Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

The 2006 zeitgeist: radicalized centrists

By

I voted for Bill Weld (don’t see how voting for John Silber could possibly have been considered progressive, regardless of party designation). I’ve occasionally voted for other Republicans I considered moderate. I’ve given money to a right-wing, Reagan Republican organization that most of the progressives on this site couldn’t stomach (and I actually hated most of their agenda, but they’d lined up early on what I considered the right side of a morally imperative foreign policy issue when many on the left were on the other side).

I opposed the war in Iraq early, but I’m not against all military interventions. I believe war should be used as a last resort, not to try to live out a neo-con fantasy to remake the world. I did reluctantly support military action in Afghanistan. I supported NATO air strikes in Bosnia, although was undecided about Kosovo. I see the world as a nuanced place, with many shades of gray. In my world view, one knee-jerk philosophy (Any military action is bad! All military action is good!) does not fit all global situations.

I’ve always detested George Bush and the radical right, but the last few years have been the last straw. Years of unrestrained corporate greed and evisceration of government, checks & balances and civil liberties have done great harm to our nation and our society. The system is out of balance, and a correction is desperately needed.

How does this related to Massachusetts? Four years ago, I fretted that Robert Reich might be “too liberal” to be a good Democratic nominee. But now I see what trying to be “Republican light” gets us. Nowhere.

I was initially against gay marriage and for civil unions, but I’ve shifted to strong support of gay marriage – to the point where a candidate’s opposition to gay marriage would be a serious negative to me. Even though I once opposed it. (Aside: If that could happen to me with gay marriage, I can see how it could happen to other voters who once supported the war in Iraq and now oppose it.)

That’s why I wouldn’t vote for a Republican this year period. It doesn’t mean I never would again, but I wouldn’t this year and am sure I wouldn’t in ’08. Don’t think that bodes well for the Healey campaign.

And that’s why this independent is voting for Deval Patrick in the Democratic primary. That’s why I’m volunteering for his campaign – the first time I’ve volunteered for a state or national candidate (as opposed to issues or purely local candidates) since the ’70s. I guess I’ll find out two weeks from today how many others like me there are out there.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. (for those without Times Select)

    <

    p>

    Mr. Lieberman’s supporters have tried to depict Mr. Lamont and his backers as wild-eyed radicals who want to punish the senator for working with Republicans and to force the Democratic Party into a disastrous turn toward extremism. It’s hard to imagine Connecticut, which likes to be called the Land of Steady Habits, as an encampment of left-wing isolationists, and it’s hard to imagine Mr. Lamont, who worked happily with the Republicans in Greenwich politics, leading that kind of revolution.

    The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction. A war that began at the president’s choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration’s contempt for international agreements, Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.

    Yet while all this has been happening, the political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda. Traditional beliefs like every person’s right to a day in court, or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme. The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him. Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative.

    <

    p>
    I saw this editorial too (it ran right after Lamont beat Lieberman), and I agree with oceandreams: it’s exactly right.

  2. as best as i can understand your post, you are very angry….at george bush….and therefore at republicans including kerry healey….got it. 

    <

    p>
    polls show that most centrists are supporting gabrieli.  i suppose on this site it’d be more interesting to understand why you pick patrick over gabrieli. 

    <

    p>
    is it because of patrick’s foreign policy positions?  i guess i’m not familiar with those. 

    • is neutered without a GOP senate and house.  His political appointments, his SCOTUS appointments, his tax policy, his environmental policy, his foreign-war policy, etc.

      <

      p>
      If you’re pissed at government, you can’t just be pissed at GWB.  He’s got about 300 enablers in Congress.

      <

      p>
      Where do Congressmen come from?  Sometimes, from media and culture or from business.  Most of the time, however, they come from the minor leagues — state government.  Hell, Healy’s stance on the gas tax (eliminate it) is enough to make a progressive cringe.

      <

      p>
      So, about these polls… please cite.  We’ve seen polls all over the place, including cross tabs.  DP has been painted as more liberal than Gabs based on his grassroots support, but I just don’t see it.  They both have liberal policies on the environment & energy, civil liberties, reproductive rights, and health care.  They differ on whether or not your taxes should go to your town or your state, and on some nuances in education.  For the most part, though, they seem to have concensus.  So… what backs your claim about moderates and Gabs?

    • it’s not Patrick’s foreign policy. It’s a combination of his willingness to talk about progressive issues and the way he does so (I support many more progressive themes than I did half a dozen years ago) — in a way that I think will help convince people to support his ideas (I think things like speaking style and charisma matter); and the fact that he’s had government experience, if not in Massachusetts government. One thing I strongly believe is that while business experience can be useful in running government, complete lack of any kind of government experience is not ideal in electing a government chief executive.

      <

      p>
      And, honestly, I’m a tiny bit annoyed with the idea of what apppears to be Gabrielli trying to buy himself an election, and his use of his family so much in his ads (that tends to send me over the edge. There are LOTS of good parents out there. That doesn’t make them all good gubernatorial candidates.) But no, those aren’t the reasons I’m not backing Gabrielli in the primary. I just like Patrick better as an overall candidate and what he’d bring to the office. That said, though, if Gabrielli ended up winning the primary, yes I’d vote for him in the general. But I’d be disappointed.

  3. I voted for Weld, but against Romney.  Against Bush, but for against Kerry (at least in the primary!).  I share your sentiment about the Bush administration.

    <

    p>
    I am strongly in favor of gay marriage and always have been. I think gay marriage was properly decided as a legal issue, and the only way the ruling would be changed is by constitutional ammendment. It was a deciding issue for me when voting for state rep and senator because they would have a direct vote during the constitutional ammendment process.  I voted against the incumbent Dems because of their votes on gay marriage.

    <

    p>
    While I disagree with Healey’s personal endorsement of the ammendment, as governor, I don’t see how her personal view could affect the law.  She has stated that she would not even want to see a position added to the state GOP platform (there isn’t a position on the issue currently, so maybe your blanket dismissal of state GOP is a little broad). 

    <

    p>
    I don’t think you ever get 100% with a candidate, but I haven’t gotten the sense that Healey is going to push her personal views on the issue.  The fight, should the legislature ever decide to revisit it, is going to be in the House and Senate, and potentially at the ballot.  I’m focusing my energies there, and in the meantime, I’m making sure that I support a governor who will honor the outcome of ballot questions, because I think gay marriage would win at the ballot, and I’d like to have it end there.

  4. I wouldn’t normally ask this, but since you brought it up, what made you change your mind on equal marriage?

    <

    p>
    In the time that I’ve been volunteering for Deval Patrick I’ve met quite a few folks who ID as unenrolled who voted for Romney last time.  Their reasons for supporting Deval are all over the map from confidence in his leadership skills to his ability to inspire people to get involved in their communities.

Archives