Re: Kagan nomination, they lost me at liberal pragmatist

Pragmatist is a well known keyword association to the conservative and corporatist DLC.

History has shown that "Liberal" in conjunction with any term hanging on a DLCer is 'a spoonful of sugar' provided with the hope that progressives will reflexively swallow.

your homework.

I was grinding out the homwork

They can be really dangerous.

If the best our intellect can do is look for one word to make an entire argument, then we're really dumb.

:eyes:

the president is easily described as a liberal or progressive.

But if we don't, who will? -- Bloom

I just point that out because everyone thinks he is some flaming liberal...

It was Johnson who took the ideals of the New Frontier and translated them into ideas that worked.

:)

Fuck pragmatism!!!

Everyone knows the world is filled with absolutes and should be approached as such. In fact, everyone knows that all the world's problems can be solved by just asking YOU how we should do it, because of course, you are the epitomy of liberal liberalness who has all the liberal answers. Liberally speaking.

pragmatist sort of way, that is.

Tight as a mutherfuckin' drum, chum........p.

lol

Love,
Satchel.

To which the reply would be "Here's your card."

n/t

LOL

"My condolences on your devotion. It's in a better place now."

Love,
Satchel

while getting absolutely nothing done. Damn those pragmatists for making all that progress and stuff!

Yep, gotta love that "pragmatism" :eyes:

Putting up a picture and calling it pragmatism is a strawman and intellectually dishonest.

such as the "pragmatic" idea that offshore oil drilling is a good thing, and a viable solution to US energy problems.

The picture shows the result of such "pragmatism".

Your definition of how pragmatism worked in the debate about off shore drilling is incomplete and intellectually dishonest.

The pragmatic approach is, "we know we need oil while we switch to alternative energy sources and we will take a pragmatic approach of compromise in order to gain enough support to actually move to those alternative energy sources."

What the disaster in the gulf does is shift the basic premise of the debate forcing enough who would have opposed energy legislation without off shore drilling into an untenable position where they will now be forced to do so.

I would further point out the intellectually dishonest postiion of attempting to create a negative connotation with the word "pragmatism". This was the approach used by the right wing with the word "liberal" and is the current approach being taken by the right with the word "progressive". Attempting to paint a word or a label in a negative light in order to make it a "dirty word" is an extremely regressive move and has absolutely nothing to do with being progressive.

Pragmatism is the first and most important of the progressive values. Without pragmatism there can be no progress and thus, attempting to paint pragmatism negatively is a regressive value because the result can only be regression.

and obviously not ever employed by those who find it so distasteful.

about how that Socialist bastard extended the Great Depression right here on DU?

Anyone?

How do you know it's "sterile"? You have a window into everyone's soul? And why should that make any difference, really?

So the only type of pragmatism that's ok is pragmatism that's based on the right emotional mindset as defined by you. Got it. How narcissistic.

Where is pragmatism defined as sterile?

Making up definitions for things is fun! Wheee!

I hereby define "pragmatism" as "chocolate cake". Mmmm. Pragmatism.

Prostitution.

Oh, what a philosophy to pride oneself in when considering the mere concept of "pragmatic love?"

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

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Good luck with that strategy come November. ;)

Good luck accomplishing anything without being pragmatic.

Yes, it's very clear you have a real problem with "reason". Oh yes, that's very clear.

Being reasonable does not mean being sterile or completely without emotion. And neither does being pragmatic, and you STILL have not put up a single definition of pragmatism that contains that element. Your idiotic link defining "pragmatic love" notwhithstanding.

I guess in your demented world there's no room for reason when your gut (or god) tells you what the "right" thing to do is, facts and circumstances be damned! Now, where have I seen that particular mindset before? Let me think...

Good day.

It's love baby! :rofl:

and it sucks pond water.

I feel sorry for you ... if this is how you get your kicks, you're in need of more hobbies.

With "Pragmatic" Love,
Satchel.
XXOO
:rofl:

That's so sad. Just sick minded and a poor way to treat a fellow member of DU.

Your keyboard makes you quite the rudeness commando.

Bravo Genius.

Baby.

My love ain't simple
My love can grow
My love's pragmatic
And long and slow
Love,
Satchel

:thumbsup:

Baby.

So, pragamatism is absolutely evil. To you.

But absolutism is obviously honkey dorey in your book!

:rofl:

Yes, let's be absolutists. Because that never leads to problems. Or lot's of dead people.

Yeah, nothing like knowing you're always right about everything and nothing ever changes! Stay the course!

to get the results you want, i.e., the means don't matter.

But your observation about these hyphenates is interesting and probably, true.

"pragmatist" family words are used as rationale to get "us" to believe that what "they" want and what "they" are gonna do is somehow the result that "we" want.

:wtf:

:P

of the gap between what is feasible at the moment and what you desire ultimately. It is operating in real time. You can do that with an eye toward realizing future goals. You can operate with pragmatism and have ideals to base your actions on. Sometimes you need to build a scaffold where no structure exists.

"Indefinite detention" and the whole world being a "battlefield" with no surrender ceremony stopped me cold.

all while those that heap scorn on the title liberal pragmatist are playing their fiddles of self satisfaction while Rome burns.

Are we better off now than we were when Carter was president?
Made any progress on ANY progressive issue that you know of?
Involved in less war?
Had any progress for working people over that time?
Pragmatism I suggest has worked for them not us....them being the elite and us being the rest of us.

getting a good job was nearly impossible and they were not protected from harassment. Blacks and other minorities had some rights but were far from equal and the idea of a black President in the 70s would have brought nothing but laughter and scorn. We have cleaned up the environment as well. No more rivers catching on fire or toxic waste dumps killing people like Love Canal. Gays have made huge strides as well. There were no civil unions in the 70s and few dared come out of the closet. If you talked about gay rights in the 70s people would have thought you were talking about the right to happiness.

And yes blacks and gays have made some gains, but it was traded for losses in other places....like in the 70s I was making 10 bucks an hour and I could raise a family on that kind of money then very well.
Now many are still making 10 bucks an hour and Both man and woman must work and still fall behind.
We have went from importing 30% of our oil to over 60%
The war on drugs has gotten even bigger and more expansive and we now put more people in (private in a lot of cases) prisons than any other country in the world.
The millionaires of old are now multi billionaires and are getting even richer than at any time in history.
The bill of rights has been shredded.

Need I go on, because I could for a long time telling you how things have changed for the worse for ALL of us.

Parsing perceived code words and labeling them as something other than liberal... wow.

And if I choke a little that won't bother anyone so long as I recover in time to scream YEAH!!!!! at the end of the cheer.

:rofl:

DLCers are such a disappointment. What I learned during the Clinton years is that no matter how much he conceded to the right, all that happened was that the right was empowered and we lost ground. The last thing we need is a corporatist Dem on the SCOTUS.

we must all sit around doing NOTHING but holding ideological purity contests!

to GET THINGS DONE

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

of fairness and compassion as would his efforts to end DADT.

And the visitation rights MEMO was NOT an executive order. It was a request to the Department of Health and Human Services to set up visitation priviledges for GLBT people...with no directions given for how to punish those hospitals which do not comply. The memo was another crumb that Obama grudgingly tossed to gay people in order to get us off his back about his stonewalling on DOMA and DADT. If he was truly serious about wanting to ensure that GLBT had the same visitation rights as straight people, he'd be pushing Congress to repeal DOMA. Instead, he had that promise removed from the White House website, while his DoJ defends it in court even more strenuously than Bush's team did.

Obama has less compassion for GLBT people than I have respect for your opinion. And that's truly terrifying.

while in an ideal world things like election years shouldn't matter in the real world it does. There was a very good chance the measure could have been defeated and the GOP could have exploited the issue as a wedge issue to get out the bigot vote. Instead by putting a hold on DADT prosecutions and pushing it back past the election he will have a Congress that will feel freer to act and they will have a detailed report by the military on how they plan to implement the change. That will certainly improve the odds of a successful outcome.

75% of the American people want DADT repealled. A majority of the MILITARY wants it repealled. Congress has expressed willingness to repeal it. Obama has promised that it will be repealled.

And Obama is pressuring Congress not to repeal it. Moreover, he refuses to halt the discharges of gay servicemembers until it is repealled, which he is fully empowered to do.

Barack Obama doesn't give a shit about gay people.

57% rather than your stated 75% are in favor of ending DADT.

TPM reports:

Military families are split on repealing the rule, with 48% favoring an end to DADT and 47% opposing it.


As for evidence of a wedge issue:

Republicans oppose repeal of DADT, 53-40.

and Evangelicals also opposing the end of the ban



I am all for ending DADT. The sooner the better. However I don't want to end up blowing this chance to end it once and for all and I certainly don't want that failed effort to result in the Republicans being back in control (which the numbers show would end all hope of the elimination of DADT).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

is that the best you could offer in terms of facts and points about the issue? It sounds like you didn't have a reasoned response to the points I raised so you fell back into attack mode.

I offered up CORRECT facts and figures and told you where they came from and I built my positions on those things. Why can't you do the same?

Here's the link again. Going to have this one deleted too?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127904/Broad-Steady-Support-Openly-Gay-Service-Members.aspx

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

start here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Lv_16SCEzHkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=american+pragmatism&source=bl&ots=BHO13aaZPH&sig=y76cgxfHBXtz1A8LLBhnfCY7aWQ&hl=en&ei=DKXpS6WnLMP68Abt5qTlDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=american%20pragmatism&f=false

The OP is exactly right.

:rofl:

So we must submit to the subversion of the term then? I get it now. Obey.

If they use the word, it doesn't matter what they MEANT, it only matters what the historical definition of the word IS. So, even though they MEAN "corporatist", what they really ARE, by definition, is "pragmatic".

Yes, keeping our heads in the sand and not grasping the concept of "context" will magically prevent the new "Pragmatists" from destroying every Progressive value in the United States.

:eyes:

that he/she would be better armed when someone misuses by conflating it with the phrase "whatever it takes" or "by any means necessary". My angle is that the way the word was used in the OP buys into the subversion of the term, and I think that is tragic. And we can hem and haw about corporatism all we want, but our complaints about corporate power in this country do not change the fact that a fairly radical philosophy has been subjugated in the process. I recommend the book I linked in my post. I truly do.

Another book I recommend, a more contemporary one, is Philosophy and Social Hope, though no one surpasses Mead's lectures: "Mind, Self, and Society"

It's my experience that this is DLC-speak for "one of US new Dems, who have ordained ourselves with the word LEADERSHIP."

Real leaders don't run around yelling "I AM A LEADER!!!!" People who are running around yelling "I AM A LEADER!!!" are political marketeers.

The problem as I see it is that some people don't recognize spin when its pressure waves slam into their cochlea.

however my point is that when you use pragmatism in the manner that they choose, you sort of bought the spin yourself. Being pragmatic is not about "doing whatever it takes" or "finding the middle road" or "third way" in DLCspeak.

It's about gaining mastery over your environment through historical knowledge and practical skills, and then being the change you'd like to see. That's why the early pragmatists were leading proponents of education and a radical expansion of democracy. John Dewey being the most famous example, who was public enemy number 1 for many rightwingers. His brand of democratic socialism is to me still ideal.

is to present a word that seems to mean one thing, but which, when twisted before a flame, sparkles with ppotential meanings that depend entirely upon the alignment of the wick, the facets, and the viewers' pupils.

exactly. They've successfully erased it from history by turning it into its opposite.

We're doomed.

Doomed I say.

:hide:

:tinfoilhat:

The DLC is run by aliens on Venus.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

centered the zipper.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I know how horrible that idea is to some on the left. It's much easier to stay pure if you don't actually do anything but run your mouth.

I wanna be there.

lol

getting more done on climate change than Clinton and Carter combined?
Or getting universal health care after several Presidents failed.
Or staying on schedule for Iraq withdrawal.
Or new regulation of the banking and credit industries.

Jesuschrist, get a fucking clue.

and that spurred the world to attend the Bolivian summit?

Or the bail out of insurance companies?

Or the new wave of carnage now in progress in Iraq spurred by the filthy election we supported?

Or the protecting of Wall Street the Crime Scene at all costs?

Take your own advice.

Insurance that can deny us care whenever it chooses to. And the penalty for denying care? A daily fine that will often be LESS than the cost that the treatment would have been. Gee, I wonder what insurance companies are going to do?

Or maybe you read sources that never mention the good things.
Do you have any idea what the new finance regulations are?
Do you have any idea what the stimulus bill did for clean energy and efficiency?
Can you admit that Obama has stuck to his troop withdrawal schedule despite the problems with Iraqi elections? Are you saying we should keep our troops there instead?

Go on, admit he has done a few good things. It won't hurt that bad.

And he got the banking industry out of the student loan business.

Those are things for which Obama deserves credit.

There are many, MANY more things for which he deserves scorn.

that you're apparently unaware of.
I didn't fantasize the nuclear non-proliferation treaty either.

Rush Limbaugh and his cult form their views of Obama by cherry picking the information they don't like and completely ignoring anything good he does. If that describes you (and it sounds like it does) then you're no less a close-minded, bitter ideologue than Rush is.

:rofl:

You're challenging a RADICAL! And an ACTIVIST! :rofl:

Some of us (which means you think I am not, and perhaps could not be, someone like YOU)
like to actually (appeals to a reality that is actually conjecture)
accomplish something (awfully vague and diffuse for either an operation objective or a strategic goal)
rather than (as if there is only one way to comprehend what I wrote)
just complain (suggests that you think agreement is good. And perhaps that you have a poor understanding of what it is to be a democrat, let alone what it means to be a progressive)


I'll give you an opinion about progressives (of which I'm one sort). Progressives are insatiable, no little progress is enough, the last progressive thing government did for me (which I think was back in the Johnson Administration) no longer matters, people with a progressive bent always want more and more and more. It's an inescapable part of believing that things can and should always be made better. It's amazing, considering the disappointment that is harvested from the progressive attitude, that the flame of progressivism has never really burnt out in this country.

also means celebrating victories as we push for more, and realizing that a step forward is part of a journey, even that step isn't everything we want. Obama recognizes the value of taking a step forward as part of pushing for a broader goal. It appears that you do not.

You should come up with more useful criteria for making up your mind on things. People have called President Obama everything in the book--from liberal, socialist, to right wing. A label someone else comes up with shouldn't determine your conclusion on a subject. Pragmatism is a GOOD thing, despite any groups that word may be associated with.

code words in the spin assault.

Ridiculous as it seems, ridiculous as it pertains to person opinion is also just in the eye of the beholder. Yet, if you had said "you" are ridiculous, which could be what you meant, but which you carefully avoided by perhaps artful dodging, that would be an ad hominem attack that is prohibited by DU rules.

It's all spin, all the time, ain't it?

In the end, I hope to be able to cheer gleefully as Kagan votes against corporate interests that come before SCOTUS.

Some people do real things versus dreaming of utopia.

that you really can't assume that its meaning is the thing it seems.

It's one of those Cheshire Cat principles that you pick up in Wonderland and which always leave you with a smile.

I don't play spin-games with this word.

when it is based on a slopcism is usually associated with conservativism.

The spin guys love people like you. Manichaeists always know the word they know and the spin force easily exploits the inflexibility of that.

By the way, have you figure out the mutiple meanings of 'is?'

It would help if you even knew how to spell the words you think make you an intellectual wonder :rofl:

not that it isn't a valid recognition of a misspelling

touché

DLC'ers and their laity the New Dems, but particularly DC DLC'ers are conservative and corporate with respect to economic policy, they are international interventionists (very similar to both Bush's. The DC-DLC's actions betray conservatism.
Know a tree by the fruits it bears...


THe DLC really does have a special way with words. And pragmatism is one of their favorites. It's used as a foile for all sorts of criticism about them. It's so oft used that just as "Lord Jesus!" is a semiotic of evangelicals, pragmatism is a semiotic of the DLC.

That doesn't mean that there isn't some approach to social problem solving that is practical/pragmatic, but the overuse of the word by a club becomes as self-identifying as "big government" or "illegal immigrant."

Your comments were certainly offensive to us

Perhaps, the fault lies somewhere else?

goals would be my answer.

Aren't DLCers conservative?

Damn I am so confused.

On edit: I think it was the conjoining of the idea that my motivation to call you a conservative is because you get things done.

Actually I call DLCers conservative because that is their position on American exceptionalism/international interventionism and economic/corporate policy.

it's simply wrong. I don't know how you could possibly be confused by something as simple as not mislabeling people.:shrug:

I don't mean to invalidate your feelings, they are rightfully yours.

I understand that you consider yourself to be a liberal and what you percieve as the apparent misnaming of your team hurts your feelings.

Well, progressives, generally, aren't greatly concerned about liberal tenderness. Fights, even revolutions, have provided our models! We hold that truth to be self-evident, more or less...


To wit the DLC in DC and state capitols has repeated, many times, iteratively even, collapsed rather than struggle. Often they collapse before an opposing argument is even made (single payer? DADT?). One can only believe that is because the opposing argument is irrelavent, but that the DLC's corporate backers have pulled on the purse strings to remind the DLCers where their power really comes from.

She used to be in favor of it. Now she opposes it.

No wonder she's Obama's nominee.

direct answers. Particularly when they can level the notion that an opinion at this point could impair impartiality on what can, by some stretch, be expected to be a matter before the Court.

My concern is that this court already leans toward corporate interests, at the harm of citizens as citizens in general but most importantly as stock holders, consumers, and employees. A DLCer is likely to entrench that corporate position.

At the same time, it's WH spin that suggests she's a liberal pragmatist (which if taken on its face has the syntactical meaning that she broadly applies pragmatism). That's DLC speak more than less.

And after all those years the DLC spent trying to 'lead' I suppose they feel they are entitled to a judge that believes in their philosophy, even if their elitist club holds a shrinking minority position in the country. Indeed, it may be that their shrinking position is motivation to get this nomination.

"Pragmatism" is now a dog whistle for "corporate sellout"?

What ISN'T a dog whistle for "corporate sellout" these days? Can someone tell me that? Also, can someone tell me when the DLC basically became the Illuminati of politics?

I don't.

And I wouldn't claim that what looks like DLC code IS DLC code.

I only claim that the cognitive dissonance that the phrase created tripped me.

You claimed that "pragmatist" was code for "corporate sellout".

It's the nature of spin to turn on an expectation of meaning to provide a 'special' meaning that provides the spinner with a way to say something that is beyond the first glance.

I did indeed trip on it. I saw its spin-tential if you will. I give up reading what seem to be spin quite easily.

Instead of laying out rational arguments against something, some people here just trot out the buzzwords repeatedly, hoping it will stick.

:rofl:

At least until it hurts.

Let's become as paranoid about words as the moronic RW.

:rofl:

It's so absurd you'd almost think it was a right wing talking point if you replace "DLC" with "Socialism".

Amazing the bigotry that passes for dialog.

"elegant." My graduate Experimental Design professor used that word FAR TOO OFTEN and I grew to hate it.

Now I loathe the word "Pragmatist." :shrug:

It's a belief that almost any forward motion is better than standing still, or slipping backward. It's refusing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It's a matter of getting things done, whether one is happy with those things or not.

There are no "keywords", no "code words." These are fantasies invented by the pullers of strings, the folks who bought up the media in order to better control the populace. Liberalism is a political ideology which defines the role of government as whatever the people want it to be. Conservatism is a political ideology defined by limiting the role of government, and forcing people to do for themselves what they'd prefer government to do. Neither view is evil. Neither view is "correct". Neither view should be adopted to the point of completely ignoring the opposing view.

Every spoonful of sugar we see is on top of a giant ladle of crap, and They've figured out that all they need to do to get away with it is make all of us blame each other. And it works. Time to let it go.

Pragmatism, not conservatism or liberalism, is PRECISELY what America needs right now. For decades, government has not acted to counter the problems faced by the nation. Trusting blindly that some ghostly hand will guide everything, government has failed to act and now humanity itself teeters on a line between religious war and starvation. And the Chinese are poised to become the preeminent world power.

You go on about "keywords". Some of us have stuff to do. Call us whatever names you want. Just don't get in the way of progress.

look at the social liberals for blame.

Pride goeth before the fall.

It is my contention that Americans are dying for effective government, and they're finally getting it now. You believe getting things done will lose, politically. I disagree.

Be sure to have some analgesics in your medicine cabinet for the November election. :shrug:

:puke: