Why should "incrementalism" have negative connotations when our system of government was set up that way entirely on purpose? The labels "pragmatism" or "incrementalism" could quite easily be defined as "realism" since that's the way our country has generally always functioned... quite intentionally by design of our Founders who had successfully radically altered an entire system and then purposely endeavored to replace it with one that could withstand a similar radical onslaught and thereby escape the same fate as its predecessor.

Labels!? I hate labels... and labels within a group generally serve to simply divide that group. If you're busy dividing yourself, then you're merely doing the work of your competition for them. This is akin to the press labelling the candidates as "likeable/unlikeable" or "authentic/inauthentic," etc. No, thank you on the labelling.

Neil is right; the time is now for bold leadership. That's not something you can place a label on either, and you know it when you see it. The candidate who wins the nomination will generally defy all attempts to label him/her as a "radical" or a "realist" or anything but rather will point to the horizon and say: "Here's where we're headed, and we will be getting there. It may not be easy and may take perseverance, but this is where we're going... so join us."

The message of the Democrats should be something along the lines of: I would vote for a damn inanimate object before I would vote for any of the spineless hypocritical Republicans.

You want to define somebody? Define your opponent: Vote "D" for Democratic or "R" for Russia.

Awesome. :)

I see Klobuchar (and other accommodaters) as a symptom-treaters; Warren wants to tackle the disease. (Harris lies between the two.)

Spot on! Great article!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window#/media/File:Overton_Window_diagram.svg

Again, the window shows what is acceptable the mainstream America, not an individual's viewpoint. We all have our own "Windows" but that isn't the concept.

I trust Pew Surveys - if the majority of Americans are for something, then it is in the Overton Window - for example "Ref Flag" laws are popular and are being enacted in several states, including Republican ones, however "extremists", for example Republicans in Virginia, are blocking them where they can.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/02/07/another-big-year-expected-for-gun-control-in-the-states

One that should be who and t'other that should be where. But we don't have to worry about these things as I believe the grammar and spelling police have disbanded. :)

This is the last place on earth that apologies for lengthy posts are warranted. Heh.

I think we need leaders who point to a summit and say "Let's get to the top!" - sometimes these summits are fairly easy, and the leader can carry us there on momentum, but sometimes the summit needs serious organization to reach, and the original leader can only take us so far.

So it is with the visions we have in America. The original vision is outlined early in the Constitution, but it is the interim summits (abolition of slavery, emancipation, civil rights, social security and medicare) that are the real slogs. Johnson achieved a lot - by being pragmatic. FDR led and delivered. Lincoln also.

I believe (and I've changed my thinking on this based on how much Bernie moved the Overton window) that this is a time for bold leadership.

I'm hoping the Democrats give us a bold leader.

He's definitely on to something about the language pundits and politicians use, but I still think he misses the mark a bit.

I do, too.

And, perhaps there is a more relevant political spectrum - considering the current state of politics and the increasingly perilous state of the planet and human existence - to characterize political figures, Democrat and Republican.

I've learned about a past-future political spectrum that runs from the up end (future) to the down (past) end with the futurist end characterized by new technology, creative use of existing technology, and new ways to reinforce shared values and introduce new visions.

The "up-wing" political leader puts a bold emphasis on "future-oriented and enlightened policies" in order to move the nation forward as a global leader, especially during the kinds of challenging times that would stop a down-wing leader in his or her tracks.

Is there any candidate amongst the declared candidates for president that could be called an up-wing leader?

So what does the left do? Do they pull another sit-in, letting Trump win? Now, I think, is the time to start asking that question.

The big factional split within the party now is how hard Democrats should push for these shared goals, and how fundamental the changes need to be to get there.

Having watched the rollouts of Warren, Harris and Klobuchar so far, I think they illustrate this continuum rather well.

Warren was the most specific and explicit about the need for structural change - she starts from the premise that over time the wealthiest people and largest corporations have been able to cause alterations to our rules/laws until they benefit them (the richest ppl/corps, hereby referred to as the 1% for short) and either don't impact or actively harm everyone else.

She says this happened incrementally in a way I'll describe as a loop wherein rules are weakened that flow $ toward some group or business, then rules or laws are changed so that politicians can get some of the action, then more rules change and lobbyists can offer various "bribes" and politicians can accept them and get more money or access to better jobs and more rules are changed to weaken counter-balances to 1% or pols that favor them (unions busted, oversight agencies gutted, etc.)...the cycle feeds itself - so now the problem is two-fold: the 1% is increasingly able to direct the politicians and politicians are increasingly incentivized to favor the interests of the 1%.

Meanwhile, Americans at large are shut out of all of this, in part due to all the efforts made by incentivized pols to suppress voters and/or do nothing about voter suppression.

So to counter all of that she has a range of proposals to break the power/influence of the 1%, remove the incentives from elected officials to serve the 1% and strengthen the power of American citizens and the institutions of our democracy.

Many of her proposals echo and are echoed by other Dems, but I think her approach is the most holistic, where each part impacts other parts.

Klobuchar occupies the opposite end of the continuum - she uses the traditional laundry list approach of: here's a problem and how I'll fix it; here's another problem and how I'll fix it...

The problems she highlights are real. The solutions she offers range in boldness from one to the next, but they are piecemeal and reactive.

Meanwhile, in the middle there's Harris. She offers a laundry list approach like Klobuchar, but I think she has more of an over-arching theme: justice. That includes social-justice. Both flow authentically from her experiences in criminal justice and as a POC. She is making social-justice issues a centerpiece, saying that how our country treats the marginalized and minorities shows us where the weaknesses in our system are.

Warren has a description for the disease: the 1% has to much power over our government and indirectly our lives, resulting in income inequality, economic insecurity and abuse of the weakest/poorest, etc. She names the villains and lists the harms done to the 99%.

Harris says: our system is riddled with injustice - here's how they play out. She names the victims but the villains are more vague.

Klobuchar says: there's a bunch of things we need to fix. There's lots of victims - villains are mostly unnamed, although both Klobuchar and Harris note some problems they lay directly at the feet of the DJT administration.

I see Klobuchar (and other accommodaters) as a symptom-treaters; Warren wants to tackle the disease. (Harris lies between the two.)

I think that's the differentiator between confronters and accommodaters: can you specify the CAUSE (the villains) and do you plan to tackle them, or do you hope simply to mitigate symptoms?

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/02/08/ftp517/#comment-131308

for suggesting I read this article in the first place.

:-)

-CW