Musings on politics, foreign affairs and culture.

23rd
FEB

Carry the Flag

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

I’m just as confused and disappointed as Chris Bowers is by Obama’s non-defense “defense” of the term “Liberal” in Austin yesterday (and good grief, if there’s anywhere on the planet you don’t need to make excuses for Liberalism, it’s Austin TX).

For me, Obama’s appeal is inextricably linked to the re-branding of American Liberalism.  It’s about fighting a conservative noise machine which has spent the last 25+ years turning the word into a pejorative.  It’s also, incidentally, about taking the word back from the likes of Chris Bowers, who often hold a flimsy and indifferent view of the word.  Linguistically browbeaten by the Right, the factional Lefties and careerists now prefer the label “progressive.”  Their attachment to this word is lacking however in any kind of ideological foundation, and has simply replaced one word that once held meaning for another lacking in meaning. 

Are they La Follette progressives?  Bull Moosers?  Does this mean they support socially conservative policies of the past, such as prohibition?  Are they isolationists, or are they Wilsonian progressives? 

Believing that you hold the patent on “progress” doesn’t necessarily make you a progressive.  Words have meaning.

Thus, Obama’s wavering on the matter is a bit of a letdown.  This is a sharp departure form what has otherwise been a bold, Reaganesque attempt to sell Liberalism (when truly understood) to the American public.  It’s instead a wishy-washy trek down the road of “third way” triangulation, and it is a road that leads to nowhere.  

More at memeorandum.            

Share this:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • blogmarks
  • Live
  • Ma.gnolia
  • Pownce
  • Reddit
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis

Reader's Comments

  1. Ron Chusid | February 24th, 2008 at 9:52 am

    I wish we had an actual transcript. I wasn’t impressed by First Read’s account but it is a pretty limited account. The problem might be with First Read’s report rather than with what Obama actually said.

  2. C Stanley | February 24th, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    This seems to prove what a lot of us have been saying for some time now; that Obama’s supporters have mostly been reading between the lines and projecting whatever they personally ‘hope’ for onto his rhetoric. Kevin, for you, it was apparently a hope for a return to liberal policies being promoted without need to be defensive about it. For others, it was a hope for a ‘third way’ politic, a Bill Clinton redux. The latter is what’s been attempted to be sold to Republicans and independents who lean right- we’ve been hearing how Obama is willing to look for solutions that draw the best from both sides of the aisle. I’ve never seen enough evidence to believe that’s true, and apparently some of his supporters like yourself haven’t believed that this was what he was truly proposing to do either.

  3. Kevin Sullivan | February 24th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    Well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.  I said it was disappointing, I didn’t say it was a deal breaker.

    Barack Obama promotes the Liberal domestic policies I’m inclined to agree with, and in foreign policy–be it through his speeches or policy positions–has taken an anti-war stance, but with a great deal of discretion.  This is more important and substantive to me than whether or not he talks like Ronnie, but yes, it was definitely appealing. 

    If anything (as as Ron said, we can’t be certain), this should reassure the Republicans and independents who have been drawn to him.  If he won’t stand by the word, I wonder if he can stand by the ideals.  As A Blairite, I’m not opposed to a third way/moderate approach.  But take care of the big issues in the process.   

Leave a Reply