This is a very long and well argued discusion of the five main Reactionary postulates regarding the present and the future for the U.S. A word of warning, the Wing Nuts and those poorly informed about economics and politics will not like this.

Thanks for interesting article.

I liked this extract :

"4. Reactionary Narrative: You counter terrorism by fighting land wars and overthrowing dictators (especially when oil is involved).

Counter Progressive Narrative: The Best Way to Fight Terrorism is through Cooperative International Police Action and Foreign Policy Changes – Not Land Wars."

Thanks again

Vicente

Thanks, Vicente. I really appreciate all of the posts you are sending -- you pretty well "cover the water-front."

Excellent article. Thanks for sharing it. I can't believe American politics have become so twisted and polarized. Though I suppose it has been that way for a long time, and it's hard to get the pendulum to move back in the other direction.

There have been time throughout the history of the U.S. that politics have been as contentious -- just think about slavery, high protective tariffs, the Homestead Act, the Mexican War, and there were others.
Thanks for stopping by.

Turned out there was none in slavery -- they freed them then they allowed the South to put them back into virtual slavery. There really wasn't in the Mexican War -- the U.S. declared war on a subterfuge and took about half of Mexico. There wasn't in high protective tariffs -- the U.S. had them for years, and that is one of the reasons the corporations ran the U.S. back in the latter 1800's also.

It always does for those who fail to learn from history; the real problem is that they make those who did learn from history repeat it also. LOL

Now here is my take. ONE...I generally agree with everything Alternet has to say...the introduction is infuriating. Obama is not the problem...Alternet is. Alternet is a progressive voice. The surrogates they talk about are them.

It's about time that the rest of us, who claim to be progressives either get behind Obama, or at least aim the slings and arrows at the reactionaries. We are worse than the Conservative say. As a group we expect the President to do our work for us. The Tea Party may be a gang of imbeciles with funny hats, but they are GANGED UP AND MAKING NOISE. When did the inmates get the right to do all the talking?

President Obama's attitude toward the progressives was well summed up by his chief aide -- frigging retards -- do you remember. This article was right on. On every issue, President Obama had moved to the edge of the regressive's starting point and then started negotiating. Just take one issue -- when was single payer or Medicare for all ever on the table.

George, it was on the table till WE DROPPED THE DAMN BALL. The Tea Party came out swinging and all you and I could do was duck and cover. My issue is simple. IF WE DON'T GET MOVING, NO POLITICIAN IN HIS RIGHT MIND WILL BE ON OUR SIDE.

Norman, You Tell US. I know what I support, and I know you support it too. But I also know that unless we go for it we won't get it.

Karl, I have an advantage over you, I lived during the time of one really progressive President who wasn't afraid to go "balls-out" and fight for what was needed. FDR didn't sit back and take the leading edge of the opposition and then give up things from there. He used the "bully pulpit" and fought for what was needed. When people pushed him to fight for more he didn't attack them and throw them under the bus. I am waiting for President Obama to really stand up and fight for something. Hell, he hasn't even really supported the workers when the States are trying to grind them down. The unions are getting pissed off enough to start withholding their funds. That should tell him and you something/

Norman, the Progressive Era was when workers compensation, the eight hour day, the five day work week and those kinds of things were won.

The main stream media has allowed the term, liberal, to become so tainted that many people are afraid to use it. They have reached back in history, found progressive, and have decided to use that instead.

Not much of an advantage George, I was alive, but quite young at the end of FDR's term. I do have vague recollections of being hushed while he spoke on the Wilcox Gay Radio in the living room.

Norman, the difference is progress is a policy of Liberals. Regression is the policy of Conservatives. And Rush Limbaugh is having trouble making Progress into an evil.

Karl, I went into town with my father to hear FDR's inauguration. LOL
It was the first time I had ever heard a radio.

I'll repeat the comment I just added at my post on Clean Energy.

U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood just announced $2 Billion support for High-Speed Intercity Rail Projects. High-Speed Rail is great for its speed, its energy-efficiency and its potential to be powered by genuinely clean electricity from sources such as solar and wind facilities.

Last month, at the PowerShift 2011 conference in Washington, DC, organized by the Energy Action Coalition, a network of climate change groups on college campuses, green jobs leader Van Jones gave a passionate keynote address discussing America’s basic principles, in the context of arguing with “your uncle Joe” who watches Fox News at the Thanksgiving table. “Don’t you believe in liberty?” Van asked. “Shouldn’t we have the right as Americans to be energy producers?” he asked. “Shouldn’t we have the right and liberty to be free from energy companies who dictate how much we pay, what air we breathe?” Coal and oil companies try to divide us with cultural stereotypes and political ideology, when a green economy is actually the truly American economy: The stereotype is that solar power is just hippie power. But it’s also cowboy power, farmer power, rancher power, and Appalachian mountain power!

Obama met with twelve people from the conference, who expressed concerns with aspects of Obama’s energy policy, particularly ongoing reliance on dirty energy sources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas. Obama needs their support, not only in the form of their individual votes, but also in the form of their efforts, as the Washington Post puts it, to knock on doors, drive enthusiasm on Facebook, Twitter and other social networks, and work young people into a get-out-the-vote frenzy for Obama.

And what does the White House do? It releases yet another disappointing statement suggesting there was a need to continue to invest in clean, alternative sources of energy – like advanced biofuels and natural gas – and more efficient cars, buses and trucks.

Sadly, such investments in natural gas, nuclear and biofuel come at the expense of what's needed instead, i.e. genuinely clean energy such as solar and wind energy. Greater fuel economy sounds nice, but it doesn't help electrify transport. It is high time that Obama starts showing some backbone.

Yes, give away the garage if you can get someone to buy your car at half price.

"Conclusion There is no immediate panacea to the “empty pulpit” problem we now face with the Obama administration. However, as we approach the next presidential election it is important, at a minimum, for several progressive candidates to challenge the president in the primaries. Not because there is a serious chance of having these progressive candidates defeat Obama. But rather so that progressive narratives and voices so critical at this time can mount the pulpit and speak to an America that I believe is truly hungry for this vision."

I wish to hell that someone like Anthony Weiner or Bernie Sanders would challenge Obama in the Democratic primaries. Maybe then the Progressive voice would be heard & paid attention to. A great link, George. I think that you know of my disappointment in Obama's policies. As a Progressive, who no longer calls himself a Democrat ( My father is turning over in his grave), I have not deserted my party; My party has deserted me. The Progressive base that elected Obama has been ignored. As they say in Texas: "Ya gotta dance with them what brung ya."

I must belong to about a dozen Progressive organizations. Mostly, what they want is money. I've signed every petition that you can imagine. What the Progressive movement needs is unity that can only come from leadership. That leadership is sadly lacking from the empty bully pulpit.....I wish that I could get Obama into a poker game. I could bluff my way to a fortune.

George, I actually enjoyed reading this. I did not agree with it, but loved hearing it for obvious reasons. I actually agree with much of it, but probably not the same things you do. I do agree the war on terror has had it's day, even as the writer predicted.

With the Tea Party pulling the Republicans farther to the right than they already were, Obama can be a right of center Pragmatist and still be accused of being a commie dictator nazi. Crazy, but that's what they are saying LOUDLY.

And just because they won't let you call them "racist" doesn't mean all that white VS black racism just went away in America the moment we got a black President. And many on the right also think he's the Antichrist Muslim Terrorist. What other President has gotten all that? LOL

Yes, and it is amazing how they can mix things like Commie and Nazi and the main stream media is so uneducated that they don't even see the contradiction.

Yesterday, Boehner said that increasing the debt limit will REQUIRE that cuts in spending EXCEED the increase in debt, & that tax increases are off the table. If you believe that, I've got an oceanfront condo in North Dakota that I'll sell you cheap. If past is prologue, Obama will buy it though, & give Boehner almost everything that he wants BRFORE he starts "Negotiating."

That is the major problem. President Obama tries to avoid a fight by giving away most of the main issues before the negotiations ever begin. When he will say, "I will not agree with major cuts in Social Security." That means he has already agreed to some cuts in Social Security.

George that is funny, but seems to be true, which is why it is funny...

If past is prologue, Obama will buy it though, & give Boehner almost everything that he wants BRFORE he starts "Negotiating."

That would be great!

As for the cuts he agrees to, what would you guess they would be? Later retirement? Means testing? Both of the above? I did hear privatizing is off the table, thank goodness.

I am no longer willing to guess. It is always worse than I guess anyway. I am hoping that some of his right of center advisers have seen some of the Republican town hall meeting and have gotten the message, but I wouldn't bet on that.

For some reason your reluctance made me laugh out loud. I think it was just the way you put it, that it's always worse than you think :). I do hope they all got the message about doing anything to undermine the elder safety net. I have no doubt they will when the numbers voting are down, but for now; hopefully they will stick to responsible sacrifices the people, including the retired, will support.

That would be nice, and if they don't try to make the poor and the elderly pay for the corporations and the rich, it will be surprising.

No doubt they will try, but all we can do is call them on it!

Well if the truth hurts George you ought to just go ahead and delete it. lmao