Reply #119: Good points and a good question... [View All]

[silvermachine]

<<<...But can it be argued that this nation was ever a truly liberal nation?>>>

Politics is rarely seen to make sudden changes unless the country is in the midst of a crisis that leads to a citizen uprising or an armed revolt. The nature of political change in a relatively stable nation is one that is gradual and incremental. Long term goals are achieved by a consistent and unified message. The right are not afraid to take their lumps for unpopular positions. They keep plugging away, using any means they can until they gradually change the playing field. There are so many things that are commonly accepted today (especially in terms of disappearing personal liberties and freedoms) that were laughed at 20, even 10 years ago as lunatic (RW version) fringe. What has become the "center" is what "right-wing" used to be. And it was done by persistance of message. While I appreciate her call for unity, it seems more like her version of unity means "just agree with me and everything will be OK".

<<<Taking a very long historical view the only time a progressive/liberal type of government was in power in the last 150 years was a short 30 or so year period that encompassed the new deal, WW2 and the post war years up til 1970.>>>

I don't think 30 years is anything to sneeze at...but Dems got complacent and lost focus. I guess we thought the fall of Nixon would just guarantee us the WH for years to come.

<<<Our leadership since then can not be considered progressive, so I again posit the query "Is this nation truly progressive, and can we elect a truly progressive slate of candidates on a large scale?">>>

Yes, if we want to work at it.