We Don't Want More Liberal Representatives, We Want Stronger Ones

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
There is this misconception in the press and in Washington that the netroots and other progressive activists want their representatives to be more liberal. The myth is that we want to drag the party all the way to the left and take them away from the center. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We don't need elected officials to be any more liberal or progressive; we just need them to be stronger. Is Senator Schumer's problem that he isn't liberal enough? I don't think so. His problem is that he caves in to the Bush administration on anything that might vaguely be in the "national security" realm because he's scared and miserably weak.

I know that the Mukasey confirmation is a little different because Schumer had parochial interests in mind as well. Well, how heroic! So, he's not only afraid of Bush on national security but also interested in putting his local political machine over his voters' interest. Very heart-warming.

But as we all know, it's not just the Mukasey appointment. It's not just Schumer. It's warrantless wiretapping, it's torture, it's Iraq, it's Iran, it's signing statements, it's the US attorneys firings, it's the Patriot Act, it's presidential secrecy, it's the Geneva Conventions, etc., etc. The list of Democratic cave-ins is so long that it's painful to think about. You could open up a buckle store with all these Democratic buckles.

Just this week, they caved in on Mukasey and Iraq funding. How many times are we going to hear these annoying bloviators talk about how terrible the war is going and then quietly fund the debacle anyway? They must think we're stupid. I like how Schumer and Feinstein coordinated their Friday press releases on Mukasey to take pressure off each other. And they released it on a Friday night. Did you think we wouldn't notice?

It's not that the Senators don't agree with us on the Iraq War, it's that they don't vote that way! I don't need them to be more liberal - I don't even know what the "more liberal" position on Iraq is. I'm not even sure what the so-called liberal position on Iraq is. I know that we should leave Iraq because George W. Bush is never going to figure out the right strategy there and the central government of Iraq is a fraud. Is that a liberal position?

If I thought the central Iraqi government was working, would that make me a conservative? I now think our negotiated deal with the Sunni tribal chiefs is a step in the right direction. Since I think this piece of the Iraq puzzle is working better, have I become more conservative overnight? Or is it possible that these labels are silly?

On many domestic and trade issues, Chuck Schumer is way to the left of me. I don't need him to be more liberal. I need him to have a spine. I need him to stand up for what he pretends to stand up for.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll confirms that a majority of the country is dissatisfied with the Democratic Congress not because they won't compromise with Bush, but because they will.

A majority of independents say that Democrats aren't fighting Bush enough (53% of independents say this, which closely matches 55% of all Americans who agree). Yet, our press tells us that we need Democrats who compromise more. God, do they have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

The press is obsessed with being centrists. I actually think this is a generally positive urge normally. But it needs to be combined with good judgment. You need to consider the circumstances on a case by case basis to see where the centrist position is. The mid-point between Democrats and Republicans is not always the center of the country.

The mid-point between this Congress and President Bush is way, way, way to the right of the mid-point between 1990 Democratic Congress and George H.W. Bush. So, let me ask these wise centrists of the press - which is the real center of the country?

Some can claim that the country has become a lot more conservative. There is only one problem with that thesis. It isn't true. The polls don't back it up at all. Democrats now enjoy huge leads in nearly every issue in the country. And I don't know if people noticed this, but the Democrats crushed the Republicans in 2006. They picked up 36 Republican seats and lost none. That's an amazing fact.

Why do you think this is? Has the country all of sudden gotten a lot more liberal between 2004 and 2006? Of course not. It is a realignment. It's the American people letting Washington know - you have slipped too far to the right, come back to the center!  

The problem isn't that the country is too conservative (or too liberal, depending on the election you look at), the problem is Washington takes so long to adjust. The press and the politicians are still reacting as if we're in 2003 and Bush still has any sway on national security matters. The guy is at 24%. He doesn't have any sway over anything.

Even more importantly, the press is assuming the center of the country is between these Democrats and these Republicans when that isn't anywhere near true. These Republicans are grossly unpopular and these Democrats couldn't stand up to them if you put a wall behind them.

We're all so tired of the buckles. What we're even more tired of is the press telling us that we just want the Democrats to be more liberal because we are left-wing extremists. We're standing right in the middle of the country politically. The difference between us and the Democratic politicians isn't that they are standing to the right of us; it's that they aren't standing at all.

Watch TYT Here

< Election day is the Democratic Party Independance day | Call Hillary, Obama, Edwards and Pelosi TODAY for Cheney Impeachment! >
 Display:

One of my favorite quotes is "all things in moderation, including moderation".

In other words, as you pointed out, there are times when it simply makes no sense to strive to be in the center simply for the sake of being in the center. In fact, there are times when being in what might be *considered* the center actually alienates and disappoints far more people than being further to one side on a given issue.

Obviously it's complicated and everyone, including myself, tends to group people into liberal or conservative (generally speaking, for sake of argument) camps.

With that context, what are the odds that the best answer (however we define it) is to always be exactly in the middle of the two groups? Odds are that on some issues it's better to be further left, and on others, further right, and on some, in the middle.

Granted, I tend to think the answer is *usually* left of center, but not always (see my thoughts on the illegal employer problem for example). 

 

by ihavenobias on 11/06/2007 01:47:24 PM EST


Tom, I saw you put this up on HuffPost too. And I love that quote and I'm going to use it from now on.

by Cenk on 11/06/2007 02:20:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The center has moved left to the real center as opposed somewhere to the right of Germany circa 1935 in my opinion.  This crop of Dems is afraid to even use the word liberal let alone think about actually moving farther to the left.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/06/2007 02:33:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Democrats will CRUSH the Kucinich impeachment drive.

 They've had ENOUGH of his UFOS and antics.

by acroso on 11/06/2007 02:06:58 PM EST


I want to expand this a little:  What we need is not only strength but also courage, in not only our representatives but also in our leaders.  We need government that will set a good example for the people by valuing true strength over military temper tantrums, and true courage over xenophobia and hostility. 

Citizens of the US have a bad attitude about the world outside their own borders and it's not entirely their fault.  When their government sets precedents of pre-emptive strikes and distrust against specially selected nations with ambitions to begin nucleat energy programs, the people follow up with hostility (even worse, now state-sponsored hostility). 

For all their big talk about being "tough" on terror and "courageous" in the face of the supposed global threat imposed thereby, the hawkish among us are, in fact, cowards.  This fact is evidenced by the symptoms of cowardice: Hatred, distrust and violence.  The day that the hawks of the world can be shown the true, cowardly nature of their attitudes will be the day they re-examine their holstilities.  (Unfortunately, part of being a coward is having a tightly closed mind, so I don't think that day is any time in the near future.)

To over-summarize, if you really want to appear tough on terrorism, quit worrying about it so much.  Scaredy-cat.

by OneHitKill on 11/06/2007 08:56:11 PM EST


In every single one of the important issues for "liberals" (by which, I mean everyone who ISN'T a foaming at the mouth Bush supporter), what's the common denominator?

The Democrat who throws the Monkey Wrench into the works has strong ties with AIPAC.

Every,
Single.
Fucking.
Time.

What we need, along with stronger leaders, are leaders who care more about their constituents in America than Israel's policies - which all too often are Neo-Con policies.

by MedfordTim on 11/07/2007 09:48:16 AM EST


While I'm sure that's part of the equation I personally think Big Business (in it's various forms, Big Pharma, etc.) is the special interest that screws us over the most, by far.

That's the main reason why I don't like Hillary.  I can't trust someone who's taken more many than any other candidate (democrat or republican) from the health care industry to actually reform health care in our interest. 

 

by ihavenobias on 11/07/2007 11:53:55 AM EST


I agree that the liberal-conservative labels are virtually useless. Self-identified conservitives like Tucker Carlson say Bush is a "liberal" since he is for big government. Go figure.

I like the two dimensional framework that is used at the Political Compass website http://www.politicalcompass .org/

They show the political field in four quadrants with a horizoontal axis for economic left and right and a vertical axis for social control with authoritarian above and anarchy below .  Using this system, they identify all candidates -Republican AND Democrat -- to the right and the above of center except for Kucinich and Gravel who are in the quadrant to the left and below center.

I think their graph really places the center where it belongs on the basis of issues, not on media fantasies. 
http://www.politicalcompass .org/usprimaries2007

by Gregory Wonderwheel on 11/08/2007 10:44:59 AM EST


You guys have been here before. You know what to do next.SWALLOW!

by KenTX on 11/09/2007 12:01:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Look at that. Ken is turning into BB. How long is it before he puts the -tard suffix on everything and everybody?

by z1p101 on 11/09/2007 12:28:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Of course I'm being over-the-top, but there's an important point. When Mr Newt was Speaker, he controlled the agenda. He laid bill after bill on Clinton's desk, and he forced him to sign or veto. Democrats are hand wringing and screeching about Bush, as if they were totally helpless to do anything about it. Here's a news flash. They control both Houses of Congress. I intend to drive this point home.

by KenTX on 11/09/2007 12:50:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]

But Clinton was not shooting his party in the foot on a daily basis either.

Bush can't afford to put anyone straight up in that position and who knows? Democrats may get lucky again

by z1p101 on 11/09/2007 01:08:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You do do ya? What do you think Cenk has been doing the last few months?  

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/10/2007 11:25:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Liberals must have made the test and put all the people on the right to make things appear imbalanced.

by acroso on 11/09/2007 12:28:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]

favorite one then.

They are both critically flawed. 

by z1p101 on 11/09/2007 12:49:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 50%.

 

Maybe I clicked the wrong answer because I was libertarian liberal. 

by acroso on 11/09/2007 11:26:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: