Gary Hart is talking utopianism

Senator Obama has two choices. He can focus on winning the election to the exclusion of all else and, like Robert Redford in “The Candidate,” ask, “What do we do now?” after it is over. Or he can use his campaign as a platform for designing a new political cycle and achieve a mandate for starting it....

Senator Obama’s attempt to introduce the next American cycle should include, at minimum, three elements. National security requires a new, expanded, post-cold-war definition. America must transition from a consumer economy to a producing one. And the moral obligations of our stewardship of the planet must become paramount.

You will note that I try to hew as closely to current physical reality as possible. However, I can do utopianism. I kinda do already, actually, I just immediately, maybe even reflexively, scale it back to the possible. Then I scale it back to the probable.

That limitation to the probable is conscious and intentional. Do you think it's necessary?

Bookmark/Search this post with:

This may be interpreted as

On June 26th, 2008 ptcruiser says:

This may be interpreted as unforgiving but I was in a meeting with Gary Hart's national campaign chair several days before he and his campaign blew up over his sexual escapades. I felt such a sense of betrayal at that time that I have refused to take him seriously since then.

By the way, Obama has more than two choices. The range of possibility is much greater than what Hart and people who share his views believe. It always is.

And how!

On June 26th, 2008 Quaker in a Basement says:

Sure! Otherwise you make a plan of action that won't jibe with the obstacles in your path. Still, a set of ambitious--even impossible--aspirations help shape the vision.

That limitation to the

On June 26th, 2008 Solar Soul says:

No, revolutions wouldn't get started if we always stuck to the probable. Young people generally drive revolutions because they haven't learned what they can't do yet.

Prometheus 6