When George W. Bush coined the term “compassionate conservatism,” it sounded like an oxymoron to many of us who had lived through the harsh and unforgiving conservatism of the ’80s and ’90s. It sounded disingenuous. Ideas like compassion, forgiveness and redemption were more typically associated with progressives and liberals. Their rhetoric was very much influenced and informed by the faithful inspiration of the civil rights movement, and these ideas were abundant.
We can’t appear to be loving, tree hugging, or being excellent to one another.
Re “Maybe it is because progressive movements have become increasingly secular.”
This is a cheap shot, equating secularism with a lack of love, which is rubbish. As the religious right takes over our country and supports the Orange Monstrosity in the White House, should we then draw a straight line between religion and cruelty? Let’s just knock this stuff off. Both secular and religious people, or at least some of both, are capable of a politics that includes love.
I guess I’m really missing something here as this seems on the face of it like a lot of tripe, ridiculous phony analysis, ordinary claptrap, and pointless obtuse blather…."conservative positions are supported by a deep grounding in love…yeah, we should “love” “conservatives”, conservative values and positions?..right, Simon…BS…or maybe I’m just having a bad un-loving day. “forge a new politics, with our fellow conservative Americans” - say what?
When the right has become so divisive, racist, and bigoted I do not see much “love” among their ranks, except possibly as a shallow phony mantra…progressives still espouse love in their thinking and foundation, not “evolved away from love”, but fighting against racism, vulture capitalist usury, trumpian pathology, “religious” fundamentalist racism and bigotry, the war machine, world-wide environmental rape of Mother Earth and mass extinctions , there doesn’t seem like we have much room for overt expressions of “love” right now especially toward “our conservative fellow Americans”, but that doesn’t mean it is not an inherent part of why “we” fight against right-wing extremism, exploitation, and hatred.
“Love is a crucial element in conservative thought and identity today…”
What fvcking planet is this moron occupying?
I managed to get through the first paragraph, and then I skipped down to his bio:
“Greer is the founder of Cambridge Heath Ventures, a strategic advisory firm that works with private sector companies, purpose-driven organizations…” [Italics added]
We’re getting his “tripe, ridiculous phony analysis, ordinary claptrap, and pointless obtuse blather” for free, but he probably charges those other folks $500 an hour.
I had to make sure I hadn’t accidentally made my way to Raw Story or Alternet after having gotten halfway through this tripe. All we need to do is say “I wuv you” and the oligarchy will take their jackboot off our throats.
Marianne Williamson for President = Politics of Love and Peace
Too many labels–in the article, and ESPECIALLY in the comments. I get implicitly what the author is saying, but I object to his distinction (in the “Maybe’s” near the beginning) between “theological love” and . . . WHAT? All of the other “kinds of love”? And this just three days after an article by Michael Winship, who does seem to get it, quoting Vonnegut–from Slaughterhouse Five, I believe–as saying, “There’s only one rule that I know of, babies. Goddamn it, you’ve got to be kind."
We have been told often enough, by everyone from ancient sages to clueless pop stars. Part of the problem is that few sources go on to point out how difficult it is to do, in stark contrast to how easy it is to say; how much self-discipline it requires. If you care, look it up, and get to work–on yourself.
“You tell me it’s the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead” --John Lennon, “Revolution”
“The institution” is critical, but more critical is “you.” Plenty of references for that.
What utter nonsense. It is still true today that democrats fall in love their candidate and the republicans fall into line. That has not changed.
Come on, folks. The article is calling for a return to the high moral ground of the Civil Rights movement. Which, btw, was a spiritually-based movement. Rabbi Michael Lerner (author of Surplus Powerlessness) among others have been calling for a long time now, for the progressive movement in particular (as well as, for Democrats in general) to reclaim their roots in humanistic and, yes, “spiritual” values. I have to say, that just as the mainstream Democrats have become super neo-liberal centrists, in their efforts to “win” the public, progressives as a whole often seem to be uncritically accepting of the technocratic and soulless scientism that pervades “modern” culture. News flash: human beings are NOT machines (except in the fantasy worlds of the “singularity” folks) and we need a wholistic politics that speaks to people’s hearts and minds in a good way.