Apparently there are conservatives who like to think that “progressive” is a euphemism for “liberal.” It makes them happy to know that Democrats didn’t embrace the term “liberal” during the recent election. I’m tempted to just say Bite Me, but I find that doesn’t do much good in the end. I’m not sure how much they care about distinctions and historical context—and lack of ideological dogma among progressives. Pearls, swine. They want to create dichotomy where none need exist.

I mention this become I wonder whether confusion over the term “progressive” is preventing media from seeing the election as a progressive victory. I know it isn’t. I’m just trying to figure out how they justify the apparent common wisdom in calling the election a victory for the center. Not everyone sees it that way, but mainstream media is screaming it loudly enough that people are bound to believe it soon unless we point out the error.

Democrats didn’t move to the center in this election. Democrats ARE the center, no matter that TIME lacks the imagination to make this more than a simplistic visual issue.

David Sirota’s article on the Connecticut Senate race offers a very interesting analysis of why Lamont’s loss was a progressive gain. John Podesta’s memo on the election is titled “The End of the Grand Conservative Experiment,” but the more interesting point is The Progressive Opportunity. Podesta emphasizes the common good and community. This doesn’t have to be a moment of domination but could be a time of cooperation.

People don’t know whether to call them populists or not, but many won on progressive ideas. The Congressional Progressive Caucus will add seven new members to make a membership of 71, the largest group within the Democratic Caucus. Some states (like my former home New York) are seeing progressive local leadership. I see this as a potentially progressive moment for wages, health care, economy, poverty, education, civil rights–you get the picture.

Alas, this isn’t true in my state, where

a Progressive is a Democrat,
a Democrat is a Republican, and
a Republican is a Fascist.

read comments (0)

Yesterday I bought a book at the place I go on Sundays—some call it a church, but given the sermon on the cognitive dissonance of Unitarians I think I’d better not call it a church. It’s just the UU. I bought Pat Bagley’s latest book, Clueless George Takes on Liberals.

This past summer, Pat Bagley spoke at our building that isn’t quite a church. Even my young daughter went to hear him. She has ambitions to write political graphical novels now.

My children read Pat Bagley’s books regularly (including I Spy a Nephite for a little local color). I hadn’t read the other two Clueless George books, Clueless George Goes to War and Clueless George Is Watching You, before they were sucked into the children’s collection, so I read this one quickly as people came in to sit in the pews.

This is George.
George likes to dress up.
George is the president.
George is a monkey.

This is Bertrand.
Bertrand studies hard.
Bertrand cares about people.
Bertrand always plays fair.
Bertrand is a liberal.
Bertrand is a jackass.

Clueless George invites Bertrand to a party, and George’s friends are all over Bertrand. Poor Bertrand. His mother told him to be polite, so he is. He is polite and silent. He doesn’t speak up, and The Man and Karl the Klown (“Wonk, Wonk.”) keep beating him as long as he takes it.

So, the question is, will Bertrand keep taking it?

Will Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, and Harry Reid be polite? Sure, they were polite this past week–even when the White House wasn’t polite. Will they continue to be silent, though? How could Pelosi already say she’s taking impeachment off the table? Howard Dean said in the weekly Democratic Radio Address that Democrats would be “tough and smart” on defense. I hope that goes for everything else, too. Wouldn’t that be nice to see everyone be tough and smart and no one be terribly and stupidly polite? I don’t particularly have any desire for them to be ridiculously inappropriate, but I want to see them call a criminal a criminal and a monkey a monkey.

read comments (2)

Remember the Iraqi Information Minister in 2003? “There are no U.S. troops in Baghdad,” he said as you could see the smoke rising behind him from the U.S. invasion. Americans found this guy completely entertaining.

I think of that moment often when Clueless George and others insist that all is well in Iraq and Iraqi troops are preparing to take over the jobs currently covered by U.S. troops. Apparently some people aren’t looking beyond the great and powerful Oz to watch the video and read the stories coming out of Iraq. In particular, a video on The Guardian (UK) shows bored U.S. troops doing little more than drawing fire then running around trying to figure out who shot at them from Iraqi police and government positions. Iraqi blogger Raed Jarrar on Democracy Now this morning talked about the violent revenge against coalition forces by Iraqis.

How many administration officials or government spokespeople will come forward with their truth before those in power acknowledge the gravity of the failure that is Iraq?

At some point, we just need to look over Bush’s shoulder to see the smoke rising in the distance.

read comments (0)

Wow. I think I will wake up every morning and listen to this speech about the war in Iraq, set to Flash animation by DJ Paul Edge at We Will Not Be Silenced .com.  Nonviolent resistence is where it’s at.  Thanks to Tom Paine .commonsense for the link.

read comments (0)

Have you heard the words “Islamofascism” and just “fascism” thrown around by the Bush administration and their supporters lately in press releases and speeches? “Islamofascism” as a term has been around for more than a decade to describe some Islamist movements, used by those with a particular take on the so-called War on Terror. It’s their twist of language that doesn’t quite meet with historical reality. I’ve been noticing more use of the term “fascism” on its own, too. There is no base in historical fact for the way they are relating these stateless, religious movements to the nationalist, secular movements of the 20th century. If it weren’t such a powerful subversion of language, it might be amusing to see a leftist cry used by the right.

Of course, there is also talk of fascism on the left—of authoritarian, nationalist, militaristic government stretching its control over communications and civil liberty, not to mention hearts and minds.

I think what is really going on here is an effort to create fascism fatigue. Put the word out in front of Americans who may not be able to put the term in historical context by themselves, and they may believe what they are told about it. And, they may tire of hearing about it. Then, when people are confused or distracted and search engines are overwhelmed with neocon uses of the term, we won’t find an outline of the 14 points of fascism (outlined by novelist Laurence W. Britt) and notice the eery familiarity of authoritarian regimes to current regimes.

As far as I know, conservatives haven’t tried to use the term “anti-fascism” to their advantage yet. Get your terms while they are hot.

******

NOT TO BE MISSED: Project for the Old American Century has listed Britt’s 14 points of fascism then linked story after story to each point.

read comments (4)