>>
>> But what about those links Doug posted? That 2003 NR editorial said,
>> baldly, something to the effect that George W. Bush is not a real
>> conservative.
>
> True, and that was a great editorial to post. But I think both of you
> are missing a key linguistic and conceptual asymetry here between
> right and left, which the left has no interest in curing, but which if
> we knew what was good for us, we would.
>
> And that's the this: the opposite of conservative is liberal. And if
> the Nation asked the question Is Obama A Real Liberal? they'd not only
> have to answer it emphatically Yes, so would you and Doug.
By the way, I sort of accepted the premise of this post because it led to an interesting train of thought. But actually I don't think the above is true at all. Why is the opposite of conservative Obama-style liberalism? Why isn't it, say, Nation-style liberalism? Cross out all the Nation's apologias for Obama and the Dems and just look at what it's actually for, the ideas it espouses. That's real liberalism, more or less - or progressivism if you prefer. But that's not what Obama is *at all*. Just look at his rhetoric. Look at his policies.
And I understand the argument that Obama could never have been elected in 2008 had Nation-ism been his platform. But it doesn't change the fact one iota: Obama and the Nation represent two different strands of politics. (Substitute for The Nation any other progressive, nonmarxist current, like the type of politics that FAIR represents.)
SA