The PCTC Blog

Politics 101: A Simple Concept; Progressives Must Become Popular, Win Elections

Our nation quite possibly executed an innocent man last night, and there was no one there to stop it. A barbaric ritual was completed, in the name of a nation that thinks of itself as “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Our politics has been dominated by a far right fringe for more than a generation now, and it needs to stop. But no one’s going to stop it for us; we have to stop it.  But as we all should have figured out by now, marching and demanding change doesn't really work. At some point, we have to win elections.

This should be a pretty simple concept, folks. I can’t believe I have to repeat something so elementary, but a lot of people don’t seem to understand this concept.

We live in a democracy. Yes, I know; if you want to split hairs, it’s actually a democratic republic, but the concept’s the same. The point is, we have to get a majority of people on our side, which means appealing to more than 50% of the voting population, which means attracting a whole lot of people who currently don’t like us very much; people like political moderates, who are the majority of voters in our system, and who swing every election. 

Why Haven't We Outgrown the Death Penalty?

 
Tomorrow, the state of Georgia will put a man to death who very well could be not guilty. His name is Troy Davis, and the state clemency board's decision to go ahead with the execution is so despicable, even former Congressman Bob Barr has spoken out against it, calling it a violation of "the core principles of American jurisprudence" (Read his editorial here)

I actually wrote this piece a year ago, but the questions it asks are still as valid today as they were then. 

As you read it, I want everyone to think about what kind of country we want to create? I hope it's not the bloodthirsty society we're becoming. The urgency of protecting the concept of capital punishment simply cannot be allowed to trump protection of the concept of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors in this case are on record as saying they would never have convicted him and sentenced him to death if they knew then what they know now. That knowledge should be enough to keep it alive, but it's apparently not.

And before you accept the allegedly Biblical principle of "an eye for an eye," Christians, might I note that Jesus Himself revoked that law while He was here. Might want to check that Bible. 

In any case, read this and think about where we are as a free country. Please. 

-----------------

(Originally posted September 28, 2010)

Last week, the state of Virginia executed a 41 year old woman they openly described as “evil.” She was the first woman executed in the state since 1912, so she must have been really, exceptionally “evil,” huh? 

There is No Such Thing as "The Media."

I grew up in Baltimore, and lived there until I was almost 19, which would be 1977. My choice of news and information sources until then was the locally-owned Morning and Evening Sun (known collectively as “The Sunpapers), the Hearst-owned Baltimore News-American and, if I happened to be downtown, I could check out the Afro-American, one of the few black-owned newspapers in existence at the time.  For TV news, my choices were a station owned by the Sun, one owned by the News-American and one owned by Westinghouse, a huge corporation at the time. All three "channels" were affiliated with one of the major networks, which provided a half hour a day of evening news, and the Today Show in the morning.

The radio news choices pretty much consisted of the news at the top of every hour, provided by the three major networks plus Mutual Broadcasting. We had two all-news stations, one owned by CBS and one owned by Hearst and affiliated to NBC.

Politics 101: Obama and EPA Rules; He's Not Caving, He's Saving EPA Rules

It sometimes amazes me how clueless many on the far left are when it comes to politics. Some seem incapable of seeing anything but the short game, and refuse to see the effect of an action on the long game. 

Politics is a game of calculation. Every action you take has an effect, and you must evaluate the effect of an action before you take it, because the effect of that action could have the opposite effect of what you intend. To simply do something because it's "the right thing to do" at that moment in time is often irresponsible, depending on the circumstances surrounding it. 

To demonstrate this, I’d like you to read a post entitled “The stupid politics behind Obama’s ozone cave,” for a blog entitled “Grist,” which is subtitled “A Beacon in the Smog.” This post is politically tone deaf.  Look at how it starts:

Assessing Right Wing Assessments of Phony "Liberal Mythology."

This was posted at The Weekly Standard this past week, and I found it interesting. This is kind of a microcosm of how the far right thinks liberals – or at least the folks they refer to as “liberals” – actually think. It actually reveals the level of delusion most on the far right suffer under, which is substantial. Keep in mind, according to his biographical blurb at the end, this guy has written a book about political campaigns. The first thing I learned about political campaigns was “know your opposition.” He obviously knows nothing about his.  

The article lists the top ten “myths” we liberals supposedly live under. As usual, this is posted in its entirety, with my comments IN RED. You can click on the article’s title to see the original.

Mugged by Mythology 

Liberals believe the darnedest things.

SEP 12, 2011, VOL. 16, NO. 48 • BY JEFF BERGNER

Sometimes talking with liberals is perplexing. You never know what claim they will make next or what name they will call you. Take David Axelrod’s response to Standard & Poor’s recent credit action: He calls it the “Tea Party downgrade.” Amazingly, he blames the United States’ loss of its AAA bond rating on the one group that has sounded the alarm about our fiscal crisis. How did the president’s leading adviser come up with a label so detached from reality? 

Obama Just as Progressive as non-mythical FDR

In my last post, I responded to something someone put up at Daily Kos. In it, he referred to himself as "an FDR Democrat." I told him he wasn't, and said he had no idea what that meant. I meant that he was referring to the myth that has grown around Roosevelt. When you look at the actual record of the man, those progressives who are complaining about Obama right now should not be lionizing FDR to the extent they do. I've already discussed Obama's record at length, and I've placed a list here. Let's look at FDR's actual record, or some of it, anyway. 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a great president; I will never deny that. He came in during the worst circumstances in the history of the United States, and turned the country around economically in many ways. He instituted regulations that were necessary at the time to steady the financial markets and to let people know they could be trusted again, and he helped create the Social Security program, and such agencies as the Securities and Exchange Commission, to keep markets honest, which is the key to a thriving economy.

But was FDR really a liberal? When you listen to the lionization of FDR,  you sometimes get the impression that Roosevelt was a far left liberal icon; a stellar example of what all progressives should aspire to be. 

But how liberal was FDR, especially by today’s standards? There is no doubt that he was a progressive on many levels, but to those who consider themselves worthy of deciding who is and isn’t “progressive enough,” would FDR pass muster? Let’s see…