Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
Your host, PM 'Papa' Carpenter


  • ***


« A pinky finger up for "All the Money in the World" | Main | 2017, the year of Trump, gets what it deserves »

January 01, 2018


I have a question. Order is important and if 2016 was a battle between Clntonites vs Sanderistas, Progressives vs more traditional Liberals then which is which. I would argue that a Progressive is someone who achieves progress and that is something most people who call themselves progressive don’t quite seem to grasp.

I have complete faith in the factionalism of the Democratic Party being directed towards Democrats btw. It is going to happen to some degree or other. Hopefully it won’t be too bad.

The basic problem seems to me that we have four political parties in the U.S., but only room for two. I used to think there were three natural parties, but it seems there is less and less in common nowadays between the center-left and center-right. And the members of each of the wings would rather fight their centrist brethren than the other side. It reminds me of a religious war, where you hate the people who agree with 90% of your positions more than the people who don't agree with you at all.

I’m not part of an organized political party, I’m a Democrat

Maybe some of the Democratic infighting comes from pressure being put on their party by self important commentators who constantly carp on them to have a coherent message that goes beyond stopping the abuses of the party and president in power. This is a standard that the media applies to democrats and democrats alone while letting republicans slide. During the great tea bag infestation of 2010, the republicans' only message was rage at Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. That was all they needed. The punditry didn't place any expectations on them beyond that, and they won.

I have thought about this too. In other systems, typically parliamentary systems like Canada’s, first past the post elections means they are less representative. Oddly they become more so when elections result in minority governments and force coalitions of parties to form a government. I can’t honestly say what is better. The American system tries to shoehorn everybody into two alternatives where internal compromise is absolutely neccessary to success. And the extremes of left and right insist compromise is anathema. Which is no different really from what happens in multiparty democracies. Those who will not compromise do not get to be part of them government.

The only difference I see is that only in America do these political extremes imagine that, once they get control of their respective parties, they can command the rest. Everywhere else on the planet people know that isn’t true. They can just find a party that suits them. It is really odd to read the cant and gibberish that emanates these sources. The revenge they expect to exact on their own parties once they’re in charge makes one think they imagined party affiliation is a genetic thing that cannot be changed.

If you want a real laugh I recommend Streif at Redstate. He is going mouth frothing round the bend in defense of Trump. Perhaps unsurprisingly he is one of those nutty ex-military types who thinks he should be universally honored by citizens he mostly despises.

I think the Democrats have a much harder job. I’ve been droning on about these natural conflicts within the Democratic Party for years. But I remain constantly surprised by the new and improved ways they find to shoot themselves in the feet. It is a talent.

Not in the last year, though. The Dems have done quite well these past months. I'm not worried overall, although we have to overcome the Russian hackers, voter suppression and gerrymandering. We have to deal with these. But we can. And 2018 won't be about the Dems; it will be about the Trump and Republican cash grabs and other disasters. There will be more of those in the coming months.

And a lot of the rats are leaving the ship:

Nailed it.

Yes they are. Even better, the Dems have greatly expanded their definition of attainable seats. While taking both Houses is not a light lift, with each passing week it becomes more doable. The governorships looks promising as well, maybe even more so.

"A Progressive is someone who achieves progress..."
To what end eventually?

"I'm sick and tired hearing about bronze all the time. Does stone not work, all of a sudden?"

I guess I'll have to make do with that clip as 'progress'.

To which I can only say:

You might want to start thinking about what "progress" is and for whom. I am pretty sure the whole LGBT community believes recognition of their basic human rights constitutes progress. Likewise I am sure that Globalization has made the world fantastically better for billions of human beings around this planet. That's also progress. Perhaps a conservative could explain to me why they aren't.

That's it, LGBTs and globalization? Progressivism ends there? Is a progressive's goal Always right and considered progress? How about workability and more importantly, sustainable for generations of healthy productive families and communities?

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Whichever individuals do you mean? Want some more examples? How about extending the franchise to women? Progress or not? Including Blacks into Social Security from which they were initially excluded? Progress or not? The whole American civil rights movement? Not progress?

My guess is that you mean sustainable exclusively for you and yours as so many Trumpists idiots believe. Here's the big question though, seeing as you appear to be a fervent advocate of capitalism. How exactly do you plan to convince the world that their job is to make your life better and not their own.

"fervent advocate of capitalism"- No, no no: a fervent advocate of late-19th Century capitalism. Personally I'm a fervent advocate of Twenty-first Century capitalism, although at this point I'd settle for post-1932. Whitewall's whole belch about "the future is red states" is the future is 1876.

How about a restoration of genuine conservative principals? Like respect for the rule of law? Or prudence in foreign policy? Or respect for institutions? The environment? Social covenants? All that stuff that these crypto-fascists hate and despise.

Yea I think I missed that particular belch. Did he mean Oklahoma? Where the wind goes whistling through your ears? Maybe he meant Texas. Which is turning purple. Any rationale offered as to why the future lies with the poorest states?

Rationale? As in "rational"? Put aside the defining oneself by who one hates, the resentment, the contempt for women, the rest of it . . . not sure if anything is left.

The comments to this entry are closed.