"The country must be governed from the middle," Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters Wednesday. "You have to bring people together to reach consensus on solutions that are sustainable and acceptable to the American people."-New Congress must govern from the middle. FoxNews
Nancy Pelosi has made this statement as a guiding principle for Democrats. Combined with President-elect Obama's constant assertion of centrist ideals, this should provide a great deal of clarity to the American people as to what to expect in the next two years. This message was sent out the day after the elections, in a style that both major parties in Washington D.C. use to announce to what ends their agenda will serve.
Nancy Pelosi just defeated a political challenger from the Far Left, Cindy Sheehan. See:Pelosi defeats Sheehan. SFGate. This in of itself should send a message to the center and center-right as to where San Francisco and Berkely liberals truly stand. And if San Fran is voting down the Far Left, then the Far Left really have no "base" of operations, and are thrust into the wilderness.
Note: I hope the Far Left die in that wilderness. Or better yet, start plenty of powerless non-profits, everyone of which will likely buy copying machines, computers, office furniture, hire a website programmer, and pay a graphics artist to create a logo. ( Hey Revolutionaries, Thanks for the $$, and good luck telling each other you are right(eous). - the Economy. )
I have an acquaintance who lives in Wasilla, Alaska, and wrote the day before the election with these fears that are being discussed in his local church: After Obama is elected, laws will be implemented that prevent people from speaking their beliefs, specifically people will not be able to say "I believe gay marriage is wrong, and against the wishes of God". The other thing some at his church are afraid of is gun rights being taken away. One of his local church leaders is buying extra ammunition, saying that if Obama wins then he may not be able to legally get more ammunition.
Here are my responses to all the above:
- This is not "funny", and I think any big city liberals that make fun of such concerns exacerbate the cultural rifts and the potential cultural war.
- I have attended the nation's most extreme left colleges over the last 8 years, and absolutely YES, there are leftist extremists in those schools who are after the things my conservative Wasilla friend is fearful of, and these extremists almost always vote Democrat.
- Most important point: With Obama and Pelosi's declared intentions, these extremists don't have representation. They are like the KKK who voted for George W. Bush, in that they may feel more resonate with one party than the other, but their agenda doesn't have traction anywhere it matters.
I believe the Democrats are going to rebuild the public part of this country -the parts that make all of our lives and livelihoods work. For too long we have had a fear of the Far Left, and run to shakedown artists feigning they give a sh_t about conservative values, or any values. We had to kill two birds with one stone to kill either one. With Obama, we did -the Far Left and the Republican shakedown artists are both swept into the dustbin of powerlessness. Tip for America: Keep both of them dead by keeping both of them dead.
Posts
2 comments:
Hi Lance. This is a great post; I am in agreement with you.
By the way, I have been seeing Naomi Klein's book, Shock Doctrine, out of the corner of my eye for some time now (a character from HBO's new series "True Blood" is reading it in the pilot episode), and tonight I finally looked up some reviews of it. The New York Times reviewed it twice. Have you looked at this book at all? Do you have a position on it? Just curious. Thanks for the blog-break, now it's back to grading papers.
(To Brian: no I have not read Klein's Shock Doctrine.
I'm guessing the book is an expose' on the economy that was in synch with the GWBush agenda, an economy that made money off of pathologies such as war. )
More "The Center":
My idea of "Center" is loaded with a lot of meaning.
Let me explain what I think of as not center, aka "fringe" or ideologically pure agendas.
Keep in mind that personalities are not an important part of this conversation. Crusty old fishing boat captains in Maine, NASCAR fans in Alabama, and gay graphics designers working for Disney are cultural extremes, but not an attempt at political coup.
I am talking about groups or individuals who want to shape Federal legal-scape towards their pure ideology.
Examples ( may be offensive ):
1) My aunt was elected to city council in Waterbury CT in the mid 1990's. Here is her agenda: America is for white Protestants, everyone else is lower than human status and a guest worker at best. When she visited me in Seattle, she freaked that an Asian was working at the rental car counter. There thousands of little things she does to wage her economic and cultural war. She wants the non-white non-protestants in this country sleeping in slave quarters, gone, or dead.
2) Religious people who do not believe in taking a life. Working to "starve the issue", they try to gain positions of power, or vote in a representative resonate with their belief, they try to impose a
totally fine personal conviction onto our general laws or foreign policy, effectively forcing those outside their ideology to obey theirs.
3) Primitivists who want to re-wild the Earth. Zero-growthers, also. The more stealthful gain positions of power and then "starve the issue" by blocking instances of development, rather than coming out
and stating their belief that all development is bad.
4) Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Want to repopulate Seattle with their brand of Christians.
Centrism, to me, is civic discourse ( especially including legislative deliberations writing laws) where all the above extremes cannot be part of the conversation. Personal conviction and choice are driven back into the home, private school, monastery, or nutjob ranch where the believers can drink all the poison kool-aid they want.
The poison of Postmodernism, in which all discourse is a liar's war to gain power for your tribe or your tribe's agenda, has set deep into our civic discourse since the 60's. We do not work towards public space being for jews, arabs, blacks, protestants, vegans, pacifists, deer hunters, and
urbane gay Disney designers - rather, we work for ONE of those to own it and the others to obey that owners rule set. I hope Obama's regime
is alert to this poison, and gives a deaf ear to its operatives.
Centrism gets Interstate bridges maintained, reasonable FCC regulations implemented, prisons built, and colleges funded. I just thought of something funny that may be a good check on whether an agenda belongs in the general civic discourse: If it makes your heart beat faster, or makes your sentimental glands feel all good because something heart-felt is getting done, then it is probably entirely inappropriate, and is a case of your personal preferences being forced on your ideological opposites in this big and complex country.
Post a Comment