Too often centrism represents a retreat from a total solution. Iraq is a prime example. How do you end a war and occupation by advocating just a little less imperialism?
Centrism advocates a withdrawal, but it still wants to find some sort of victory in Iraq. That's a recipe for future muckraking. Half in, half out. Good politically, perhaps, but not good for the remaining troops left to continue the military meddling while everyone is satisfied that they've ended the occupation.
A liberal stance says out now. Immediate withdrawal. It's hard for me to see how you get this regime to move anywhere toward an exit without a solid, unambiguous opposition to the occupation. One without qualifications or half-steps. The incrementalism and compromise of a moderate may not allow for enough of a distinction for voters looking for a solution which will bring the troops home as soon as possible.
The universality of the left's approach not only continues to recognize the individuals who are left out of political compromises, but it actually strengthens the position of the centrists who face a unified wall of opposition and obstruction from their republican opponents. Moderates, liberals have your back. If not, where do you stand?
As voters consider going to the polls in this increasingly anxious period in our nation of occupation, imperialism, and plutocratic governance, they will be looking for someone who actually intends to do something about their concerns. Our party has to be recognized as a vehicle for activism and advocacy whose representatives in Congress won't pull up short just to reach out to the 'do nothings' across the aisle.
Our rights, our liberties, our needs and concerns, will not be protected or furthered by the passivity or complacency that comes with an established moderation. These basic concerns aren't addressed by standing in the compromised middle and bargaining down.
The center is where 'piecemeal' means someone is being left behind. It may be the ultimate destination of our advocacy and debate, but moderation should not take precedence over the solid, inclusive advocacy that our committed liberal left defends for the advancement of all of us, not just a selected few.
Centrism advocates a withdrawal, but it still wants to find some sort of victory in Iraq. That's a recipe for future muckraking. Half in, half out. Good politically, perhaps, but not good for the remaining troops left to continue the military meddling while everyone is satisfied that they've ended the occupation.
A liberal stance says out now. Immediate withdrawal. It's hard for me to see how you get this regime to move anywhere toward an exit without a solid, unambiguous opposition to the occupation. One without qualifications or half-steps. The incrementalism and compromise of a moderate may not allow for enough of a distinction for voters looking for a solution which will bring the troops home as soon as possible.
The universality of the left's approach not only continues to recognize the individuals who are left out of political compromises, but it actually strengthens the position of the centrists who face a unified wall of opposition and obstruction from their republican opponents. Moderates, liberals have your back. If not, where do you stand?
Our rights, our liberties, our needs and concerns, will not be protected or furthered by the passivity or complacency that comes with an established moderation. These basic concerns aren't addressed by standing in the compromised middle and bargaining down.
The center is where 'piecemeal' means someone is being left behind. It may be the ultimate destination of our advocacy and debate, but moderation should not take precedence over the solid, inclusive advocacy that our committed liberal left defends for the advancement of all of us, not just a selected few.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
