An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Another Joins the Disenchanted Majority
Last week, we heard one blogger explain his departure from the political right. This week, we hear a different blogger explain her departure from the political left.
Good for both of them. And welcome to the “disenchanted majority,” a term I first used three-and-a-half years ago, in an old-media op-ed (no longer available online), to identify those of us who live in a diverse space between the contemporary poles of political debate.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
22 Responses to “Another Joins the Disenchanted Majority”
If Palin gets the nod, I will be jumping ship and might bump into a Dem jumping off because he dislikes the “necessary” war.
If Palin gets the GOP nod I'm writing in Joe Liebermann.
Well the disenchanted majority needs to wake up to the fact that neither one of these two major parties are serving anyone's interests other than their own and their donors. I read an interesting article yesterday, Liberals are Useless. I'm not familiar with the author, but suffice it to say that he isn't all that happy because he thinks Obama hasn't been liberal enough. I've often found myself a bit upset with Obama in terms of foreign policy, but I think he's just trying to get along with everyone. But catering to the middle doesn't seem to do anything except tick off each side. The result is that one party stays home to “teach their party a lesson” while the other party is so upset that they vote in some loser just because the right letter is behind the name.
The choice is as simple as it is clear: independent and third party opposition to the Democratic and Republican Parties or continued subjugation by the Democratic and Republican Parties.
It makes me wonder who he thinks the liberals were, meaning I am pretty left myself but I am not fond of Dems I am fond of Obama. I do understand his position considering I had the same moment over the same issues, I fully back the Afgh policy and I know that those on the actual left do not. I also know many on the right will find much to disagree with because he is not of their party which gives me pause for our nations future. Do not get me wrong you may hate the O man but if our nation can no longer have a moderate president that follows the path he thinks is in the best interest of the nation in a pragmatic way we are left only with ideologues on both sides that are completely blind to anything that does not fit into their ideology and nothing gets solved because both extremes are insane. It does make me wonder why he thinks he was a Dem though only because I have always found it so difficult to call myself one for the same reasons he has now chosen to leave the party. Maybe I am looking at this wrong, maybe the fringes are shrinking while the middle grows which would be a healthy evolution for our nation but due to recent history I have my doubts. Good for him though lockstepisim is demanded in both parties and is a sign of not only irrationality but also not thinking for yourself.
“”Like Lyndon Johnson who escalated in Vietnam, Obama lives in mortal fear of being called a wimp by Republicans. To look strong in front of swing voters he will sacrifice the lives of hundreds of US soldiers; allow many more to be horribly maimed; waste a minimum of $30 billion in public money; and in the process kill many thousands of Afghan civilians. It is political theater nothing else. The real purpose of these 300,000 [sic] soldiers is to make Obama look tough as he heads toward the next US presidential election. In short, he used Afghanistan to show that we [sic] was not the soft, meek, scared, pussified, little Democrat portrayed in GOP spin. There is nothing else to Obama's Afghan strategy. Victory in Afghanistan is reelection in 2012. Whatever the outcome, Obama has made it clear: he is willing to kill to get reelected.”~From the link above of the liberal defector
*********
The liberal defector, from how I read the article, takes issue with the above quote. However, it would stun most people to learn how accurate it really is. There is more than a political re-election motivation though. Obama chose to deploy more troops to hold an important ally, India. [and thereby Britain, Canada and Australia]. So his motivations aren't purely selfish per se. His intent is to bolster our world strength in doing so; which is a good goal and worth the price paid if there wasnt' a second alternative that would bring many more countries on board and restore our respect…just “cuz”.
It was a poor choice IMHO to opt out on the cheaper and more just option to try Cheneyco in world court. Obamaco. are too slavish when it comes to Chicago-style politics which dictates: don't mess with the bigger fish in the pond. So easy to send out 30,000 people who won't make a peep to retaliate against your decision, rather than a dozen or so evil men who thump their chests in fury should anyone dare to hold them accountable for their actions..
Maybe its a matter of where you are viewing it from but from my perspective Obama sacrificed what would have likely been an easy re-election for the Afgh surge. An act of political courage in an era of ideologues that I would have found impressive even if I did not agree. I do agree with the surge just to put all of my cards on the table but I see no “opportunity” nor any hope of one that he could see benefitting him more than harming him. In my opinion if he wins in 2012 it will be either because the GOP chose an extreme candidate or because the middle comes out strong for Obama, a very large gamble and not one that I am used to politicians no less presidents making. In the end it may just be possible that he cares more for America than he does for his own career or the democratic party.
Like you, I give credit where it is due. I think O acted the way he did for the good of the country, not to appease anyone and risks not being reelected. He now has the benefit of lots of intelligence (fingers crossed) and really “considered” (Zzzzzz) all sides and opinions. I will put my faith in him until proven wrong. Sorry to say, left Dems, probably would have preferred that he had punted.
Couple points. 1st, Charles Johnson was never on the right. He might have been a fellow traveler regarding extremist Islam, but, pretty much all his other view were to the Left.
2nd, too often the word liberal is used the same as “lefty” and “progressive.”Just because someone is a liberal doesn't make them a lefty or a progressive. Just because someone is on the right doesn't make them a Conservative. The hard left, the progressives, are the most vocal, and the ones you hear from the most.
As far as Afghanistan goes, Obama said time and time again that Afghanistan was the good war, and he would put more troops in. What did y'all expect him to do? Are you saying he was lying in order to pump up his national security cred?
Well put and not stated as much as it should be.
Beautifully stated, sir!
BFD, self important bloggers left or right… they only have one vote and can only vote once, same as me a complete nobody.
First off, there are more than two views on most political subjects. Even your “begin born gay” example has been argued from more than two sides.
Secondly, I'm not too concerned with liberal, conservative, or moderate, since I've found the labels to be highly flexible and oversimplified.
But people's stances on subjects can change, not because what they want has changed, but because they see better ways of accomplishing their goals. If you read both the left and right deserters, neither gave up on their principles, but both decided to stop following their leaders.
It's more important to think for yourself, understand the other sides, and be able to spot the bias of everyone, including their deception and distraction methods.
What say you?
“Maybe its a matter of where you are viewing it from but from my perspective Obama sacrificed what would have likely been an easy re-election for the Afgh surge.”
There is even more anger tonight, some of it directed at Obama (for not fighting hard on its behalf) and much directed at the Democrats (“whores … and I apologize to sex workers”) by the “progressives,” who are saying tonight the same kinds of things that Silhouette has been saying, for example, about health care “reform” and weaking the public option and a federal government role in favor of “forcing people give money to the same parties [insurers] who created this mess.”
* * *
“people's stances on subjects can change, not because what they want has changed, but because they see better ways of accomplishing their goals”
Experience, maturity, and wisdom typically moves people to outgrow their naive, unrealistic, and often immature kind of liberalism and become more conservative. (The most interesting liberals are those who became that way after maturity.)
And those that study history and the real effects of law then move from conservatism to libertarianism! (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
And yes, I've had the pleasure of debating with, and learning from, a few liberals and conservatives who had actually thought out their positions independent of the crowds and media. Those are the sorts of people that I could vote for, even while disagreeing with many of their views.
I would love to hear a libertarian perspective on how to build a strong middle class. Without a consumer base, there is no market.
DG, you get a strong middle class when you provide people equality of opportunity (broadly speaking) and let them succeed or fail based on their talents, effort, and luck. Most people will come out in the middle, and you'll have yourself a strong middle class.
Simple get rid of fiat currency and get rid of all corporations not functioning purely in the public interest. It would take 10-30 years probably but a new middle class would grow out of entrepreneurs and small businesses with currency that did not continually devalue. Sadly many libertarians forget the corporation part in which case you are right there would be no middle class.
Simple get rid of fiat currency and get rid of all corporations not functioning purely in the public interest.
And, who would determine that? Answer, the government. Sorry, I get dizzy watching my cat chase her tail, and Utopian dreams. Perhaps you have a more modest suggestion, I'm not giving up my Ding Dongs yet, even though it would improve my health. (Did I fall in a trap, were you joking; not too sharp this morning.)
Nah it is a simplistic explanation but it was in response to a simple question. The first step would be the most difficult, meaning deciding which ones live and which ones die initially but that is due to us running so far in the other direction. Basically corporations would need to be broken up or sold off to the highest bidder, in many circumstances though they are already majority owned by specific people or families that usually are the founders or are in the family line of the founders but that is also because most corporations are rather small. This would move us back to an ownership society and neuter many of the negative effects from capital collectivism(the one the Randites tend to ignore) meaning distortions of the free market and distortions of local markets due to large capital rich mutli-national corporations. They are inventions of government and therefore distort the market much like the others for instance medicare or medicaid.
Your Ding Dongs would either come from the guy or group that bought that portion or the entire corporation that had previously delivered them since they would still be a money generator and highly desirable for investment but being privately owned they would be held more accountable for their products than corporations are now. Eventually those that “live” or are created though should resemble their historical brethren in the manner that they would be given this special status to do the bidding of the public or the gov(for instance NASA) a good example would be alternative energy sources, companies that want the special status, maybe with funding maybe without, would focus on research and development as well as delivery of this needed technology. The corps that succeeded would benefit their stock holders and those that failed would lose the investors capital, in other words corporations would go back to their more short term historical roots. After it has served its purpose the IP rights and patents would be auctioned off to private entities for further sale research and development and the profits would go to the corporate investors who could then invest those profits where ever they wish. The main difference for me from that and our current system is that gov distorts the market and takes away liberty but I think that is due to size not that gov is inherently evil, similarly corporations are not inherently evil but they distort the market and take away liberty but most concerning to me they encourage a lack of responsibility for the company its acts and its workers when they are to large too powerful or too well connected. They can force out competition buy up IP rights and patents and refuse to allow them to compete in the market against in some cases inferior and inefficient technology.
I also forgot to say that we would also need to reform IP and patent laws but it is also imperative for a libertarian government if it wishes to have a large and vibrant middle class. I would not call it Utopian though, I may have painted it a bit to shiny but even with a large middle class those on the bottom would likely be much worse off than they are now and those at the top would have free reign in the market which historically has not been beneficial to freedom nor a middle class. The middle class would also have to be more independent and agrarian like than anything we know today since consumerism and independence are technically opposites.
I did feel it important to answer the question though since I believe it is possible but the pain of the transition would be extreme since we are basically headed in the exact opposite direction of that and have been since at least the 1860's. It is not an approach I would prefer but it is one that I would be pleased with and feel that could be very successful but of course the strong central federal government could also not be allowed to continue either though so it would be forced to roll back to our states rights roots which of course would mean we would no longer be a global economic nor military mover and shaker that we have been for the last half century.
I understood the part where my Ding Dong manufacturer would not be put out of business, the rest not so much. Thanks for the modest proposal.
My take would be to get corporations off of government teats. That would also apply to laws that are meant to stifle new competition or favor one industry over another.