Because, don’t you see? We are all liberals now. And the others are “absolutists.”
From today’s briefing:
CARNEY: I would reject the idea that this was an “ism” speech. This was in fact the opposite of that . . .
And I hardly think that pursuit of equal rights, pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform, pursuit of sensible policies that deal with climate change and enhance our energy independence are ideological. The only “ism” that was a part of that speech was his rejection of absolutism . . .
Q Not on behalf of liberalism or progressivism?
CARNEY: Of course not. It’s on behalf of ideas that represent who we are as Americans. I mean, if you’re suggesting that it’s — I would reject the idea that pursuit of equal rights is a Democratic-only pursuit. Or pursuit of energy legislation that enhances our independence, increases our production of domestic forms of energy and addresses climate change is only a province of liberalism or the Democratic Party. I think — I would hope — I know that Republicans would reject that, too.
So this is his vision for how we can move together forward.
There is no serious analyst on either side of the aisle who doesn’t think Obama’s inaugural address was a summons to the barricades for liberals.
I’m not sure which is the truth here, or which would be more frightening: that the White House is trying to convince Americans that unadulterated liberalism is merely nonpartisan “American” values, or that the White House actually believes that unadulterated liberalism is merely nonpartisan “American” values.