Friday, October 19, 2007

Liberal/Democrat SOP

Paul Krugman writes in today's NY Times:
Right now all the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination are running on strongly progressive platforms — especially on health care. But there remain real concerns about what they would actually do in office.

Here’s an example of the sort of thing that makes you wonder: yesterday ABC News reported on its Web site that the Clinton campaign is holding a “Rural Americans for Hillary” lunch and campaign briefing — at the offices of the Troutman Sanders Public Affairs Group, which lobbies for the agribusiness and biotech giant Monsanto. You don’t have to be a Naderite to feel uncomfortable about the implied closeness.

I’d put it this way: many progressives, myself included, hope that the next president will be another F.D.R. But we worry that he or she will turn out to be another Grover Cleveland instead — better-intentioned and much more competent than the current occupant of the White House, but too dependent on lobbyists’ money to seriously confront the excesses of our new Gilded Age.
This sounds like something that could be written about the Liberal Party. The whole run left/rule right is the Liberals' stock in trade. Progressives here need to seriously think about that reality. Fortunately unlike our U.S. counterparts, we don't have to put up with Liberal BS. We have an alternative.
Recommend this Post

1 comment:

  1. Yeah. Left-wing Canadians who haven't first tried being left-wing Americans have NO IDEA how important this is. And in Canada, even if you're not actually voting for the alternative, the Liberals would still be a very different party if it weren't for the NDP. People who actually like Liberal policies as they are should be very glad that there are other people who still vote NDP, because if there weren't, they'd just be clones of the Democrats.