Did anyone watch the Chris Mathews Show this am?

[kentuck]

It was rather depressing.

The Democratic Party he described was something that is alien to me.

He said that President Obama is more popular with the general population than with the left of his Party. The left thought they could have everything. They did not have to compromise on anything.

It was mostly criticism of the progressive wing of the Party.

[otohara]

1. Pay No Attenton to Tweety

he's all over the map - all the time.

[EFerrari]

2. Ah, yes. The left is notoriously selfish in its self entitiled drive for

social justice.

lol

[WCGreen]

8. You have to be shelfish in order to be selfless..

[kentuck]

9. What are you smoking today, WC?

:-)

[patrice]

28. Perhaps WC left off a cite for: the Walrus to the Carpenter in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking G

lass.

[kentuck]

41. Thanks patrice..

I did not remember that if I ever knew it?

[patrice]

43. Oh, I'm not at all sure that's what was intended, but it does fit anyway.

[Hawkeye-X]

3. Tweety should be kicked out of MSNBC. Let Randi Rhodes take his spot

and she'll do a far better job.

[defendandprotect]

53. I'll second that --

[spanone]

4. chris matthews, the political pendulum

.....wait til tomorrow

[northoftheborder]

5. I do not listen to Chris M. He's like a yo-yo in his opinions.

[BzaDem]

6. Obama has 80%+ approval with liberal dems, and around 45% with the general public.

Not sure what figures Chris is looking at.

[eleny]

7. Today it was on his schedule to kiss up to the right wing

[patrice]

10. "What endures is not the fact of democratic liberalism, bu the myth of it" Chris Hedges in

Death of the Liberal Class. I don't like Mathews, but why are we angry about his attitude toward something that isn't even there?

I just watched the movie Ghandi again last night, so perhaps you'll forgive me my confusion about what it is that everyone is supposed to be respectful about in regards to the Left. Leave the crowds of millions, the population of an entire country, out of it. Let's just talk about the SMALL kind of stuff that Ghandi built that movement out of. Where is it here in America? Where is something anything that the Left/Liberal class has done that merits our respect? Something that justifies some anger at Tweety, Gibbs et al?

Yes, THANK "God", there are sincere activist groups AFSC, Veterans Against the War, Code Pink, PFLG, NAACP etc. etc. etc., but they don't for the most part cross issue boundaries. Will the people who worked on the repeal of DADT use their mechanism/process to help anyone but themselves? And if so, under what conditions?

There is no over-arching cultural movement that can be called the Left. So what is it that Mathews and the President are supposed to give so much political credit to, exactly?

For the most part, it appears that the Left has produced at this point little more than a bunch of keyboard warriors who build internet cliques out of who can say the most angry stuff the most often against Obama. Eventually, we will see just how much constructive issue activism there is in it, unfortunately for a lot of us, by then it will be too late whether there's an actual Liberal movement there or not.

[kentuck]

12. Interesting patrice.

There never was a left. It was all a myth.

I watched part of Gandhi last night. I have it recorded. Why should we expect there to be Americans that think like Gandhi? That's like asking someone to be like Jesus. It's all a myth.

[patrice]

15. Hedges is saying in his book, Death of the Liberal Class, that they'd go up to a point

, such as being against the war in Viet Nam, they'd justify their activism, rather successfully in some cases, with classic Liberal values and epistemology. They'd build big activist demographics out of that stuff around issues, one at a time, and achieve some measure of success, but when it came to revolution instead of just rebellion, once they got something approximating what they wanted, something they could hold up and say something such as "See everyone, we succeeded", they'd sell out to TPB rather than make things uncomfortable for REAL change. So they look like, but aren't really the Liberal Class/Left, according to Chris Hedges.

[grasswire]

16. I call them Utnes.

Because Utne Reader typifies "lifestyle" liberals.

I think David Brooks calls them "bobos" although I haven't read his book. I mean to, because his cultural observation interests me.

[patrice]

18. All of us need to be straight about whowe're working with & what we're supporting rhetorically.

No more smoke & mirrors, at least amongst ourselves.

[defendandprotect]

55. Well, if I may join in, belatedly .....and not that I have any answers .....

but it looks to me that what Matthews is trying to do is the same as what the

DLC/Obama/Rahma/Gibbs have been trying to do ... that is not only to try to

belittle the liberals/progressives, but to suggest they are minimal in size.

If you look at the vote for Obama you see the power of that vote and its thinking

is not at all minimal.

It's a huge voting bloc -- which has been put on ice by the prevailing thought

that there is no where to go. That discussion is, of course, stymied by FEAR --

and by prevailing conditions under which we post here at DU.


Leadership is necessary -- though you can always count on a thread with a long

list of posts saying that isn't so. Well, it is necessary, and the proof of that

is the right wing political violence over 50 years and more -- out in the open here --

and since time began -- always concentrates on destroying leadership. In fact, they

now destroy liberal leadership even before it arises.


We should also note that rather than taking over one nation or one area, they are now

taking us all down at the same time. No one to be left standing to save anyone else.

Yes -- I think there is a huge liberal/progressive base -- and many more who will be

joining us from the conservative side as the reality of what is happening in America

hits them.

We can also see extent of intimidation and near-violence being used to control the left --

arresting peace activists and FBI trying to label them "terrorists" in order to pick up

Homeland Security $$$. The government interference here and in UK with the right to

free assembly. The brutal treatment of protesters over decades now. And it is going

much deeper to control organizing and action before it even begins -- only one example

is a youth in UK who was simply organizing fellow students to protest closing of some

neighborhood club/activity and where he was visited at school and threatened should he

continue.

None of these things happen unless there is a deep concern among the elites about those

who will likely join to defeat them. And, I'd suggest again that this isn't only what

we describe as "liberals" right now --

It is all Americans who are waking up to understand the Capitalist crime wave taking our

government and that we are all labor and are all subject to having our lives and well-being

stolen from us -- and our children destroyed.


There is only one way the right wing can rise and that's by violence -- stolen elections --

lies. Stopping the violence of the few is an age-old question still unanswered.



:)

[patrice]

57. I don't disagree with anything you say here. My objection is to defining that non-existent thing

that we NEED, the Liberal Left (and I'm saying that it doesn't exist based upon what Chris Hedges describes in his book Death of the Liberal Class) . . . in defining the Liberal Left, rather than everyone just throwing around a label and thinking it applies when there is no real concrete coherence . . . in defining the Liberal Left rather than just parroting whatever calls itself "the Left" says . . . in defining the Liberal Left, I object to what appears to be only ONE uniting trait, destroy Obama. I object to making an identity out of a REACTION to someone/something else, rather than making an identity out of concrete stuff, such as: what people are actually doing, work in exchange for work, inter-issue prioritization and strategizing, experiential data, . . . .

Most of what I see appears to be Obama-hate, and it's being propagated anonymously for the most part and the whole question of SHARED goals and process is rarely asked let alone addressed. When we put so much more attention into what "we" are not and little into what we concretely actually are, there's little ahead but being taken further advantage of and the increased pain and violence inherent in that.

[bluestate10]

31. The majority of posters here worship Keith O and Rachel Maddow.

And Ed S on MSNBC. Because those three consistently say stuff the the left and far left, and marxists agree with. Matthews don't say what they like, so his observations are somehow null and void. Keith, Rachel, Ed make millions each. Have the three ever pooled some of their millions together to start a venture capital fund that would fund companies that manufacture only on the mainland USA, or to fund startups that work on developing inexpensive alternative energy sources, or companies that work on developing inexpensive working solutions to the environmental problems that our nation face? The left, far left and marxists will argue that Keith, Rachel and Ed have no more of an obligation than any other american to help fund companies that work to make a difference, and to a large extent such voices are right. But most americans, while worried abut the issues mentioned, don't go on national shows every weeknight and rail against companies that are screwing those issues up. While Rachel, Keith and Ed do not have an obligation to do it, their leading by example and encouraging their viewers to join in with whatever they can afford, would result in one not insignificant blow being struck against the forces that are off shoring jobs, defiling the environment and slowing the development of alternative energy sources. Keith O seems like a good person, I applaud his work fund raising for Free Clinics and his championing the man and woman whose house was allowed to burn down because they had not paid some pitiful ass-ed fire service tax, but even with some good, Keith O is in a prime position to do far more. So is Rachel and Ed.

Obama gives me the willies due to his preference for compromise, but at least he is making meaningful and important change, inch by painful inch.

[patrice]

42. I think that's something Chris Hedges would agree with. They SOUND like the Left, but they aren't it

One of my highest criteria for "Leftness" is that we would not support, nor engage in any action that further harms those who are already most harmed by what America has become, not that those folks can't choose themselves to endure the harms of change in one way or another, just that no one can just assume that it's okay to use them "for the greater good". There HAS to be a line of somesort and that seems like a good one for me.

Which brings up why I have been so uncomfortable with what I think is a lot of Libertarian stuff going around characterizing itself as "Left" here on the DU and elsewhere. As a Liberal, I respect Libertarians, I'm glad that they are working to legalize MJ, I suspect that they are not as disturbed by Citizens' United as I and other are, but more than that I am NOT okay with what looks like their ends-justifies-the-means manner, most currently manifested, IMO, in anti-Boomerism, which I would be able to just tolerate in and of itself, if I didn't think it likely that it is growing out of a Libertarian desire to "reform" Medicare to death with the Republicans' help, so that it doesn't become a door into Medicare-for-all/Public Option Health Care.

I just mention that as an example of thinking about how to BE the Left and high in my list of criteria would be to say that the Left does not intentionally hurt people, especially those who are already paying way more than the rest of us for what "we" have become: the poor, middle-and-lower-class elderly, disabled, and other disadvantaged. Laudable beautiful ends aside, I won't work with people who use uninformed disadvantaged others.

[gateley]

11. The woman I work for who is generally a Dem-leaner (but financial

conservative -- they all say that) said "most of the country is in the middle. Do you agree with that? Because I'm submerged in DU and my friends are of the same mind, I tend to think that EVERY Dem thinks like we do.

What do you think?

[kentuck]

13. I think political campaigns are campaigns of propaganda...

And the person that has the best political campaign will win the election. It has little to do with anything else.

Some politicians are favored by the monied class. The other side is an underdog. Issues matter little. It is how they are sold to the people. Propaganda is the new warfare.

[Imajika]

23. The truth is, most of the country isn't paying attention...

It's not that they are in the middle so much, it's that they don't follow politics much at all. I would guess about 1/4 or more don't even know who the Vice President is.

Most people generally know some stereotypes about each party. Over long periods of time these stereotypes change somewhat. For example, for a LONG time Democrats were just flat out considered weak on defense. Clinton was able to change the public's view of that, and Obama has largely erased it completely considering he is definitely not a dove when it comes to defense issues. Republicans were considered the party of less taxation and spending, an image they lost during Bush's 8 year spending spree. The point is, people generally only remember vague stereotypes about the party's.

This country is religious and tilts to the right. I know many people here and on the left in general don't want to accept that, but it is true. What makes life so tough on progressives is that we are trying to change things, we are trying to "progress" to something better. It is much harder to try to explain new ideas and policies than it is for conservatives to just basically say no and push for going back to some better time in the past. Progressives are about change, and selling change is just very difficult.

We are not a very enlightened people. Not saying much of the rest of the world either, but America being extremely religious limits people's acceptance than we humans can make great strides towards perfecting society. Remember, traditional religious types do not believe mankind is even worth trying to perfect.

[patrice]

25. Your last sentence is an very valuable and useful truth to keep in our heads.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. As Religious As America Is You Still Have High Level Of Support For Rights Of Gays

And other heretofore disenfranchised groups . And it's getting higher...

I don't think being religious and being enlightened or tolerant have to be mutually exclusive...

[Imajika]

32. We won the DADT because we reframed the debate extremely well...

Last time around we argued it almost purely as a civil right issue. The issue was about fairness to gays and lesbians.

This time around we argued it as a "if ANY American wants to serve their country, we should let them".

There is a difference between the two approaches. One is an argument about advancing minority rights, the other is an argument that "hey, even if you don't care for me, I am willing to die for the country you believe in so why not let me".

And yes, it is true, attitudes are changing when it comes to gay rights. It is not that religious people can't become more enlightened, it is that is very difficult to achieve and these people are subject to regressing rapidly.

[bluestate10]

37. Yes. Democrats won the sound-bite debate around DADT. nt

[Enthusiast]

36. This country tilts to stupid. nt

[bluestate10]

39. You can.

Sit back and call people that you violently disagree with stupid. Or you can sit and carefully listen to what they are saying. Most of it is senseless bullshit, but if you listen carefully enough, you will find that many people are afraid and uncertain. Life for them in a changing world is getting tougher, no longer can they live well with just a high school education as many of their parents and grandparents did. I think that if you listen and come back with practical, well thought out answers for their fears, you will find that some of the people that you loath and view as extreme are actually good decent people.

[NCarolinawoman]

54. gately, I think more Dems are "liberal", but don't actually know it.

They don't realize that if they support Social Security, medicare, clean water, clean air, safe infrastructure, etc., that these originated as liberal (left) policies.

Many, including blue collar type Republicans, take all this for granted, as a way of life.

If conservative Republican policies finally take hold (and it looks like they will) maybe these same people who now call themselves "moderate" (or in the middle) will finally connect the dots. Most people are clueless as to how very Liberal (left) they really are.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. I'm inclined to agree with him on this

[NNN0LHI]

17. The left never thought they could have everything

At least the smart ones didn't.

Don

[patrice]

21. True! That's one of the absolutely weird things about being a true Liberal!

Absolutism is the opposite of Liberality. We recognize the NECESSITY of relative truths. This is what makes us inclusive and being inclusive means, at minimum, that I must at least entertain the possibility of co-existing with some honest truths that I object to. The up side of this necessity is that it FORCES me to know, in as much detail as possible, which is what in terms of what a Liberal finds acceptable/coherent and what we don't. However, there's always that logical tension in realizing that you, as an honest Liberal, cannot demand everything (because that would be the opposite of Liberality). That cognitive tension IS what drives all of your "doors" open, though, thus increasing the probabilities of higher validity that may have not been inherent in whatever preceded them.

Thanks for saying that NNN0LHI! Personally, I think it's an essential trait of being the Left. As uncomfortable as it makes us, as much as we wish it were otherwise, you can't claim what you do not yield to others, because that turns you into the thing that is anathema to you. So the problem becomes how to get others, especially the most obnoxious and hateful amongst us, to live by this ethic (the Golden Rule) too.

[kentuck]

40. Yep.

We should not permit that lie to continue that progressives wanted everything. That is not true. There were some things that were absolutely unacceptable under Bush and the Republicans. We simply cannot bring ourselves to compromise on them, such as Guantanamo, torture, rendition, spying on Americans, lying to start wars, taxcuts to the wealthy that are going to cause the rest of us great harm in the future, etc...

[patrice]

46. I think in terms of priority and processes. First things possible first, other possible things later

with commitment and clarity and with sticking together as things get worked out and being up front about helping one another.

[kentuck]

49. Do you think the Administration is on the right path?

What should be our priorities?

[patrice]

51. The administration is on the path that it is on. A more important question is are we on the right

path. And either including or excluding folks based upon whether they agree with m/your perspective on Obama is, IMO, not the right path. This should be about what people DO.

1. Work in exchange for work
2. Stick together/Respect
3. No harm to the disadvantaged amongst us.

[kentuck]

52. You mean, act like Democrats?

Jobs and respect and compassion and all that stuff??

[tomm2thumbs]

19. the Left Wing gives the moderates room to exist at all

and frankly carry water for the Democratic Party when everything is said and done.

It's like the kid who crops his hair, paints it blue and spikes it into a mohawk - those 'rebels' give room for the rest of us to have long hair, maybe give it a color streak or two, and still work at Starbucks or BestBuy, etc and not exist in a world of crewcuts and rule-minding that the Conservatives spray on us like so much 'reason repellent'.


Matthews is lost in his own rhetoric. For his information, moderation wouldn't get rid of DADT - in fact, it is the VERY THING THAT CAUSED IT.

[patrice]

22. 1+~

[meow mix]

30. rec

no kiddin!

[bluestate10]

35. I completely disagree that moderation would allow DADT to continue.

Clinton made the compromise to prevent an even more objectionable policy from being implemented by Congress. One can look back and say that Clinton's compromise was bad, but one never experienced what could have taken the place of the compromise.

Whether you will admit it or not, DADT has been has been repealed because moderates saw the insanity of the policy and cast their vote to end that policy. Liberals would have been smothered if their vote alone was all that could have been gotten to repeal DADT.

[tomm2thumbs]

56. actually I'm referring to the last 17 years of moderates

My sense is that there would have never been a vote at all had progressives not been the driving force. 17 years. Show me a moderate who led the charge on this over the 17 years it was in place. I'd love to hear it. At least those who ran for office avoided the issue, danced around it or sided with the 'not my department' way of thinking.

Moderates by nature are followers of policy change, who move towards a position after much of those around them have shifted to that position. I'm not saying it is bad, only that it is not a driving force of change - more the caboose of change that is led by progressive action. I'm not saying they have to be dragged kicking and screaming, but I do think they avoid controversy, don't step into the spotlight on issues that affect others unless it is egregious, and basically abide by a live-and-let-live way of dealing with things. Moderates have a role, but it is not the role that brings change, but one that constantly seeks 'compromise'. That is okay in many instances. I feel compromise has no place when it comes to civil rights.

17 years. I guess we had no significant population of moderates these past 17 years. Glad the new crop is here. Love more of 'em.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. I'll Give It A Stab

I think your garden variety liberal likes a market economy as long as the poor are looked after, the rules are obeyed, and everybody's civil rights are protected. They aren't looking for a radical reformation of society; to create a new man if you will...It is the latter who are disappointed in this president.

[patrice]

24. The "latter" are an important part of the process too. + In local politics, you keep running into

people who REALLY are just interested in the nuts and bolts and gizmos and widgets of HOW things work. They're less ideological and more political, like mechanics, more interested in the ways that issues interface with the status quo than anything else.

[bluestate10]

26. My politics put me in the general area of where Matthews is.

Chris is dead on when discussing many issues. I like liberals more than I like conservatives, yet I consider myself pure moderate. One of my bones with liberals is that they demand more than political realities allow and when they do not get what they want, they act out.

I am still steaming about the governor's race in my state, where far left liberals could have prevented an effective governor from being re-elected because he did not give them some of their pet projects. In the end, moderates, liberals and independents stepped up to the plate to reelect the governor by a comfortable margin. But my disgust with my far left political brothers and sisters remain and I can't make it go away because my mind keeps going back to the intransigence I saw from them in blog posts leading up to an awfully close election.

[patrice]

29. I like my Green Party friends too, but . . . , nuf said. I wish there were some way for

the different parts of the spectrum to come together and work out a way to help one another where the actually DO share goals.

[bluestate10]

33. There is, but all of us have to come to the table being willing to give up

something, in exchange for items that we keep and get implemented. In a sense, this is why I am so angry at the Greens in my state, they were wholly uncompromising, even as polls indicated their vote was sorely needed to prevent a republican who was bashing the poor, had an anti-gay platform and was willing to give too much to business from getting elected. I have warmer feelings for the independents and conservative democrats who saw the danger and voted to re-elect the governor than I have for Greens.

[patrice]

48. The Greens I know are very much in the let-it-crash-&-burn so-we-can-start-over category

[Enthusiast]

34. Yea, Tweety said he felt

all "towel snappy" when Bush landed on the aircraft carrier. He is real credible. :sarcasm:

[City Lights]

38. Dissing the liberal wing of the party is all the rage today.

It happens here, there, and everywhere.

x(

[bluestate10]

45. Debate is healthy.

If you take that as dissing, I am regretful. I honestly like liberals more than I like conservatives, even while as a pure moderate, I am sort of the illegitimate child of the two. As I stated earlier, my bone with liberals, and conservatives, is that both groups insist their way is the only valid way and generally refuse to compromise to get at least part of what they want. My view is that even if I am 100% right but have to compromise to get a fraction of what I want, time will show that I was right and more compromise will bring policy closer to my original vision.

[kentuck]

47. If you are drowning...

to throw one more straw to you will not prevent the worst from happening. I think this is part of the left argument also. Inch by inch is good but it is not enough to save us at this time. We need to get serious.

[Raine]

44. The left...Tweety's favortie scapegoat

I can't stomach that ass anymore. :puke: x(

[defendandprotect]

50. Why would anyone be watching Chris Matthews?

It's the Orwellian TV model in action --

[Hannah Bell]

58. the left of his party is the canary in the coal mine, being as they actually know the score.