I just looked that up on wiki and it says:

“In U.S. politics, the nuclear option allows the United States Senate to reinterpret a procedural rule by invoking the constitutional requirement that the will of the majority be effective. This option allows a simple majority to override precedent and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic. In contrast, the cloture rule requires a supermajority of 60 votes (out of 100) to end a filibuster. The new interpretation becomes effective, both for the immediate circumstance and as a precedent, if it is upheld by a majority vote. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the nuclear option is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion by Vice President Richard Nixon and was arguably endorsed by the Senate in a series of votes in 1975, some of which were reconsidered shortly thereafter.[1] Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) first called the option “nuclear” in March 2003.[2][3] Proponents since have referred to it as the constitutional option.”

So this is something that Republicans know how to do and are willing to do, but that Democrats either don’t know how to do, aren’t willing to do, or are afraid to try for fear of being castigated by Republicans?

The real problem in Congress, as I see it, is that they are all millionaires (or billionaires), that they represent their big corporate donors and the the Americans oligarchy, rather than their constituents, that the Democratic Party itself moved far to the right of center long ago (although it does remain a tad to the left of the Republicans), and that the Democratic Party agenda is so far to the political right that during his campaign in ‘08, Dennis Kucinich called himself, “the only real Democrat.” How much can they accomplish when there is only one of them? And even that one sometimes has to bow to pressure from his party leadership and vote against the public interest.

Most Democrats supported and voted for the Bush agenda, and we’re expected to believe that they didn’t really want the defense stocks in their investment portfolios to double or triple in value during his administration (their value has increased even further with Obama’s expansion of the wars of aggression) and weren’t simply pursuing their own best financial interests.

When the Democrats achieved a trifecta with a majority in the House, the Senate, and a Democratic President in the White House, some people actually hoped for change. I didn’t. If Nancy Pelosi, who took Bush/Cheney impeachment off the table is a Democrat, what’s a Republican?

I didn’t vote. During the time that Obama and McCain were both in the Senate, they had virtually identical voting records. Given their voting records without their names attached, it would have been almost impossible for anyone to tell which one was the Democrat and which was the Republican. Both supported the wars of aggression and bailouts that I opposed, and given our two-party system and our lack of proportional representation, no third party had any chance of winning, so I withheld my “consent of the governed.”

Samson,Says,

March 27 at 11:16 am #

To FiftyGigs ...

During the Bush era, the ‘liberals’ are the people who sided with Bush and made sure the Bush tax cuts became law.

We can now all see what a Senate minority can do with the filibuster rules.  So, take a look back and notice how the ‘liberals’ in the Senate never even tried to stop Bush’s tax-cut policies.  Never saw a filibuster, did you?

Sorry Samson, The Bush Tax Cuts were passed through Reconciliation. They could not be filibustered.

rfidler, March 26 at 6:27 pm #

ardee:

Call me a nostalgiac, but I think “liberalism” died in Berkeley with Mario Savio, and at Columbia in 1968. And “progressivism” was stolen from Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson by those same actors. What “non-conservatism” lacks today is any trace of testosterone.

Savio was a communist, and, at the time of the Free Speech movement in Berserkely, dating Bettina Aptheker, daughter of Herbert, a rather big wig in the American Communist Party. That movement had little if anything to do with liberalism or progressivism if you see a distinction between the two, which I do not.

I never had much discourse with Bettina, but Mario ( Bob) Savio was a very old and dear friend and we engaged in many discussions of a political nature since we attended High School together. He advanced the communist perspective and I defended an amalgam of democratic institutions and socialist principles applied thereto.

Underneath the veneer of their cosmetic “difference”-es, it turns-out all these “-isms” (in their actual effects on our Living Arrangement) are created equal….David Sirota’s efforts to put some lipstick here on his own “pig”-of-choice, notwithstanding.  They all serve to take the domesticated peoples’ precious attention away from our Mother Earth, where they actually live-and-breathe every Day, and pour it fecklessly into the virtual wastelands of abstraction and make-believe….where nothing and nobody lives, and which are lousy places to “visit,” besides.

Institutionalized homo-centrism, for instance, provides the necessary backdrop for the epidemic of CONtrived ‘self’-obsession (“ME”-ism) infecting the “....huddled masses” of homo domesticus here in these latter-days.  Meantime, our given organic function within Her Living Arrangement gets insufficiently fulfilled (being, as it is, actively suppressed by the operations of the “civilization” CONtraption), and it doesn’t take long before it is the “individual”-ized dysfunctional tame Humans theirown’selfs’ who suffer the worst effects of their foolhardy dereliction.

So just as homo-centrism leads inevitably to the extinction of the homo-centric, self-destruction is the natural consequence of self-absorption.  The seemingly endless permutations on the ‘theme’ of “-isms” become the black-holes down which their “true-believers” false ID-entities disappear.  “Liberal”-ism begets paralysis.  “Progressive”-ism brings-on stagnation.

Their ideo-political opposite-numbers produce on-the-one-hand “social Darwin”-ism (the wet-dream of disaster-prone “capital”-ism and its malfeasant “-ists”)everywhere.  On the other emerges the divinely-ordained atrocities of religiossified “fundamental”-ism….a daily more deadly one-two-punch into the guts of the very sub-species delivering it.

If “Tao”-ism itself is a CONtradiction-in-terms (like “military intelligence” and “wildlife management”), how can any of its derivative and inferior imitators be anything-but?

HokaHey!

Mr. Sirota nails it again.

The Democratic party, decided to run away from itself, disguised, as “in the interest of bi-partisanship”, during the Bush Republican/Corporate rule phase.

They believed they could hide out and still get the job done, under a different adminstration, but under the same fantasy of Bi-Partisanship. 

The people however aren’t buying it. Believing in lies, is easy, standing up for the truth takes guts, and means taking a risk. 

This time their going to have to put up or shut up, or their through.

Liberal, as least as it used in USA politics, is defined by Bill and Hillary Clinton and Obama.  This is what a liberal currently is; this is what liberalism has become, as well as the Democratic party.  A liberal is a corporate reactionary with clean fingernails, as opposed to the Republicans whose nails, upon close inspection, need some work. Aside from that, it is now impossible to tell the difference between a Democrat liberal and a Republican reactionary/fascist.

To FiftyGigs ...

During the Bush era, the ‘liberals’ are the people who sided with Bush and made sure the Bush tax cuts became law.

We can now all see what a Senate minority can do with the filibuster rules.  So, take a look back and notice how the ‘liberals’ in the Senate never even tried to stop Bush’s tax-cut policies.  Never saw a filibuster, did you?  Which basically tells you that their opposition at the time was just a show for the gullible.  When someone has the power to block something, and they then refuse to do so, that’s really the same as giving permission.

Look at this ‘health care reform’, passed by our ‘liberal’ government.  There’s nothing in there about the ‘supremacy’ of the individual.  And when polled fairly, majorities of Americans support ‘single-payer’, which the liberals took entirely off the table (where the liberals put most ‘majority’ positions ... like ending the wars or opposing wall street bailouts) and wouldn’t even consider it as an option.

Look how ‘health care reform’ both serves corporate interests and helps to take off what had been growing pressure for real health care reform and you start to see very clearly the role of ‘liberals’.  You can see the relationship of ‘liberals’ and ‘wall street’ by the fact that the stock markets all soared on the news of the ‘liberals’ passing this ‘reform’.

Most Americans have a very distorted view of the political spectrum.  The main problem is that any views that are much to the left-of-center are chopped off and most Americans don’t ever hear them.

This leads to the distorted viewpoint that ‘liberalism’ is a far-left political position.  In reality, its only that its as far left as most Americans are allowed to hear about.  But in most of the world, ‘liberalism’ is recognized as at most a ‘center-left’ position. 

The goal of ‘liberalism’ has always been to offer limited reforms.  When the right-wingers and the wall street bankers crash the system with their greed, its the liberals who always step in with some limited reforms to keep the system going.  This was as true with FDR as today.  The goal of the liberals is always to keep the wall street capitalists in business by offering very limited reforms at times when the system is in crisis.

Its only in America, with its years of pro-wall-street propaganda that ‘liberals’ are associated with being a left-ish political position.  Of course, this is in a political system and propaganda atmosphere where very pro-business politicians like the Clintons and Obama are called ‘socialists’ and ‘communists’.

The current ‘health care’ reform shows exactly the role of ‘liberals’ in politics.  People had been telling pollsters that ‘health care reform’ was there most important issue.  Then, the Democrat ‘liberals’ pass a bill that blocks all reform for the next four years while also including a corporate wish list of items like mandated customers and a federal government which is barred from using its purchasing power to get lower prices.  But, they heavily promote this ‘reform’ and by doing so take some of the political pressure for real reform out of the political system. 

I don’t know what a ‘progressive’ is in America today.  They appear to be people who talk a lot about issues and changes that are needed, but who then line up and vote for the Democrats who they know won’t do any of these things.

One thing has been very clear for 100 years. A vote for ‘liberals’ might lead to some minor reforms that will eventually be overturned, but will never really lead to real change.  A liberal standing behind a podium sign that says ‘Change’ is always lying to you.  Or at best, liberals offer minor changes that are approved by their corporate partners as something that has to be temporarily offered to appease the people being screwed when they start to get upset about it.

Here’s another example of what it means today to be
conservative and liberal.

During the Bush-era quasi-debate over tax cuts for
the rich, what was the conservative rationale? If you
give a tax cut to the poor, they’ll just buy beer and
cigarettes (ironically, two conservative constituencies). The rich, however, KNOW WHAT TO DO
WITH MONEY.

Liberals believe EVERYBODY knows what to do with
money.

Liberalism isn’t about a set agenda, about more taxes
or less taxes, pro-abortion (sic) or anti-abortion.
It’s about the pre-eminence of the individual, the
right of the majority to choose to whom or what they
will be subject, always maintaining the right and
responsibility to change it when it best serves the
**informed** consensus of a majority of individuals.

The unanimity of the Republican Party is consistent
with communism. Conservatives—aka those of the
“hell no” persuasion—wake the hell up!

I agree with D. Sirota.  There’s much confusion about the two words.

greenferret explains it well:

“I’ve been saying for a long time that there’s a difference.
Liberals claim certain values, but do not back up those claims with their votes
or their lifestyles.
Progressives live and vote their values.
If you claim to be antiwar, but support prowar candidates; claim to oppose
Bush’s war on the Constitution, but support politicians who perpetuate it; claim
to want a fair economy, but support corporatists who redistribute money
upwards at historic rates; claim to care for the planet, but support a cap-and-
trade plan made to enrich Goldman Sachs, you’re probably a liberal.”

Most of those who claim to be liberals are only liberal on certain issues. When
it comes to other issues, they are either silent or very conservative. What
unifies them as a group is that they all end up voting Democratic. Why? Because
the Democratic party accommodates all kinds of contradictions.  No point
arguing about terminology. In politics nowadays, words are used according to
the occasion.  The important thing is that we know the issues, we know how
elections are run, we know how many politicians are funded, and we know how
people vote.  Really, feel free to call yourself and anyone else whatever you
want.

Liberalism- was originally of the “free enterprise” form of capitalism and a “live & let live” way of life. The latter I agree with the former is wrong. Capitalism must have some regulations or it runs wild and destroys itself as Marx & Engels rightly pointed out. We got a taste of it in 2008-2009. Then Bush/Obama bailed them out but changed nothing. So it will happen again and soon. Are you ready? I’m not.

Progessivism- was that they held views of people over business and that gov’t has a legitimate place for helping the people. That the progress of our nation to better realize the Bill of Rights* till the words have equal meaning for everybody. Not the Constitution** which was just for the white, slave owning, land owning gentry as it was originally founded on in 1789. The despicable “living document” that many Regressives sneer at.

* The Bill of Rights was an anti-Federalist document to counter the Constitution. Without it the Constitution Convention would have failed.
**Constitution was a Federalist document supported by the likes of John Jay & Alexander Hamilton but unlike the Declaration of Independence, there was no unanimous support for it at all. It moved us away from a more liberal Confederation to a central gov’t and all of its problems. Thankfully Madison understood this and compiled a Bill of Rights, from over 100 such posited by anti-Federalists to counter it and slow it down. He considered it inevitable that the central control of national power would slip from the people to the gov’t, this would hobble it some till that fateful day.

Look up the http://www.Regressiveantidote.com sometime.

I personally take issue with Mr. Sirota’s definition of “liberalism” in his piece.  He associates liberalism mostly with money.  By contrast, true liberals are more interested in social justice - that is, making the most of what can be done for people.  Basically the distinction is that liberals want efficient government that provides benefits to citizens in an optimal manner.  Comments that suggest liberals support big corporations are only accurate in those VERY rare circumstances when they empower the rights of people - frankly, unions have historically done a far superior job of that.

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive - not a liberal.

Correction: article at top of page of Black Agenda Report is by Bruce A. Dixon (in my earlier comment):
http://www.blackagendareport.com  at top of home page.
And there is a totally silly comment below it from a “tea bag patriot” from TX.

Liberal Testosterone

You can’t force morality on people. That’s the beauty
and truth of liberalism, and, in fact, many
conservatives echo that sentiment. People decide the
institutions they want—be it government,
religious, economic. Conservatism posits a social
order to which people must be subject.

What we’re facing in America today with the
Republican Party is a conservative movement mouthing
liberal platitudes. “Less government”. “Liberty”.

Yet, the facts defy their words. The idol of
conservatism, Reagan, expanded federal government in
size and power and drove this country deeply into
debt. The recent “true” conservative, Bush, vastly
expanded government and drove the country further
into debt.

Those weren’t accidents. Those weren’t boo-boos.

Conservatism is about select elites making decisions
about our lives because we can’t. (see “abortion”)

Liberalism is the opposite of that.

ardee:
C’mon now. I must be getting soft, but, I liked Sirota’s analysis. I, of course, disagree with liberalism’s and progressivism’s approach to solving our problems, but he makes sense as far as he goes.

Call me a nostalgiac, but I think “liberalism” died in Berkeley with Mario Savio, and at Columbia in 1968. And “progressivism” was stolen from Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson by those same actors. What “non-conservatism” lacks today is any trace of testosterone.

What a crock…Mr. Sirota must have been up against a deadline to be forced to write this meaningless gibberish.

Liberals began calling themselves progressives after the GOP demonized liberals for so long. Cowardice and nothing more.

I really like this left right humor. How about this?

Some posters are a little left of brain dead, while others are a little right of totally ignorant.

Balkas,
You are VERY amusing, although I understand the seriousness of your arguments. I cannot imagine a more colorful description of American politics than your phrase:

“Some democrats-repubs are a tad left of hitler and some are tad right of mussolini, pinochet, suharto, et.”

Please keep blogging!

Mr Sirota pleads a fine case, and I mean by that a slender filament of a thread of a case. I am very skilled at using and understanding language, including my native language, American English. I cannot understand how his ad hoc definitions of liberal & progressive truly differ. I understand the difference between creating money and spending money, and it is a very important difference. Otherwise I think as Anarcissie does - that words can be used any way one wishes to use them. Definitions are more precise, although saying this or that is the single definition of a word doesn’t make others understand the word that way nor use it that way.

As for NeoCons being “the opposite” of either progressives or liberals, I balk. I chafe. I resist. I disagree. NeoCon for me is an imperialist, a globalist, a warmonger, an oligarch-aristocrat, an unrestrained capitalist, dishonest, mendacious, cruel, anti-American and unpatriotic. Words in use to describe human group attributes seem seldom to be directly the opposite of any thing else. IM(OL)HO.

What does it matter?  The members of Congress are “followers” of their party leadership, not their constituents and it ends up all corporate, just a bit worse with Repubs. 

I go back to Phil Ochs’ song, “Love Me, I’m a Liberal” for wonderful satire.  I just say that I’m on the left and leave it at that.

For a good article/commentary on the new health bill, see Glen Ford’s article at top of home page of http://www.blackagendareport.com which covers the same issue from another point of view.

Liberalism/Progressive should not be separated.

I don’t know the correct label for it,
but Abe Lincoln defined my political position
best: ‘‘government of the people, by the
people and for the people.’‘

We have government of, by and for the rich
and powerful, with just enough bones tossed to
the lower class to keep them pacified.

FDR saved the system once, but didn’t live long
enough to implement his new Bill of Rights for
decent education, jobs, housing and health care.

So it’s only a dream. Money runs the show.
We fight to get the best bones for the working
poor and the disadvantaged.

The only hope is that our huge deficit will
eventually bring down the empire, and then
maybe we can replace it with something better.

I won’t allow anyone to join my religion [relig’n xy7]nor will i ever share my god [god xy7] with even my wife let alone anyone else.

For one thing my wife was educated in canada. Do i need to tell u ab it? Fortunately for me, i was ‘educated’ in croatia from yr 38-t0 yr 4o.

However as child of 12 with threatening famine and all my folks, including dad, joining partizani [plural of partizan], some of partizan families were evacuated to egypt, near suez city, in march ‘43.

thus, i had only three yrs of schooling; and since i
finished last in each yr of ‘schooling’, i still brag ab it.

Can u imagine what might have haapened to me had i been educated in US? And for 10 yrs? reading MSM media for 70 yrs?

I cld have been a bush, beck, balin, bohner, bho,, bill, et al. It’s scary just to think ab it. tnx

Dear Mr. Sirota, your equation of liberalism with out of control spending is simply incorrect. This is just a Republican talking point dressed up as “commentary” and I find it particularly strange that the most egregious example of Republican “starve the beast” stalking horses, the prescription drug bill, is used by you as an example of a “liberal” program that uses the Treasury as an “unlimited gift card.”

I would call on you to stop equating things you obviously either don’t understand or wilfully conflate to undermine both liberal and progressive causes. Spending is not a problem if people are willing to support government programs with taxes. It is the injudicious use of government debt that is the issue and the most flagrant misuse of the borrowing authority has been demonstrated during the Reagan-Bush era not inder either “liberal” or “progressive” leadership. In a nutshell: your argument is both inaccurate and shallow.

‘liberalism’ is a complete dedication to corporate rule, but with the idea that in times of crisis some ‘band-aid’ reforms can be passed in order to keep all of those being screwed for greater corporate profits from totally revolting.  But the key is to realize that liberals believe in rule of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation with only the rare table scraps being tossed to anyone else.

I wasn’t alive when Teddy Roosevelt led a progressive movement, and I haven’t seen ‘progressives’ do anything in my lifetime, so I couldn’t tell you what a progressive is.  They seem to be people who talk a lot about change but who don’t do anything and who then later tell you to vote for the ‘liberals’ or even the ‘conservatives’ when the chips are down.

I haven’t talked to any democrat; thus, cannot know how they feel ab these, to me, desirable goals: establishing a timocratic governance and reconstructuring presently, to me,an enormously inquitous society to a more egalitarian and to go on and ending with an idyllic society.

So, i offer this guess but based on reality of extirpation of buffalonian indians, slavery, lymchings, wars against other indians in asia, afrika, c.and s.america:
Some democrats-repubs are a tad left of hitler and some are tad right of mussolini, pinochet, suharto, et.

One or two pols are much left of mussolini! I haven’t talked to sirota ab any of this. But judging with what he says-doesn’t say, he’s just a little more left of mussolini than the pols, priests, educators, cia-fbi-army echelons.
Love to be corrected!
But it is what many MSM collumnists assiduously don’t say that gives us a clearer picture where the stand on issues of the greatest import.
So, whatch what u don’t say, folks! For that’s how i get to know u! tnx

While I agree in part with Mr. Sirota’s definition, it would be perhaps wise for many to go to the Cultural Creatives website put up by Dr. Paul H. Ray (http://www.culturalcreatives.org/Library/docs/NewPoliticalCompassV73.pdf) where he posted his research on what he originally deemed Political Progressives - a term co-opted by the Democratic Caucus in the Senate.  It clearly defines what a progressive is, and is not.  It is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.  That is why is seems like a moderate Republican to Democrats, or a liberal Democrat to Republicans.  It is just slightly, and I do mean slightly, left of center, just as our country has been in the past, and is the direct opposite of the Neo-Con.  They are not extremists as they have been painted and they could truly create bipartisanship in our government because they are bipartisan in their make-up.  Many of them are now registered Independents who do not vote a straight party ticket, but would not consider joining in a any third party movement at this time for the very reason that they are not extremists.  They vote civic values, not religious or corporate ones, because they follow politics and have educations.

When people label liberals as progressives, they are wrong, and while Mr. Sirota is right that our government needs both sides of the Democratic Party at this time to keep balance (something Mr. Emanuel would do well to remember), so too our government as a whole needs to keep balance.  This means that progressives must come from both parties, and they do exist within both (yes, they do even exist in the GOP - they just are shouted out by the base pandering), to create balance in all the bills and to put the people ahead of the lobbying interests that currently demonize anyone who does not agree with them, both Republican and Democrat.

Dr. Ray in 2002 identified nearly 50 million Americans as falling into the classification of political progressive.  That means that of the nearly 120 million people who voted in 2008, nearly half fall into that classification, making them the largest voting block in history.  It is why so many people who call themselves progressive are disgusted and angry about what is happening in the last year.  They did not vote based on party, race, gender, or religious views - they voted in those that they thought reflected their views and desires.  The sad part is that the politicians on both sides of the aisle who have been there for decades did not understand that, and the President’s advisers have been bought and paid for by the corporate party interests of the Clintons and Rahm Emanuel.

They’re just words, and words mean whatever people want them to mean—often, several different contradictory things.  Of the two, liberal actually has a history of being used with some cognitive content, to wit, the classical liberalism of Locke and Jefferson.  By the 20th century, though, at least in the U.S. it had come to mean the expansion of the government—the monopoly of force—into the daily life of the people at home and everlasting war and imperialism abroad.  It became the American version of Bismarck’s politics; that is, the meaning of the word was smeared out rightward.  By the 1950s, it meant a continuous drive for world domination with the necessary repression and compulsion at home to sustain empire.  At the same time, those describing themselves as liberals were still claiming the mantle of the old liberalism, which made people dizzy and nauseous.  Is invading Afghanistan to play at “nation-building” (colonization) there liberal or not?  You can’t tell.

Progressive has no such history.  Everybody, including your friendly neighborhood fascist, is for “progress”.  The word will remain in use until it becomes tainted with the same mistakes and crimes that have made it undesirable to use liberal.

I’ve been saying for a long time that there’s a difference.

Liberals claim certain values, but do not back up those claims with their votes or their lifestyles.

Progressives live and vote their values.

If you claim to be antiwar, but support prowar candidates; claim to oppose Bush’s war on the Constitution, but support politicians who perpetuate it; claim to want a fair economy, but support corporatists who redistribute money upwards at historic rates; claim to care for the planet, but support a cap-and-trade plan made to enrich Goldman Sachs, you’re probably a liberal.

Mr. Sirota

I blame you and many mainstream organizations that belong to the Democratic Party for the lack of a real progressive outcome in many areas including prescription drugs and now comprehensive health care. I have contacted you and organizations like Moveon, Progressive Democrats of America, Physicians for a National Healthcare Plan, Americans for Democratic Action, NARAL, National Organization for women and many bloggers in the past 5 years and told them that you and they need to begin a huge consumer boycott of products of companies that give money to conservatives in both parties. However the bloggers like you and the mainstream organizations refused to go after the real power: The companies that give money to conservatives.

Yes we need to get real progressives elected, but even Dennis Kucinich folded against the pressure to get this ineffective health care law that appears a big hulking version of Medicare part D that once again funnels money from the poor and middle class to health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. We need to end public private partnerships in delivering government services.

I want to once again ask you and the other bloggers and the mainstream organizations and people reading this to organize a full scale consumer boycott of companies listed on my web pages at

http://www.democratz.org

and

http://liberal.posterous.com/the-new-march-of-dimes

and force their CEOs to go to congress and get us the legislation listed there or they will go bankrupt.

I will no longer give so called liberal and progressive bloggers and so called progressive organizations a pass when they refuse to go after the real power in congress, namely the companies that fund conservatives in both parties.

NO MORE! Go after these companies or I stop complaining about how congress and the President leave us with watered down legislation that leaves the glass 1/8th full like the new health care law did.

There was an in-depth article in a recent ATLANTIC issue that gave a rarely articulated view of the reasons for the health-care catastrophe brewing in this country. If I can get the link or details I’ll add them.

The author deftly and reasonably tied the ballooning of health care costs in this country to expanding subsidies. And also placed much blame on the whole concept of buying insurance (other than catastrophic care insurance) as a substitute for personal savings and planning.

If he is correct then obviously this new legislation which lavishes existing systems and insurance businesses with more and new subsidies.. then we ain’t seen nothin’ yet in terms of health care costs in the US.

Oh, and M.E.Smith.. keep it coming!

Adios.

Despite the torture, the wars of aggression, the bailouts, globalization, and the corporate media control of electoral politics, both liberals and progressives believe in our system and seek to reform it, and to work and seek power within it, instead of, as the Declaration of Independence stated is our right and our duty, opposing it and establishing a democratic form of government.

No, David, our Constitutional oligarchy is NOT a democratic form of governnment, being neither a democracy where people have a direct vote on issues and budgets, nor a republic where people can exercise their will through their elected representatives by holding them accountable DURING their terms of office. Electing new officials after the damage is done and cannot be undone is not a way to hold officials accountable or exercise our will through them. Petitioning them, as subjects can petition any monarch, dictator, or tyrant, and as our founders petitioned King George, is not a way to hold them accountable or exercise our will through them.

Liberals and progressives are people who will sacrifice the lives of millions of innocent people of color in other countries, in hopes of gaining some temporary benefits, such as cheaper health insurance, legalized pot or gay marriage, or whatever else their selfish little hearts desire. They are content to let corporate money dominate the political parties and candidates and to let a Supreme Court with the Divine Right of Kings, as their edicts, however illogical, irrational, or absurd, cannot be appealed, make decisions that control their lives.

The primary difference between the political right and the political left, is that the right wants the powerful to rule, while the left wants power to be vested in the hands of the people—the dictionary definition of democracy. Neither the Democrats, the Republicans, nor the third parties in the US give a hoot about democracy. Political parties here are just big corporations trying to maximize profits for their big shareholders without regard for their constituents.

Without a democratic form of government, our Constitutional oligarchy will continue to use militarism to defend the private profits of predatory capitalists, to sponsor right-wing coups and assassinate democratic leaders in other countries (and occasionally here also), to devastate and pollute the planet and force billions into dire poverty, yet all liberals and progressives care about are the selfist benefits they might derive from brown-nosing the rich and powerful.

When the popular vote, even if counted (something we cannnot know for certain in our faith-based, unverifiable elections), is not the final say and can be overridden by superdelegates, by the Electoral College, by Congress, or by the Supreme Court, it is obvious to everyone in the world except for American liberals and progressives, that we do not have a democratic form of government.

Liberals and progressives are people who happily vote for pro-war candidates because they want gays to be able to openly serve in the military, and of course that can’t happen unless our military is overextended and deesperate. So what’s a few million people of color in foreign countries sacrificed to the selfish goals or liberabls and progressives? At least the right openly admits that they don’t care about anyone except themselves.

There’s going to be a huge voter turnout in California in November. But it won’t be about America’s torture and war crimes, it will be to legalize pot. We learned in Viet Nam that when you’re killing innocent people for a living, it helps to get stoned. It also helps to get your mind off the fact that we do not have anything that resembles a democratic form of government in any way, shape, or form.

We want health care, not health insurance. Calling health insurance “health care,” is despicable. That’s just as bad as calling our Constitutional oligarchy a democracy or a republic.

In my respectful opinion, this is a short-sighted and
bias view of liberalism.

“Progressivism’s central theory is that government,
as the nation’s supreme authority, can set parameters
channeling capitalism’s profit motive into societal
priorities…”

By my reading, that makes Republican conservatives
progressive.

The fundamental definition of liberalism, which
conforms to the common understanding of history back
hundreds of years, is that liberalism posits the
individual as the supreme authority. Whatever extends
from the **informed** consent of the majority is the
authority that drives societal priorities, whether it
be in the economic, social or (sic) etc realm.

You can extend that definition back to the Magna
Carta, and still have most of history make sense.
Otherwise, we’re back to the insipid “conservatism is
what liberalism use to be” nonsense.