Three overall questions, then: 1 - How do we usurp the term "progressive"? Practically, we could try to separate the term "American liberal" from "progressive" and show how the terms are different. The big issue is that we need to get it through people's heads that we're not "liberal-lite" or "conservative-lite", and utilizing the term "progressive" might cause conservatives to look at us as nothing more than a front for liberalism. 2 - Anger can lead one to action, but it's dangerous when the anger doesn't dissipate before action occurs. How does one remove the anger prior to action? Do we want a pissed-off president with his hand on the nuclear football or an angry congress ready to indiscriminately cut defense and education programs simply because they have an angry constituency? 3 - If the citizens of a country understand that a congress must act in a deliberative manner, then there's no issue with massive omnibus bills. If a congress is forced to push out these massive, unwieldy bills in extremely short periods of time simply to react to public pressure, though, then we deserve what we get (Real ID Act, PATRIOT Act, and pork-filled atrocities). I don't disagree that, sometimes, some horse trading is necessary, but when we have political power, we should promote honest, deliberative discussion in congress on individual issues rather than developing giant, frankenstein legislation for nothing more than ideological attention. How do you get citizens to understand the nature of congress?
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Billy, > > On Jan 10, 2012, at 9:19 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > I agree that pessimism added to centrism produces populism. > But it this necessarily a bad thing ? The best answer is "it depends." > What is the anger directed against ? An appropriate object of anger > and populism is a good thing. Anger in defense of racism or any other > form of injustice and then it is an evil. > > > You could go so far as to say "populism == anger", and turn this into a > discussion about the value of anger. > > I like to say anger is a great stop sign, but a lousy street sign: it > tells you something important is happening here, but not where you are or > where to go next. > > > On Jan 10, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Mike Gonzalez wrote: > > I can go with "rational evolvement". Popper called the concept "piecemeal > social engineering". He thought the difference between piecemeal and > utopian engineering was, "the difference between a reasonable method of > improving the lot of man, and a method which, if really tried, may easily > lead to an intolerable increase in human suffering. It is the difference > between a method which can be applied at any moment, and a method whose > advocacy may easily become a means of continually postponing action until a > later date, when conditions are more favorable. And it is also the > difference between the only method of improving matters which has so far > been really successful, at any time, and in any place, and a method which, > wherever it has been tried, has led only to the use of violence in place of > reason, and if not to its own abandonment, at any rate to that of its > original blueprint. > > > I guess "incremental utopianism" would work for an oxymoron. Though > "rational evolution" is also a nice oxymoron, and as a bonus contrasts well > with "intelligent design". > > -- Ernie P. > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community < > [email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
