Kathianne
12-31-2010, 09:36 AM
Keeping with one of my New Year's resolutions, I'm posting this light and easy to read article. :laugh2: Ok, I'm a boring wonk, I've accepted it. However, this is really interesting, but long, long, long:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/57971
December 1, 2010
policy review » no. 164 » features
Obama and the State of Progressivism, 2011
by Peter Berkowitz
Playing to the people’s prejudices while disparaging their preferences
On november 2nd, a majority of American voters repudiated the ambition of President Barack Obama, and of the congressional Democrats whom he leads, to transform the American political system by enacting a sweeping progressive agenda.
No doubt a variety of factors were in play. During campaign 2008, and despite just four years of experience in the legislative branch of the federal government (two of which he devoted to campaigning for president) and no experience holding executive office, Senator Obama inflated hopes to levels no mortal could satisfy and evoked changes of proportions that even a master statesman could not achieve. Moreover, President Obama began his term in hard times: His fledgling administration confronted a global economic crisis that endangered the very operation of the American financial system; two wars halfway around the globe; and an unabated threat to the homeland from transnational Islamic terrorism. By the time the 2010 midterm elections rolled around nearly double-digit unemployment had persisted for more than fifteen months, inflicting pain not only on workers but also on their families, friends, and communities. The ramifying effects of joblessness contributed to a generally sour attitude toward the president and his programs as well as toward Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and soon-to-be former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
It has been frequently remarked that Obama put forward two quite different faces on the campaign trail.
But it was Obama’s decision — against the advice of several of his closest advisers — to seek comprehensive health care reform in the face of an historic economic crisis and to resolutely pursue it month after month despite vocal majority opposition instead of concentrating on reviving the economy and creating jobs that sent a loud and clear message that the president placed progressive political transformation ahead of the will of the people...
Basically it comes down to the progressives of old recognized that direct democracy could be used to bring about their policies and were up front about it. They basically admitted that the Constitution put too many restrictions on their superior ideas and should be trashed. There's still a few that are that honest (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30320-Ezra-Klein-quot-Constitution-has-no-binding-power-on-anything.-quot&highlight=ezra), but most are not.
Today it's become more a cult of personality and demonizing anyone they consider opposition, here is the link that brought me to the entire piece:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/385223
Dogma and the New Progressives
Peter Wehner - 12.29.2010 - 12:39 PM
Peter Berkowitz is one of the finest thinkers and writers on the scene today. He proves this again with his essay “Obama and the State of Progressivism, 2011” in the December/January issue of Policy Review.
Berkowitz, in analyzing what he calls the “new progressives,” helps explain one of the distinguishing features of the Obama presidency: its disdain for the people’s preferences and the lengths to which Mr. Obama goes to disguise his elitism and contempt for the views of the public.
In describing President Obama, Berkowitz writes this:
Confidence that one possesses the complete and final understanding of morals and politics can encourage a politician to think of himself as a transformer and redeemer rather than as a statesman. It can impel a president confronting dramatic electoral backlash to attribute opposition to his party and his programs to a fear that blinds voters to “facts and science and argument.” And it can drive him to rouse loyalists to adopt the ancient warriors’ ethic and declare, “We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” One reason that progressives under pressure so readily succumb to the common temptation to deride voters who disagree with them as frightened and foolish and to portray fellow citizens as adversaries to be vanquished is that progressive assumptions about knowledge and politics make such conclusions about those who decline to follow their lead hard to escape.
Berkowitz goes on to write that the “dogma embedded in the new progressivism, that it has transcended the legitimate and enduring divisions between left and right, is a potent mix of partisan self-deception and academic rationalization. It signifies not progress, but a dangerous decline.” ...
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/57971
December 1, 2010
policy review » no. 164 » features
Obama and the State of Progressivism, 2011
by Peter Berkowitz
Playing to the people’s prejudices while disparaging their preferences
On november 2nd, a majority of American voters repudiated the ambition of President Barack Obama, and of the congressional Democrats whom he leads, to transform the American political system by enacting a sweeping progressive agenda.
No doubt a variety of factors were in play. During campaign 2008, and despite just four years of experience in the legislative branch of the federal government (two of which he devoted to campaigning for president) and no experience holding executive office, Senator Obama inflated hopes to levels no mortal could satisfy and evoked changes of proportions that even a master statesman could not achieve. Moreover, President Obama began his term in hard times: His fledgling administration confronted a global economic crisis that endangered the very operation of the American financial system; two wars halfway around the globe; and an unabated threat to the homeland from transnational Islamic terrorism. By the time the 2010 midterm elections rolled around nearly double-digit unemployment had persisted for more than fifteen months, inflicting pain not only on workers but also on their families, friends, and communities. The ramifying effects of joblessness contributed to a generally sour attitude toward the president and his programs as well as toward Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and soon-to-be former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
It has been frequently remarked that Obama put forward two quite different faces on the campaign trail.
But it was Obama’s decision — against the advice of several of his closest advisers — to seek comprehensive health care reform in the face of an historic economic crisis and to resolutely pursue it month after month despite vocal majority opposition instead of concentrating on reviving the economy and creating jobs that sent a loud and clear message that the president placed progressive political transformation ahead of the will of the people...
Basically it comes down to the progressives of old recognized that direct democracy could be used to bring about their policies and were up front about it. They basically admitted that the Constitution put too many restrictions on their superior ideas and should be trashed. There's still a few that are that honest (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30320-Ezra-Klein-quot-Constitution-has-no-binding-power-on-anything.-quot&highlight=ezra), but most are not.
Today it's become more a cult of personality and demonizing anyone they consider opposition, here is the link that brought me to the entire piece:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/385223
Dogma and the New Progressives
Peter Wehner - 12.29.2010 - 12:39 PM
Peter Berkowitz is one of the finest thinkers and writers on the scene today. He proves this again with his essay “Obama and the State of Progressivism, 2011” in the December/January issue of Policy Review.
Berkowitz, in analyzing what he calls the “new progressives,” helps explain one of the distinguishing features of the Obama presidency: its disdain for the people’s preferences and the lengths to which Mr. Obama goes to disguise his elitism and contempt for the views of the public.
In describing President Obama, Berkowitz writes this:
Confidence that one possesses the complete and final understanding of morals and politics can encourage a politician to think of himself as a transformer and redeemer rather than as a statesman. It can impel a president confronting dramatic electoral backlash to attribute opposition to his party and his programs to a fear that blinds voters to “facts and science and argument.” And it can drive him to rouse loyalists to adopt the ancient warriors’ ethic and declare, “We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” One reason that progressives under pressure so readily succumb to the common temptation to deride voters who disagree with them as frightened and foolish and to portray fellow citizens as adversaries to be vanquished is that progressive assumptions about knowledge and politics make such conclusions about those who decline to follow their lead hard to escape.
Berkowitz goes on to write that the “dogma embedded in the new progressivism, that it has transcended the legitimate and enduring divisions between left and right, is a potent mix of partisan self-deception and academic rationalization. It signifies not progress, but a dangerous decline.” ...