New Democrats are not liberals. He has never called himself a liberal. His White House insulted liberals and he did as well, on one occasion.

And, what passes for liberal these days would have been simply a mainstream Democrat any time from FDR's first term through the 1970s.

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican."

http://prorevnews.blogspot.com/2013/01/obama-compares-himself-to-liberal.html

What is not consistent with being a New Democrat? Being a liberal.

It's odd that those who seem to have contempt for liberals also seem to bristle at the mere suggestion that they or Obama or some other New Democrat is not a liberal, too.

It's ridiculous.

Last edited Sun Sep 14, 2014, 04:54 AM - Edit history (1)

to say you're wrong?

we at DU use the word "liberal" differently than the country as a whole. Most people see a divide between conservatives and liberals, and as far as that goes, he fits into the liberal category. Here at DU, most people are much more liberal than he is, but we're a very liberal group and someone can be much less liberal than the average here and still be a liberal as opposed to a conservative.

Party and the Republican Party who worked for years to make "liberal" a bad word and pretty much succeeded.

That kind of backfired on New Democrats when Republicans started calling everyone who was not GOP or further right than GOP a "liberal."

Pretending there are only liberals and conservatives and therefore Obama is a liberal does not make it so. He is exactly what he called himself (but only after he was already in the White House), a New Democrat, who, in the 1980s, would have been considered a moderate Republican. IOW, according to the man's own words, he not even a traditional Democrat, let alone a liberal. He is a center right Democrat, aka a New Democrat, aka Third Way.

I don't think conflating New Democrats, traditional Democrats, liberals and the radical left is either accurate or conducive to communication. I don't even think it's especially honest. Those are at least four distinct segments of the left, not one or two--and of course, there is everything in between.

To claim that he is is frankly absurd.

Trash thread.

Additionally imo, i think it's critically important we hold a high standard of regard for keeping the integrity terminology defining concepts such as "Racism" (as an example) if for no other reason as to be given the level of seriousness the subject deserves, given that we live in a highly racist society.

In this instance wrt to the brouhaha around MM's recent commentary is an example of misuse of both terms "Liberal" and "Racism". Very difficult to engage in a serious discussion regarding political matters when we're not speaking the same language.

I think we could provide quite a long list of socio-political terminology consistently misused in this forum on a daily basis which I attribute to the Corporate Media as the main source.

Very difficult to engage in a serious discussion furthering and fostering better understanding among ourselves with the goal of creating unanimity , regarding political matters and concerns when we're not even speaking the same language.

but in the dichotomy of conservative vs. liberal, he fits into the liberal category.

nt

If that person is a liberal to you, rather than a center right Democrat, what is YOUR definition of liberal? For that matter, what is your definition of traditional Democrat (as opposed to New Democrat, which Obama says he is)?

The more specific you get with a definition of "liberal", the more you run into problems with excluding other versions of "liberal."

Traditional Democrats? That implies that the Democratic Party has had one coherent tradition since the early days of the party- the days of Jefferson and Jackson.

Democrat is a broad term. Liberal is a lot less broad. And I stand by my statement that the term liberal does not include someone who would have been considered a moderate Republican in the 1980s.

Zephry Teachout for President!

And, since there doesn't appear to be a complete transcript anywhere on the internet, here is one:

Obama is not mayor of Detroit and does not oversee Detroit's public utilities. Also Obama never to my knowledge claimed to have saved Detroit; Moore is thinking of Romney, who in 2012 said "let Detroit go bankrupt." Obama indirectly took credit for saving "the äuto industry" and over 1 million jobs "in America's toughest town," but not Detroit itself. So Moore got that wrong too. But the general dripping-with-contempt tone and disrespectful attitude are indefensible. There's nothing remotely liberal about Moore's performance in this interview.

He did say, when campaigning in 2012, "we refused to let Detroit go bankrupt", in a reference to Romney's line (which was in 2008).

Moore's point is that Obama said Detroit, but meant GM and Chrysler (as did Romney, but that doesn't help; Moore expects more from Obama than Romney). Detroit has gone bankrupt, literally.

Moore is definitely taking the liberal line here - that the huge problems of the people of Detroit, such as water getting cut off, deserve help from their country. "Obama is not mayor of Detroit and does not oversee Detroit's public utilities" is, to be frank, a libertarian line.

I don't hear any 'general dripping-with-contempt tone and disrespectful attitude' in the interview.

Moore didn't mention or name the mayor, Mike Duggan, who happens to be white. Not that utility shut-offs are necessarily Duggan's doing, but they're his problem, not Obama's. And looking at the camera and pretending to insult the president to his face -- which is what Moore did -- is a trick best left to GOP camp followers like Clint Eastwood. Moore has no excuse for such behavior and I can't figure out why anyone here would want to defend it.

if that's what you intended it to be.

"they're his problem, not Obama's" - again, this is a very anti-liberal thing for you to say. You have no excuse for such behavior.

There's no insult in what Moore said - it's strong criticism.

To want government officials to do only the minimum that is legally required of their position is libertarian. Here, let me show you a liberal response to the problem:

Next lesson won't be free.

I'm just saying that a liberal would.

for infrastructure, housing rehab, foreclosure abatements, pensions, effective policing...

What has Moore done for his adopted city?

not whether he is racist, or if liberals are abandoning each other.

It's a shame that some posters are characterizing his remarks as racist. They weren't - they were simply wrong and unhelpful.

Conversely, it's similarly shameful that his acolytes are pretending that he was misunderstood, that his remarks were taken out of context, or, deplorably, that he was correct. I still enjoy listening to Moore speak, but this was a giant faceplant on his part.

Apparently, he doesn't think he erred either, and that's a goddamned shame.

And that is reactionary and racist, as well as ignorant, mean-spirited and poorly informed.

JHMO, but it's not exactly a stretch, is it?

But not, IMO, because he's a racist. He could have chosen some other line of attack, but he settled on skin color because that was easy. It was especially insensitive, but somewhere between the extremes posited here lies the actual truth - that Moore's diatribe wasn't about Obama at all; rather it was (and quite often is) about him.

I don't think he's a racist because I don't think, at this point, his utterances are rooted in conviction. He's angry because Obama snubbed him. He's going through a divorce. His notoriety is fading. Maybe he has piles. Ultimately, his public performances are just that, and, I believe, should be considered from that perspective.

It's telling that he hasn't sought to clarify his comments. He bought himself another minute of fame. Why squander that?

Moore shows a very feeble grasp of US civics and that's the kind interpretation.

Obama is not mayor of Detroit and does not oversee Detroit's public utilities.

of Detroit.

Moore never said Obama was mayor of Detroit.So, posting that Obama is not Mayor of Detroit is refuting a point no one raised. Refuting a point no one raised is the definition of a straw man.

However, you had posted to me that you did not raise the issue of the mayoralty. And I refuted that by quoting your Reply 6.

Which, if you ask me, is where Romney lost the election because when I watched those campaign vids on convention night I saw victory. Brilliant. Anyway yes, "Detroit" in both statements (Romney and Obama's) is a synechdoche for the auto industry, not the city of Detroit, but Moore is definitely talking about the city government. So the error is Moore's, and he knows it, because he immediately hastens to his next point (his letter) as soon as he says it.

Not the city Government. If the City was in that bad of shape in Iraq, Civil Affairs people from the military would go in and get basic services up and running to everyone. Things like water, and power. They would repair the crumbling infrastructure and provide the public service people with badly needed equipment.

None of that is happening in Detroit, the city. You can blame the Mayor or City Council if you like, but the truth is that we have let a fine American City crumble before our eyes and moaned that we couldn't do anything about it. No Federal Inititives to help fix what is broken. No tax incentives at the Federal Level to bring business's and jobs back to the city. Nothing. Nothing at all which is especially disturbing when you consider it was the NAFTA nonsense that helped destroy the city.

NAFTA made it possible to move entire factories to Mexico, and import the car to the United States, and call it a Domestic Auto.

Look how many GM Plants are now in Mexico taking a handful of components and assembling these domestic cars in Mexico.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_General_Motors_factories

How about Ford? Same thing.

The Ford Fusion? Good car, built in Mexico. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermosillo_Stamping_%26_Assembly

Oh sure, they opened a plant in the US after the car was a hit, to make a few, but a majority are still cranked out in Mexico.

None of those companies after being bailed out by the US Taxpayer returned to Detroit. The Federal Government has done nothing. No grants, no initiatives, nothing. We find money for every pork barrel nonsense project in the world. How about this. We cut funding from the Department of Defense by ONE F-35 plane that we apparently can't live without or something, and give it to the City of Detroit to start some of the much needed repairs and improvements? Then Congress that loves tax breaks, can give some at the Federal Level to companies that want to move to Detroit.

We would rebuild the city better if it was in Iraq. But a city here in our nation? No, we'll let the buildings burn down because that's more cost effective.

I seldom find occasion to say that or to mention Obama's color or heritage at all.

Saying Obama is the first African American President is stating a fact. That is not, in and of itself, racist. Saying he will be remembered for having been the first black President and nothing else, however, comes pretty close, I think. It's borderline at best. Especially when race could have been left out of the discussion entirely. What did race have to do with saving General Motors anyway?

Saying Obama will be remembered for being the first black President and nothing else," is very different from saying "I am disappointed that the President (regardless of heritage) has not done more than he has."

And, whatever you think of the ACA, it was historic legislation. So was signing Lily Ledbetter, after Bush vetoed. So was Holder going after voting restrictions. So was abolition of DADT. So was a President's, in effect, putting his imprimatur on equal marriage and, in effect, coming into the Supreme Court on the side of equal marriage, despite DOMA. Quite a few things for which Obama should be remembered 100 years from now, IMO.

And, coming back to race, there has been more impressive dialogue from Obama on that issue than from any other sitting President.

So, Moore's criticism is factually unduly harsh. And this is coming from someone who has posted a lot of criticism about Obama.

but he does acknowledge that he will be remembered as the first black president. He doesn't think that 100 years from now, people will have nothing to say about Obama. But he doesn't think there will be other accomplishments mentioned. You might say, that going back just over 100 years from now, that Taft had no significant accomplishments at all.

Whether this is "factually unduly harsh" is a matter of opinion. Moore was giving his opinion. But I think you are right to criticise Moore mainly on whether Obama's achievements are significant.

I appreciated that. I did not think that Moore's actual statement was as blatantly racist as the OP made it seem. But I did think that, taken as a whole, it was borderline, at best.

As a separate matter--or maybe not entirely separate-- I think it was factually incorrect.

I do not, however, think that just saying "I am very disappointed that the President has not done more" is, standing alone, a racist comment. I don't even think that saying "Obama has done nothing," standing alone, would have been a racist comment. Factually inaccurate, yes. Racist, no.

that the other critiques of Obama are fair to do, and to keep it to that is reasonable. The complaint is that he inserted race into it when it wasn't necessary, and that feeds into the way people of color are always critiqued in a racial way - it wasn't necessary and feeds into the racism in our society.

And I don't think that, as praise, feeds into racism. His criticism is that he thinks Obama hasn't had other significant achievements that will be mentioned a century from now. As I say in #28, we might well say Taft had no achievements in his presidency.

It didn't look anything like praise to me.

Nor is it meant to be.

dude you got very rich and sold out. Your movies didn't change things either, except to enrich your personal wealth.

Very recently, until the Detroit housing market started to inch back up, it was widely known that you could have your pick of stately mansions for $1,000. Fix 'em up for about $100K apiece (with local labor, of course), that's 500 houses. Mansions. And $50 million into the local economy.

Granted, said mansions would pale compared to this work of art:



Instead, something déclassé, like this:



So... who could have saved Detroit?

The thread needed one.

and all Moore's money would not have been enough to save Detroit anyway. Not even initially, let alone for the next five years.

Besides, Moore's point is not entirely specious. Saving General Motors is not the same thing as saving Detroit. America is not about only Wall Street and the job craters the job creators. The more reminders we have of that, the better for America, IMO.

I agree with the OP that it should never have been linked to race, even in Moore's own mind. That is the issue. Not that Moore didn't spend $50 million of his own money in a futile effort to save Detroit. I think bringing that up only dilutes the real issue.

Neither is accurate.

Very "I never liked you anyway, you meanie! So nyaaaaaah!"

Whether one likes Moore's films or not, there's no denying his influence on the documentary, which pre-Moore consisted mostly of serious talking heads looking into the camera and presenting just the facts, ma'am. He helped make it acceptable for documentarians to drop the false pretense of objectivity and advocate for their positions.

Besides that, Moore was one of the few prominent people willing to criticize GWB back when his approval rating was near 90% and congressional Democrats were lining up to kiss his ass. Surely that is worth something.

Even if I were outraged about Moore's remarks--and I think they were ill-considered--I wouldn't try to trash the man's life and work. I certainly wouldn't resort to posting the usual right wing attacks on Moore--but then we see a lot of right wing talking points posted on DU these past few years.

Supposedly, criticizing Obama = RW talking points.

But, attempting to silence all criticism of the President, esp. via going ad hom is something I once considered right-wing type behavior.

Thinking it's wrong to racialize criticism of the president does not = "attempting to silence all criticism of the president."

I said there is some of that on DU. Not on this thread. On DU.

If you read my posts on this thread about Moore's comments, as posted by Muriel V. I think they did have a racist element and I never condone that. Please see my Replies 17 and 32.

QC started talking about Historic NY's post, not your OP, and ended by talking about DU generally. I replied to his comment about DU generally. Neither of us mentioned your OP.

We've seen that follow-the-leaderism, personality cultism, etc. are not exclusively right wing qualities.

It was easy to think that back in the Bush years, but the last few years have shown me the error of my ways.

Until then, I was just "Dem good, GOP bad."

So, everything I saw then in that regard seemed RW to me. If I had followed politics more closely before that, would I have seen that same kind of thing in regard to Clinton? I sure see it on DU with regard to both Clintons now. Even as to Chelsea, when she comes up in conversation here.

He was better than Poppy Bush, of course, and winning again felt great after losing three elections in a row, but NAFTA made old school Democrats feel betrayed--rightly. The failure of health care reform hurt, as did the retreat on gays in the military, and so on. Clinton was a mixed bag.

Democrats rallied around Clinton during the Monica blowup, but I can't recall anyone defending him for getting involved with an intern less than half his age. I certainly can't remember Democrats using warmed-over Reaganite talking points to attack liberals who criticized Clinton. That's something new, as far as I can remember.

DU would have been a very interesting place during Clinton's two terms, the elections, the impeachment, etc

Absolute balderdash.

Trash thread.

I said he isn't that that far to the left, but as far as the liberal vs. conservative divide goes, he falls into the liberal camp. He is not nearly as liberal as I am and I recognize that, but there aren't many politicians who are.

They are partisan party supporters who will tolerate no dissent

TYY

To the very , very limited extent that these people ever discuss politics (as opposed to personalities), they seem decidedly centrist, to put it charitably.

Quite a few of them seem to hate progressives as much as any freeper ever did.

No, leaving aside the relative merits of what Moore said--and I think it was pretty clumsy--this little flap is not a matter of liberals turning on a liberal or expecting more from fellow liberals.

but you and I are in agreement with your last sentence. That's precisely what I'm trying to say - there is a thread saying that people upset with Moore are liberals "turning on their own" and I disagree with that.

where people of color have criticisms relate to their race. He didn't have to do that.

I don't think he intended that but if you'll read the OP you'll see I said that. If you look at my journal you'll see I have another post about it.

His recent remarks are on target. The fallout on DU is typical partisanship. This plays out in the other party as well. There are people that put issues before party politics and there are people that put party politics over issues. The latter are folks with tribal instincts.

The only problem is inserting race into the conversation. He can say he isn't happy with everything about Obama, that he's disappointed, whatever, but to say that Obama will only be remembered as the first black president is to turn it into something racial - to racialize his criticism.

therefore you figure that Moore's supporters are behind *him* 100% and would never say if they disagreed with him

that's how the Loyalists also think: they don't defend Obama's policy, they instead assume that people criticize the policy because they're someone *else's* fanboy--Warren or Paul or whatever

that's the gaping flaw that lets you conclude that Obama's more liberal than Moore ...

I specifically said there would be no problem if his complaints were limited to non-racial issues, but when he says, "He'll only be remembered as the first black president," he's inserting race where race doesn't belong. That's the only issue. He doesn't have to stand behind President Obama 100%. I would not expect anyone to stand behind anyone 100%, and I think it's unhealthy to do so. He should not insert race into it though.

What I said is that it's ironic that people on one hand go after the BOG for supposedly standing behind Obama 100% without question, and then complain about people who don't stand behind Moore 100% without question are "liberals turning on their own."

it IS the BOG that demands 100% loyalty, whereas the liberals against the BOGers attacking Moore are NOT demanding 100% loyalty

I don't visit that group but that's not what I see at all. I see a group of people who feel like the president is sometimes unfairly criticized, and who feel the criticism is sometimes racial. That doesn't mean they expect 100% loyalty, just that they expect criticism to be fair and not racial.

Evidence for all the DU to see.

We have a Big Tent at DU...not everyone is a MM fan and most certainly not liberals either.

pounces on MM for any given thing, which isn't true - it's the racial nature of the criticism, not any given thing. I'm actually a fan of Michael Moore and own a couple of his books and a few of his movies on DVD.

And that the people unhappy about this are far from liberals. Assumption number 2, and also not true. Some are probably more liberal than others. I'm very liberal. I don't know where everyone else falls. I think most of the people who are upset are people of color, which makes sense since, as victims of racism, they're more sensitive to racial issues. It is not an issue of how liberal people are.

How liberal can that be?

I'll agree with you about that.

I also agree that not everyone here is necessarily even vaguely liberal.

I would much rather be in a diverse group of people, than a group like those that inhabit free republic. I can also understand some anger and even I said what he said was dumb and not thought out every well.

I just think as progressives, we are beyond the fat jokes.

Such a shame. They lower themselves to Moore's level.

I mean, how easy would it be say that, in 100 years, the only thing people will remember about Moore is that he was that fat documentarian?

That would be insensitive and unhelpful. Quite possibly true, but why vocalize it?

but he went there.

Moore is not a Democrat.

There are some Greens and Independent voters here on DU.

I did miss his entire statement so haven't gone out on any limbs on this one, but you are correct.

in fact you should criticize everything Obama does. But Glenn G. or well, anyone trashing Obama! We have to be behind them 100%.

I have another word for them

I thought I'd seen it all when Obama ran the first time, but the inner racist was released among some of DU's highest posters, and some were even shown the door. So, I'm not surprised that some can't contain themselves, and the masks are falling off all over the "leftosphere".