Tony Edmonds wrote: > I'm not sure I would call it a "blame game." "Debate" has a more positive > cachet and is more accurate. > Point well taken, with respect to Tony's posting --though not to alot of what has appeared in the mass media. Regarding: > Less grief is preferarable to more grief, I assume. If I thought a more > "progressive" presidency was even remotely within the realm of possibility, > I would have much more sympathy with the Nader voters in Florida. Sure, but short-term grief vs. long-term grief is part of my scenario (see below), but it's also crucial to bear in mind the grief caused by Clinton-Gore that will continue to be caused by Gore (e.g., Iraq, Colombia, welfare moms, etc.) > And I reject the > >powerlessness implicit in what Tony's says about 'moving away from the > center > >causing Gore to lose votes.' Where does that logic lead, Tony? > > I fear it leads to an accurate assessment of the state of American politics, > certainly in the short and mid-term. Liberal centrism is the best we can > reasonably expect. And that to me is preferable to right centrism. On this point, yes. Liberal centrism is all we're ever going to get if we don't proceed down a path that might deliver something else. How do we escape the constant 'trap'of short-and-mid-term 'lesser-evils'? > I realize this smacks of defeatism, but I susbscribe to the advice of that > great political philosopher Kenny Rogers. I'm not quitting the game, just > waiting until a better hand appears. Guess my point is that 'waiting' sounds defeatist, too. It ain't going to be delivered to us. Ted
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/29/00 EST