Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Tomu: To a degree, but LBJ was probably the last President to hold to the old Progressive ethos; rural Protestants convinced that God was on their side and it was the government's duty to make America a better country.
Back then, progressivism and liberalism were not really on speaking terms.
edited 14th Nov '12 9:35:45 AM by Ramidel
I was just browsing the top articles on TPM
, and I think I see one of the problems with our modern political discourse. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't give you the right to wish death upon them or be as nasty as commenters are on some of those articles. TPM is a liberal-leaning news organization but I see just as much hate spewed from the left to the right as I do in the other direction on more conservative sites.
You don't trap flies with vinegar, folks.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"But yeah, I kind of agree. I think part of the problem here is that politics in general has become so polarized that any sort of bipartisanship leads to people crying about the "cult of centrism".
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianI think having major parties agree on things is not bad if it's representative of the views of the general public. It only gets to be an issue if the public at large feels that they don't have a voice in the system.
Contrastingly, having parties that are too different very definitely leads to obstructionism that just makes everything worse for everybody.
edited 14th Nov '12 10:16:59 AM by Karkadinn
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
a lot of times, at least with my irl conservative friends, I think the issue is simple. We both agree on the easy stuff (people having a right to be happy, free, do what they want with their life, etc)
But our basis for our moral codes and ethics and what we personally see as good vs bad are so diametrically opposite that when they tell me "Thats socialist" all I can say is "yeah, isnt it great?" and all I can say about their ideals is "those ideals only work in a perfect free market and or christian world" and their response is similarly "yes, and?"
Ideally we'd have two parties that are very different, so that people would have distinct choices, but ones that could compromise and find common ground when necessary.
And while I think the "Cult of Centrism" is a term that's often overused, it is a legitimate term nonetheless. There are real, serious consequences to treating ideas as though they have equal merit when they clearly don't. Just look at the whole intelligent design vs. evolution "debate" and the effect it's had on public schools.
edited 14th Nov '12 10:39:27 AM by HilarityEnsues
<Head desk>
This is why I say we should retire the term Cult of Centrism. I've explained what it means a KERBILLION times, but people still don't seem to get it. Yes, it does have to do with centrism-specifically, centrists for hire. That is, people who have a financial reason to be centrist, not because centrism is correct, but because centrism is the middle point between the parties, and there's a media obligation to fill that niche.
But it's not called the Cult of Moderation.
Here
is a reasonably good explanation of the different positions on taxes. Bear in mind that typical Forbes readers probably read the Obama summary as a bad thing.
Reading the Krugman article
Fighteer linked to earlier, I read this:
"...It’s worth pointing out that the fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff. It’s not like the debt-ceiling confrontation, where terrible things might well have happened right away if the deadline had been missed. This time, nothing very bad will happen to the economy if agreement isn’t reached until a few weeks or even a few months into 2013. So there’s time to bargain..."
I think this practically guarantees that there will be no deal before May.
edited 14th Nov '12 11:28:04 AM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.The thing here, is that even when it's used to describe the media, it's still just describing false equivalency. It has nothing at all to do with being centrist politically.
It's a terrible term because it describes something entirely different from what it's supposed to describe.
edited 14th Nov '12 12:06:24 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianYou know it really bothers me that Romney got blindsided like this.
How stupid do you have to be to not even entertain the notion that you might actually lose?

generally, it mostly has to do with finding a common enemy in Progressives.