On its face, nothing; this particular centrist has some red flags, though. One should not want zir Justices to be too extreme either way (Scalia), but many people wanted President Obama to stock the Court with liberals. They're upset that he hasn't.
I've noticed a few of those flags doing some reading.
I'm just sort of baffled by GODDAMN IT OBAMA'S NOT A LIBERAL HE'S A GODDAMN CENTRIST WTF sometimes, cause I've never really seen being a centrist as being a bad quality.
Centrists upset both sides, because they're neither conservative nor liberal enough (whatever that means). One can also sum it up with President Obama is not the messiah the left was hoping for.
This country's too fucking fractured along party lines anyway. The problem with being a lone centrist is that you won't get jack nor shit accomplished, because no one will like you.
Centrism, third-way politics are just bad in general though. There's a lot of third way politicians (Blair, Clinton for prominent modern examples, Obama's shaping up to be one too) that really support ideas that help to bolster corporate or plutocratic power while enacting token social programs that help the state manufacture consent for its policies. The economic policy remains thoroughly neoliberal, and the state gets an excuse to gain power and enact regulation and subsidies without -- get this, being owned by the people.
The big issue with the state, is always, always, always, who owns it. There's a degree of a mixed economy that can be good, but the mixed economy as advocated by the Democrats and the Republicans? It's consistently ceded power from the people, whether you're in favor of far-right classical liberalism (mind you, not 'capitalism' as we're fed or the statist-corporatist sense, but just classical liberalism) or far-left syndicalism/socialism/anarcho-communism (though personally I think both are tenable through a '
( ... )
Which is part of the problem too. A lot of so-called revolutionaries are too eager to push things too far, too fast, and then either the state consolidates into violent power, or is deposed for an ideology that's more 'comfortable'. I've never been an advocate of revolution, just democratic reform. Revolution is appropriate against autocrats, sure, but there's certain limits within it and certain order/safety that has to be maintained. And in democratic society (at least, an imperfect democratic society that still has the seeds for such reform, like ours), it is never appropriate.
And again, I've said plenty of times, any movement or idea or government has to be of the people, owned by the people, which a lot of revolutionary 'vanguards' obviously aren't.
I'm baffled by this as well for a slightly different reason - it's not like he didn't run as a centrist. There are a few areas where I've been disappointed, but mostly he's acted just as he'd said he'd act.
I honestly wasn't sure where OBAMA: SUPER LIBERAL was coming from; I admit I didn't pay TOO much attention to the election (I was unemployed, uninsured, and pregnant, so I was ... sort of distracted), but anytime I read anything about him, he really didn't strike me as anything BUT a centrist.
I kind of love how the right-wing smear went from "he has no experience!" on the campaign trail to "he has the most librul voting record!" now he's president. Pick one, y'all, he can't have a liberal voting record if he has no voting record.
Reply
Reply
I'm just sort of baffled by GODDAMN IT OBAMA'S NOT A LIBERAL HE'S A GODDAMN CENTRIST WTF sometimes, cause I've never really seen being a centrist as being a bad quality.
Reply
Reply
Reply
The big issue with the state, is always, always, always, who owns it. There's a degree of a mixed economy that can be good, but the mixed economy as advocated by the Democrats and the Republicans? It's consistently ceded power from the people, whether you're in favor of far-right classical liberalism (mind you, not 'capitalism' as we're fed or the statist-corporatist sense, but just classical liberalism) or far-left syndicalism/socialism/anarcho-communism (though personally I think both are tenable through a ' ( ... )
Reply
Reply
And again, I've said plenty of times, any movement or idea or government has to be of the people, owned by the people, which a lot of revolutionary 'vanguards' obviously aren't.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment