The Daily Kos - The Voice of Progressive Reason??
I submitted my previous article (with some major rewrites to clear up my often times drab and confusing garble) to my diary in the Daily Kos. I figured, what the hay, it’s a progressive website and I’ve always thought that people to my political left were far more rational and reasoning than people to the far right of me.
I consider myself to be a moderate and thought that a moderate piece that discusses the practical effects of what Democrats might expect if they vote for certain candidates, would provide a fresh approach to this argument that the Democrats keep having. My intent was to create a debate that I don’t think has been visibly present in the news media or any of the commentary that I have seen thus far. What I got wasn’t debate. It was mudslinging, it was people sticking to their guns, it was truly the very worst example of what the true believers represent.
It didn’t help that I became upset at some of the comments expressed and decided to fight fire-with-fire, but I was dismayed that they couldn’t even see the broader point of the argument being presented. I think that we as rational, intelligent human beings owe it to ourselves to consider opposing points of views even amongst our friends. Some might think that this is hype, but I read the columns written by George Will, Bob Novak and others (I don’t read Ann Coulter’s or Phylis Schafely’s anti-gay crap) if for no other reason but to stay informed of the opposing viewpoints out there (also, sometimes it makes for good comedy when i’m feeling down, like i’m sure the liberal columns do the same for my more conservative former classmates).
But as I like to say, back on the farm….I couldn’t believe the seething and contradictory statements that were made. For example, one of my commentors made an offhand remark about Hillary’s support for lobbyists and that lobbyists weren’t people (I honestly don’t know how that could possibly make sense). So when I responded, I pointed out that they may want to consider joining camp Romney, who has amazingly made Tom Tancredo look moderate on illegal immigration by turning illegal’s from being human beings, to the object of scorn, ridicule and all that is wrong with America. Lobbyists, like illegal immigrants are people of flesh and blood, and like McCain said, are “God’s children too”, regardless of what people might think of them. To which, someone then responded, so to are crack dealers and drug users. (Without getting to much into this, yes, crack dealers and drug users are. They deserve the decency that our criminal justice system provides them with and the punishment that is metted out to them. The point - you may not like who they are or what they represent, but don’t deny them their humanity). It blew my mind how liberals (and presumably some moderates) could be so contradictory. I previously reserved that status for the conservatives whose social and religious views I could never reconcile.
This wasn’t what I thought Democrats were capable of. I knew that the far left was itching for a fight, but I don’t think in my worst nightmares, that I could have envisioned that they could become so vitrolic and resentful for showing public support and affirmation for a moderate candidate like Clinton. If that’s the kind if irrationality being exuberated by many of my fellow Dems, then no wonder it seems that 2006 was really people just voting against Republican’s than actually voting for Democrats. I sincerely hope that this doesn’t continue, because it’s not a winning strategy.
Here’s some more examples of the “Voice of Progressive Reason”:
We need her (10+ / 0-)
- like we need a hole in the head.
According to Hillary, “lobbyists are people, too.”
we need a member of “The Fellowship?” (6+ / 0-)
- I don’t think we do.
I also don’t think we need another president with whom corporate America is this comfortable.
I want somebody who TERRIFIES corporate America.
I could be wrong.
The Daily Kos - The Voice of Progressive Reason (as one commentor pointed out), I don’t think so!
Tony can be reached at Tonylnbv@Gmail.com
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Unfortunately emotion, not reason, is the currency of political debate in these degrades, sound bite driven times.
Shook your boots a bit? Where have you been that you didn't recognize some of what you don't like on the Right being on the Left? Hillary Clinton is not extreme enough, nor is she really a moderate…
If you are looking for a website with lefties that can debate rationally (for the most part), I suggest Newsvine. I've been a member there for a while and it is majority liberal. Really liberal, but they can talk through issues with being vicious. At least, most can. There are some who take the Kos route, but they usually either calm down or get banned.
This was my exact reaction back in January, when I really joined the internet political community. I hate the far left just as much as I hate the far right, if not more, because, as you said, us Democratic moderates would suppose that they would have more sense. You mentioned you read far right's articles to get their point of view (and to laugh a little, which I do too - Fox News is hilarious). I do the same thing with the far left. I read reddit.com all the time. Reddit.com and Digg.com. Those two sites with DailyKos ARE the far left. Luckily, it seems that they only exist on the internet, and are just a small, loud minority.
Clinton is a moderate? Huh? What your article reveals is that your a liberal who thinks it's complimentary to call yourself a moderate because moderates are open-minded. Truth is that so far I haven't read much from you that leaves the 'progressive' reservation - you've built caricatures of the political perspectives around you and lord over them in self-congratulatory style. So it is with moderates. There are shades within political philosophies - one can find those who declare themselves libertarian conservatives or a libertarian liberals, but what those words mean usually signify is that a person so called has studied political philosophy, deliberated over the issues, and finds themselves at a place on the spectrum that is not cookie cutter conservative, liberal, libertarian, socialist, anarchist or fascist,etc. Moderates think that anyone who calls themselves Republican, Democrat, etc., chooses not to think beyond whatever those movements allow - that's an arrogant position that speaks more to the insularity of moderates than to their target's willful ignorance. Those who call themselves moderates I believe reveal themselves to be intellectually lazy, politically liberal, or politically insecure. They wield the title as a cudgel, shaming those around them who dare speak forcefully, and misinterpret the confession of being a conservative or a liberal as evidence of the mind trapped in a maze of its own making. No doubt by now your moderately non-plussed and your mind races with examples of political diarrhea worthy of your opprobrium - but cannot such examples, from anywhere on the spectrum, simply be recognized for the ignorance it is? Certainly Hillary doesn't consider herself a moderate, and any study of her life and the political stances and decisions she has made over a lifetime of activism will tell you that. I don't think less of her personally for being a liberal, I just choose not to vote for her or the philosophy because of it. I find is sad that so many on the left have chosen to abandon the 'Liberal' label for the taint that it has earned - rather than fighting to remind people of the proud tradition of liberalism, to take back the pejorative and refocus America on those things once redeeming. But then I am reminded that much of what liberalism once stood for has been abandoned for the new leftism - called with coy irony 'progressivism,' who's new Gods are global warming and the anti-war movement. Or worse, exchanged for the nebulous title of 'moderate.' Those so named do not represent a willingness to think outside the box, they represent a willingness to put everyone else into one. There's nothing open-minded about that… Read this:http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-kotkin2...
Well, I always thought I was a liberal - but not for the reason d' existence I found on line. Oh no, only if you hated America, had no real knowledge of current events or American history and could use cap locks you were in. Wanna debate? Example - back when Iraq was a mess I went online and found some of the most bizarro comments made on KOs or Rising Hegemon or Firedog that were, well - incorrect. Trying to point this out with alternate counters or a dose of optimism was like trying to preach at a casino. There was aboslutely NO tolerance whatsoever for opposing views - no matter how saavyily presented. To this day a couple of them prowl my site and try to agrravate me. While I do like attention - I think it's because they never forgave me for countering their weak, inappropiate handwringing. One point no one has mentioned: sites on the right temnd to be more anyalytical and idea oriented than most on the left - particulary Foreign policy and events. On the left it's all emotion - so chaotic, incorrect and so needy(?).
"One point no one has mentioned: sites on the right temnd to be more anyalytical and idea oriented than most on the left - particulary Foreign policy and events. On the left it's all emotion - so chaotic, incorrect and so needy(?)." That's hilarious only because that's the EXACT SAME way I think about right vs. left blogs.
Happy happy generalizations… No no, that's not even a generalization. A generalization would imply the majority believes this. That's not even true.
"That's hilarious only because that's the EXACT SAME way I think about right vs. left blogs. " That is a hilarious only because that's the EXACT SAME cat who proved Neocons were correct all along (by accident and unintentionally - no less) while trying to plead a case for mythical, magical multitudes of moderate tolerant mohammedists. Careful simmons - you might make the case for something else you disagree with.
Or….maybe he calls himself a moderate because he doesn't relate to the polarized positions of the Representatives of either of today's major parties. Your response was just alot of academic nonsense. If you really want to be academic, open your history book and look at what President pushed NAFTA through, it was a Clinton. You'd be hard pressed to find any Big Business Republicans referring to that as liberal. Don't out-think yourself, there are alot of people in this country that call themselves moderates, and it's for good reason. More elections are won in blue collar coffee shops or local taverns than are in the often overstated classrooms of the academic world. Real people call themselves Dems, Repubs and Moderates…..anything beyond that is a faction of the population that has no sizeable influence on national elections.
Maybe it's cuz I have the flu, but whatever you're trying to say I don't understand.
Hope you get to feeling better soon. Lotsa water and sometimes that musinex works well. Just a funny reminder of the time you countered Roger's 'Rasslin' w/M'hammed article with the simmonsized 'the other muslims' response. Because that post had nothing to do with tolerant, enlightened, egalitarian, non honour killing, non gender apartheiding mohammedists that you impled were around to counter Roger's picture of intolerance, hate and a glorified death cult. That incident went far to make a risable impression that may very well be the same for your other 1st impressions.
I'd agree with this - newsvine is a great resource. Some great insights here by the way
Hey now….I–as a lefty, am driven by my emotional take on current affairs…that being said, I too once bought the day pass to ride the Koz-mobile on a regular basis. What I soon learned is this is a fairly closeted crowd, more willing to troll an essay than expand upon the same. In my opinion, Kos jumped the shark some time back, but I believe the current group of regulars has had something to do with the ultimate sell-out. But-there's always a but–the interview of Markos and MYDD compadre Jerome Armstrong by Tim Russert–about a year and half ago–caught my attention and drove me to the keyboard. If the Kos can be credited with the jump start of blogging souls like myself, then the site has proven worth while.