Why The Left Runs To The "Center"?

Here's an insightful post that builds on Greenwald's latest and asks why Weakness is Strength for Dems. The answer is intriguing, although I'm not sure I buy the entire premise; I guess I have a hard time believing that today's media stars are that influential with voters, but then again for the premise to work, they only need to be influential to candidates and their advisers. The concept of "moving to the center" is summed up nicely with this line:

The entire construct is based upon Democrats distancing themselves from their most ardent supporters (which is quite convenient for Republicans.)

The Problem with Democrats

[Note that the post is the problem, singular, not problems; I don't have all day!]

Over the past...30 years (?), it seems to me that Republicans have been very successful in moving the accepted political spectrum farther and farther right - what was Right is now Center, Far Right is now just Right, Left is now Far Left, you get the picture. Don't ask me why that is, or how it came to happen, but I think there's ample evidence. Even in Clinton's eight years in office, this process was going on; look at welfare reform and the SEC during that time, as a few examples.

Democrats have been in charge on Congress for a few years, and stand in opposition one of the most unpopular presidents in history. But are they actually in opposition? Not really. Even the party's presidential nominee has fallen into an all-too-familiar Democratic trap: the fear of appearing weak on national security, which of course leads to actually becoming weak in defense of one's principles. Congressional Democrats, as a block, only allow themselves token, symbolic opposition to Bush policies; Glenn Greenwald is calling this The New Republic Syndrome. I'm glad our congressman, John Sarbanes, voted against the latest bipartisan disaster, and plenty of other Democrats did as well. But what to do when the House "leaders" are in opposition to the majority of their own party? Either try to change their minds, or remove them from these leadership positions. Too bad it's so difficult (read: expensive) to run against an incumbent. It's a sad time for Democrats when both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer can't be relied on to protect the Constitution. At least the sprinkler system at the National Archives is still on the job (I hope!).

The merits of the FISA bill or other Bush administration positions can be argued, I suppose - you won't read me defending them, but one could make a go of it, I guess. But without any meaningful opposition, no substantive defense of those positions is even required; proponents can throw the flag around this bill (or a potential war with Iran, or a morally and intellectually bankrupt energy policy), question the patriotism of those in genuine opposition without addressing their real concerns, and be home in time for the summer recess.

Of Beer and Hostile Takeovers

If the Belgian-Brazilian brewer InBev wants to buy Budweiser - that's their problem. As for any patriotic defenses of the American-brewed "king of beers"? Andrew Leonard at Salon sums it up much better than I ever could (excerpt below):

For true beer-lovers across the world, Budweiser is a joke. It's embarrassing. Since when does America mean watered down pablum, forced down the throats of an unthinking populace by sheer power of mass marketing muscle? Since when does America stand for homogenized, lowest-common denominator swill? Michelob? Busch? These are not the names of American patriots -- these are signposts of the triumph of a particular strain of capitalism in which true identity and taste are sacrificed in the service of gaining greater market share.

If we're looking for real American icons that represent the grandest traditions of our founding fathers, who threw off foreign rule so they could stand independent and seek their own destiny, we have to search elsewhere than in the realm of giant conglomerates with humongous Super Bowl advertising budgets. I'm talking homebrewers, microbreweries, and those brave, privately-owned breweries that have yet to sell out to the false dream of "going public" -- and all the betrayal of brewer freedom that such slavery to the market implies.

Well said!