The Relation Between Radicals, Moderates, and Conservatives

 NYT columnist David Brooks explains, in this OpEd,  that the "radicals" don't bring change; it's the moderates that do.

What is it that makes a person "conservative"? I think it's personality, it's the go-to, default, setting for the individual. Brooks has been a conservative, and as he says in his piece, over the years he moved right on certain issues that are more emotional (family, country, etc), and moved left on issues that can be rationally analyzed, like social programs, justice, etc.   For the same reason I don't like religion, I don't like conservatives..... and, I came to this by thinking and learning. The more I did the more ..radical I became in opposing conservatism and religion. They're both go hand in hand, most of the time, and they both want to hold progress back. By progress I mean positive change, not destructive radicalism.

Brooks says, " The people who come in their wake and actually make change are conservative radicals. They believe in many of the radicals’ goals, but know how to work within the democratic framework to achieve them."  He calls "radicals" those who aren't really radicals but are more vocal advocating for a sensible, more just society--which is already in place elsewhere. That's not ..radicalism, unless you compare it to a big mass in the US that is very conservative.  In this sense it's the ..perceived moderates (like Biden) or the "conservative radicals" as Brooks labels them, that facilitate change, because of the big mass who's afraid of "socialism".  But, yes, the envelope has to be pushed by the radicals in order for the moderates to have a chance of implementing reform.

Voting by itself is not enough. Activism and movements are necessary to stir up the status quo and usher new choices. These assaults on the status quo may be seen inconvenient or even threatening to many Americans, but they're important in accelerating change.

Biden's VP Choice Won't Change the Dynamics of the 2020 Election. Any Sensible Adult is Preferrable to the Dangerous, Incompetent, Most-Indecent Current President

 

Biden will announce his VP choice this week, after months of speculation and "advice", which advice is mostly what the "adviser" wants but not based on any evidence that such choice is a "must" or "will bring more votes to the ticket." There's no evidence to suggest that VPs bring any significant boost. They're part of the narrative about the main actor, and even that it's mostly discussed among the elites.

I'm mostly annoyed by those people who proclaim they won't vote for Biden because their preference (Sanders, Warren, or whomever else) didn't get the nomination. Above all, if they are not sufficiently motivated to vote to remove the most dangerous and unqualified president, then they're part of the problem, every problem they want to solve through politics. I question the judgment of such people, especially when they want to talk politics or analyze a situation.

If you're not motivated enough to vote this vile president out of office, along with his kakistocracy regime, then I don't care about your concerns. This is not normal times, and we shouldn't normalize Trump's behavior as another flavor of politics; he's so far out. And, to those who argued, in 2016, the DJT and HRC were more or less the same, you should refrain from making important political decisions. Also, if you don't vote to throw this spoiled child out, then you are NOT a progressive, for you're setting the country to continue sliding backward.

 

Now, I don't think there are many people who will not vote because of a VP choice, as they aren't that many who do vote for a ticket because someone is the VP-designee. I'm talking about significant numbers who can swing a national election, or even a state. I'm not saying it's impossible, but there isn't evidence that this has happened in the last 100 years.

For me, Biden's VP will be the next president, and therefore I want to see a competent person, who has political experience, preferably executive, someone who has won a serious election. My first choice would be Gretchen Whitmer, governor of Michigan, and, secondly, Kamala Harris.  But, the bottom line is that I'd vote for Biden, even if he was in a comma, and his VP choice was any sensible adult.

When Credulity, Uncritical Mind, and Perverted Love are Desirable Qualities

 

It's a sad day when Biden has to put out a statement re-affirming his faith (credulity, uncritical mind, ignorance on display), because some moron (DJT) made a gibberish statement that Biden has " no religion, no anything, hurt the Bible, hurt guns, hurt God..."

So, in a village where so many people are infected with a virus of the mind, proclaiming blindness, ignorance, and love for someone whom you fear, is considered an obligatory statement and positive attribute for any politician who wants to lead.... tsk. We're still so backward and primitive.