Many people today are asking why Howard Dean, current DNC chair, is not doing anything to win in November. They want to know where the plan is and what it is? These critics even include many former Deaniacs (from his 2004 bid for the presidency and subsequent Democracy for America members). The mood seems to have changed from, "Give 'em hell Harry!" to, "What the hell are you doing Harry?" The problem with the current negativity is threefold. One, Dean is being criticized for not doing things that are beyond his control. Two, the efforts that are underway are obvious for those who wan t to see them. Three, there seems to still be some kind of irrational backlash against Dean from those who supported other candidates during the 2004 campaign.
First, some things that people seem to expect Howard to be involved in he just plain can't do. For instance, the DNC has been taking flack from the grass roots progressive movement for not backing Ned Lamont in his bid against Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. Problem is, the DNC doesn't take sides in primary fights. How can anyone ask Dean to choose one Democrat over another without alienating Democratic voters somewhere, even if it's ole' "Bush-Likes-To-Kiss-Me-Joe?" Dean himself has said this is so. Others want him to single out and support specific candidates who need help with their bids against Republicans. I'm sure he is trying, however, this year is experiencing a huge progressive uprising and there are new progressive candidates all over the board. Can anyone blame him for not being able to reach them all?
Secondly, people are claiming that he isn't doing anything because they've seen no new strategy from the DNC for 2006. Are they blind? What do they think the 50 state stratgey is? Of course, many are naysaying the 50 state strategy saying it won't be effective and will take away from other more important races. If this is so there is no evidence of it. I believe this is just the establishment, angry over Dean's more grass roots oriented approach and shunning of corporate donations. It is rumored that many establishment Dems have been operating behind the seens trying to create a new party apparatus. Considering the way the DLC, DSCC and DCCC have been acting lately, I believe this to be true. But for those who just won't stop crying for something on which to teethe, check out Tom McMahon's challenge to Ari Berman's bashing from The Nation.
Lastly, when people attempt to counter the negativity concerning Dean, they are often met with accusations of being cultists and other nonsensical responses. These people seem to have some lingering resentment from the 2004 election and all that can be said to them is, "Get over it."
7/25/2006
Welcome to Blue Egg Commentaries
Hello,
I know, I know, what you're thinking! Another blog?!! Yes, another blog!
Here's why.The Democratic/Progressive/Liberal movement in America is not splintered in the way the media and the GOP want us to belive. We do have a plethora of causes and beliefs and don't see eye to eye on every issue. Therefore, we need as many voices to be heard as possible to fill in the gaps. Hence, the Blue Egg Commentaries.
The Left-wing in our country is composed of those members of our society who can, for the most part, think for themselves. The Right-wing does not think. It follows. Many people have begun to explore the potential of this dichotomy. Recently, John Dean's new book Conservatives without Conscience and George Lakoff's Moral Politics have done so from differing vantage points. But whether we call it a need for authoritarianism or strict daddy syndrome, the Right cannot function without being told what to do and how to do it. It can only froth and bark like a dog on a chain. This works to our advantge, but we must network and share ideas in order for it to do so. It is our disagreements, as much as our agreements, that should shape our action.
We are the majority. This is why Blue Egg Commentaries is named as it is. We have always been led to believe that our political spectrum is a linear model with a precise center. This is not so. The reasoning for this model occurs when politics is abstracted beyond people and the dialectic between conservatism and liberalism is divided equally along the line. The press uses this pseudo-logic when it asserts that airing dirt on a Republican candidate must somehow be balanced with dirt on the Democratic opponent (of course, not vice versa), even if it must be spun from wholecloth. We also see this fallacy at work on our campuses where Left-wing political correctness has led to the awarding of degrees to flat-earthers who are said to have generated legitimate antimonies when they have really just professed unsupported personal beliefs (more on this at a later date).
In actuality, our political model should be seen as an egg. If we divide an egg in half, one side will be smaller and taper much more than the other side with a wider circumference and more well-rounded end. The former represents the Right-wing. As we near the end the views become more extreme. The latter is the Left where we, literally, have a bigger tent...uh, shell and can hold a broader range of ideas.
In fact, the whole notion of right-wing ideology versus left-wing ideology is incorrect. Ideology, as used commonly and as used by the media, connotes a rigid belief system where ideas must conform. According to this idea, I assert that true liberals/progressives cannot be labeled ideologues. (This is represented by the flatter end of the egg.) I am not saying, nor could I legitimately hold, that there is no such thing as a Left-wing ideologue. I am, however, saying that ideology and liberalism clash and generate oxymorons. And the Right-wing agrees with me! Why else do they claim we have no message because we don't believe in anything. This is why the Left does not, nor can it, lock step as the Right does. But the Right also cannot change its position or admit that it is wrong.
As for why the egg is blue, I think that should be obvious. I, however, do not subscribe to Yellow Dog Democratism and have many problems with the Democrats, but, as of today, see no alternative (more on that later, too). I would rather have had a blue-green egg, but the Blue-green Egg Commentaries sounds off to me, as does the Purple Egg Commentaries. We must simply remember that, as the political spectrum is not strictly linear, neither is political hue.
Enjoy!
I know, I know, what you're thinking! Another blog?!! Yes, another blog!
Here's why.The Democratic/Progressive/Liberal movement in America is not splintered in the way the media and the GOP want us to belive. We do have a plethora of causes and beliefs and don't see eye to eye on every issue. Therefore, we need as many voices to be heard as possible to fill in the gaps. Hence, the Blue Egg Commentaries.
The Left-wing in our country is composed of those members of our society who can, for the most part, think for themselves. The Right-wing does not think. It follows. Many people have begun to explore the potential of this dichotomy. Recently, John Dean's new book Conservatives without Conscience and George Lakoff's Moral Politics have done so from differing vantage points. But whether we call it a need for authoritarianism or strict daddy syndrome, the Right cannot function without being told what to do and how to do it. It can only froth and bark like a dog on a chain. This works to our advantge, but we must network and share ideas in order for it to do so. It is our disagreements, as much as our agreements, that should shape our action.
We are the majority. This is why Blue Egg Commentaries is named as it is. We have always been led to believe that our political spectrum is a linear model with a precise center. This is not so. The reasoning for this model occurs when politics is abstracted beyond people and the dialectic between conservatism and liberalism is divided equally along the line. The press uses this pseudo-logic when it asserts that airing dirt on a Republican candidate must somehow be balanced with dirt on the Democratic opponent (of course, not vice versa), even if it must be spun from wholecloth. We also see this fallacy at work on our campuses where Left-wing political correctness has led to the awarding of degrees to flat-earthers who are said to have generated legitimate antimonies when they have really just professed unsupported personal beliefs (more on this at a later date).
In actuality, our political model should be seen as an egg. If we divide an egg in half, one side will be smaller and taper much more than the other side with a wider circumference and more well-rounded end. The former represents the Right-wing. As we near the end the views become more extreme. The latter is the Left where we, literally, have a bigger tent...uh, shell and can hold a broader range of ideas.
In fact, the whole notion of right-wing ideology versus left-wing ideology is incorrect. Ideology, as used commonly and as used by the media, connotes a rigid belief system where ideas must conform. According to this idea, I assert that true liberals/progressives cannot be labeled ideologues. (This is represented by the flatter end of the egg.) I am not saying, nor could I legitimately hold, that there is no such thing as a Left-wing ideologue. I am, however, saying that ideology and liberalism clash and generate oxymorons. And the Right-wing agrees with me! Why else do they claim we have no message because we don't believe in anything. This is why the Left does not, nor can it, lock step as the Right does. But the Right also cannot change its position or admit that it is wrong.
As for why the egg is blue, I think that should be obvious. I, however, do not subscribe to Yellow Dog Democratism and have many problems with the Democrats, but, as of today, see no alternative (more on that later, too). I would rather have had a blue-green egg, but the Blue-green Egg Commentaries sounds off to me, as does the Purple Egg Commentaries. We must simply remember that, as the political spectrum is not strictly linear, neither is political hue.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
