Not Everyone likes what I write.
Lauren Webber: "Pure drek." Michael Teters; "What a load."
Henry Ex: "I know Peter's slant on things, so I don't even bother reading what he posts. They are usually long winded arguments to limit how progressive we are."
Most of the sharpest criticism of this blog comes on Facebook. I consider Facebook chatter to be primary source material: genuine first person data. Some of the criticism is the predictable defense of a candidate or business.
***Local candidate Curt Ankerberg sent repeated comments calling me a limp-dick idiot. I had written that he was unfit for office.
 |
| Logo from one of many progressive Facebook groups |
***Republican readers disagree with my comments on Congressman Greg Walden. I have written that his achievement of GOP leadership came at the cost of him being captured by the drug and telecommunication interests he oversees.
But the most useful criticism comes from the progressive left. The left is sorting out how to respond to Trump and the economic pressures on the middle class in America. Progressive or liberal. Left populism or left establishment. Young or old. Socialism vs. liberalism. Bernie vs. Beto. The punditry is busy discussing this right now. Example: Click: NY Magazine and here Click: NBC News
 |
| No overlap. McCaskill and Osecia-Cortez. |
Facebook criticism puts a vivid, first-person human voice to these disagreements.
Three days ago I posted on the two very different world views of Clair McCaskill of Missouri and Alexandria Osecia-Cortez on the Bronx. Both are Democrats. Senator McCaskill lost re-election. This blog wrote that McCaskill didn't "get" Osecia-Cortez, and vice versa.
The post got sharp criticism from the left.
I think the critics confirmed my premise by condemning it and me.
After all, didn't I see that treating these two world views as equivalent was tantamount to endorsing an unjust status quo? McCaskill isn't an ally. She is the enemy. Hitler.
For example, Keith Hanton said the very discussion of the two world views is tantamount to endorsing one of them, McCaskill's.
"Yet another hot take from a blue dog who says that the party is becoming too progressive. This would make more sense if this wasn't being posted on a forum with 'Progressive' in its name. And this is coupled with Peter stereotyping AOC as an "ingenue". . . Again, this is Peter agreeing with and helping to propagate McCaskill's and Fox News' narrative about her loss being caused by the party becoming too progressive. And this is the narrative Peter repeatedly spreads on this forum, with 'Progressive in its name. I'm going to leave this group the next post from Peter like this that the Admins allow."
Mike Gardner continues that theme of the bias inherent in supposed "neutrality." One is with the progressive left, or one implicitly validates its opposition, and I am observed to be on the outside.
"Backbreakingly painful attempt at opinionated screed trying to masquerade as unopiniond screed. Attempted construction 'straw man'. . . . False equivalence, progressive wing of democratic party and corporate/establishment win are fighting for what's left of the soul of the party. . I've taught myself to read through condescending and patronizing sideways comments that read between the lines. . . .
How much sanctimonious, self imposed virtue is there in pure neutrality (if such a thing exists)? Swiss neutrality, WW II? 'FDR, you have a point. Hitler, you have a point, too.'"
I consider comments like these a heads up for the left, and very useful to this blog.
Division is deeper than observers among the "regular" Democratic party might realize. The populist and progressive impulse is a revolt against the status quo. In this view, Obama was not an improvement; he simply put a kinder face on a deeply broken system, and was in fact part of the problem. They don't want incremental improvement in the status quo in which wealth is concentrating at the top and the middle class is disappearing. "Reform' validates an economic system too broken to fix. It needs to be replaced, with something bigger and bolder.
2020 prediction: The Democratic electorate will not settle on an acceptable Democratic candidate, because there cannot be one. I predict something like the 1968 convention.
I expect to write about it.
5 comments:
Well, the Blue Dog Devil screed you know is better than the progressive agitator condemnation you don’t I suppose. Your point might be that in ‘68 HHH from the party establishment would have been a better choice than Tricky Dick. The real action was outside the convention on the streets of Chicago. That battle, and the one playing out now for the soul of the party, may better inform the party’s uncertain future.
These ultra progressive responses to your blog seem to mix up what are your actual VIEWS, with what are your suggested STRATEGIES for winning, - FOR beating trump! a couple of responses you quote seem like "bots" to me, - too extreme to be real.
I am personally very liberal-progressive, but I wonder if my views are shared enough with those who are just left-leaning to cause a victory. AOC won in the Bronx,which is as liberal as it gets. Other districts, like the second Congressional district in Oregon, are so conservative that it is an uphill battle to defeat Walden. What kind of candidate can do the job?
It would be useful to know, regarding strategy, whether catering to the ultra-left or catering to the middle working white will cause a win on a national race. A leftest candidate would generate excitement and energy for campaigning, but might turn off the center. It seems like we may need to choose who we can pull in from the non-voting or unhappy trump voters. What do the stats show?
Who do we need most to win? I, personally, am willing to back off my views a bit, if necessary, to accomplish that!!
Leave your extreme views aside. Winning is everything. Once you win, you can do whatever you want.
Peter C. states something very important: it takes one strategy to win a primary, yet another to win an election. Once elected, the true core of the elected official is eventually revealed, and it may not meet your expectations.
In Kansas, several "R" winners of the November election have switched to "D" as their legislature is about to be sworn in.
Past R leaders had endorsed several D candidates, showing their disdain for the R candidates running for office there.
Yes, Kansans are quite surprised.
Then again, a D in Kansas isn't necessarily the same as a D in other states, especially Oregon.
Same goes for R, WP, I, L, and whatever other label is stuck after a candidate's name.
The party caucus is what finally decides what legislation is submitted, accepted, and approved. Junior legislators are expected to follow their more senior legislators, voting the party line. That will be difficult to change.
Be careful what you wish for.
I want to testify to the general public how my relationship was restored back by the great power's of Robinson buckler after three months of loneliness, my ex-lover called me after my contact with Robinson Buckler that he want us to come back and start a good home, now we are happily married. All thanks to Robinson buckler for his wonderful spiritual help. You can contact him on his via email robinsonbuckler@hotmail. com if you have similar problem, or any solution you may need.....
Post a Comment