Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
I agree with this.
The neo-cons have controlled the framing of the discussion for so long that the public at large is not yet ready to accept the sorts of things that someone like host might push for, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.
Progressives, first need to get power. Then they need to do well in power. To follow DC's analogy they need to start baking their own loaves and those loaves need to be damn tasty.
Once the public starts to get turned onto the progressive bakery's output, they can start offering things like Clafoutis and Croissants.
Those who try to jump to esoteric too soon, before building trust, do so at their peril.
This is called being responsible and pragmatic.
|
Yes, it's callled "responsible" and "pragmatic", but does it really work? Take Bob Rae. (...Please!) He was so pragmatic and responsible that he's now a Liberal. This is what the Confucians call "rectification of names." And how much progressiveness did Tony Blair's "pragmatism" and "responsibility" win him? He ended up as Bush's justly-despised lap dog. "Responsible" Democrat William J. Clinton was an ineffective president, whose lasting mark on the US was a semen stain.
Bob La Follette, the very archetype of the progressive politician, built his power and reputation by stubbornly sticking to a progressive agenda. FDR didn't sit around trying to prove himself in his first term. The New Deal came almost immediately. And what Tommy Douglas established in the beginning was that he could get his agenda through -- not someone else's.