tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post5121349963957041663..comments2024-03-22T10:49:51.766-05:00Comments on Horizons: The populist committed to dealing with income inequality: President ObamaNancy LeTourneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12614317154146836694noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-55740189827556878682014-01-02T17:46:58.860-06:002014-01-02T17:46:58.860-06:00the Left just like the Right has a hard time givin...the Left just like the Right has a hard time giving kudos to this President...IMO 2 sides of the same coin...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13495861806403242783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-4983812266907642892014-01-02T14:43:19.689-06:002014-01-02T14:43:19.689-06:00The problem with the wordy abstractions of emotari...The problem with the wordy abstractions of emotarians is that we live in a representative democracy based on the rule of law. Debate is necessary as well as many kinds of dialogue, but action is what brings about change. The emotarian left can't seem to get it through its thick skull that they are a minority, that they are often more of a hindrance than they are helpful, and that it is not the way politicians and pundits talk, but who and how many people they convince that moves the Overton Window to the left.<br /><br />Those in the emotarian left are so stuck on themselves that they spend most of their time alienating people who are also liberal and discouraging people from voting. They are childish in their demands and need for instant gratification. They don't pay attention. They don't ask good questions. They don't seek reliable sources or relevant information. They're lacking in a healthy curiosity. They are reactive. They are quick to jump to conclusions. They're dismissive of people who accept that change is incremental. They don't give credit where credit is due, because all they want to do is pat themselves on the back and always be more right, pure, and noble in their aims than everyone else. Consequently, their thinking is poor, their solutions are rainbow farting unicorns, and they are what too many people think of as "liberal" and rightfully despise.wileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10234314999465951053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-5050686355686800832014-01-02T12:25:35.726-06:002014-01-02T12:25:35.726-06:00Dione's is just another typical misreading of ...Dione's is just another typical misreading of the Overton Window. It goes something like this: if you just put out liberal ideas as acceptable ideas then the weight of the public conversation will shift more to the left and thus liberal ideas will become more likely to occur since politicians will pay attention to where the public conversation is. This is right only in that the first step to making liberal ideas happen is to make it acceptable to talk about them. This is why I praise Warren and others for talking about raising the minimum wage and *increasing* Social Security benefits.<br /><br />But it is wrong when it thinks that all you have to do is change the public message and the system will naturally come along for the ride. It's the old idea that if you talk about it enough then it will just happen. The failure to acknowledge the dirty side of politics, actually passing legislation that will make these ideas real, is where the Overton Window accolytes fall down. They think that any compromise with the other side in getting legislation passed is a betrayal of the messaging concept. Because doing so says that the ideas of the other side have merit and you must never do that.<br /><br />That is the way of the Tea Party and the way of permanent gridlock. Reagan succeeded not because he was an uncompromising idealogue but because he managed to pass Republican friendly policies while making them seem acceptable to a larger share of the public (i.e., Reagan Democrats). How did he do that? By allowing the Democrats to join in on the ride and put their name on some of the policies.<br /><br />Obama tried to do that with his health care plan. The one thing he didn't count on was that the Tea Party faction would be as strong as it is and be so uncompromising that they weren't willing to put any shine of approval on Obama's policies. But just because Obama tried to get them to sign on does not mean he was making a deal with the devil. He was just acknowledging the reality that long term success for liberal policies requires buy in by more than liberal believers.<br /><br />The fact that Obama has been as successful as he has been *despite* not getting Republican buy in is one of the more remarkable aspects of his presidency. Yet I doubt this will be widely acknowledge any time soon.Chris Andersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18139817527808942227noreply@blogger.com