Centrist politicians

Blue Dogs? Bring On The Purple Cats!

Sally Kohn — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:23:04 -0400

Am I the only one frustrated that now that we finally have a President who looks out for the greater good of average Americans, his own party won’t join the fight to take the country back from special interests? Yesterday, Indiana centrist Democrat Evan Bayh announced that he and 14 other self-titled “Blue Dog” Democrats have been secretly scheming how to dig a hole around President Obama’s agenda. For instance, neglecting to mention that all their hot air is further threatening the climate and making us all sick, the Blue Dogs want to bury healthcare reform and clean energy policies.

Hasn’t anyone told them that dogs are supposed to be loyal? Or that, as of November 2008, purple is the new blue?

But what really drives me mad is the Democratic party constantly bending over backwards to placate this fringe minority that is more wedded to Wall Street ideology than common sense and the common good. Democrats in Congress rush to prove their tax cutting and deficit watching bona fides to please the Blue Dogs, regurgitating Right wing attack lines on government and insisting that their policies aren’t really that progressive or bold. At a time when the American public handed a strikingly decisive victory to a Democratic president and now holding him aloft with dizzying popularity numbers---including support for a strong government hand in fixing the economy and support for Obama’s multi-pronged agenda —shouldn’t the majority of Democrats feel courageous enough to stiffen their spines and say and do what’s right?

Polls show that the American people think a bigger budget deficit is worth it for spending that jumpstarts our economy. And Christopher Hayes from The Nation has written that the Blue Dog’s signature issue of fiscal responsibility doesn’t even matter to their own constituents—it’s simply code for “centrist”. But at a time when the code itself is being codified into policy, when we need discretionary spending and deficit spending to jump start an economy that is plainly getting worse by the minute, shouldn’t the Blue Dogs be big enough to put petty politics aside for the good of the people? And shouldn’t the rest of the Democrats be bold enough to stand up for strong principles and a strong economy instead of wavering and equivocating each time the Blue Dogs tug at their tether?

Instead of constantly deferring to a small fringe group of ideologues as alpha dogs, it’s time for a new political caucus. I propose the Purple Cats. Anyone from any party should be able to join—unlike the Blue Dogs who masquerade party infighting as pragmatism, there are actually a number of decent and dedicated politicians who want to do what’s best for America, not just their party or re-election. And as popular resentment rightfully swells against Wall Street and the bloated executive class, Congresspeople with a conscience have new wind at their back to reject the wishes of their donors and re-commit to the will of the people. As Barack Obama famously reminded us, we are not a red America or blue America but the United States of America—all in the same boat in this growing crisis and all desperate for political leaders who will prioritize our shared interest and our shared sacrifice.

Another quality must define the Purple Cats: Claws. No more political leaders cowering in the corner when the Blue Dogs bark. It’s time to come out scratching, fiercely defending the principles and policies we all know are good for the economy, good for America, good for humanity.

We are facing extraordinary challenges as a national community that drive us to learn from our history as much as we can, a history that teaches that public spending buffers the inequalities and shortcomings of the private sector. In the 1930s, public spending was just under 20 percent as a share of the total economy and unemployment hovered around 17 percent for the decade. By 1944, expanded New Deal programs fully kicked in and public spending was, at its peak, 70 percent of the total economy. And unemployment for the same period was one percent. Knowing that cuts to government programs and reckless deregulation of the private sector got us in this mess in the first place and bold and big public spending is the only thing that ever has and ever will rescue us, how could any politician look in the mirror let alone the faces of suffering constituents and do anything but champion the vital role of government going forward?

They have a saying in the South: The cat is mighty dignified until the dog comes by. The Democrats seem mighty principled until the Blue Dogs foam at the mouth. But, especially at a time like this, it’s essential that principles beat out politics. Speaking yesterday at a town hall meeting in California about his re-election, President Obama said, “I would rather be a good president---to take on the tough issues for four years---than a mediocre president for eight years.” The Purple Cats should learn from his courage.

And anyway, I know it will get me hate mail, but everyone knows cats are smarter than dogs. The question now is can the rest of the Democratic party be smarter than the runaway centrists?

Sometimes, I twitter. Follow me! http://twitter.com/sallykohn

Progressive: Another Word For Democrat!

Timothy Gatto — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:03:17 -0400

For quite a while I have been critically looking at what I’ve been writing. It hasn’t been grammar and punctuation that have concerned me; it has been the style, the content and the political meaning which is part and parcel of what a political writer does when writing. Lately I have been wondering exactly where I stand politically. Apparently others have also wondered where I stand politically, as can be readily discerned by the number of so-called ‘progressive” sites that have decided I should no longer have the privilege of posting my articles on their sites.

This causes me to reflect on what it is that I write that could be so inflammatory? Do I write about issues that Americans shouldn’t be exposed to? Is my writing so radical that it should not appear in print? Have I called for revolution or violence? Have I pandered to the right? Each day I wrestle with why I am getting censored from sites that supposedly cater to the left of center, sites that call for a greater transparency in government, sites that call for an end to US imperialism, and sites that call for truth, I wonder what it is that I write that causes me to be banned from these sites?

Therein lays the rub. Do sites that claim to be progressive actually call for the truth, or do they call for opinions that are anti-republican, anti-Neo-Con and anti-Bush? Why was I banned from one of the largest progressive sites in America when I called into question the motives and legality of the raid on the FLDS compound in Texas? http://liberalpro.blogspot.com/2008/05/where-is-follow-up-on-flds-raid.h... . What was so terribly disconcerting in that article that would warrant getting my posting privileges on Democratic Underground revoked? Was it because I suggested that the government, in this case the CPS in Texas, had fabricated the initial phone call from one of the girls being held? Was it because I stated that the Constitution should be applied to all that the government does? Was it because even though I stated that the FDLS and its members should be investigated if they did indeed sexually molest under age women, that the authorities must still follow the law in prosecuting their crimes?

Whatever it was that I did to be thrown off that site; it must have been particularly egregious. I had only just joined the site as a member, but before that, over forty of my articles had been posted to that site by its own members in the last year. Somehow, I don’t think that the content of that last article was the reason that my membership was revoked. I’m starting to see a pattern here. What I’m seeing I really don’t like, in fact, if I were the type of person that was easily intimidated, I might quit writing altogether.

I’m starting to realize that there is not too much difference between the progressive media and the right. The truth is. that as long as you stay in the confines of their arbitrary belief system, as long as you write about what everyone else on these sites writes about, you are accepted. It’s when you start to question the two-party system in this country or the genocide being perpetrated against the Palestinian people in Gaza, or decry the fact that the military industrial complex funds the two Democratic candidates, now that is when you run into trouble.

The lesson that I am learning is that as long as you play nice, as long as you stay within the confines of the DNC’s propaganda machine, as long as you don’t cause too much of a ruckus, then you may continue to write for all of the so-called “Progressive Sites”. This is exactly the same as national politics. We have already seen that those politicians that accepted the status quo and made sure that they didn’t say anything too radical were allowed to debate and receive coverage from the mainstream media. It appears that the same holds true for the internet’s political websites. Progressive is just another word for Democrat. If Hillary Clinton could stand and call herself a progressive, I should have known then that it was time to move on.

There are still sites that carry my writing. There are still sites on the internet that allow for a broad range of political views. There are still sites that don’t cater to the Democrats and everything they stand for. As for this writer, getting banned from the largest, best funded sites, tells me that if they have to ban me or revoke my privileges, it only proves to me that what I’m writing must be important enough for them to try to stop me from writing. If I were not a threat to them, they wouldn’t have banned me.

That’s the way I see it.