Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama's Critics From the Left: As Wrong as His Critics From the Right

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 04:59 PM
Original message
Obama's Critics From the Left: As Wrong as His Critics From the Right

Frank Schaeffer
Posted November 30, 2008 | 05:36 PM (EST)
Obama's Critics From the Left: As Wrong as His Critics From the Right



When President-elect Obama said he'd reach out to the Republicans and all Americans, he was telling the truth. Apparently some people on the left hoped he was lying. Obama's "sin" in their eyes is that he is keeping his promises.

Other than the perpetually aggrieved paranoid cranks on the far right -- FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, James Dobson etc., -- most Americans (no matter who they voted for) are just glad that someone brimming with confidence, intelligence and good will is in charge of our rescue, at last! (Watching President-elect Obama's recent press conferences, one could hear a collective sigh of relief from sea to shining sea.) Nevertheless, a few critics from the left are now demanding progressive purity from President-elect Obama that is not in keeping with his clearly stated campaign promise to bring all Americans together, and to put governance and competence ahead of ideology. In that sense they are working against the aims of his presidency.

A few progressive critics are bewailing the fact that President-elect Obama's cabinet is "too centrist," or made up of "too many former Clintonites," or that he's working with the Republicans, or that he is "too hawkish on Afghanistan." Turns out some Pharisaical progressives are into guilt by association; "Look at the bad company he's keeping!" they groan. General Jones?! Clinton?! Gates?! The sky is falling!

As someone who escaped the fever swamp of the Religious Right many years ago -- I know fundamentalism when I smell it, be it religious or secular. And the criticisms of President-elect from the left stink to high heaven of fundamentalist orthodoxy, albeit with a "progressive" twist.

Here are a few examples of the fundamentalists of the left trying to make Obama fit their political "theology:"

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-cr...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. SECULAR = CONSTITUTION = AMERICAN = ALWAYS RIGHT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GarbagemanLB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. The sad thing is, I don't think you are joking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. I'm not, in this sense:
The author is equating religious fundamentalism and secular fundamentalism. But the thing is, our country is founded on secular fundamentalism. It's a point the author gets WAY wrong.

If the choice is between religious fundamentalism and secular fundamentalism, the Seculars are always right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. no, the country is not founded on 'religious fundamentalism'
it's founded on certain principles- one of which is separation of church and state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. It's founded on secular fundamentalism.
That's your first lesson, Cali.

Let me know when you understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. bullshit. fundamentalism is, by its nature, diametrically opposed to
reason. And the Constitution is very much a product of Enlightenment men and enlightenment reasoning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Lesson 2:
Secular fundamentalism in the United States is a strict adherence to the Constitution.

Religious fundamentalism in the United States is evil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. Making crap up again.
Strict adherence to the Constitution is a curious subject. The Constitution has been interpreted throughout the history of this country. Obviously, those who interpret it- the SC- have interpreted it in various ways.

You sound just like the wingnuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. So... Religious fundamentalists do or do not interpret the Bible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #36
43. religioujs fundamentalists, by and large, adhere to their particular
brand of doctrine. and no, they don't interpret anything. they accept what they're fed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. Who feeds them?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #36
106. I'm not aware of any mainstream Christian denomination
I'm not aware of any mainstream Christian denomination that precludes or denies interpretive techniques in their reading of the Bible... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidneyCarton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
107. Secular Fundamentalism?
Are you sure you know what you're talking about? If such a thing exists, it would have to act precisely as religious fundamentalism, in that it tolerates no other institution other than the secular state. Hence religious belief of any sort in the public sphere becomes intolerable and therefore must be suppressed. If you would please enlighten me as to where such a pernicious and stupid philosophy is expounded on in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights I would be much obliged. Until you can do so, I would argue that a secular fundamentalism is anthetical and repugnant to a strict adherence to the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. word salad.
what a confused person you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. That's because you don't understand the Constitution.
Just like the author of that stupid article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. no, it's because
you never say anything that makes any sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. The Constituion will never make sense to somebody like you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. lol. not your twisted interpretation of it
thankfully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Would you like to give an example? ...Of course not. You're Cali.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. you haven't given an example of what I don't understand and YOU
are the one that made the claim that I couldn't possibly understand the Constitution. The burden is on you to provide and example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. You have a problem with my post.
But, as usual, I am correct. So why do you once again have a problem with my correctness. Do you think Constitutional fundamentalism should EVER find compromise with religious fundamentalism?

If so, please give an example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. fundamentalism is about blind adherence to doctrine, be it religious
or secular. It's a term that shouldn't ever be used in regards to the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Nonsense.
But I knew you would come around to agreeing with me about how stupid the article is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. more word salad and putting words in my mouth.
Sorry, but fundamentalism absolutely is blind adherence to doctrine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. fundamentalism:
Edited on Sun Nov-30-08 06:02 PM by BuyingThyme
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalis...


1 a: often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs

2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>

Let me know when you're caught up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevinds13 Donating Member (176 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #26
100. You're correct why?
Cause you say you are? :eyes:

The Constitution was founded on Enlightenment principles, most importantly of which was REASON, and reason would explicitly reject any time of fundamentalism...whether secular or religious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. If you think a common sense article like that is "stupid"
...then we have nothing to discuss ever again.

I was wondering wny I took you off ignore after looking at some of your childish O/P's, this post confirms that you are one of the "fundamentalists" that cannot be reasoned with.

See ya forever. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Anybody who thinks secularism should make concessions to religious fundamentalism
is not only stupid, but downright un-American.

You're going out on a good one. Congratulations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Hear, hear. Secularism is the only thing that ever allows societies to thrive.
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #31
46. Fuckin' A.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #27
41. except no one has suggested any such thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #41
50. It's a infantile technique - accuse you of being Satan when you're discussing jaywalking
I am so thankful I won't have to see posts from that simple-minded person ever again (though I peeked to see what kind of dimwitted response you were responding to.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Aren't you the guy who just jaywalked this Satan onto your ignore list?
Woops, you looked again!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political_Junkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. that's a good term, Cali, word salad.
I've never heard that one before, it fits! Better than I could come up with! I was just speechless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
33. It's been around a long time - it often refers to schizophrenics' reading and writing ability.
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
66. it's a misuse of a real term in psychology...
...but that's our cali.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
70. I think you are taking "secular fundamentalism" out of context
You seem to be interpreting it as a single doctrine that is primarily about the separation of separation of church and state.

The author was using the term to refer to refer to multiple fundamentalists, some of them secular and some of them religious. The fundamentalists who happen to be secular are absolutely right about the separation of church and state as you point out whereas the ones who happen to be religious are dead wrong about it.

But these fundamentalists who happen to be secular are not fundamentalists because of their rigid uncompromising secularism. They are fundamentalists because of their rigid inflexible positions on issues that have nothing to do with the separation of church and state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. Given that Team Rookie was the alternative, I'm mostly fine with his appointments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. Good article... liked this
"As someone who escaped the fever swamp of the Religious Right many years ago -- I know fundamentalism when I smell it, be it religious or secular. And the criticisms of President-elect from the left stink to high heaven of fundamentalist orthodoxy, albeit with a "progressive" twist."

He is so right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GarbagemanLB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. One word describes Obama: pragmatic. He won't be a liberal version of George Bush, and
Edited on Sun Nov-30-08 05:06 PM by GarbagemanLB
some on the left, for whatever reason, expect him to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndrewP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
58. yep
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. I agree with every word. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. I am not happy about Gates. The rest are fine as far as we know at this point.
If he wanted a pug, Hagel should have been his man. The CIA director must NOT be a retread. Richard Clarke or Mrs. Wilson are my top choices. Also Sibel Edmonds deserves a position of importance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Im just the opposite
I dont mind Gates as a short term holdover, nor do I mind Hillary as SoS.

What I dont like is Obama's insistence that only old pro-capitalist DLC economy types from the Clinton era should handle the economic crisis were facing.

Those are the same people that helped get us into this mess, and Im really doubtful they've had a conversion away from their long held ideals just because they've convinced Obama to trust them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
11. It shouldn't be "Who" that we are interested in, it should be "What".....
Edited on Sun Nov-30-08 05:17 PM by FrenchieCat
will be done?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
16. off to the greatest page with ya! Progressive Fundamentalism
Edited on Sun Nov-30-08 05:20 PM by wyldwolf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
21. Good article.
I'm glad Obama is keeping his promises - it adds to his credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
23. Why is it that these missives fall apart in the first paragraph?
It is because that is where they attempt to establish the faulty premise that is the basis for the bullshit that follows. If you accept the premise you are then in danger of being persuaded by the logic that builds on it.


When President-elect Obama said he'd reach out to the Republicans and all Americans, he was telling the truth. Apparently some people on the left hoped he was lying. Obama's "sin" in their eyes is that he is keeping his promises.


Ok no, that is just crap. That is not Obama's sin. Obama isn't even sinning. It isn't even a question of sin, and the problem is not that he has 'reached out to republicans'.

The problem is that he hasn't


Reached Out To Progressives



So where exactly is the balance to Gates and Jones?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. you've got a point
but so does the author. And he has indeed "reached out" to progressives. Melody Barnes is strong evidence of that. So are his two closest senior advisors. Ignoring this evidence is just bizarre.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #25
39. I agree there are some second tier appointments
that are good. The cabinet appointments so far have been quite disappointing, and are my reason for being not exactly thrilled so far. My disappointment has not resulted in my denouncing the Obama administration, it simply means that I am willing to openly criticize what I see as potentially a disappointingly center-right more of the same Clintonian administration.

:begin rant: If that is true then the pattern established in the post-Reagan era is that periodically Democratic caretaker administrations are hauled in to clean up the atrocious mess made by the prior 8-12 years of outright looting and general malfeasance inflicted by the real Republicans. These regimes aren't allowed to actually change anything, they just put the federal government back up on its feet long enough for another round of looting. Cynical, I agree, and I hope that I am wrong, but there it is: my nagging paranoia that we just got screwed again. :end rant:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #39
67. that seems to be the game. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qibing Zero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #23
65. Also, by accepting the author's framework,
..you're accepting the idea that Obama was running more so on 'reaching out to heal the country' than he was running on change. Which seems off-base, if you ask me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #23
74. Why does it matter unless you and others are reaching for a reason to criticize him?
You are missing the point that the picks do not in any way define the direction of the term. So you are bashing him for no reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 06:24 AM
Response to Reply #74
91. That point is almost irrelevant to his thesis
Edited on Mon Dec-01-08 06:56 AM by Warren Stupidity
which is that we who dare to speak up from the left and question where this administration is preparing to go are "fundamentalists of the left" who should be dismissed for our theological secularism out of hand. Sorry, but that is just bullshit, and as I noted, the foundational premise of the line of bullshit spewed in the OP is, as usual laid out in the first paragraph to trap the unwary into the logic of the essay.

As for your point regarding picks and directions, your assertion that "picks do not in any way define the direction of the" administration is rather silly. Of course they do. They are a clear indication of the real political positions held by Obama and his key advisors. These picks, these choices, are the first actions of the new administration, they are the direction that this administration is starting out on, they are the first bits of evidence we have in the set of facts that will define what an Obama administration is.

Schaeffer's essay is yet another attempt to convince us that criticism from the left should unexamined and dismissed. We are just the twins of Rush and Hannity, although of course without the platform they have. We are just fundamentalist secularists, no more rational than dinosaur denying young earthers. Schaeffer is demanding that his audience not think, that they dismiss unexamined anything we have to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dana_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #91
103. Warren, you said it
so much more eloquently than I could. thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
30. I don't have a problem with him reaching out - I have a problem if those he reaches out to...
...who have been WRONG for decades about how to run this country manage to sway him.

But conservatives forced to support his liberal policies? AWESOME. Maybe they'll finally see how wrong they've been all along.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
38. As a non-ideological independent myself....
I am HAPPY to rec!!!

Money quote:

"There is a reason that the likes of Saints Kucinich (from the left) and Huckabee (from the right) are not the President-elect: most Americans don't want the Church Ladies of the right or the left running the country... Our country is not so much "center-right" or "center-left" as fundamentally anti-ideological. (Which, by the way, is one reason why the Sarah Palin nomination backfired so badly for McCain.)"

Fantastic stuff. Thanks for posting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. fundamentally anti-ideological?
no - fundamentally ignorant about politics and ideology in general. We are a center-right country that has been moving rightward since the end of the Carter administration. The last eight years have gone well beyond center-right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #42
55. And I think the author's (and my) point is that as a result
of Bush's 8 years of ideology, the pendulum has swung completely in the opposite direction.

Now, ideology is viewed as undesirable and the public wants people who will lead and govern in as UN-IDEOLOGICAL way as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qibing Zero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #55
64. The argument is false at it's base, though
All of Bush's major policy decisions were trumpeted as the pragmatic, realistic way to go about things. It wasn't until they failed miserably that we started having this entire argument about ideology, and it came to light how Bush put all his pals who agreed with him into office and stifled dissent.

This is not about idealism vs realism though, it's a concerted effort to marginalize the views of anyone the insiders view as too far from 'center'. Granted, after the last 8 years we should marginalize the views of the Bushites - not because they're too ideological, but because they're simply terrible concepts to run a country on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #64
72. Could not disagree more
All of Bush's major policy decisions were trumpeted as the pragmatic, realistic way to go about things.

If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were joking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qibing Zero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #72
81. Were you incapacitated for the run up to Afghanistan and Iraq? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #81
83. Did you lose your sight every time millions turned out in the streets to protest those wars?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qibing Zero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #83
88. No one's talking about the general populace here.
How much change has come about as a result of the popular outcry against the war? How much outcry was there before the war, even (which is what I have been talking about this whole time)? Who holds the real power over policy decisions?

The media was complacent in the war effort largely due to the mentality that we need to trust the hardened DC insiders, since they're smart and responsible pragmatists and all that neat stuff. Are you really going to attempt to argue otherwise?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #88
90. Just as I thought
No one's talking about the general populace here.

I, and the author of this piece, have been all along.

You missed the point of my initial post to Warren Stupidity which is the post that you decided to respond to. This has led us both to this long, not very interesting sub-thread.

Please reference post #38 where I SPECIFICALLY highlighted the author's point about the public and post #55 where I SPECIFICALLY referenced the public as in "Now, ideology is viewed as undesirable and the public wants people who will lead and govern in as UN-IDEOLOGICAL way as possible."

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #38
54. I'm glad people keep on pointing out all the horrible nonsense in this stupid article.
Again, for people who don't understand: Constitutional ideology is good for our government. Religious ideology is bad for our government.

So, to equate the Seculars with the Religios is.....STUPID!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
44. Schaeffer has it wrong.
It is NOT about the People.
It IS about policy.

The Left (actually the American center) strongly BELIEVES in certain things.

1) We believe that it was WRONG to invade and occupy a country that did NOT threaten, and could NOT threaten us. We also believe that those representatives that had integrity OPPOSED the invasion.
Those that claim that "Bush fooled them" are either lying, or too stupid to be in government.
Some points are given to those who state that they made a bad decision.

Naturally, The Left is upset by a cabinet that contains NO ONE who was right about Iraq, but only those who were WRONG.


2)The Left is strongly PRO-LABOR, and feel that the Democratic Party abandoned Working Americans during the Reagan administration. The policies of "Free Trade", deregulation, and privatization of the CommonWealth have destroyed good American jobs and turned our workforce into a slave wagers.
We strongly feel that the policies of Reagan and Clinton tilted the Economic field strongly in favor of the Ownership Society while dismantling the safety nets of the bottom 50%.
Naturally, we are upset to see Obama surrounding himself with the very people who helped create this problem.

Most of us were aware that Obama is not a Liberal/Progressive, though he uses vague Progressive rhetoric and Progressive imagery in his speeches. His voting record since he obtained his seat in The Senate has been safe/center Right. This year, he voted FOR Telecom Immunity after promising not to do so. He also supported the $800 Billion no strings attached Bailout after promising to ensure that there were protections for Taxpayers.....There weren't.
I'm NOT OK with this, and will SPEAK OUT.

Obama did promise he would have an inclusive administration.
He has included the DLC and The Republicans in top positions, but those who speak for The Left are conspicuously absent.
I'm not OK with this, and will SPEAK OUT.

We (The Left) agreed to hold our tongues during the campaign, and work our butts off to get "a Democrat" elected, but after November 4th, all bets were off.

I am a tireless advocate for PEACE.
I am a tireless advocate for Working Americans.
I am a tireless opponent of the MIC.
I am a tireless opponent those who advance the agenda of the RICH at the expense of Labor and the Poor.

Principle Before Personality


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #44
57. Perfect explanation, bvar22. I'll add that the author is name-calling and making up a storyline.
You don't hire people who are consistently wrong for other jobs (unless you want to see your business fail), so Obama shouldn't be hiring wrong-headed people for his cabinet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qibing Zero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #44
61. Yes, the Iraq War issue is huge
If there is a moment thus far in 21st century American politics more telling than 9-11 and our response to it, I don't know what it could be. The Iraq War was the apex of our failure in that regard, and is definitely a benchmark to judge politicians on. 'Change' has resounded in our heads for many months now, and the last thing we want to see after voting Obama into office are people who have failed the political litmus test of recent times being in key cabinet positions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #44
69. Hot damn! GREAT post! Thank you! You speak for me. I'd like to add just one more thing:
I totally reject and denounce any and all utterly bogus false equivalency crap, such as the author quoted in the OP promotes, between the fascist and authoritarian Right, and the humanist, anti-heirarchical people-centered Left.

The Left is ever and always the favorite scapegoat and whipping boy of those whose central concern is the preservation of the status quo, and their positions of relative privilege therein.

We hear this same refrain decade after decade -- the Left should just shut up, and preferably go away. Because we are the one faction of the body politic that will ALWAYS question authority.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #44
75. None of the issues you raised has anything to do with cabinet picks or whether those
picks have anything to do with the direction the administration will take. THAT is the point of the article and it is right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #75
92. if the pick doesn't have anything to do with the direction....
...why not hold a lottery?

or why not include the left?

the article is wrong and stupid. it is an attack on the left wing of the democratic party, and progressive independents, which as a poster upstream points out, is really the american center. seems the only safe target in america anymore is the "left". and that's because it is the only political entity with any real and lasting solution to our problems. and that is because it is the only political entity that will actually threaten the entrenched power and corruption of our government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dana_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #44
104. direct and well stated. thanks n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjorn Against Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
45. So this guy is saying that those who criticize Obama are like fundamentalists?
Edited on Sun Nov-30-08 06:12 PM by MN Against Bush
Isn't a fundamentalist someone who demands that no dissent is spoken? This guy has more in common with the fundamentalists than those who speak dissent. We voted for Obama, and we don't regret voting for him but that does not mean that we are going to be silent and not speak out when we think something is wrong.

Those who are accusing us of being "purists" are simply projecting their own purism on to us. They are telling us that we should stand behind Obama no matter the issue is, that is purism. Progressives disagree on many things, there is no "pure" progressive position. When we are talking about being pure to another individual's values however then there is a template people can go from for a pure position, and people are demanding that we become Obama purists while simultaneously falsely accusing us of being purists.

Dissent is necessary in a democracy, and I will not sit back and be quiet because people can't handle any criticism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
48. Please allow me to post more from this piece, which I may have missed...
because I'm reluctant to visit GDP these days for the very reasons the author cites:


What is the message from these cheerless Scrooges of the left? Joy? Celebration? The hard work of actual governance? Ba Humbug! We don't do winning! We don't do actual governance! We only do permanent opposition! Coal in everyone's stockings... again!...

There are two kinds of people, those that allow reality and experience to define and constantly modify their ideas and those who insist that their ideas define reality. The first kind make things work. The second type (be they right wing creationists, or progressive purists) stand on the sidelines wringing their hands and criticizing the doers for their "heresy," because doing anything in the real word always equals compromise, learning and change.

What they of the purist left want from Obama is an ideological orthodoxy of thought and action that does not actually exist, except in their imaginations. And where do they think they are living? This is America and that means that Obama will be trying to govern a country so diverse that Sarah Palin and Noam Chomsky both have a fan base here!

Moreover many of Obama's legion of young and energetic supporters have not heard of, nor do they care about, the Noam Chomskys or James Dobsons of this world. History is moving on. Obama is bigger than the pundits. He's bigger than the movements that have divided us. Believe it or not -- this is a new day....

Under the surface gloss of the left wing criticism of Obama there is, I suspect, something else: the critic's psychological need to feel indispensable, not to mention superior to those of us who like, trust and will follow President-elect Obama because he strikes our gut as likable, trustworthy and deserving of loyalty based on the self-evident merits of his outstanding character. It's just not in their genes to ever be so "ordinary" as to become team players, even when their side has just won. They would rather be in permanent opposition than ever be accused of -- horrors! -- being mainstream....


THANK YOU for posting, bsister!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. That's really a sick little excerpt.
Edited on Sun Nov-30-08 06:24 PM by BuyingThyme
It puts eternal vigilance on its ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #49
93. venomous would be the word, or mccarthyite. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. As I said, the opening paragraph established the faulty premise for
the subsequent bullshit, which bullshit clearly leads, thanks to your addition, to a shrill screed against the 'fundamentalist left', which would be like 50% of the people who voted for Obama, for wondering where their representatives are in his administration. How dare we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidneyCarton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #48
108. Yep, that's about the size of it...
And it boils down to the basic fundamental argument here on DU, between the ideologues and the pragmatists. The pragmatists are willing to make unsavory compromises and risk failure in order to do something. Ideologues are content to remain in the wilderness as long as necessary for the world to come around to their point of view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
53. The far left can be just a bad as the far right
It is the people who are looking for a fight and to prove their side right who are causing the problems in government.

One thing that I notice is that talking to Republicans, if you take out the politics of many issues, you can find that you agree on a lot more things than you thought. It is when you start arguing whose side is right that you get heated discussions and gridlock. It is like politics can be a religion, which just destroys all free thought and we fight to the death over when we essentially all want the same thing for this country.

My original appeal to Obama is that he recognizes this in the country, and wants to end the gridlock in our politics that has preventing us to tackling the real problems this country needs to address.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
56. The Far Left needs to remember what FDR said: "ya, well make me do it" ...
I was reading through the comment section of a few posts this morning (something I rarely can bring myself to do anymore) and I realized that I need to remind people of something that's very important for successful governance:

FDR was, of course, a consummate political leader. In one situation, a group came to him urging specific actions in support of a cause in which they deeply believed. He replied: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

He understood that a President does not rule by fiat and unilateral commands to a nation. He must build the political support that makes his decisions acceptable to our countrymen. He read the public opinion polls not to define who he was but to determine where the country was and then to strategize how he could move the country to the objectives he thought had to be carried out.

If Obama wants to govern as liberally as the political circumstances allow, then we need to work to make sure that the political circumstances include a strong liberal base. Mindlessly cheerleading out of a misplaced sense of loyalty will not help him. As Roosevelt understood, politics are interlocking interests and constituencies that have to be brought to bear to achieve certain goals.

In the current political world, I believe that Obama and the Democrats need a strong left wing that is out there agitating in order that we can continue to build popular support and also give them a political excuse to do things that the political establishment finds too liberal. Being cheerleaders all the time, however enjoyable that is, is not going to help them. Leaving them out there with no left wing cripples them.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/making-him-do-it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
59. I could be wrong, but I think that Schaeffer has a distorted view of our current concerns.
My wanting one - or a few - new bright shining lefty faces - in addition to Obama's is *not* the same thing as my being an ideologue who will not allow centrists or conservatives to contribute to the discussion.

I have not, and will not ever, wish defeat on Obama's administration because I am concerned about his team.

At the same time that I can see the potential wisdom of the foreign policy team he seems ready to announce, I am also concerned that they will play the role of Scotty in the old Star Trek series - calling out "Captain! It can't be done!" every time he tries a real departure from past policy.

At the same time that I can understand that we really do want someone who knows what the hell the Treasury Department does at Treasury, I can also see that Geithner and Summers are reasonably seen by many as being foxes left to guard the hen house.

Finally -- the one nice bit about this article is that Frank Schaeffer quotes Noam Chomsky from the speech that was aired on DemocracyNow! last week. OMG! Frank Schaeffer apparently knows that DemocracyNow! exists! THE LEFT HAS A VOICE! WE HAVE A VOICE! One clear, uncompromising voice and her name is Amy Goodman. (I like Keith and Rachel just fine, but my heart is that of a peace and social justice activist and nobody does those topics as well as Amy.)

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #59
77. I dont think that he does...
I think the criticism of the cabinet picks is among the most silly exercises in which I have seen Democrats engage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #77
94. that's because you're not coming from the progressive left.
his comments don't personally insult you. obama's picks don't exclude you. you're ok with democratic party centrist bullshit. of course you think he got it right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #94
109. Oh yes I am. If you list what the progressive agenda is, that is where I am...
I dont see where that agenda lists specific cabinet picks though. That is the difference between those going crazy over cabinet picks and me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qibing Zero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
60. How sickening
Do people not see that this article is written in the EXACT same tone as every single piece about the Iraq War, torture, etc which claimed we need to listen to the 'responsible adults' out there and 'grow up' and be realists? This is the bullshit that stagnates American politics. This is the stuff that underlies every discussion about the failings of our two party system. Fuck this 'the people in power got there because they're better than us' meme. Bush was clear evidence to the contrary, and just because Obama is many times his intellectual superior doesn't mean he automatically knows what's best.

There is an even more terrible theme which this article reeks of, though. Religious fundamentalists are known as 'crazy ideologues' because they either ignore or crusade against logic and reasoning. You cannot compare them to the 'fundamentalists' on the other side of the aisle, because most secular thinkers out there are not 'crazy ideologues' by any stretch of the words. Just the simple fact that a rational person is willing to put logic before any personal beliefs is enough to break the entire argument. If you don't see the difference between 1) someone who takes literal word for word the translations of thousands of years old ramblings, containing at their core events which defy the laws of the universe as we know it, and 2) someone whose 'doctrine' comes from their own reasoning based on the evidence available to them, I don't know what to say.

In any case, in this country the left and right are distinct more so in their make-up than in their actual policy differences. The right is generally very authoritarian (minus some parts of the libertarian wing), and any two Republicans will tend to agree on the issues more often than not. The left is an extremely diverse group, however. There is no groupthink, and Democrats criticize Democrats frequently, resulting in much more reasoning being done. Attempting to paint both sides with the same brush is ridiculous, because one side is not nearly as crazy as the other. And yet, Schaeffer claims that America is about finding the political beliefs that form the average of the two parties and going with that. If you ask me, he's the crazy one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. Yeah, right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #60
73. You are measuring cabinet picks against the Iraq war?
Edited on Sun Nov-30-08 11:05 PM by stevenleser
I think the language is completely appropriate for pooh-poohing criticism of cabinet picks.

If/when people were saying that about the Iraq war, not so much.

So basically, you were right to object to being put off this way if it were so during the discussions about Iraq, but you arent right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qibing Zero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #73
82. The argument is flawed, no matter what it's used for
There is nothing inherently sane about being a 'centrist'. Sure, it's human nature to embrace the status quo when it works, and I generally give people the benefit of the doubt in that regard. However, there are so many things wrong with this article, I hardly knew where to start.

In any case, it's hardly coincidence the responsible adults chosen for many of the cabinet positions were the ones wrong about Iraq too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tonycinla Donating Member (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
62. One Disagreement
Quite frankly most Americans would be happy with any number of competent serious people at the helm.We were begging for competent change.Biden,Clinton or Dodd would have fit the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agentS Donating Member (922 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
68. Don't paint us all with the same brush
I'm waaayy into left field. Universal government paid health care, no more nukes, stringent eco protections, space travel, the works! And I don't have any complaints with his picks.
Remember that they work FOR him, not for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShadowLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
71. One big thing to keep in mind, Bush would have looked like a centrist at this point
Recently on one of the political talk shows one pundit pointed out that based on cabinet appointments Bush would have looked like he was governing from the center right with all of the moderates he had, like Colin Powell. But we all know how that turned out and how Bush ended up governing from the far right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
76. Great OP-ED. Loved reading this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
78. K&R, great OP, great article by Schaeffer...
people need to keep pressing on this to hopefully get it through the heads of those attacking Obama for his picks that it is a silly excercise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
79. If both the far right thinks that you are too far left and the far left thinks that you are
too far right, you are probably where most Americans are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #79
95. that's just abominably stupid...
...becasue it completley ignores real definitions of right and left and subscribes to ideology in support of an anti-ideology screed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
80. I have no problem with Obama reaching out to those on the right
I just wish he would reach out to those of here on the left. Instead, he seems to be doing what Democratic presidents have done for the past sixty years, used us during the campaign, demand our votes for the election(after all, who else ya gonna vote for, the Republican? Yuk yuk yuk yuk), and then ignore us upon getting sworn into office.

Like Clinton, I'm willing to give Obama a chance. But judging by what I've seen since the election, things aren't looking to good for the left again under an Obama administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
84. I find that article by Schaeffer insulting to intelligent Democrats.
Edited on Mon Dec-01-08 12:46 AM by madfloridian
I really do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
85. the problem isn't that he has reached out to the right
it's that he is *only* reaching out to the right

(one or two exceptions prove the rule)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
concerned canadian Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
86. excellent article

Like a breath of fresh air in a musty, suffocating cellar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
87. Ummm, there is only one small problem with all this.

Frank Schaeffer IS a fundamentalist. His father was among THE right-wing fundamentalists who built opposition to abortion into a pillar of the Republican Party:

"...without my family's involvement in the pro-life movement it would not exist as we know it. Evangelicals weren't politicized until after my late father and evangelical leader Francis Schaeffer, Dr. Koop (Reagan's soon-to-be Surgeon General) and I stirred them up over the issue of abortion in the mid-1970s. Our Whatever Happened to the Human Race? book, movie series and seminars brought the evangelicals into the pro-life movement.

(Dad's political influence persists. Last week one of my father's followers -- Mike Huckabee -- was interviewed by Katie Couric, along with all the other presidential candidates. Couric asked the candidates if they were to be sent to a desert island and could only take one book besides the Bible, what would that that book be? Huckabee answered that he'd take my father's book Whatever Happened To The Human Race?)"

Schaeffer eventually broke with his father's Calvinism and became a Greek Orthodox fundamentalist. Something of the flavor of his support for Obama can be seen here:

"What we need in America is a spiritual rebirth, a turning away from the false value of consumerism and utilitarianism that have trumped every aspect of human life. To implement this vision we need leaders that inspire but to do so they have to be what they say they are. It's not about policy it's about character.

Obama's rivals for the nomination -- the Clintons -- do not inspire. When the Clintons were in the White House they talked about humane values while Bill Clinton betrayed every single person who voted for him by carrying on an unseemly sexual dalliance in the Oval Office with a young woman barely out of her teens. Since that time the Clintons have enriched themselves through their connections to a point where they're able to make a $5 million personal loan to their campaign."

Why I'm Pro-life and Pro-Obama
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/why-im-pr...

This guy does more than a little "projecting" and his attitude towards "criticism" of any sacred object is no different then when he was a flaming right-winger. Like he says, he knows fundamentalism when he sees it... and he sees it ALL the time.

All in all, he is the perfect champion against that "critical" left-wing.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qibing Zero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #87
89. It's a shame that this is the information which will turn people against him
..and not the numerous fallacies he spouts in that article.

But hey, whatever opens minds is a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #89
96. i sincerly doubt any centrist minds here are going to be changed.
centrism has its ideology too, i.e., enable the right and oppose the left at all costs. du is poisoned with this ilk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #89
98. The source matters.
When one is being lectured on Human Rights by Condoleezza Rice, on Religious Fanaticism by Frank Schaeffer, or on World Peace by Henry Kissinger, it is usually sensible to stop a minute to catch one's breath - no matter how convenient the "sound bite" seems. It is true that Obama has not even been inaugurated yet, but that cuts both ways. What are all these attempts to silence the "left", before the "game" has even started? Where do they originate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
97. Good read.
I particularly like this phrase:

"As someone who escaped the fever swamp of the Religious Right many years ago -- I know fundamentalism when I smell it, be it religious or secular. And the criticisms of President-elect from the left stink to high heaven of fundamentalist orthodoxy, albeit with a "progressive" twist."

Yep, too many appear to be the reverse side of the Freepers in their virulence against all who they don't perceive to be as "progressive" as is their wont. For example, the incessant Clinton bashing on this board.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
99. I try not to be too hard on Frank
as his childhood was intense. But Frank is still a fundamentalist and a religionist. It is to be expected that he would seek to criticize those whose goals he opposes. Frank is opposed to many of our goals as Democrats, and specifically he is opposed to equal rights for my family.
So of course Frank wants me to shut up about equal rights, he opposes them. Frank has been on the other side for my entire life. I mean that specifically. Recently he has been attempting to mitigate his role in the creation of the right to life movement, but he is not a man I would trust to wash my car, and I have known his family work for decades, known of Frank for decades.

Of course he wants to shut the liberals down. He's a conservative. Note that his examples of demands from the left are mostly people asking for one solitary appointment for the left. Asking for one is too much for Frank to deal with. Asking for one is characterized as demanding purity. Frank is dishonest. To be kind about it. Religionist, pro-discrimination, and a founder of the Right to Life movment. That is Frank. Add some ego and a lack of self inspection, and that is the man as a whole. He is a guy who should be dedicated to learning, yet he stil thinks of himself as a teacher.
My views on Frank are just not that fuzzy. I feel sorry for him. I sure don't respect his political views, nor trust that when he speaks strongly it is because he means it. He was strong as a leader of the Religious Right as well. Said all of that stuff, with great passion.
Grain of salt time, without question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
101. Sigh. Not even reading this article. Tired of seeing people lecturing others on how
they should agree with everything Obama says or does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
102. remarkable
The election is being aggressively cast as a resounding and crushing defeat of anything and everything even mildly left wing, and Democrats are gleefully jumping onto that band wagon, even though it requires them to dramatically contradict themselves again and again.

Either people are extremely confused, or they have not been honest.

While the Bush administration was in power, the Left was tolerated. One would think that the Left was more than some tiny despised fringe, no? One would have thought that the people voting as they did against the right wingers, that perhaps they were rejecting the right wing. Now, we hear more and more voices claiming that the "Left is not better than the right!" and that the election has proved the Left to be wrong and irrelevant.

How many here thought or said before the election that a vote for Obama was a vote to destroy the Left? How many people in the general public thought that was what they were voting for?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orwellian_Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
105. What about praise from the right
Edited on Mon Dec-01-08 12:43 PM by Orwellian_Ghost
How does that fit in to the equation?

"Superb ... the best of the Washington insiders ... this will be a valedictocracy -- rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes."
-- David Brooks, conservative New York Times columnist

"Reassuring."
-- Karl Rove, "Bush's brain."

"I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain ... this all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign ... Clinton and Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for 'neo-liberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neo-conservativism.'"
-- Max Boot, neoconservative activist, former McCain staffer.

"I see them as being sort of center-right of the Democratic party."
-- James Baker, former Secretary of State and the man who led the theft of the 2000 election.

"Surprising continuity on foreign policy between President Bush's second term and the incoming administration ... certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush ... "
-- Michael Goldfarb of the neoconservative Weekly Standard.


Hillary Clinton will be "outstanding" as Secretary of State
-- Henry Kissinger, war criminal

"The country will be in good hands."
-- Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush's Secretary of State

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/109160/neocons%2C_re...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #105
110. Case closed.
Damning collection.
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC