Triangulation, right-drift, the freedom from principles DOES test loyalty and tolerance

[HereSince1628]

The success of a "liberal" politician drifting rightward directly depends upon tolerance of voters that remain to the left.

The steps rightward are known to be risky, they create a dynamic that depends on testing if the steps have gone too far...and soothing of an anxiety never far from the surface. It demands reassurance, something psychologists might refer to as narcissistic supply.

Please don't blame the left for this fear. Please don't think people on the left are actually producing that fear through unspoken desires for secession from party traditions and principles.

That anxiety is autochthonous, a dissonance that's self-generated as a by-product of flirtation of the margins of the tolerance of others.

It -really- isn't the left of the party that's pushing that margin.

[HereSince1628]

1. Kick'n because surely someone takes exception to it

[Baitball Blogger]

2. "Freedom from principle"

Well put. That's the problem with triangulation and Thirdwayers. How can you respect them when their end game is capitulation to ethical standards?

[HereSince1628]

3. The failure is allowing the sometimes useful tactic of triangulation to become a strategy

triangulation -requires- politicians are unfettered by principles so they can -always- move closer to the base of their opponents AND YET command the loyalty of their base.

This inevitably strains tolerance. What we're seeing now is a significant part, if not majority, of the base seeing that drift as having gone too far away from what has long been the party of -the people-.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. I would almost be on board

if it were easier for any ordinary joe or jane to sue those that use this government approach to get away with fraud and conspiracy. Because it really does get that bad when federal projects rely on "local customs" to get it done.

[Enthusiast]

4. This is the result, nation damaging legislation.

[whereisjustice]

6. The pressure moving Democrats right is the same pressure moving Republicans to the right

This is about control of a population's wealth, making sure the transfer of wealth from the lower classes moves in an unobstructed manner to the smallest minority making up our ruling oligarchy.

Hillary Clinton has been carefully engineered as an instrument to facilitate this process with little or no dissent from the "far left". Her interest in American families is so synthetic it should be listed on the periodic table of elements and come with a material safety data sheet for hazardous material.

Today, anyone who thinks GMO foods should be labeled and calls out dragnet citizen surveillance as the wrong it is, is called a left-wing extremist. Those hurling the "far left" label would have been called fascists in FDRs time. Now they proudly identify themselves as pragmatic.

We all can all see through the motivations pushing us to the right. But few are brave enough to challenge it. Like global warming deniers, they think it will just go away by itself if they ignore it long enough.

But every year, they chip away a little bit more from us.

Good post.

[HereSince1628]

7. Both may seem to be going right but I think for different reasons

Certainly it's true under 'prevailing wisdom' that it's all about campaign money and so both parties have campaigns that move toward what the money is paying for...unfortunately that's a direct invitation to corruption for any party that pursues it.

But the r's aren't really moving away from their base in the same way that the right side of the democratic party is. The democratic right is moving toward more or less traditional economic conservatism...less social spending more incentives and government facilitation of wealth pursuit.

To me the republicans seem to have a large, noisy, perhaps majority contingent that seeks to destroy the federal system in the name of complete deregulation of libertarian pursuits.

[whereisjustice]

8. Well, letting insurance companies formulate mandated health policy is as radical as it gets for

the political party that claims to have the best interests of the working person at heart. Not exactly Medicare for all.

And who would have predicted the Civil Rights party would advocate dragnet surveillence of ALL communications of ALL its citizens? How are new outlets supposed to monitor corruption? How is dissent supposed to formulate into a viable and peaceful opposition?

And the Martin Luther King Party issued little more than a tap on the wrist to a municipality whose entire economic base was funded by farming arrest fees from Black residents like livestock.

And then there's torture and Wall Street crime...

So, in summary, these are (some of) the basic issues around Civil/Human Rights and both parties have clearly moved to the far right of their perimeter.

Now, there's one other thing - keep in mind the mantra of Democrats willing to "reach across the aisle".

What would you do?

I'd move to the extreme and force my opponent to go FAR outside their comfort zone to negotiate. I can do that because Democrats have conceded up front that they are Candy asses and will always meet me half way. That's what Republicans are doing.

In the end - Wall Street has both parties exactly where they want them in a complex game of good-cop/bad-cop.

Repub: "America - You need to eliminate social security."

Dem: "America - look, I'm trying to be the good guy here, if we privatize social security, we won't lose it completely. Or you can deal with my teabagger friend over there."

Once again, it's Wall Street for the win.

[HereSince1628]

11. Yes. It's moved to help corporate profitability and reduce social protections

while arguing to strengthen safety, that later is a sacrificing liberty to assure security sort of thing
I think of those things as sort of traditional conservative approaches.

The tea-party assault intending to destroy federal government is something else. It arguably has nothing to do with strengthening government to provide greater security.

While destroying the federal government and it's spending it may help the would be hyperoligarchs more easily control states, but it's really not a mechanism I recall as traditionally used to facilitate greater corporate profit. Traditionally that seems to have been a more of a pigs-feeding-at-the-federal-trough sort of thing.

[whereisjustice]

12. Well it seems they only want to destroy the Government since a Black man was elected...

From what I know, the tea party was an astroturf organization funded by corporations using money laundered into PACs etc. It was designed to capitalize on neo-confederate rage that started with the militia movement - that took off with a Black man as president. They were so frighted by a Black man that they literally became unhinged at the seams.

The tea party *corporate* leaders don't want to eliminate government, they just want it to exclusively serve their interests at everyone else's expense. The tea party is a convenient instrument fo this. I also believe tea party members know this. But they don't care because they are getting attention and making inroads at local, state and government levels on religion, abortion, evolution, poll taxes, etc. And just look at the idiots in Congress now.

Even though the possibility of extreme violence exists with the tea party, certainly the corporate chickenhawks who live behind gated communities have nothing to fear from the hell they are creating.

For traditional conservatives, though, dragnet surveillance on ALL Americans is extreme and clearly unconstitutional. I agree the lack of concern from "opposition" Democrats, however, is rage worthy.

To me, the sanity meter in both political parties is in the batshit crazy level. The right-wing extreme operating in both parties is something designed by Wall Street to keep both parties working against the middle class.

Seriously - its the middle class that was first attacked by Reagan as evil, the war is now perpetual and firmly ingrained as orthodoxy in both parties. TPP is the latest stab in the back by the Democratic Party.

Perhaps it's the fault of behind the scenes MBA types who think they can micromanage every detail of our lives by treating us like cattle, but the corruption, complexity and double dealing in Washington has never been so extreme in both parties.

I'd like to scrub the place down with bleach and wash it down with a fire hose.

We are not livestock to be farmed and harvested at their pleasure.

[HereSince1628]

13. Obama has been mistreated but there's documentation r's wanted to kill gpv't even before 2001

Grover Norquist: I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

Interview on NPR's Morning Edition, May 25, 2001


That sentiment is pretty clearly behind Newt Gingrich's 1994 congressional election white paper seeking to take out a contract on America that would destroy the government as we knew it.

Obama has been mistreated and I believe it does involve racists behavior.

But I think it's much much worse than racist attacks on Obama. It's racist attacks on Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Indigenous peoples, non-Jewish Semitic peoples, women, the aged and elementary students, and pretty anyone employed by government at any level...other than active military, and elected republicans.

[99Forever]

9. And it works...

.. to a point. The pushback for betraying your "base" can be fatal.

Some feel we are already there.

[HereSince1628]

10. Yes as a tactic once in a while neutralize an opponent with me-too

But, even then it depends on tolerance from the voting base, because by definition it requires moving away from home base.

Yes it looks like we are near if not at a fork in the road.