Lately there has been some rumblings from both the left and right about Obama moving to the center particularly with respect to FISA, faith-based initiatives and the death penalty.  Contrary to conventional wisdom, FISA is the only reversal Obama has made. The latter two are positions that he has held for quite some time.  It seems as if both those on the left and the right assumed Obama to be an orthodox liberal primarily because of the National Review ranking, HRC was running to his right as the Democratic primary was coming to a close and the candidate’s own failure to clearly state his positions.  

I came across an article by well respected, supposedly left-leaning journalist, Mr. Chris Hedges, on common dreams.org, a "progressive" news site which I sometimes visit though I hate that label, and I felt compelled to respond to his hysterical screed on Kos, so that maybe us "liberals" can learn to avoid hysterical, childish outbursts and instead develop a firm, realistic morality in the face of our GOP opponents.

For far too long have the GOP claimed the moral high ground, and the fault is in liberalism and the Democratic party, since liberals too often leave issues about morality, justice, and what is right, up in the air.  

"Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fuckin' fool, OK? Everybody! No, no, no... Everybody's so busy trying to be down with a gang. 'I'm a conservative.' 'I'm a liberal.' It's bullshit. Be a fuckin' person. Listen. Let it swirl around in your head, then form an opinion. No normal, decent person is one thing. I've got some shit I'm conservative about, and I got some shit I'm liberal about. Crime? I'm conservative. Prostitution? I'm liberal!" --- Chris Rock

Just something to think about before we get started here. This is going to be a pretty thick diary, and you might not want to wade through it unless you're ready to do some thinking.

Imagine, if you will, a private organization - let's call it the United States of America Foundation (assuming the name isn't already taken).  Suppose that it is made up of a group of citizens who would like to "model" the United States government as it's supposed to be, bound by the Constitution and human rights, and who regularly elect/appoint "models" of all the three constitutional branches.  

Barack Obama’s perceived move towards the center has irked some among his legion of supporters who have backed him because they thought he was a genuine liberal who would stand before Americans and convince them that liberal policies are good. On FISA Bill which enshrines immunity clause for telecommunication companies, on Iraq, on gun control and on abortion, Barack Obama seems to be following the centrist course. Some of the reactions from these supporters are valid; and some aren’t.

I came across Chris Bowers' recent Open Left post via Ferris Valyn's critique, and I began composing a comment addressing the Bowers post that ballooned so rapidly I figured I might as well just write a diary myself on it.  I disagree strongly both with Bowers' premises and his conclusions, and agree with Ferris' critiques, but I examine different aspects of where Bowers goes wrong and some elaborations on why.

As much as I'd like to cut loose and seek some comfort by writing a fun, apolitical diary full of cats, rainbows and unicorn farts, I just can't do it today. I'd like to see if I can do my part in alleviating some of the tension on this site as some of its users are in full-on panic mode and are consequently saying some very foolish things.

There's quite a few things wrong with the now commonly held assumption that Obama is "moving to the center." Some people say he's doing the politically expedient thing and selling we lefties down the river. Still others insist he was never that progressive to begin with, and has always been a centrist Democrat.

First of all, a person's political ideology is hard to identify in the first place because it's so very subjective. One person's center is another person's far-left.

Second, how is it that we Kossacks, who are normally so sharp when it comes to detecting a manufactured media outrage story, are suddenly so credulous? Are we now listening to the very serious people who are telling us that our nominee is moving to the center?

And finally, even as we ask ourselves whether Obama is moving to the center, he is continuing to fight for progressive ideas -- even though we may not notice it in our current state of limp-noodle mumbling and hem-hawing.

This is the fourth in a series that has thus far included Why the Left is Right on...  Gay Rights, Why the Left is Right on...  The Death Penalty, and Why the Left is Right on...  Abortion.  In it I will briefly explore some of the problems with the current American health care system, and why I believe that these problems would best be solved by Democratic proposals for universal health care coverage.  

For full disclosure, I note that I recently filed bankruptcy because of medical bills accrued when I did not have insurance - and my brother and my mother both still have no health insurance at all, so it is a personal issue for me.  

During my years at NYU, I would venture down to Chess Shop every so often and get my rear and its estimated rating of about 700 kicked until it was all red and sore by players left and right, young and old, lucid and not-so-much (God bless all of them).  I can count on one hand how many times I've won over a period of eight years.

That's not the point.  The point is how I played, once my position was lost and resignation was the smart thing to do.  Once I was clearly losing, I played on, determined to force my opponent to take as many moves as necessary to force mate.  I would take all but one moment shy of being bothersome before moving.  I would count to fifty the number of non-pawn moves and non-captures my opponent made.  I would utter these ridiculous one-liners to express my frustration ("yes, that move was definitely not worth the book deal").

I did all of that, because I knew it was too late.  I didn't feel like admitting defeat.  I just dug myself into a deep hole because that was the only way I would allow my opponent to win.  But I always knew it was too late.

Sometimes, that's how I feel about the liberalism in American politics.

I've always been a liberal; even a rather radical liberal in my youth. But now I have to rethink all of that. I think I am becoming...it's hard to say it out loud...a conservative. It's been a frightening thought. I've been fighting it off for awhile. I've been trying to ignore it. I thought of trying to call it by a different name, to see it as just an aberration. I even considered joining a 12 step program that would help me rid myself of these awful obsessive thoughts. But now I have to face it squarely. I think I am really becoming a conservative. Not one of those neo-cons or fundis, but a real conservative.

To free my soul and go on I need to confess it publicly. Here, at D-Kos, may not be the best place to do this, it being such a liberal blog, but perhaps that's a good thing. I'll take my battering here, among old friends, rather than expose myself to Rush, or O'Reilly, or Hannity. I don't think they'd really understand anyway.

"Woe to the worthless shepherd Who leaves the flock! A sword will be on his arm and on his right eye! His arm will be totally withered And his right eye will be blind."

As an Atheist, I very rarely ever use biblical quotes but I thought this one appropriate for the subject. Although I just may be one of the few Atheists that truly loves gospel music, but that's an argument for another day.

PS. Before I get any other larry bird wannabees writing me, I am not saying the Boston Celtics are a racist organization. If you use your eyes...you will see I am talking about the city of Boston

That's what I was told at the end of a performance review that devolved to the real purpose of the review. I had been called to task for questioning (in my mind draconian) policies instituted by the Corporate Office. Not anything major mind you; in fact I was really joking and don't take the policy as any great burden on me.

It has now been ordered from on high, that men cannot wear earrings at work. In fact, I had been "following" the edict even before it was codified.

I work in San Francisco at a boutique bed and breakfast in the Nob Hill area; the Corporate Office is in Laguna Niguel, Orange County, California. Corporate insisted upon this unscheduled review to address my "attitude" and whether it impacts the guests and my fellow workers.

I am fifty-three years of age.

Is "stealing" for the sake of ideology justified in 'any' sense?

Most of us of any ideology would agree Robin Hood (or Zorro) was -- and is -- a Hero.

Are the students who boast about stealing from "non-unionized" stores justfied in that sense?

Is this a natural outgrowth of socialism, or misguided liberalism. What?

Someone wrote me this, and it really made me think.  Not about whether or not I'm clueless, because I'm not, but rather about what 'my planet' is all about.

What pathology (0+ / 0-)
is necessary for one to equate the forced taking of one's income by government for redistribution as "compassion"? Do you have any inkling of what true compassion is?

I really cannot believe someone could be so clueless. I may as well be asking the color of the sky on your planet.

When I was little, my Dad taught me never to be the one to start a fight -- but if necessary, to be able to be the one who finishes it.

What we are in right now is a struggle that will involve ourselves, and our children and quite possibly their children too. Calling it "the long haul" is a bit of an understatement.

As Americans, we tend to look at things as being on a relatively short timeline. Jimi Hendrix lived a long time ago to most of us. His music is "classic rock."

Well what about Herbert Hoover vs. Franklin Roosevelt? What about the abolitionists vs. the anti-abolitionists? That's the kind of long, protracted battle I'm talking about.

Dean Barnett has read George Packer’s essay heralding “the fall of conservatism “and judges it “not particularly insightful.” Barnett specifically takes Packer to task for failing to acknowledge a “simple fact”: it is not conservatism that is heading for a fall but the Republican Party. Conservatism is one thing, Barnett argues, the Republican Party quite another, and one cannot conflate the enduring principles of conservatism with the party that is serving as their vehicle in the political arena. Those principles, according to Barnett, include “a belief in free markets, free people, and in the greatness of the American people and the American nation.” These are not talking points that will pass with the political season. They make up a “set of core principles” that are now and will always remain “timeless…pure and, in the eyes of conservatives, true.”

Just sitting here thinking to myself about random stuff as always, and one thing that often reaches my mind is: how is it that so many different people converge into a similar political mindset, yet people who lived very similar lives hold such stark differences. So naturally, the question I pose on here is to inquire how we Kossacks became liberals. This isn't to ostracize in any way those of you who are centrist/moderates to even conservatives, neither those of you who lean farther to the left of "liberal" (I probably am somewhat of a libertarian socialist myself) as this is not my intent; rather I simply recognize what this group most represents.

Obama is blessed with a deep resonant voice and fluent delivery. Luck of the draw, and part -- but only part -- of his incantatory appeal. Why do his speeches stir so many so deeply -- even people who resist, who ask themselves where's the beef or remind themselves that they're opposed to his policies?

When Obama speaks off the cuff, he pauses and stammers and audibly thinks his way through. In his speeches, there's tremendous fluency, but the intonation still follows that think-it-through rhythm. Long pauses spring rolling clauses; short "on the one hand" setups march slowly uphill toward long "on the other hand" torrents.

Many have complained that Obama's speeches are short on substance. If "substance" means concrete policy proposals, this is sometimes true and sometimes not. Often his laundry lists are as long as Hillary's. But the policy discussion, lengthy or not, is always framed by Obama's personal historiography. That's where the real charge comes from.