Originally Posted by Odysseus
Obama is not a progressive. (Traditional liberal) He never was and never will represent Matt Damon or any REAL liberal cause. He is a national candidate and has done nothing for the special interests as he has been so wrongfully accused. He hasn't erased urban poverty, erased racism, or improved anything for anybody. He has survived. Nobody remembers or completely understands what a serious disaster Bush. He left a crater deeper than 911 and a change in political thinking that has scarred this nation deeply. It is not entirely Bush's fault but the college textbooks haven't completed unraveled what happened in 2008.
The problem with conservatives is they refuse to realize the business opportunity from in-sourcing and the many clever ways a profit can be turned benefiting both the people you scorned as well as your friends and neighbors. Conservatives have a certain blood lust these days.
The problem with liberals is you cannot approach an immoral and greed centered anti social beast and expect it to want to do anything more than breed or consume. If you do not learn business it will continue destroying whatever it touches.
The problem with moderates is they lack imagination to bridge the gap between these two knuckleheads.
I was surprised at how high Rocky Anderson came on my survey. He was right after Jill Stein but Obama came at the top of my choices. I was hoping it would be Jill Stein.
I personally believe that progressive solutions are the most pragmatic. Why? Because they have a track record of success on the ground. It's not a philosophy that some drunk, narcissistic, sociopath dreamed up, or a code of economic voodoo written on a napkin. It's a set of applied principles that worked in the past to such a degree that they created the most prosperous era in American history. Since we jettisoned those policies under Reagan we have been on a downward spiral until, once again, we find ourselves in the ruins of a once prosperous economy, which is what has happened every time we have tried this kind of "redistribution to the rich" economics.
Just this morning, I was listening to a report on what is happening to hospitals around the country. They are losing more and more insured patients and costs are rising. Why? Because insurance costs are rising too quickly, people can't afford it, and more and more Americans are dropping health insurance or switching to policies with enormous deductibles that they can't afford either. So what happens? The insurance companies raise rates again on those who can still afford it to make up for those who can't. See the death spiral there? Sticking up for such a system is not pragmatism. It's suicide. When Kaiser first brought up this idea of for-profit health insurance to Nixon he stated it was a "flim flam." Nixon wasn't stupid.
Not standing up for principles in this case means trading in what works for what doesn't. Incrementalism is the statement that we are going to inch our way back, over decades, to what we know actually works and in the meantime, live with what fails. That's neither pragmatic nor sensible.