Activate the Mechanism!

Why it’s cool(er) to be liberal again

The L-word is quietly working its way back into the political lexicon.

The number of voters identifying themselves as “liberal” jumped three points on Election Day, from 22 percent in 2008 to 25 percent this year. That’s the highest that number has been since at least 1976, according to exit polls.

The term “liberal” has long been somewhat of a pejorative in American politics — or at least been less popular than the alternative.

When Ronald Reagan was reelected in 1984, just 17 percent of Americans identified as “liberal.” And even back when the founder of the New Deal, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, took 61 percent of the vote in 1936, it was more popular to be a “conservative” than a “liberal,” as Wonkblog’s Ezra Klein pointed out.

That may be changing, though. While the “conservative” label has stayed about where it is, self-described liberals have increased from 17 percent of the electorate in 1980 to 21 percent in 1992 and now 25 percent today.

And the three-point jump between 2008 and 2012 is tied for the biggest jump in the last three-plus decades.

Here’s how that looks on a graph:

Now, this shouldn’t be over-sold. We’ve still got far fewer people identifying as “liberals” than identify as “conservatives” (35 percent). And we have yet to see a stampede of Democrats rushing to embrace the label.

But for a label that Democrats have shunned for a while now, it seems to be on the ascent.

read more

There’s a bit more to the article explaining what factors are leading to this, social issues being among them.

Personally, I’d like to see the country shift further left, that is, were “moderates” are actually at the center and not right of center as they seem to be now.

The British left wing reminds us America doesn’t have one

BY PRAJWAL CIRYAM | partisans.org 

The American left is beleaguered. “Liberal” is a nasty word in American politics, while “conservative” is a mark of honor. Even the seemingly benign — dare I say milquetoast — term “progressive” is acquiring a sinister sheen thanks to the Glenn Becks of the world. That “left-wing” could be construed as anything but an insult would be a shock to American liberals or progressives or whatever one can politely call them these days.

It would be one thing if the lefties (notice how there is no similarly derogatory “righties”?) had lost ground merely on words, but the public sector strike here in Britain reminds us that in the United States, the left — or more accurately, the average worker — has lost much more.

[FULL STORY]

Ryan’s Dirty Trailer: Seven Billion In Cuts Proposed to Defense Spending, Republicans Lose Their Shit

blogvader:

Looks like the Republicans are still sour that they weren’t the ones to nab Osama Bin Laden, because they’re grasping at the flimsiest of straws to attack Democrats on national security these days. (That or their corporate overlords are paying them overtime to say the dumbest things.)

The latest: Calling seven billion in potential defense cuts “Armageddon” or “a national security crisis”.

As much as I love Mother Jones it infuriates me that I don’t see major networks calling bullshit on the idiotic statements that senators and Pentagon officials make over necessary defense spending cuts that probably won’t even materialize anyway. Cutting a paltry seven billion dollars from a trillion dollar budget is hardly “the knowing destruction of the US military”, as the distinguished blowhard Jon Kyl hyperbolized. I will give Defense Secretary Panetta a little credit for stating the obvious: “We must come to realize that not every defense program is necessary, not every defense dollar is sacred or well-spent, and more of everything is simply not sustainable”.


Per Mother Jones:

In theory, the debt deal will cut discretionary security spending by $7 billion over the next two years. How would those cuts impact the Pentagon? The Pentagon’s base operating budget typically runs between $500 and 600 billion a year. $7 billion is roughly the cost of 3 submarines, or 20 fighter jets, or one-fifth of one KBR contract in Iraq. In other words, chump change. And that’s if the cuts actually come from the DOD. According to the text of the debt bill (PDF), it’s up to Congress to decide what parts of the total security and defense budget—which includes the Veterans Administration, Homeland Security, international affairs, and nuclear weapons—actually take a hit. One thing that won’t take a hit is the funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is specifically preserved in the bill.

The White House and Congressional leaders insist that the debt compromise will slash $350 billion from the Pentagon over the next 10 years. Additionally, if Congress doesn’t cut another $1.2 trillion across the board by December, a “trigger” in the bill is supposed to kick in, reducing the defense budget by another $500 to 600 billion.

But those hard numbers aren’t spelled out in the bill. “The actual amount will be decided by Congress in the future,” Wheeler says. And there’s no guarantee that Congress, particularly Rep. McKeon and his pork-loving Armed Services Committee members, will take any cuts out of the Pentagon’s hide. The bill “is classic Washington Kabuki theater,” Gordon Adams, a political science professor who worked as a security budget expert for the Clinton White House, tells Foreign Policy. “The whole deal is designed to be opaque about the things you really want to know, such as how much defense will be cut.”

Nice!

razingcomplacency reblogged your post: Dr. Seuss was a filthy pro-choice liberal, you can all shut the fuck up now.

He was not antichoice. He was not anti in a quote, in a moat, in a boat, and no, not even in a coat. He was not anti don’t you see, so leave him alone and let him be.

Dr. Seuss was a filthy pro-choice liberal, you can all shut the fuck up now.

Props should go to  thisgingersnapsback for inspiring me to make this post.

Anyone using Dr. Seuss quotes to justify an anti-choice stance should take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Seuss#Political_views

his book Horton Hears a Who! (1954) as an allegory for the Hiroshima bombing and the American post-war occupation of Japan, as well as dedicating the book to a Japanese friend.

Also:

In 1948, after living and working in Hollywood for years, Geisel moved to La Jolla, California. It is said that when he went to register to vote in La Jolla, some Republican friends called him over to where they were registering voters, but Geisel said, “You, my friends, are over there, but I am going over here [to the Democratic registration].”

As well as:

While the line from the book “A person is a person, no matter how small” has been used as rhetoric against abortion rights, Seuss himself had threatened to sue an anti-abortion group for their use of the phrase, and has attracted sharp criticism from his widow, herself strongly pro-choice. A lawsuit was filed in Canada in 2001 on this issue. http://www.jeanstephengalleries.com/seuss-bio.html (scroll down to the politics section)

Do yourselves a favor and read up a bit on Theodor Seuss Geisel, his political views weren’t exactly in line with right wing politics…