Legal Disclaimer

Views expressed are opinions. Not responsible for other's views, opinions, comments, or statements of fact.

Now that the legal mumbo jumbo is outta the way...

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

The "Nuance" of Progressivism

Ran across this article from June 2009 and several parts caught my attention. Excerpts in italics.

But most dramatic of all was what he omitted – any reference to ‘terrorism’ or ‘terrorists’.

Wow, who would have thought that word would not come out of an American President’s mouth in a foreign policy speech until 2030? Obama certainly has dramatically shifted the foreign policy tone of the Bush Administration.

This shift in tone is highly welcome. Obama once again showed he has a grasp of using narratives and frames that his audience will accept. If you are speaking to an Arab group and state that Israel must dismantle its settlements, you immediately open them up to your message. That is one example of how Obama, by taking a more moderate and understanding tone, created the conditions necessary for his Arab listeners to even consider other messages, such as women’s rights.

It's that "using narratives and frames that his audience will accept" that first made me think hmmmm. Remember, he's creating a feeling. It's not so much what he says but also what he doesn't say and where he is leading you.

how Obama, by taking a more moderate and understanding tone, created the conditions necessary

Created the Conditions necessary. By not using the word terrorists, he had the Arabs actually listening.

How many times has he done that to us?

We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

Oh we were all so tired of the Bush years and the lying Republican politicians, change sounded so good that we didn't stop to think that in order to "fundamentally" change the United States of America we would have to set aside our Founding Fathers vision of America since we no longer resembled that anyway. We didn't stop to think that in order to "fundamentally change" we would have to give up our liberty and freedom. Our property rights would be forfeited for "the common good".

The writer of the article thinks Obama may be pretending to be "centrist" (writers choice of words not mine) in order to make the Republicans look more extreme, to basically trick the moderates into giving him a second term. The writer thinks he is appeasing the Republicans. Again, don't know if I agree with that but this is interesting:

Will the American public pick up that nuance? Or will they buy the Republican rhetoric that Obama is a socialist dictator running our economy into the ground?

Will we?

Even more so, will packaging progressive ideas in moderate language make more Americans open to progressive policies...

Open to Progressive policies! How marvelous!

This is not one of the movement's better writers, but was probably more open and honest than most, or even more so than they would like for us to see. This is why you have slowly heard more and more politicians and public figures talking about the necessity of a little bit of socialism, it won't kill ya!!!! Heard the expression "nickel and dime ya to death"?

I've always heard that the best way to defeat an enemy is to understand him. We all need to read more of their (gag) writings. Saul Alinsky for starters.

As an example of how ignorant the referenced writer is, here's a post blasting Bush for saying Iran has or ever will have nukes. Gee, just two years after and where is Iran with it's nuclear program now?

Unfortunately for us, not all their supporters are this inept.

No comments: