Sunday, December 05, 2010

New Deal: It's time to fight back! (UPDATE)

What do you think of the logo? Can you see this on T-shirts?

Unless there are major objections, this logo (or something similar) will appear on the forthcoming site discussed in the post below.

Just in case anyone reading these words cannot understand why we need a modern New Deal movement, check out this Politico story: "Barack Obama's deals may leave liberals behind." When have they not?
Democratic divisions make this task harder since the necessary compromises by Obama will almost certainly come at the expense of the left.
UPDATE: And here's another example. During the campaign, Obama said "I will take a backseat to no one in protecting net neutrality." Now, his FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski (who headed Obama's telecommunications working group during the campaign) has revealed plans to end net neutrality. Big telecomunications companies will now soon be able to prioritize web traffic, creating a "pay to play" internet that will censor the unfunded.

Has there ever been a campaign lie so brazen? Well, yes -- Obama's Great NAFTA Hoax. Remember that?

Hey hey ho ho: Mr. O has got to go. It's time to fight back.

There was some surprisingly respectful discussion of the "New Deal" proposal on Democratic Underground. As you know, many of the commentators there have become disillusioned with Obama -- but some don't want to see him wounded in the general election (presuming he prevails in the primary).

My response:

1. Although Jimmy Carter was a better president than Obama, I've never regretted my vote for Teddy Kennedy during the 1980 primaries. Kennedy represented my values. At the convention, when Kennedy spat out the name of Zbigniew Brzezinski (who was Carter's Kissinger), the crowd responded with a standing boo.

The ever-Machiavellian Brzezinski later mentored Barack Obama.

2. If Obama can't turn this economy around pronto, he can't possibly win. If he sensibly takes the LBJ route and bows out of the 2012 race, we'll need Democrats ready to hop in. Lets make sure that they are New Deal Democrats -- Democrats who can claim that they are not cut from Obama's cloth.

3. Yes, even I must admit that there is a considerable difference between Obama and Palin. Yes, there's a difference between Obama and Huckabee. Yes, there's a difference between Obama and Gingrich.

But between Obama and Romney...?

4. If the previous three reasons do not impress you, consider this: The tea party propagandists have convinced at least half the population that Obama is a socialist. The only way to counter that canard is to mount a vigorous challenge to Obama from the left.

We need to pound home the message that Obama's stimulus went to tax cuts, not to job creation. We need to pound home the message that Obama's health care plan was nothing like the one we favored. We need to condemn Bush and Obama alike for not buying the troubled banks outright and firing their chief officers.

5. The Republicans revivified their party and succeeded in 2010 not by going centrist. Playing to the center simply does not work. Bipartisanship simply does not work.

What's that? You say that you would prefer to mount a third party challenge?

Pheh. Come on -- think about it: Have libertarians working within the Libertarian party ever accomplished anything? No. But libertarians working within the Republican party have accomplished astonishing things. Astonishing and horrifying.

We must mirror their tactics if we want to undo the damage they've done.

The best image we can present is that of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the man in the wheelchair who kicked Hitler's ass. No image can be more radical -- or more American.

Visually, I'm going to drape the modern New Deal movement in red, white and blue. The Republicans have been taken over by the tea party fascists, and the tea partiers are talking secession. They want revolution. Unless and until the Republicans in Congress condemn Ron Paul for his endorsement of disunion, they do not deserve to carry the American flag.

For years, wimpy progressives and moderates have told conservatives: "It's our flag too." Here's a stronger message: "It's OUR flag -- PERIOD." If the right won't commit to the union, then they have forfeited their claim to the stars and stripes.

Have you noticed that the rightists no longer call themselves "the patriot movement," as they did in Clinton's day? I suspect that they have already become psychologically dislodged from our union.

Some cynics say that we cannot return to New Deal ideals. They say that times have changed. I ask those cynics to look at the video below. Times were even tougher then -- yet those years produced a president like FDR.

Hey Joseph--love the New New Deal logo, except the arrow seems to be pointing backwards, to the past, instead of forward.

I'm assuming that was deliberate, but if so I think it's a miscalculation. Sorry.

Missed ya, btw. Welcome back.
I like the logo at the top. The arrow on the second one is visually jarring and makes the logo harder to take in at a glance.

I think there are enough real liberals--like most of the American people when it comes down to principles rather than slogans--and enough real socialists to make a popular challenge from the left a viable possibility. It's time to march on Versailles.
Past and future? Huh. I wasn't thinking that way, and it's a little surprising to encounter that interpretation. I was thinking in terms of "Heading right" versus "heading left."

Originally, the red arrow -- see it? -- was the first shape to occur to me. But then I thought it would arouse derisive comment if the arrow pointed right. So I had the right-pointing arrow conflicting with a left-pointing arrow.
Now, see, I thought the arrow was pointing backwards also...

but I like the colors, the layout and the lettering very much.
I think the logo is great.
BTW - my own immediate interpretation (when I first saw it) was of an arrow pointing left (as in heading politically left).
I also slightly prefer the top variant (as opposed to the second one).
Keep working on the logo! My main problem with it right now is that the arrow visually divides up the words in the middle. So if I glance at it, it reads "NEDE WAL"
Maybe it could point up? (positive, moving up)

I love the New Deal updates.... and I'm glad you're back!
Maybe "New Deal" on an upper level, with the arrow fitted between the W and the D, and "It's time to fight back" on a lower level instead of as a kind of footnote?

Or have you already tried that, and it didn't work?
Welcome back. I too see the arrow pointing left. I think it should point right simply because it denotes forward which is the way. The right is always talking about a simpler better time and taking us back there. OUR inspiration comes from the past, but points to a better future. Try switching the arrow.

Liberal Commontater
I had the same reaction to the "backward" arrow. Could you flip the colors and make the forward pointing one overlap the backward pointing one?

Arrows aside, I like it because it's very strong-looking and clear.
I am partial to the top logo as well, and what Valhalla said. Flip the arrows, make the blue point right (because people are going to think that it means going forward regardless of your intent), and on top of the red pointing left (and backward).

PS - I'm all in. We've got to retake the Dem party. Trying to create a third party from whole cloth is not going to happen.
New guy here. Like what you're doing and what you're about.

I'm not real good on graphics, I'm graphically challenged. I will say the logo is a little "jarring" to me. But like I said, graphics aren't my strong suite.

I do question the tag line; "It's time to fight back". It leaves the unanswered question of who we are fighting, why and for what end.

I would prefer something more positive like "New Deal: Time To Take Our Country Forward" or something along those lines

It's good to find like minded folks. Looking forward to fighting along your side.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?