General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why the arguments of Obama's defenders leave many cold. [View all]jpgray
(27,831 posts)We must reelect Obama in 2012. We also must reject and condemn moves to mortgage, privatize, or otherwise contract the social policies that represent our most fundamental values as a party. It seems to me these are not exclusive goals. There are critics and defenders who believe otherwise.
I have a hard time seeing aggressive defense of the Deficit Commission, or our offer on the debt ceiling deal, as being consistent with maintaining or expanding our party's values. Both of these, among other policies and stances, represent a retreat from those values. Defense of such policies is not necessary for electing Obama, and criticism of them on a board where everyone must support his candidacy is not necessarily a call for withdrawing support.
We can be, at once, in retreat on foundational issues while making important progress elsewhere. We can elect Democrat after Democrat and yet see what we once stood for undermined or destroyed, and our platform slide further to the right each election. We can elect Democratic presidents, each one vastly superior to the GOP candidate, and still drive the country into misery.
The arguments to justify a slide to the right by our leaders, if they work for Obama, must also work for someone to the right of Obama, so long as the opposition is yet further to the right. Should the country continue in its present direction, they will eventually work for a Hunstman or Romney, candidates utterly removed from our values, so long as the opposing candidate is that much worse.
It's that sort of thinking that is morally bankrupt and contemptible to me.