Mike : You could not have asked better questions. Let me take a stab at some answers, below, in BF. Necessarily these must be provisional in nature. You went directly to essentials and, to be honest, to do justice to your concerns, would take some hard-nosed research. Billy 1/10/2012 [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes:
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. For now, my solution is to take an educational approach. Explain the difference to anyone who might listen, or to those who use heritage words in an unfortunate way. Yes, not always possible. Just saying that when it is, don't be reluctant to try and explain. Make use of word misuse as an opportunity to evangelize for RC understanding of terms. But, for sure, to try and keep things simple, make a sharp distinction between TR and post-WWII use of the term "progressive." Argue on behalf of cherished heritage, viz Teddy Roosevelt. 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? What Ernie said is on the money, if not 100%, pretty darned often. Namely : Anger makes a good stop sign but a bad street sign. But a good answer to\ your question would require a study of the psychology of politics. A very worthwhile project to put on a "to-do" list. I have a dozen other priorities but would like to get back to this subject. If I forget, please remind me. 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? Again , another question that would require some serious research to come up with a decent --viable-- answer, or set of answers. But, yes, it would be valuable to do exactly this. Still there is one , I think, good idea, even if it would cost money : Create a TV channel , like Fox, but do it right. Fox is ridiculous much of the time. But at least they have some things right, and seeing their mistakes should tell us what not to do. This begs the question : Where do we get a few hundred million for start-up costs ? But the point is that with mass media you can reach multitudes and not only that, you can reach Congress, the White House, and even the Supreme Court. Fox's "infotainment" approach, in a good number of its shows, though, has the effect of neutralizing some of the really worthwhile things they try to do. Plus, several of their lime-lighters simply cannot be taken seriously. -- 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
