General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Liberals cannot win a majority in this country. [View all]MFrohike
(1,980 posts)I don't much care if it takes Blue Dogs to win in a given district. I do care that they try to impose their preferences on the rest of us. I'm thrilled that Heath Shuler's crazy district elects him, but I'm a lot less thrilled that Heath seems to think representing one of the furthest right districts in the south qualifies him for leadership in what's supposed to be the national liberal party.
I don't agree with get along by going along in elections. I think it's a failing strategy. I can understand the need not to get out too far in front of your constituents, but there's a clear difference in leading them slightly and pandering to their darker nature. I think what is most important to remember is that liberalism was once a fighting faith. It wasn't about outflanking people to the right or showing oneself to be more pragmatic by fawning over the neo-feudalists of Wall Street, it was about saying the other guy isn't just wrong, but he's damn wrong. It was about showing that while, yes your ideas may be untested, they do have one giant advantage over the other guy: they haven't been proved to fail over and over again. I don't know that such a plan would work in Nebraska, but I suspect it would work far better than whatever third-way, lukewarm candidacy is likely. I'd like to see someone just try to raise some hell and give it a try. Sure, it might fail now, but it could also lay the groundwork for the future. Hell, it worked with Reagan's speech for Goldwater in 1964.