Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (480599)

10/3/2021 3:24:18 PM

From: koan

1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Maple MAGA

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 540882

First, Gore hated Clinton and many think the reason he lost was because he refused to let Clinton campaign for him.

I think Gore matured and would put him in the progressive wing. His idea on global warming was right on.

Remember in the 60's there was a clear dividing line between the progressives and the moderate Democrats.

The progressives were solidly against the Viet Nam war and the counter culture as one would expect, while the moderates were for the Viet Nam and against the counter culture.

And history is very clear the progressives were correct in both cases.

Saying you think Humphrey would have ended the Viet Nam war seems a stretch. He ran on supporting that war. If so, was he lying?

The moderates have been using their power of seniority to shut out the progressives right up to a week ago when the progressives true strength forced Pelosi to back down for the first time.

There is a logical reason the vast majority of scientists and college professors are liberal and it is not because they are stupid. Here is a 1975 poll and I am sure it is much greater now!

"Publishing their results in the 1975 book The Divided Academy, Ladd and Lipset found that about 46% of professors described themselves as liberal, 27% described themselves as moderates, and 28% described themselves as conservative."

The best and brightest in this country are progressives, not moderates.

<,

Interesting post, koan. I'm less interested in the labels part of this than the history itself.

The one exception would be Gore, who was a fine progressive, but he lost to Bush who played the homophobia card in Ohio.

In the binary contrast between "moderates" and "progressives", I wouldn't have called Gore a "progressive". What led you to this conclusion? The only view of which I am aware would be his views on climate change. Well ahead of his time. But can't think of any other. Clinton thought of him as a soulmate.

But what did a moderate really mean? Humphrey was a moderate who also supported the Viet Nam war at a time when the progressives were protesting it in the streets in the 60's and brought down LBJ.

My take on Humphrey was a bit murkier. I saw him as the liberal/progressive opposition to a moderate based JFK in 1960. In 1968, I thought he would have ended the Vietnam War had he been elected. His support for LBJ's policies was tepid, at best. And he was constantly signaling to the left. Also I alway saw his social policies as being on the liberal side.

So what Krugman, who is very smart, is pointing out is that the "Democratic "moderates" sort of married the right wing to win elections, but in the process lost their soul.

"Lost their soul" strikes me as a bit harsh. It's clearly possible to hold, in a principled way, so called moderate positions. The classic one is conservative in fiscal matters and liberal in social matters. I disagree vigorously but I don't see how the position can be characterized as without soul.