A few years years back liberals did a lot of chortling over the Rove-ian notion that you don’t accept the confines of circumstance, IE, you need to aspire and act in pursuit of things beyond the superficial , practical ‘reality base’.
Now, fair to say it was the mere word-play there that inspired a lot of the chortling, and notions of who lived in reality and who didn’t.
But the decision making / evaluation operandi is supposed to be that you act with some disregard to the assumptions of your circumstance and, I dunno, see a corresponding shift of the paradigm / Overton window of potentiality that is accommodating to whatever you wanted to accomplish as you start accomplishing it.
It’s a bit too hopeful, too circular, and something of a triumph of the will mindset. And Linker sees the Sanders supporting left making the Rove mistake in having a disregard for immutable reality. He’s right. I’d say it this way…. The reason progressivisim rightfully pursues incrementalism within a democracy is because incrementalism doesn’t incite an electoral revolt that ultimately squashes your progressive movement.
Problem is, that leaves you with Hillary.
Bernie really is playing the long game…. he won’t come out as an atheist to sprint ahead in the (D) nomination contest…. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/27/bernie_sanders_believes_in_a_version_of_god_he_says.html gehar, gehar
Trump: I think this is the high water mark. Middling results in Iowa (he does not win). This debate boycotting thing is tactically wrong.
Trump: Trump’s support can not be alienated right? I never have seen him asked about (fake) global warming, which might do the trick for that alienation. I don’t think he gets off defying conservative orthodoxy and throwing in with warmist tax raisers.