority via the social safety net and other democratic proposals. Our party seems set to undermine this foundation and replace it with one more modeled after that of the GOP. Good idea, in your view?

[LoZoccolo]

15. I'm talking about a political infrastructure.

[jpgray]

18. Meaning what?

Message discipline and think tanks? Ownership of media by our ideologues? Vast stables of fundraisers, consultants and money men? What makes you think any of these are consistent with democratic politics? They all require vast sums of money and the support of the influential, and are more geared toward marketing a policy desired by some minority than organizing support for policies that benefit the majority.

[ClassWarrior]

23. Hmmm... it appears as though...

...LocoZoloco has abandoned us. How ironic.

:rofl:

NGU.

[LoZoccolo]

62. I think message discipline is important if most people seem to actually want Democratic programs.

[jpgray]

63. What do you see as our message on those programs?

Take Medicare and Social Security, for example. As a party, are we for keeping them as they are? Expanding them? Cutting them substantially? Reforming them in some nebulous way? It's incredibly hard to find a consistent stance on the issue.

What about the economy? What is our party's position on the chief causes of, and proper responses to, unemployment?

I think everywhere you find a democratic policy our party claims to support, when it collides with the interests of the influential and wealthy, a strangle muddling effect corrodes all clarity. I imagine the idea is to compete in fundraising after the GOP model, but how do you ensure a strong clarity for policies supporting the majority when you're competing for the support of a minority?

[LoZoccolo]

65. I'm not sure that if we do things right that we'll need a small group of rich donors.

[NYC_SKP]

4. I'd like to think that it was fragile and about to come to an end, but because it thrives on hatred

...and fear, it will probably live on another 40 years.

Humans being imperfect and all (to put it nicely).

The right wing is nothing without an ignorant and fearful populace.

:patriot:

[Skink]

5. We need to buy some cable stations.

[ClassWarrior]

7. Don't even go there, unless you can afford to buy one yourself.

We get nothing accomplished by wishing. Only by acting on wishes.

NGU.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Most people who decide to launch a cable outlet do not have

personal wealth large enough to just buy one. It starts with an idea. Al Gore and his partner bought Current TV, but not by just writing a check for it.
The way one acts on an idea can be many things. It is not required to have all the money to do it yourself. Do you think that film directors write a film that will cost 100 million only if they have a 100 million to film it? No, they go get OPM, other people's money. That is how it all works. The idea people and the money people are almost never the same people, and to imply that they need to be is just misinformed and without merit. To claim that money is the only action is neigh onto insanity.

[ClassWarrior]

24. The OP said "buy." Talk to her/him. I was just responding. And please...

...don't EVER put words in my mouth.

Thanks.

NGU.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Yes, and you said that to buy one, you'd best have the money

or don't mention it. Fact is, such things are often started by a person with an idea and no money to make it happen, the money comes from elsewhere, and they do in fact 'buy' the outlet.
I do not sit idle while others say 'have no vision if you have no money' because it is harmful and also so very untrue. Do you really think the director of Avatar just pulled out his checkbook and paid for the production? Of course not. So to say that having an idea is worthless without money to pay for it is just false. Sorry if that bothers you, but you are just wrong. And it is an extremely negative message to put forth, without a shred of real world evidence of the voracity. The real world says the opposite.

[ClassWarrior]

28. I said if you don't have the money to BUY one, don't talk about BUYING one. My complaint is...

...against armchair warriors who casually toss out that "we" should do thus-and-such, when what they really mean is "they who have the ability" should do thus-and-such - which then gives them the license to continue to sit on their asses and do nothing.

And again, I NEVER said anything remotely like "having an idea is worthless without money to pay for it." If you knew ANYTHING about me, you'd know that's a patently IDIOTIC assumption. PLEASE DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

NGU.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. "Don't even go there, unless you can afford to buy one yourself."

I do not agree with that at all. Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant by 'don't even go there unless you can afford to buy one yourself'. That seems to mean 'don't talk about an idea unless you have your own money to carry it out'. What else could it mean? Please explain. "Don't even go there, unless you can afford to buy one yourself."
And the fact is, large projects like that are almost never created by a person with an idea and all the money to pay for it. Great things start with an idea, followed by actions. They do not start only when the idea happens in a head attached to a fat wallet. People need to know that.

[ClassWarrior]

30. Explain? You said it yourself, two messages up: "You said that to buy one, you'd best...

"...have the money." Last time I checked, money is what one needs to "buy" something. Have we switched back to beads and shells? If so, I'm America's newest media mogul. Kiss my ass, Rupert Murdoch!

Sure, there are other ways to gain progressive control over a media outlet. Believe me, I KNOW. I work with a group of activists that has tried nearly every one of them over the past decade. Again, if you knew me, you'd know that your assumptions are IDIOTIC.

Explain? Talk is cheap. Action is hard. Media outlets are expensive.

NGU.

[TheKentuckian]

55. Sounds great but the near fatal, if not actually so is

that they are going to have a substantial advantage in resources because their aims are shared with those they have been steamshoveling the money to all these years.

This isn't about a potentially profitable venture to throw in with for those with most of the money. A few see a bigger and more connected picture and their resources can be leveraged but let's not pretend the numbers add up.
The wealth disparity, the drive to mindlessly accumulate wealth, and the profit motive inherently present this obstacle.

[loyalsister]

10. Yep

We didn't just wake up here. Policies have been moving rightward for my entire life. I think that before moving left, we first have to stop rightward movement.
It starts with us. I saw an interview with Will.i.am last night and he pointed out the "we" in yes we can. People seem to think it was yes HE can. People seem to have forgotten that the entire campaign centered on collective involvement.

[kentuck]

11. That's a lot of work for such a lousy product.

:-)

[elocs]

13. I can recall a lot of dancing on the GOP grave after the 2008 elections.

Apparently that was a tad premature.

[JohnnyRingo]

17. They aren't done

Until you learn to finish that sentence in "Praise Jesus, remember 9/11" they still have work to do.
When I was younger, Nixon, Ford, Buchanan, and even GHW Bush were not required to openly claim they didn't order breakfast without consulting with God and denounce the foundation of material science to make it to the podium. This is all new since the 21st Century.

I believe 9/11 caused a kind of national temporary insanity, the flames of which were fanned for eight years by the pseudo-religious Bush administration to garner political power. I believe nearly half the country was at the complete mental breakdown stage when an African American named Barack Hussein Obama entered the White House. I believe the symptoms have gone from temporary and treatable to hopelessly chronic mental instability.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Not new at all. This is how the Republicans have always been.

Buchanan, 1992:
"The agenda that Clinton & Clinton would impose on America: abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat units. That's change, all right. But that's not the kind of change America needs. It's not the kind of change America wants. And it's not the kind of change we can abide in a nation we still call "God's country."

If anyone cares about actual history, read the whole speech here:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/patrickbuchanan1992rnc.htm

[Bluenorthwest]

19. You see them as a movement? Really? I don't.

And I most certainly do not see some culmination of years of work being harvested to great result, I see the Republican Party in shreds, with pathetic candidates, an entire large segment of their voters hiding behind the false 'tea' name out of utter shame and a lack of ideas as to how to get out of that morass.
I sure do not see a movement of people, I see a construct made of funding and think tanks dressing up some extras to help distract from being the Party of GW Bush.
I note that on DU, the 'moderate centrists' like to claim the baggers are The Tea Party, as if they were not a construct of Republican consultants, but actually a Party to be dealt with. Those who are more liberal tend to call a Republican a Republican. I think the 'moderate centrists' like to say 'Tea' because they are far too close to trad Republican policy to criticize it strongly.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. And, for 40 years, the Democrats have tried to outflank them...by moving right.

And, look how well that has worked.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarrior]

26. Really? Unrecs for a factual statement?

Now I've seen everything at DU.

NGU.

[Fumesucker]

36. You have to consider the history of the OP..

LZ is a very divisive poster, deliberately so IMO.

[ClassWarrior]

40. So we're unreccing people now, not threads?

I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with that idea.

NGU.

[Fumesucker]

42. If someone goes out of their way to be unpleasant..

Then I have no problem with someone else unreccing their threads.

And besides, the whole unrec thing is going away sooner or later I think I recall hearing here.

[LoZoccolo]

54. To be fair, I automatically unrecommend articles from Fire Dog Lake and a few other authors/sources.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

31. Yep, but when Reagan got elected, even Democrats were joyful about it.

It makes me sick to my stomach to think of it.

[OHdem10]

34. It would not take 40 years. The ordinary rank and file Ameericans

are more in line with our values. They just have
heard nothing but mushy middle ground centrist
for years.

It would take time but not as long as you might think.

[LoZoccolo]

35. I'm inclined to agree with the first part of this.

[lunatica]

38. Then Sarah Palin gave birth to the Tea Party and all was lost

The Republicans are now trying to salvage their tattered party.

[Odin2005]

39. They have gobs of corporate money. We don't, nor should we accept any (fuck Soros).

[William769]

41. And now they have a Democratic President that capitulates to them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. And, a flock of supporters who claim the capitulations are Victories and put them on The List.

[LoZoccolo]

61. Which things on the list are capitulations?

[Rex]

46. More like 60 years.

And it accelerated to the right a lot faster after the Reagan Era.

[William769]

48. George Washington.

"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Mencken

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.- H.L. Mencken

[Donnachaidh]

49. another captain obvious post?

:eyes:

[William769]

50. The Mr. Obvious show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XZMC1M9o04

[sfpcjock]

51. 'n $40 Billion smackers n/t

[mmonk]

58. And 26 years in the Democratic Party.

[indurancevile]

64. "we" are not building any "movement" at all. if by "we" you mean democrats

led by the democratic party.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

67. The Bee Gees as a boy band in 1960.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5taXY3hrOY