the boundaries of permissible liberalism

[Iverson]

Best to check rather than to rely on rumor, and so I am checking.

So often, the answer that one gets depends upon the question that one asks, and similarly the political discourse that one gets depends upon what the discourse community says is OK for discussion. Just a couple of years ago, the prognosis was not so good with anti-war demonstrators relegated to a cage down the street from the convention and also physically removed from the floor.

But here we are in the wake of Democratic victories in the mid-term elections, and some of my fellow discussants would have me accept that the following claims are off the table for discussion:
- Dennis Kucinich is one of the few good Democrats;
- Those of us against the Iraq war on principle from the beginning were right all along;
- The Green Party platform is a good idea.

A comparison of post-election Time magazine covers tells us plenty about the mainstream permissible discourse. That is: triumphant charging elephant trampling a donkey (2004) and Venn diagrams (2006). To anyone following the dramatic rightward shift of the political landscape in the last generation, that's no surprise.

Tell me that this discourse community has resisted the tide recently. If not, then rah rah go team.

[nealmhughes]

1. Well, some of we Kucinichite Guardian-reading, lentil-eating, sandal-wearers

have not changed one iota.

The Greens have a good platform: the problem is that they are not Democrats, and have been beset with schisms galore -- enough to make them only an alternative voice (which should be within the party) and acting as spoilers.

[Iverson]

2. Thank you for the feedback.

You seem to be pretty clearly affirming that for discussion, the things I mentioned are not beyond the pale.

[Jed Dilligan]

3. Have you read Coming up for Air by George Orwell?

1938... His hero, Fatty Bowling, dismisses socialists as "sandal-wearers and bearded fruit-juice drinkers." Maybe the political landscape hasn't changed all that much?

[TahitiNut]

4. The only reason to avoid discussing such obviously true statements

... is to avoid embarrassing the drain-bamaged 'liberals' who're deluded by the corporate media, imho. Those of us (including me) who were opposed to the Afghanistan war were right all along, too. I personally regard that as a KSOTO.

I sometimes ascribe it to callow youth ... but that'd be ageist. :silly:

[gratuitous]

5. What I particularly like

Is the unspoken assertion that as the country teetered on the brink of outright fascism just a couple of weeks ago, us "liberals" should be very, very careful and circumspect about coming back from the brink to, say, proto-fascism or even cryptofascism. It's almost as if folks who are our ideological soulmates really rather like fascism, and we endorse something else at our electoral peril. "People won't like it if they share in the wealth their record productivity has produced!" "Be careful, if everyone has health care, they'll just go out and get sick or something."

I don't understand it in the least. And the political depradations we've been subjected to for the last quarter century, from the voodoo of supply-side economics through Iran/contra, the prostitution of the judiciary, and the ideological enslavement of government programs, are all now the status quo, and we risk returning to the political wilderness if we restore some balance and make government work for everyone instead of just the overrich.

[TahitiNut]

6. Well, the 'centrists' would apparantly support killing only about 350,000 Iraqis.

Gotta love that 'middle ground.' :eyes: 'Moderation' means kinder and gentler forms of torture.

[Lilith Velkor]

7. Some of our fellow discussants are corporatist scum

...who wouldn't know principle if it walked up and slapped 'em.

[Ms. Clio]

8. I just believe it is so out of touch with real Americans

The midterms were a referendum on the war, i.e., occupation, and not by "fixing it" with more troops, more money, more deaths. Six out of ten say they are happy the Dems took control of Congress, because they expected a different plan,not more of the same or worse, a deepening involvement.

Are the Dems really going to squander this opportunity? Because they will surely be the convenient scapegoats for the blame as the disaster deepens.