Recently, I began following Matt Stoller on Twitter. If my memory serves, “Stollerism” was once a synonym for rigid ideological purity. Well, a few months ago he announced he’s quitting the Democratic Party and going independent (not for the first time, I suspect). So there’s that.
But the not-that-old crank still says some interesting things, like these bits from the other day.
Matt Stoller @matthewstoller May 26
7. But it’s a value system based not on treating people like equal citizens, but treating them as if they are victims to be pitied.
Matt Stoller @matthewstoller May 26
8. That’s the Pity Platform Problem. Democrats should become a party that is about enabling freedom for all. That includes social insurance.
Matt Stoller @matthewstoller May 26
9. You are not free if you can’t see a doctor. You are not free if you cannot be educated. Poverty as a lack of freedom.
Matt Stoller @matthewstoller May 26
10. You are not free if you are discriminated against. But you are also not free if your company is destroyed by monopoly.
I like that. If we consider an issue like marijuana legalization, I have reservations (and a kid), but freedom should carry the day.
Of course, the GOP has abused the word freedom since approximately September 12, 2001, and the “Freedom Caucus” is a bunch of authoritarian jerks, but I do think we could be the party of freedom. We tend to use words like opportunity, but what we’re really offering (I hope) is no less than economic liberation.
Freedom from fear is a real freedom-and one a strong safety net secures Americans from. I like this frame a lot.
The Democratic nominee (and winner of the popular vote) opened her campaign on Roosevelt Island with a speech building on FDR’s “Four Freedoms.”
That’s a pretty darned good speech. It connects.
Imagine, friends, if CNN had run that speech, or other HRC events — or Bernie’s! — on heavy rotation like Trump’s.
And to think people said (and continue to say) she didn’t stand for anything!:(
Those who say that are flat wrong.
I do wish that she could have committed to stronger, clearer language, and a real sense of confronting the injustice that so many people feel. For a variety of reasons (Goldman speeches, etc) she might not have been the best messenger for that. Even the speech Joel linked to is quite good, but not A+ work in that regard. Too many clichés or stock phrases – she could have stood to be more original in some of the phrasing.
She was comfortable as a chief bureaucrat, which is necessary but not sufficient. This speech was on the right track for a lot more than that.
The Dems are just horrible with using the symbols of iconic beliefs like freedom, opposing tyranny or personal responsibilities into our rhetorical schematics. We should be reclaiming these principles in laying out our world vision.
As mentioned above, I wonder if Stoller has ever heard of FDR’s Four Freedoms — illustrated by our own Norman Rockwell.
… and I’m sure Stoller gave no credit to HRC for referring to those, because that’s how he and fellow hard-left folks roll.
Stoller also seems trapped in the notion that policies are the result of ideological preferences, as opposed to sausage-making and tradeoffs between power players. It assumes that a sub-optimal policy is the result of some moral deficiency as opposed to a necessary half-a-loaf wrested from powerful interests.
So yeah I’m not so into him.
Well … I didn’t spell it out entirely, but yes, the guy is a pill!
However, nods to history aside, I would say that the sausage-making is the trap, and it does involve moral tradeoffs. It’s just that party leaders have gotten adept at saying their hands are tied. (Insert comment here about the old dilemma.)
I think what this hints at is the larger mission. I was taught (not completely accurately) that the arc of history, especially American history, bends toward greater freedom. That cause, whoever advocates for it, is something we can agree on and work toward.
For the record, the GOP has been abusing the word freedom (along with the words faith and family) since long before September 12, 2001 (which I assume is what you meant rather than 2011).
Yes thank you. That was a typo. I updated it.