The new USA Next, aka, United Seniors Association, aka, Swiftboat Veterans for the Ministry of Truth shell group launched a peculiar broadside against AARP for the senior organization's opposition to President Bush's idea for privatizing Social Security, suggesting AARP supported gays but opposed "the troops".
I don't know who or what the new swift boats were trying to target, but via Sisyphus Shrugged, we learn that AARP has a response that includes:
AARP calls your attention to these efforts because media coverage is clear about the aggressive tone of the language. We question why neoconservatives would choose these tactics.
AARP urges you to judge critically the motivations behind statements made against AARP. For example, whenever you see attempts to discredit AARP presented on Fox News Channel or other media outlets like talk radio shows that regularly carry the neoconservative lobbying group messages, AARP urges you to consider these important background facts:
USA Next is a lobbying group that "has poured poured millions of dollars into Republican policy battles" as reported in the New York Times.
As reported by UPI, USA Next has hired a public relations firm with "plans to spend as much as $10 million to counterattack Democrats opposed to changing Social Security, has hired Chris LaCivita, a former Marine who advised Swift Vets on its media campaign and helped write its potent commercials attacking Bush's opponent, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass."
Creative Response Concepts of Alexandria, Virginia is the public relations firm hired by USA Next. As reported by PR Watch, in 2004 "this firm used right-wing blogs and news sites to turn a CBS report casting doubt about President George W. Bush's National Guard services into a potential black eye for both the network and the Democrats."
As readers of this blog have no doubt recognized, Bulworth says Democrats have a problem in that Republicans have successfully demonized the liberal label, forcing Democrats to campaign and legislate from a mystical and ever shifting "center". Embedded in AARP's response to the swift boat attack ads, lies a potential aid in changing this dynamic.
Notice, if you will, my bold italics of the word neoconservative, which come up in the first couple of paragraphs of AARP's talking points. Now, the label neoconservative, is obviously not a new one, but what is relative new is the association of neoconservatism with a domestic issue. We know from the hub-ub surrounding the Iraq war that conservatives hate the term neoconservative. Conservatives have said the label of neoconservative is, alternatively, anti-semitic (because the said proponents of neoconservatism are Jewish and primarily concerned with the protection of the State of Israel) and a fantasy (because there is no such thing as neoconservative*), and on and on.
Bulworth says, let's associate any and all administrative actions that are injurious to working people and the values of liberalism and freedom as neoconservative even if the policy issue is domestic in nature. The label neoconservative sounds suspicious, and it makes conservatives edgy. Given the intent of the neoconservatives surrounding the Iraq war and the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction, it makes good sense to label any significant policy actions and political actions by the administration as being one and the same as the foolhardy and erroneous neoconservative words and policies in the realm of foreign policy. I would also point out that this association is far from being a mere linguistic one. The neoconservative goal has both a domestic-economic and a foreign-economic policy component.
Thanks, AARP.
* "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist".
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Uh, We Didn't Mean That. We Were Just Kidding.
I found this gem yesterday on David Neiwert's page from a self described "real conservative":
Your blog is entertaining, but your running, one sided debate is mostly with straw men of the kosher conservative variety. The real right doesn't take Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh seriously...
Now, this line about "real" conservatives not taking the hysterical, vitriolic, fascist screechings of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage seriously is not a new line of thought or response. I've heard this defense statement before. But in the same breath we're typically reminded about the imposing force represented by Rush's 15 million number radio audience, Ann Coulter's record book sale figures, and on and on. And I might point out that Ann herself is a frequent presence on cable television, including Chris Matthew's. Somebody is taking them seriously.
As is the case with their attempts to claim liberal media bias while trumpeting the success of Fox "News" in the ratings wars, conservatives are trying to have it both ways, to have their cake and eat it, too (and it's working). They want the benefits of Rush and Ann's hatred and propaganda but want to disassociate themselves from it when they fear it may backfire on them.
Your blog is entertaining, but your running, one sided debate is mostly with straw men of the kosher conservative variety. The real right doesn't take Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh seriously...
Now, this line about "real" conservatives not taking the hysterical, vitriolic, fascist screechings of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage seriously is not a new line of thought or response. I've heard this defense statement before. But in the same breath we're typically reminded about the imposing force represented by Rush's 15 million number radio audience, Ann Coulter's record book sale figures, and on and on. And I might point out that Ann herself is a frequent presence on cable television, including Chris Matthew's. Somebody is taking them seriously.
As is the case with their attempts to claim liberal media bias while trumpeting the success of Fox "News" in the ratings wars, conservatives are trying to have it both ways, to have their cake and eat it, too (and it's working). They want the benefits of Rush and Ann's hatred and propaganda but want to disassociate themselves from it when they fear it may backfire on them.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Can Everyone Who Bought One of Those "Let Freedom Reign" Labels Please Return Them?
Now that they have the control of government, conservatives are increasingly backtracking from the whole "less government" thing:
Linda Chavez, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, argued that "one of the things that most concerns people is the sexualization of culture," and that "in the culture wars, they are burning down our houses." She cited a recent experience of stopping at a traffic light as the car next to her played "an incredibly vile rap song. I couldn't avoid hearing simulated sexual intercourse."
and
Leon Kass, Hertog Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said that "it will be no great victory" to win new individual freedoms "if the uses of those freedoms are debased, if families decay, if the general moral vision diminishes."
So now they tell us.
Post Script: You know it's a sorry state of affairs when you're reading a summary of a political pow-wow and Grover Norquist--Grover Norquist!-- comes off as the sensible one
Linda Chavez, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, argued that "one of the things that most concerns people is the sexualization of culture," and that "in the culture wars, they are burning down our houses." She cited a recent experience of stopping at a traffic light as the car next to her played "an incredibly vile rap song. I couldn't avoid hearing simulated sexual intercourse."
and
Leon Kass, Hertog Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said that "it will be no great victory" to win new individual freedoms "if the uses of those freedoms are debased, if families decay, if the general moral vision diminishes."
So now they tell us.
Post Script: You know it's a sorry state of affairs when you're reading a summary of a political pow-wow and Grover Norquist--Grover Norquist!-- comes off as the sensible one
Friday, February 18, 2005
The Trail of "Treason" and The Coming Fascism of the Political Right
Although the notion has been around ever since the country's founding, the word "treason" is increasingly being applied to opponents of the current administration's policies and the ideology of its supporters. The 9-11 attacks and the assumption of power by a Republican majority since 2000 have dramatically increased the trend whereby those who disagree with the ruling regime's ideas and actions are being labeled as traitors to the country.
Below I have included links to a snapshot of issues and persons that illustrate this trend. In some cases, the links depict a summary of right wing commentary and accusations, and in some cases, the right wing sources are clearly peripheral. In addition, it must be admitted that some opponents of the Bush administration have themselves referred to the president and his actions as traitorous. So it's important to acknowledge the necessary qualifications. At the same time, the growing frequency and intensity of the accusations of "treason" from the right represents a great cause for concern.
Below are some of the names of those accusing the "left" of treason and those being accused, which I have indicated following the link:
Michael Moore accused
Ann Coulter accuser
Eason and CNN accused
Ward Churchill accused
John Kerry accused
NY Sun - War Protestors accuser and accused
Southern Reconstructionists accuser
The UN accused
Zell Miller accuser
Washington Times and Marvin Olasky accusers
NewsMax accusers
Powerline and President Carter accuser and accused
As I said, this represents the product of only a quick google search. Maybe someone with more time and better expertise could do a more detailed and thorough investigation. But I think it's enough to show the degree to which the charge is being made against opponents of Bush and the conservative establishment.
Fascism in Nazi Germany was above all else, a hyper-violent strain of nationalism, which in addition to its goals of world domination, violently oppressed its opponents at home. Is it looking familiar here? Welcome to the new Conservative Political Correctness.
Below I have included links to a snapshot of issues and persons that illustrate this trend. In some cases, the links depict a summary of right wing commentary and accusations, and in some cases, the right wing sources are clearly peripheral. In addition, it must be admitted that some opponents of the Bush administration have themselves referred to the president and his actions as traitorous. So it's important to acknowledge the necessary qualifications. At the same time, the growing frequency and intensity of the accusations of "treason" from the right represents a great cause for concern.
Below are some of the names of those accusing the "left" of treason and those being accused, which I have indicated following the link:
Michael Moore accused
Ann Coulter accuser
Eason and CNN accused
Ward Churchill accused
John Kerry accused
NY Sun - War Protestors accuser and accused
Southern Reconstructionists accuser
The UN accused
Zell Miller accuser
Washington Times and Marvin Olasky accusers
NewsMax accusers
Powerline and President Carter accuser and accused
As I said, this represents the product of only a quick google search. Maybe someone with more time and better expertise could do a more detailed and thorough investigation. But I think it's enough to show the degree to which the charge is being made against opponents of Bush and the conservative establishment.
Fascism in Nazi Germany was above all else, a hyper-violent strain of nationalism, which in addition to its goals of world domination, violently oppressed its opponents at home. Is it looking familiar here? Welcome to the new Conservative Political Correctness.
I understand how, I just don't understand why
Maybe like me, you've been pondering the case of this administration and invasion of Iraq. Maybe like me, you're truly confounded by the administration's arrogance and seeming disregard for the aftermath of the invasion, an apparent total lack of recognition for the resistance that the U.S. military would likely face after Saddam's paper army was dispensed with in the first month of the "conflict".
Maybe like me you've wondered how a democratic government would be set up in Iraq that would simultaneously and obstensibly be responsive to the demands of the population while paying homage to its American benefactors.
Maybe like me you've wondered just what it was about Iraq that got the fires going in the bellies of the PNAC. Oil? Sure, I guess, to an extent. But I'll admit it's never satisfied me completely, this natural resources rationale.
Maybe like me you've even taking to wondering if the ambitions for the war were really as simple as the desire for greater world hegemony now that the Soviet Union was for all practicable purposes, off the stage. But hegemony for what purpose?
Maybe like me you've found yourself wondering that I understand the how, I just don't understand the why, like some Winston Smith apparation from 1984 come to life.
In recent months many of us liberal bloggerers have engaged in a much deserved revelry of disbelief and criticism of this hapless administration as it attempts to spin itself out of the trouble of insurgent numbers and attacks, indefinite forecasts of troop needs, the endless cycle of keeping National Guardsmen and other part timers on past their agreed to service periods and then not adequately providing for them or their families needs, of having the temerity to not provide the military with adequate protection and armor, and on and on the seemingly endless circus of mistakes, incompetence, and national burden continues.
And maybe like me you've started to think that after each insurgent attack or election, or hand over of sovereignty or whatever, that plans will be made to peacefully leave Iraq and leave the country and its oil to the people that live there.
But maybe like me you've regretfully come to believe that this is all a farce, that there is no end sought, that the administration had no exit plan because it didn't plan an exit. Maybe like me you've come to believe that the administration wasn't just unprepared for the insurgent response, that it didn't much care one way or the other how rebellious Iraqis responded the American occupation. Sure, we realize, American troop leaders no doubt would have preferred a less violent transition to American rule, but ultimately, the condition of ongoing Iraqi counterattacks is just immaterial to the task at hand, and that is to establish a foothold of military bases in the country and stay as long as we feel like it there and for whatever reason.
Maybe like me you've come to realize the administration knew that the circumstances of ongoing war, endless battles, serve a purpose for the military and corporate elite in democratic countries as in any other country. Maybe like me you've come to believe that the administration believes in war because it serves to distract the country from more meaningful debates about Who Governs? and enables the expansionist needs of American capitalism to be served.
Maybe like me you've come to believe that whatever happens in Iraq (elections, insurgent attacks, constitution unveilings, etc) over the next several months and years will not change anything, and that besides, we don't have any real idea of knowing what's actually going on over there anyway.
Maybe like me you've reached that point where you realize that more verbage about Iraq is close to senseless and are starting to wonder what we do next.
Maybe like me you've wondered how a democratic government would be set up in Iraq that would simultaneously and obstensibly be responsive to the demands of the population while paying homage to its American benefactors.
Maybe like me you've wondered just what it was about Iraq that got the fires going in the bellies of the PNAC. Oil? Sure, I guess, to an extent. But I'll admit it's never satisfied me completely, this natural resources rationale.
Maybe like me you've even taking to wondering if the ambitions for the war were really as simple as the desire for greater world hegemony now that the Soviet Union was for all practicable purposes, off the stage. But hegemony for what purpose?
Maybe like me you've found yourself wondering that I understand the how, I just don't understand the why, like some Winston Smith apparation from 1984 come to life.
In recent months many of us liberal bloggerers have engaged in a much deserved revelry of disbelief and criticism of this hapless administration as it attempts to spin itself out of the trouble of insurgent numbers and attacks, indefinite forecasts of troop needs, the endless cycle of keeping National Guardsmen and other part timers on past their agreed to service periods and then not adequately providing for them or their families needs, of having the temerity to not provide the military with adequate protection and armor, and on and on the seemingly endless circus of mistakes, incompetence, and national burden continues.
And maybe like me you've started to think that after each insurgent attack or election, or hand over of sovereignty or whatever, that plans will be made to peacefully leave Iraq and leave the country and its oil to the people that live there.
But maybe like me you've regretfully come to believe that this is all a farce, that there is no end sought, that the administration had no exit plan because it didn't plan an exit. Maybe like me you've come to believe that the administration wasn't just unprepared for the insurgent response, that it didn't much care one way or the other how rebellious Iraqis responded the American occupation. Sure, we realize, American troop leaders no doubt would have preferred a less violent transition to American rule, but ultimately, the condition of ongoing Iraqi counterattacks is just immaterial to the task at hand, and that is to establish a foothold of military bases in the country and stay as long as we feel like it there and for whatever reason.
Maybe like me you've come to realize the administration knew that the circumstances of ongoing war, endless battles, serve a purpose for the military and corporate elite in democratic countries as in any other country. Maybe like me you've come to believe that the administration believes in war because it serves to distract the country from more meaningful debates about Who Governs? and enables the expansionist needs of American capitalism to be served.
Maybe like me you've come to believe that whatever happens in Iraq (elections, insurgent attacks, constitution unveilings, etc) over the next several months and years will not change anything, and that besides, we don't have any real idea of knowing what's actually going on over there anyway.
Maybe like me you've reached that point where you realize that more verbage about Iraq is close to senseless and are starting to wonder what we do next.
Remember Ralph Reed?
The once chair of The Christian Coalition? Yeah, him. Well, in a little noticed news item this morning, Reed announced what had long been rumored, that he would seek the office of Lieutenant Governor of Georgia next year. Reed, if he's slipped off your radar screen for the last several years, is currently the chair of the Georgia state Republican Party.
Some of you might find this reference, and Reed, amusing. You might think it's just another example of those silly right wing Christian nuts, again, going and gettin' involved in matters that are beyond their expertise, something that will only make them and himself out to be fools.
I'm here to say that you should be concerned. Very concerned. You may not like Bush, what, with all the references to his supposed "faith" (It's practically an obstacle course to wade through all the fawning books about Bush and his "faith" when I'm at my local Christian bookstore--where much of the other material there is actually very good) and his insufferable and pandering claim in 2000 that Jesus was his favorite "political philospher", but the reality is that about most things political and most things Christian, dubya is about as connected and concerned as a wad of phlegm. Reed, on the other hand, really means that stuff about "morals" and "Christian Nation". Reed might have some dirty fingers in the financial world, too, and we might think his Christian views hypocritical, but his intentions about remaking America into his and his followers image of a Christian theocracy are real enough.
And Reed is very disarming on television. He appears sane, level headed, good natured, and intelligent (which he is).
And it won't take long for him to merge from state office to the national stage.
So don't say I didn't warn you.
This is why Democrats need to address head-on the ideology permeating beneath the cover of the Christian Nation movement (which consists of most Southern Baptists, independent megachurches, radical evangelicals, and television evangelists) and not wait until someone like Reed shows up, and its too late.
Some of you might find this reference, and Reed, amusing. You might think it's just another example of those silly right wing Christian nuts, again, going and gettin' involved in matters that are beyond their expertise, something that will only make them and himself out to be fools.
I'm here to say that you should be concerned. Very concerned. You may not like Bush, what, with all the references to his supposed "faith" (It's practically an obstacle course to wade through all the fawning books about Bush and his "faith" when I'm at my local Christian bookstore--where much of the other material there is actually very good) and his insufferable and pandering claim in 2000 that Jesus was his favorite "political philospher", but the reality is that about most things political and most things Christian, dubya is about as connected and concerned as a wad of phlegm. Reed, on the other hand, really means that stuff about "morals" and "Christian Nation". Reed might have some dirty fingers in the financial world, too, and we might think his Christian views hypocritical, but his intentions about remaking America into his and his followers image of a Christian theocracy are real enough.
And Reed is very disarming on television. He appears sane, level headed, good natured, and intelligent (which he is).
And it won't take long for him to merge from state office to the national stage.
So don't say I didn't warn you.
This is why Democrats need to address head-on the ideology permeating beneath the cover of the Christian Nation movement (which consists of most Southern Baptists, independent megachurches, radical evangelicals, and television evangelists) and not wait until someone like Reed shows up, and its too late.
Three Card Monte
There he goes again. Krugman is still calling the administration's Social Security phase-out plan "privatization", long after the WH has let it be known that they don't like that word and that that is not what their plan does.
But Krugman goes on to link the administration's talk of invading Social Security with its invasion of Iraq. The comparison goes something like this: The administration wants to go to war with Iraq and in issuing a call to arms happens to make a reference or several references to 9-11 or Al Qaeda in the same speech. Some french-loving commentators or bloggerers on the Internets counter that there is no connection between Iraq and 9-11. The administration responds that, yes, technically, there is no connection, but then right away goes back to its "Iraq-911-Osama bin Laden-Iraq-terrorists-911-Iraq-Saddam Hussein-911-terrorists" shell game. The administration ultimately rallies the American people (or at least the gangbangers on Fox "News" and NRO) and launches an invasion of Iraq.
Now, Krugman tells us, the administration is playing the same game with Social Security. The administration says Social Security is going bankrupt, and that it wants to introduce "personal investment accounts" to help people build wealth in Social Security. But, critics of the administration's Social Security scheme say, privatizing Social Security does nothing to alleviate the system's (very) long term financing difficulties emenating from the aging and increasing longevity of the population. The administration responds that, "yes, this is technically true, privatization will not solve Social Security's long term deficit", and then returns to its "Social Security bankruptcy-personal accounts-wealth-bankruptcy-Social Security-private accounts-assets-bankruptcy-inheritance-wealth-bankrupcy" spiel.
In order to inject some much needed bipartisan spirit into these discussions, I would like to clearly state, unequivocally, and on the record, that there is not, nor has there ever been, a connection between Iraq and Social Security. The administration's conduct on Iraq and Social Security have nothing to do with each other. Nothing. There is no link between the lies on Iraq and Social Security. They are a completely different set of lies. Iraq-Social Security-Iraq-bankruptcy-weapons of mass destruction-mushroom clouds-Social Security crisis-bankruptcy-Saddam Hussein-Iraq-Social Security-privatization-Iraq-911-saving Social Security-Iraq...
I hope this has cleared that up.
Meanwhile, those hoping for some bipartisan resolution to the crisis that is the administration's plan for getting rid of Social Security suffered yet another stinging defeat yesterday when House Majority leader Tom Delay announced his objections to suggestions to raise Social Security's taxable maximum amount (currently $90,000) that President Bush, in a moment of candor, admitted might be worthy of consideration if Social Security's 75 year financing estimates are to be strengthened. But The Hammer objected (and will soon, I suspect, see to it that the WH gets the memo on no taxable maximum increase on the TPS reports). That would be a tax increase, said Mr. Delay, and this Congress didn't come here to raise taxes. OK. But does Delay realize that the taxable maximum amount increases every year anyway? It does. It's increased each year by the growth in the average wage index. Does Delay consider this indexing a "tax increase", too?
Now, as for the bipartisanship the Republican Party and media suddenly want Democrats to embrace on Social Security (and everything else), what is it that the Republican Party is willing to compromise on? If there is nothing, then our votes are not needed and nor will they be offered. If Republicans are not willing to compromise on anything, does that mean that they are the "obstructionists"?
Just checking.
But Krugman goes on to link the administration's talk of invading Social Security with its invasion of Iraq. The comparison goes something like this: The administration wants to go to war with Iraq and in issuing a call to arms happens to make a reference or several references to 9-11 or Al Qaeda in the same speech. Some french-loving commentators or bloggerers on the Internets counter that there is no connection between Iraq and 9-11. The administration responds that, yes, technically, there is no connection, but then right away goes back to its "Iraq-911-Osama bin Laden-Iraq-terrorists-911-Iraq-Saddam Hussein-911-terrorists" shell game. The administration ultimately rallies the American people (or at least the gangbangers on Fox "News" and NRO) and launches an invasion of Iraq.
Now, Krugman tells us, the administration is playing the same game with Social Security. The administration says Social Security is going bankrupt, and that it wants to introduce "personal investment accounts" to help people build wealth in Social Security. But, critics of the administration's Social Security scheme say, privatizing Social Security does nothing to alleviate the system's (very) long term financing difficulties emenating from the aging and increasing longevity of the population. The administration responds that, "yes, this is technically true, privatization will not solve Social Security's long term deficit", and then returns to its "Social Security bankruptcy-personal accounts-wealth-bankruptcy-Social Security-private accounts-assets-bankruptcy-inheritance-wealth-bankrupcy" spiel.
In order to inject some much needed bipartisan spirit into these discussions, I would like to clearly state, unequivocally, and on the record, that there is not, nor has there ever been, a connection between Iraq and Social Security. The administration's conduct on Iraq and Social Security have nothing to do with each other. Nothing. There is no link between the lies on Iraq and Social Security. They are a completely different set of lies. Iraq-Social Security-Iraq-bankruptcy-weapons of mass destruction-mushroom clouds-Social Security crisis-bankruptcy-Saddam Hussein-Iraq-Social Security-privatization-Iraq-911-saving Social Security-Iraq...
I hope this has cleared that up.
Meanwhile, those hoping for some bipartisan resolution to the crisis that is the administration's plan for getting rid of Social Security suffered yet another stinging defeat yesterday when House Majority leader Tom Delay announced his objections to suggestions to raise Social Security's taxable maximum amount (currently $90,000) that President Bush, in a moment of candor, admitted might be worthy of consideration if Social Security's 75 year financing estimates are to be strengthened. But The Hammer objected (and will soon, I suspect, see to it that the WH gets the memo on no taxable maximum increase on the TPS reports). That would be a tax increase, said Mr. Delay, and this Congress didn't come here to raise taxes. OK. But does Delay realize that the taxable maximum amount increases every year anyway? It does. It's increased each year by the growth in the average wage index. Does Delay consider this indexing a "tax increase", too?
Now, as for the bipartisanship the Republican Party and media suddenly want Democrats to embrace on Social Security (and everything else), what is it that the Republican Party is willing to compromise on? If there is nothing, then our votes are not needed and nor will they be offered. If Republicans are not willing to compromise on anything, does that mean that they are the "obstructionists"?
Just checking.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Making an Impact
While we're only 5 days into Howard Dean's DNC-ship, we can already see his presence is having the intended effect of driving conservative columnist Robert Novak around the bend.
For example, as he ponders Dean, Novak suddenly discovers the virtues of "nuance" in foreign policy discussion:
On those Sunday programs, Dean will be asked what to do about Iraq. He will not imitate Joe Biden's nuanced analysis, but instead will serve up red meat. It is unlikely Dean would or could adjust to the new atmosphere observed by sophisticated Democratic strategists since the Iraqi elections. Bashing George W. Bush and his war policy, Dean's specialty, no longer seems so suitable.
Meanwhile, he also graces us with a disparaging quote about Dean from one of those treasures, "a Democratic veteran": ''Dean will have a circus on Sunday, and we'll clean up the elephant droppings on Monday,'' a Democratic veteran told me.
All together now: "Some people say...."
Finally, Novak offers us his analysis as to why Dean won: The grassroots? Nah. Nary a friendly word about Kos or any of the rest of the progressive bloggership that outted competitors Roemer and Frost as pseudo-Democrats and that deluged DNC members with emails supportive of the former Vermont governor. Instead:
Dean's accession to the chairmanship does not represent a conscious decision by prominent Democrats, but rather drift and inaction...Dean won because he was the only candidate who pestered DNC members with repeated phone calls. He did not go to all this trouble to be a potted plant. The party, therefore, is stuck with somebody who believes that the fiercer the rhetoric the better, and there is ''fat chance'' that he will change.
I don't know if anyone is counting, but this has got to be Novak's fourth or fifth column about Dean in the past month. Me thinks he's worried Dean's penchant for bomb-throwing will make life uneasy for Republicans. Let's hope.
For example, as he ponders Dean, Novak suddenly discovers the virtues of "nuance" in foreign policy discussion:
On those Sunday programs, Dean will be asked what to do about Iraq. He will not imitate Joe Biden's nuanced analysis, but instead will serve up red meat. It is unlikely Dean would or could adjust to the new atmosphere observed by sophisticated Democratic strategists since the Iraqi elections. Bashing George W. Bush and his war policy, Dean's specialty, no longer seems so suitable.
Meanwhile, he also graces us with a disparaging quote about Dean from one of those treasures, "a Democratic veteran": ''Dean will have a circus on Sunday, and we'll clean up the elephant droppings on Monday,'' a Democratic veteran told me.
All together now: "Some people say...."
Finally, Novak offers us his analysis as to why Dean won: The grassroots? Nah. Nary a friendly word about Kos or any of the rest of the progressive bloggership that outted competitors Roemer and Frost as pseudo-Democrats and that deluged DNC members with emails supportive of the former Vermont governor. Instead:
Dean's accession to the chairmanship does not represent a conscious decision by prominent Democrats, but rather drift and inaction...Dean won because he was the only candidate who pestered DNC members with repeated phone calls. He did not go to all this trouble to be a potted plant. The party, therefore, is stuck with somebody who believes that the fiercer the rhetoric the better, and there is ''fat chance'' that he will change.
I don't know if anyone is counting, but this has got to be Novak's fourth or fifth column about Dean in the past month. Me thinks he's worried Dean's penchant for bomb-throwing will make life uneasy for Republicans. Let's hope.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
The Sleeper Issue of '08
The Separation of Church and State.
Among the many issues that Republicans have managed to put back on the agenda, half a century after it appeared to have been settled in a manner favorable to the cause of individual liberties, is whether the state or the country should enforce religious adherence or worship.
Julie at Sisyphus Shrugged and Steve from No More Mister Nice Blog clue us in to the beliefs of one of the judges Bush has renominated. Like Alan Keyes in this past summer's Illinois U.S. Senate campaign, Janice Rogers Brown thinks the states should have the authority to have a state religion and require religious tests or oathes. This is on the heels of very public and emphatic efforts by radical evangelicals to get the "wall" between church and state torn down (see my earlier posts on D. James Kennedy and Rod Parsley, televangelists extraordinaire). The position of these advocates of theocracy is that the Wall between church and state is a fiction, that the First Amendment restrictions on government intervention in religious affairs as interpreted by "liberal" jurists have been distorted, and that policymakers should return us to the glory days when America was a "Christian Nation" (Left2Right has had some very good posts on this).
To his credit, but probably because he didn't have much choice, Bush addressed the matter of his faith during the last presidential debate and clearly stated his recognition that the government shouldn't and can't compel religious belief or devotion on the part of its citizens, and that the people were free to worship God or not as they so chose. But this is a view that is dying out among most Republicans or is one that they disagree with, if their many other public and private comments are any indication of their preferences. Remember U.S. Senate candidate Liddy Dole remarking that the "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion".
In the 1992 election, the media reacted scornfully to the vengeful "culture war" speeches during the Republican convention and afterwards proclaimed that the influence of evangelicals had hurt the GOP's chances. After the Republican triumph of 1994, that perception changed, and conservative evangelicalism was reported to be "Back". But four years later, Democratic pickups in 1998 during the impeachment battle were used by some commentators to suggest that Republican conservatives had overplayed their hand and done more to help Clinton than to hurt him. Now, after the elections of 2000 and 2004, the pendulum has swung again back to the evangelicals' side and Democrats are being challenged to reach out more to socially conservative voters.
Democratic officials and liberal bloggers should make sure this issue does not get swept under the carpet in the months ahead.
Among the many issues that Republicans have managed to put back on the agenda, half a century after it appeared to have been settled in a manner favorable to the cause of individual liberties, is whether the state or the country should enforce religious adherence or worship.
Julie at Sisyphus Shrugged and Steve from No More Mister Nice Blog clue us in to the beliefs of one of the judges Bush has renominated. Like Alan Keyes in this past summer's Illinois U.S. Senate campaign, Janice Rogers Brown thinks the states should have the authority to have a state religion and require religious tests or oathes. This is on the heels of very public and emphatic efforts by radical evangelicals to get the "wall" between church and state torn down (see my earlier posts on D. James Kennedy and Rod Parsley, televangelists extraordinaire). The position of these advocates of theocracy is that the Wall between church and state is a fiction, that the First Amendment restrictions on government intervention in religious affairs as interpreted by "liberal" jurists have been distorted, and that policymakers should return us to the glory days when America was a "Christian Nation" (Left2Right has had some very good posts on this).
To his credit, but probably because he didn't have much choice, Bush addressed the matter of his faith during the last presidential debate and clearly stated his recognition that the government shouldn't and can't compel religious belief or devotion on the part of its citizens, and that the people were free to worship God or not as they so chose. But this is a view that is dying out among most Republicans or is one that they disagree with, if their many other public and private comments are any indication of their preferences. Remember U.S. Senate candidate Liddy Dole remarking that the "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion".
In the 1992 election, the media reacted scornfully to the vengeful "culture war" speeches during the Republican convention and afterwards proclaimed that the influence of evangelicals had hurt the GOP's chances. After the Republican triumph of 1994, that perception changed, and conservative evangelicalism was reported to be "Back". But four years later, Democratic pickups in 1998 during the impeachment battle were used by some commentators to suggest that Republican conservatives had overplayed their hand and done more to help Clinton than to hurt him. Now, after the elections of 2000 and 2004, the pendulum has swung again back to the evangelicals' side and Democrats are being challenged to reach out more to socially conservative voters.
Democratic officials and liberal bloggers should make sure this issue does not get swept under the carpet in the months ahead.
08
Jerome has an interesting post and internets poll results for potential Republican candidates in '08.
My take:
I doubt Rice's juice will last. She doesn't hold up well under the glare of unfriendly questions and attention. And she's got three years to go before the administration's foreign policy positions will have to stand up to opponent's attacks, something that could be especially difficult if troops are still in Iraq and the administration is making noice about invading Syria or Iran, if it hasn't already done so.
I can't see either Guiliani or McCain getting the nomination.
I don't see anybody else on the R side having the electoral upside of Jeb! He's a governor. And while much has been made of the difficult electoral college Democrats face, the fact is Republicans have to win Ohio and Florida to win the EC. As the current governor of FL, Jeb! gives them the best chance to do that. But then again there is likely to be some Bush-name fatigue which if Jeb! gets the nomination, could help us.
Overall, I have a hard time seeing anybody but Jeb! getting the R nomination in '08.
Democrats.
Mark Warner and Evan Bayh have gotten some play. I've heard Biden's name out there. Edwards has launched a poverty center at UNC and already made a trip to NH to keep his name in the mix.
I doubt Kerry will run. He has a better record in the Senate than his campaign chose to amplify, but even though he finished well for someone challenging an incumbent, he didn't inspire much confidence other than his supposed ability to win. Gore's name hasn't been out there much. While the common feeling maybe that Gore had his chance, his spirited denunctiations of Bush's policies last year makes him an intriguing choice should he throw his hat in the ring.
I have a hard time seeing Hilary making the run. And I have a hard time imagining her not running. I'd accept her, of course, if she ran and won the nomination, but I don't favor her. While Republicans will attempt to crucify whoever the Dem nominee is, Hilary would give them a lot more amunition than anyone else, and although I appreciate Bill Clinton's contributions to the party, I'd prefer to see a non-Clinton get the nomination and thus give the party a different face and set of policy approaches. If there is another Bush-Clinton election I think I'd go crazy.
My take:
I doubt Rice's juice will last. She doesn't hold up well under the glare of unfriendly questions and attention. And she's got three years to go before the administration's foreign policy positions will have to stand up to opponent's attacks, something that could be especially difficult if troops are still in Iraq and the administration is making noice about invading Syria or Iran, if it hasn't already done so.
I can't see either Guiliani or McCain getting the nomination.
I don't see anybody else on the R side having the electoral upside of Jeb! He's a governor. And while much has been made of the difficult electoral college Democrats face, the fact is Republicans have to win Ohio and Florida to win the EC. As the current governor of FL, Jeb! gives them the best chance to do that. But then again there is likely to be some Bush-name fatigue which if Jeb! gets the nomination, could help us.
Overall, I have a hard time seeing anybody but Jeb! getting the R nomination in '08.
Democrats.
Mark Warner and Evan Bayh have gotten some play. I've heard Biden's name out there. Edwards has launched a poverty center at UNC and already made a trip to NH to keep his name in the mix.
I doubt Kerry will run. He has a better record in the Senate than his campaign chose to amplify, but even though he finished well for someone challenging an incumbent, he didn't inspire much confidence other than his supposed ability to win. Gore's name hasn't been out there much. While the common feeling maybe that Gore had his chance, his spirited denunctiations of Bush's policies last year makes him an intriguing choice should he throw his hat in the ring.
I have a hard time seeing Hilary making the run. And I have a hard time imagining her not running. I'd accept her, of course, if she ran and won the nomination, but I don't favor her. While Republicans will attempt to crucify whoever the Dem nominee is, Hilary would give them a lot more amunition than anyone else, and although I appreciate Bill Clinton's contributions to the party, I'd prefer to see a non-Clinton get the nomination and thus give the party a different face and set of policy approaches. If there is another Bush-Clinton election I think I'd go crazy.
2 More Cents
On the Ward Churchill issue. Then I'll drop it. I swear.
We don't have to like or agree with Churchill's comments or essay, but I think we should all recognize the severity of the threat posed to the right of freedom of expression, especially on campus and by academicians, that the right wing's babble machine is mustering over this issue, as they attempt to further suppress dissent towards the current gang of thugs regime hanging out in the WH and Congress and their attempts to force the rest of us to conform--at least outwardly--to their idealized vision of an innocent, glorious America, that can broker no questioning, criticism or demands for accountability.
This militant, hyper-nationalism on the part of the rightwing is the scarriest aspect of the changes during the past decade in American politics. And as I attempted to point out in an earlier post, it is highly ironic and Orwellian to the nth degree that wingnut ideology demands the framing of issues as being choices between "right and wrong", yet refuses to consider the moral implications of its arrogant and abusive policies, both domestic and foreign, and responds angrily and vindictively when it is challenged to do so.
An aside: I recently came across the minutes from the meeting in which former Florida congressman turned cable TV screecher Joe Scarborough pitched his idea of a new shoutfest show to MSNBC executives. Let's listen in.
MSNBC executive: So, Joe, what's this idea for a show you wanted to talk to us about?
Scarborough: It's a show about nothin'.
MSNBC executive: A show about nothin'? What does that mean?
Scarborough: I mean it's a show about nothin'.
MSNBC executive: what happens on the show? what would you talk about?
Scarborough: Nothin'.
MSNBC executive: than why am I watching the show?
Scarborough: because it's on TV.
MSNBC executive: not yet....
Scarborough: listen, this is the show, and I'm not changin' it. Now if you just want to go ahead and keep doing the same old thing that everybody else is doing, then go ahead. But I refuse to sacrifice my artistic integrity....
MSNBC executive: a show about nothin', huh?
Scarborough: that's right.
MSNBC executive: I think you may have something here.
Next: Bill O'Reilly, Shepherd Smith, and Cal Thomas pitch their ideas for shows to Roger Ailes (the bad one).
We don't have to like or agree with Churchill's comments or essay, but I think we should all recognize the severity of the threat posed to the right of freedom of expression, especially on campus and by academicians, that the right wing's babble machine is mustering over this issue, as they attempt to further suppress dissent towards the current gang of thugs regime hanging out in the WH and Congress and their attempts to force the rest of us to conform--at least outwardly--to their idealized vision of an innocent, glorious America, that can broker no questioning, criticism or demands for accountability.
This militant, hyper-nationalism on the part of the rightwing is the scarriest aspect of the changes during the past decade in American politics. And as I attempted to point out in an earlier post, it is highly ironic and Orwellian to the nth degree that wingnut ideology demands the framing of issues as being choices between "right and wrong", yet refuses to consider the moral implications of its arrogant and abusive policies, both domestic and foreign, and responds angrily and vindictively when it is challenged to do so.
An aside: I recently came across the minutes from the meeting in which former Florida congressman turned cable TV screecher Joe Scarborough pitched his idea of a new shoutfest show to MSNBC executives. Let's listen in.
MSNBC executive: So, Joe, what's this idea for a show you wanted to talk to us about?
Scarborough: It's a show about nothin'.
MSNBC executive: A show about nothin'? What does that mean?
Scarborough: I mean it's a show about nothin'.
MSNBC executive: what happens on the show? what would you talk about?
Scarborough: Nothin'.
MSNBC executive: than why am I watching the show?
Scarborough: because it's on TV.
MSNBC executive: not yet....
Scarborough: listen, this is the show, and I'm not changin' it. Now if you just want to go ahead and keep doing the same old thing that everybody else is doing, then go ahead. But I refuse to sacrifice my artistic integrity....
MSNBC executive: a show about nothin', huh?
Scarborough: that's right.
MSNBC executive: I think you may have something here.
Next: Bill O'Reilly, Shepherd Smith, and Cal Thomas pitch their ideas for shows to Roger Ailes (the bad one).
About Last Night
So last night I tuned into Law and Order: Criminal Intent, for no particular reason; not anything else on worth watching. Turns out it's an episode about "secret prisoners" being housed in a NY prison, all part and parcel of the war on terra. In the course of pursuing your regular seemingly run of the mill murder, the LAO investigators turn up evidence of mysterious goings on in one of the nearby prisons. The show shines the spotlight on terrorism suspects being held secretly, indefinitely, and brutally. Surprisingly, the episode was pretty good, hard hitting. To tell you the truth, I had almost forgotten about all of this.
Which reminded me of a post from Alt Hippo the other day, lamenting the "issue of the day" approach employed by most bloggers. Something exciting happens. We write about it. Then we forget it and go on to the Next Big Thing. There are some exceptions to this: Josh Marshall's unrelenting focus on Social Security Privatization; The Demagogue's attention to the crisis in Sudan. But for the most part, we're a flighty, short attention span bunch, usually content to respond to issues as they emerge. Now of course, most of us are doing this on the side to our regular employment so we aren't putting the time or effort into researching or journalisming any one issue as some of our blogging colleagues get to do. Still fewer of us have any expectation of changing the world. But there's something to be said for FOCUS and PERSISTENCY. We, and our elected representatives, shouldn't let up on the efforts of this administration to detain people unlawfully for the obstensible purpose of fighting a so-called war on terrorism (and I'm not particularly interested in the distinction between citizens and non-citizens of the U.S. being rounded up: while the thought that citizens are being deprived of their constitutional rights should be and is chilling, it wouldn't offer much more consolation to me to know that the "only" people having their natural rights abused were "other people"). It's not a large leap to get from persecuting non citizens to persecuting citizens, as it seems abundantly clear is happening anyway.
Ironically, while I was watching LAO:CI, I also happened to be reading Amartya Sen's book, Development as Freedom, for a class on the political economy of development I'm taking at the UMD-College Park. And I was further ironically in the part of the book that highlights the benefits of democracy as preventing official corruption and stemming the effects of natural disasters and famines, due to the accountability supplied on governing officials by a free press and oppositional parties. Hmmmm, I wondered. (If we only had a free press and oppositional parties).
But isn't it interesting that the issue of the administration's detainment policies has kinda slipped off the front page and television leads? What is being done to follow up on past reports and to ensure that detainees are given proper access to their lawyers and families, as well as being treated humainly?
So thanks to Hollywood and the producers and cast of LAO:CI for drawing our attention back to this problem and to the actions of the current regime that we still need to change even as the electoral mechanism was turned aside last November. We still have a job to do in our democracy of holding our representatives to account.
Special Feature: When one of the CI cast makes a reference in the course of the episode to the Patriot Act, the Chris Noth character replies that he read the Patriot Act in its original version--(the book) 1984. Priceless.
Which reminded me of a post from Alt Hippo the other day, lamenting the "issue of the day" approach employed by most bloggers. Something exciting happens. We write about it. Then we forget it and go on to the Next Big Thing. There are some exceptions to this: Josh Marshall's unrelenting focus on Social Security Privatization; The Demagogue's attention to the crisis in Sudan. But for the most part, we're a flighty, short attention span bunch, usually content to respond to issues as they emerge. Now of course, most of us are doing this on the side to our regular employment so we aren't putting the time or effort into researching or journalisming any one issue as some of our blogging colleagues get to do. Still fewer of us have any expectation of changing the world. But there's something to be said for FOCUS and PERSISTENCY. We, and our elected representatives, shouldn't let up on the efforts of this administration to detain people unlawfully for the obstensible purpose of fighting a so-called war on terrorism (and I'm not particularly interested in the distinction between citizens and non-citizens of the U.S. being rounded up: while the thought that citizens are being deprived of their constitutional rights should be and is chilling, it wouldn't offer much more consolation to me to know that the "only" people having their natural rights abused were "other people"). It's not a large leap to get from persecuting non citizens to persecuting citizens, as it seems abundantly clear is happening anyway.
Ironically, while I was watching LAO:CI, I also happened to be reading Amartya Sen's book, Development as Freedom, for a class on the political economy of development I'm taking at the UMD-College Park. And I was further ironically in the part of the book that highlights the benefits of democracy as preventing official corruption and stemming the effects of natural disasters and famines, due to the accountability supplied on governing officials by a free press and oppositional parties. Hmmmm, I wondered. (If we only had a free press and oppositional parties).
But isn't it interesting that the issue of the administration's detainment policies has kinda slipped off the front page and television leads? What is being done to follow up on past reports and to ensure that detainees are given proper access to their lawyers and families, as well as being treated humainly?
So thanks to Hollywood and the producers and cast of LAO:CI for drawing our attention back to this problem and to the actions of the current regime that we still need to change even as the electoral mechanism was turned aside last November. We still have a job to do in our democracy of holding our representatives to account.
Special Feature: When one of the CI cast makes a reference in the course of the episode to the Patriot Act, the Chris Noth character replies that he read the Patriot Act in its original version--(the book) 1984. Priceless.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Privacy
Left2Right has a post calling the conservative's "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution what it is--bupkes.
Don Herzog goes on to explain in a scholarly way what I've long believed is the basis for this conservative mantra, the self interest of conservatives and the needs of the powers they wish to protect, not the dis-interested, objective conclusions required of careful jurisprudence. This topic will be chapter 423 of my forthcoming book, Why I am not a Conservative.
Chapter 89 will cover the perplexing state of affairs that has conservatives claiming to be about and for "less government", but adamantly opposed to the Right to Privacy.
As Jesse Taylor point out last week, conservatives are not actually against big government, or activist judges, they're just against liberalism.
Don Herzog goes on to explain in a scholarly way what I've long believed is the basis for this conservative mantra, the self interest of conservatives and the needs of the powers they wish to protect, not the dis-interested, objective conclusions required of careful jurisprudence. This topic will be chapter 423 of my forthcoming book, Why I am not a Conservative.
Chapter 89 will cover the perplexing state of affairs that has conservatives claiming to be about and for "less government", but adamantly opposed to the Right to Privacy.
As Jesse Taylor point out last week, conservatives are not actually against big government, or activist judges, they're just against liberalism.
The Answer
Mark Schmidt is wondering where the Social Security privatization liberals are and, indirectly, why Bush doesn't seem to care about cultivating them and achieving some measure of a bipartisan consensus on reforming Social Security.
Here is my answer:
Bush only cares about Republican votes in the House and picking off a few scared, potentially vulnerable Democrats from Red States up for re-election in 2006 on the Senate side. The Rove-Norquist-Delay Strategy is intimidation, not cooperation. It worked for taxes, the war, and for establishing the union-broken Department of Homeland Security. But I don't think it will work for Social Security. Who knows, maybe it's not even intended to. From the Republican point of view, maybe it's enough that they've gotten this far with the debate.
Here is my answer:
Bush only cares about Republican votes in the House and picking off a few scared, potentially vulnerable Democrats from Red States up for re-election in 2006 on the Senate side. The Rove-Norquist-Delay Strategy is intimidation, not cooperation. It worked for taxes, the war, and for establishing the union-broken Department of Homeland Security. But I don't think it will work for Social Security. Who knows, maybe it's not even intended to. From the Republican point of view, maybe it's enough that they've gotten this far with the debate.
Dear Paul
I really enjoyed your column today, but there is one problem.
The label. Moderate. Fighting Moderates. Here is what you say about the elevation of Dr. Dean to the chairmanship of the DNC:
Those words tell us what the selection of Mr. Dean means. It doesn't represent a turn to the left: Mr. Dean is squarely in the center of his party on issues like health care and national defense.
Then you go on to tell us how Dean as governor of Vermont balanced budgets even when he didn't have to, so "it was always absurd to call Mr. Dean a left-winger". Instead Dean is a "fighting moderate".
I know you mean well, and much of what I am about to contend may be more a matter of semantics than substance, but the problem is, the style of the thing, and the words we use matter. Now, when we use words like "moderate" and "centrist" and "center", we are really being cowardly, in my view. And the more we talk like this, the more Republicans continue to proudly assert their "conservatism" and the whole debate becomes a "moderate" versus "conservative" thing, and the result is, the debate and the policies and the "center" keep getting pushed further and further to the right.
Here's an idea. We are liberals. Why not say that? The truth is, yes, I want today's politics and policies to make a turn to the left. You say that Dean's ascension does not represent a turn to the left. But shouldn't it?
"Well, 'liberal' has a bad name". And why is that? Because the conservatives have made it so. We need to correct and reverse that notion. Because the reality is, liberalism is good. Liberalism works. We have a whole century of social progress to look back on that says liberalism is good and that liberalism does work.
While attempts to claim the moderate label or the center of the political debate may be smart politics today, they are bad politics for tomorrow, and for the day after that.
The problem is not just today's bad policies. The bad policies of today stem from our decision yesterday to abandon the ideals of liberalism for a short cut to the electoral promised land (and that hasn't worked either, if you've noticed). The problem is the political frame and context, including symbols, in which the political discourse occurs. This is what must change. By claiming we are moderates we are sounding reasonable, but people don't respect it, or at least people that are motivated to go to the polls don't. And I don't remember the conservative movement, in picking up the pieces after 1932 or 1964 making efforts to become "more moderate". No, they went back to their ideology's roots, and attempted to swing the culture to their point of view, rather than attempting to move themselves to fit the changing environment. Yeah, they've used soft talk and code words when they've had to, but they didn't turn away from their basic idea of a conservative heaven or apologize for opinions that were unpopular to some people. And today, as a result, we are talking about tearing down the foundation of the New Deal. This is how far the debate has shifted.
Paul, you have a valuable platform. Please recognize that the problem is not just today's policy debate. It is today's political environment, including the words we use and how we identify ourselves. If we seem apologetic about our history and our values, others will sense that, and we will continue to lose ground.
Yeah, the media and the Republicans are loudly proclaiming that Dean is a "liberal". I actually think this is a good thing. We should leave the media and the Republicans with this impression. We shouldn't be spending valuable time trying to debunk this idea by yapping about balanced budgets and NRA ratings.
Liberal. It's OK. You can say it. And we'll all be the better for it later.
The label. Moderate. Fighting Moderates. Here is what you say about the elevation of Dr. Dean to the chairmanship of the DNC:
Those words tell us what the selection of Mr. Dean means. It doesn't represent a turn to the left: Mr. Dean is squarely in the center of his party on issues like health care and national defense.
Then you go on to tell us how Dean as governor of Vermont balanced budgets even when he didn't have to, so "it was always absurd to call Mr. Dean a left-winger". Instead Dean is a "fighting moderate".
I know you mean well, and much of what I am about to contend may be more a matter of semantics than substance, but the problem is, the style of the thing, and the words we use matter. Now, when we use words like "moderate" and "centrist" and "center", we are really being cowardly, in my view. And the more we talk like this, the more Republicans continue to proudly assert their "conservatism" and the whole debate becomes a "moderate" versus "conservative" thing, and the result is, the debate and the policies and the "center" keep getting pushed further and further to the right.
Here's an idea. We are liberals. Why not say that? The truth is, yes, I want today's politics and policies to make a turn to the left. You say that Dean's ascension does not represent a turn to the left. But shouldn't it?
"Well, 'liberal' has a bad name". And why is that? Because the conservatives have made it so. We need to correct and reverse that notion. Because the reality is, liberalism is good. Liberalism works. We have a whole century of social progress to look back on that says liberalism is good and that liberalism does work.
While attempts to claim the moderate label or the center of the political debate may be smart politics today, they are bad politics for tomorrow, and for the day after that.
The problem is not just today's bad policies. The bad policies of today stem from our decision yesterday to abandon the ideals of liberalism for a short cut to the electoral promised land (and that hasn't worked either, if you've noticed). The problem is the political frame and context, including symbols, in which the political discourse occurs. This is what must change. By claiming we are moderates we are sounding reasonable, but people don't respect it, or at least people that are motivated to go to the polls don't. And I don't remember the conservative movement, in picking up the pieces after 1932 or 1964 making efforts to become "more moderate". No, they went back to their ideology's roots, and attempted to swing the culture to their point of view, rather than attempting to move themselves to fit the changing environment. Yeah, they've used soft talk and code words when they've had to, but they didn't turn away from their basic idea of a conservative heaven or apologize for opinions that were unpopular to some people. And today, as a result, we are talking about tearing down the foundation of the New Deal. This is how far the debate has shifted.
Paul, you have a valuable platform. Please recognize that the problem is not just today's policy debate. It is today's political environment, including the words we use and how we identify ourselves. If we seem apologetic about our history and our values, others will sense that, and we will continue to lose ground.
Yeah, the media and the Republicans are loudly proclaiming that Dean is a "liberal". I actually think this is a good thing. We should leave the media and the Republicans with this impression. We shouldn't be spending valuable time trying to debunk this idea by yapping about balanced budgets and NRA ratings.
Liberal. It's OK. You can say it. And we'll all be the better for it later.
Monday, February 14, 2005
My Esteemed Colleagues...
The Leftcoaster has a stunning headline and argument entitled The Coming Days of Rage.
I've been thinking a lot along these lines for some time now although I'll admit I hadn't really clued into the economic dimension as is presented at this post before. But the economic angle does suggest that there may be changes of more importance besides the aggregate indicators (unemployment rates, inflation, economic growth, etc) most pundits rely on to predict economic security and political contentment with the current regime. In short, if the wrong Americans (i.e. well educated, white) are angry, it won't matter how well the professional economists say we are doing to cause a political crisis.
Then add on the religious element, America's military interventions, the threat--real or imagined--presented by terrorism by The Other that can strike anywhere at any time, the anti-dissension hysteria fanned by institutions like Fox and talk radio, and we have a recipe for craziness.
I've been thinking a lot along these lines for some time now although I'll admit I hadn't really clued into the economic dimension as is presented at this post before. But the economic angle does suggest that there may be changes of more importance besides the aggregate indicators (unemployment rates, inflation, economic growth, etc) most pundits rely on to predict economic security and political contentment with the current regime. In short, if the wrong Americans (i.e. well educated, white) are angry, it won't matter how well the professional economists say we are doing to cause a political crisis.
Then add on the religious element, America's military interventions, the threat--real or imagined--presented by terrorism by The Other that can strike anywhere at any time, the anti-dissension hysteria fanned by institutions like Fox and talk radio, and we have a recipe for craziness.
Good and Evil
So I happened upon a speech by Ward Churchill playing on C-Span over the weekend, that apparently was from earlier last week.
I agreed with most, if not nearly everything, he said. Americans tell pollsters they like someone who tells it straight up, who isn't afraid to say or do what isn't popular. Conservatives blanch at "political correctness" and say they admire people who speak the "truth" even if the person saying the truth isn't very nice about it. But what if the straight up truth isn't popular and doesn't come out very polite-like? Well, that's Ward Churchill. He thinks America's been exploitive and murderous and he doesn't much care whether you like that suggestion or him very much.
Alongside the good the country has done, America has also shed much blood in a variety of open as well as hidden causes, not to mention exploited the lives and natural resources of others for the sake of profit and power. And if there is a Higher Power that ultimately judges such things, then we can expect America to face the consequences of these actions, regardless of whether the American press knows of them or reports them if they do.
But it is the course of things in the U.S. that the murkier sides of America's involvement overseas has received little or no attention, much less thoughtful analysis or debate. So understandably, most people have little sense of what Churchill and others are talking about and are for that reason, offended, and easily provoked by the right wing rabble that does or should understand the basis for Churchill's comments but would rather glamorize America's past and present for the purposes of achieving its own cultural and ideological objectives.
Furthermore, because of the harmful acts of America's military establishment and corporate empires overseas, I don't think it's a big stretch to suggest that the events of 9-11 were a payback of sorts, if not directly to the real or imagined grievances cited by Al Qaeda, then to that of a Higher Authority, who has informed us that He Will Repay. Abraham Lincoln himself mused that the elongated course of the Civil War may have served in part to repay the nation for the sin of slavery through the blood that was shed. In the same way, decades of persecuting political opponents of corporatism and militarism in Latin America, favoring profits over healing in Africa, and offhandedly supporting or opposing dictators in the Middle East based on material or ideological concerns rather than human rights will bear fruit.
That the innocent also suffered on 9-11 is no refutation of this fact. The innocent always suffere for the sins of others. It is the nature of evil. And furthermore, the notion of 9-11 as a divine rebuke was not lost on religious conservatives such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell in the days and weeks afterward, who while pointing to different national sins as the root of the trouble, also fingered God as at least allowing the events to take place.
Although religious conservatives like to claim the God of the Bible is on their side, the judgements of God on the nations recorded in Holy Scripture suggests something else is at work in the mind of the Almighty. Pride, violence, and the trampling of the poor play as critical role, if not more so, than sexual immorality in causing God to first warn, and then inflict punishment upon nations that will not repent. And above all else, America is a proud nation. Pride goeth before a fall, the scriptures tell us. Surely it would be folly for us to not recognize the eventual harmful effects of an exploitive and militant foreign policy?
Which leads me to another point. Conservatives frequently complain that issues should be discussed and decided on on the basis of their contribution to the struggle between Right and Wrong (rather than on some cost-benefit ratio determination--although conservatives themselves favor this efficiency approach on many business regulatory matters, but that's another post for another day). But in doing so, conservatives should recognize that in trying to move the arguing of public policy to this domain, that they also risk having the moral implications of policies turned back on themselves, particularly in matters related to social justice and when the issues involve our killing of others in foreign lands for dubious or self serving purposes.
And it also means that the terms and tones of the debates will not necessarily lend themselves to being able to fudge the differences, to claim that a strict black and white definition of a particular problem (such as the conflict between tax cuts for the rich and cuts in food stamps) doesn't apply in their pet case. They are opening a can of worms they may regret later.
And it also means that if the other side adopts the same confrontational rhetoric and tactics that they themselves practice, conservatives will find themselves enraged by and attempting to argue with a lot more Ward Churchills.
As for Ward Churchill, I hope he hangs in there and rides out the attempts to fire him. At the same time, I concede that his style is not one that encourages reasonable debate and isn't geared towards winning over opponents. But, as I've indicated, this is the fallout for conservatives from pushing a strict, no holds barred, right or wrong way of looking at the world, a debate they will not always win or be able to control.
I agreed with most, if not nearly everything, he said. Americans tell pollsters they like someone who tells it straight up, who isn't afraid to say or do what isn't popular. Conservatives blanch at "political correctness" and say they admire people who speak the "truth" even if the person saying the truth isn't very nice about it. But what if the straight up truth isn't popular and doesn't come out very polite-like? Well, that's Ward Churchill. He thinks America's been exploitive and murderous and he doesn't much care whether you like that suggestion or him very much.
Alongside the good the country has done, America has also shed much blood in a variety of open as well as hidden causes, not to mention exploited the lives and natural resources of others for the sake of profit and power. And if there is a Higher Power that ultimately judges such things, then we can expect America to face the consequences of these actions, regardless of whether the American press knows of them or reports them if they do.
But it is the course of things in the U.S. that the murkier sides of America's involvement overseas has received little or no attention, much less thoughtful analysis or debate. So understandably, most people have little sense of what Churchill and others are talking about and are for that reason, offended, and easily provoked by the right wing rabble that does or should understand the basis for Churchill's comments but would rather glamorize America's past and present for the purposes of achieving its own cultural and ideological objectives.
Furthermore, because of the harmful acts of America's military establishment and corporate empires overseas, I don't think it's a big stretch to suggest that the events of 9-11 were a payback of sorts, if not directly to the real or imagined grievances cited by Al Qaeda, then to that of a Higher Authority, who has informed us that He Will Repay. Abraham Lincoln himself mused that the elongated course of the Civil War may have served in part to repay the nation for the sin of slavery through the blood that was shed. In the same way, decades of persecuting political opponents of corporatism and militarism in Latin America, favoring profits over healing in Africa, and offhandedly supporting or opposing dictators in the Middle East based on material or ideological concerns rather than human rights will bear fruit.
That the innocent also suffered on 9-11 is no refutation of this fact. The innocent always suffere for the sins of others. It is the nature of evil. And furthermore, the notion of 9-11 as a divine rebuke was not lost on religious conservatives such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell in the days and weeks afterward, who while pointing to different national sins as the root of the trouble, also fingered God as at least allowing the events to take place.
Although religious conservatives like to claim the God of the Bible is on their side, the judgements of God on the nations recorded in Holy Scripture suggests something else is at work in the mind of the Almighty. Pride, violence, and the trampling of the poor play as critical role, if not more so, than sexual immorality in causing God to first warn, and then inflict punishment upon nations that will not repent. And above all else, America is a proud nation. Pride goeth before a fall, the scriptures tell us. Surely it would be folly for us to not recognize the eventual harmful effects of an exploitive and militant foreign policy?
Which leads me to another point. Conservatives frequently complain that issues should be discussed and decided on on the basis of their contribution to the struggle between Right and Wrong (rather than on some cost-benefit ratio determination--although conservatives themselves favor this efficiency approach on many business regulatory matters, but that's another post for another day). But in doing so, conservatives should recognize that in trying to move the arguing of public policy to this domain, that they also risk having the moral implications of policies turned back on themselves, particularly in matters related to social justice and when the issues involve our killing of others in foreign lands for dubious or self serving purposes.
And it also means that the terms and tones of the debates will not necessarily lend themselves to being able to fudge the differences, to claim that a strict black and white definition of a particular problem (such as the conflict between tax cuts for the rich and cuts in food stamps) doesn't apply in their pet case. They are opening a can of worms they may regret later.
And it also means that if the other side adopts the same confrontational rhetoric and tactics that they themselves practice, conservatives will find themselves enraged by and attempting to argue with a lot more Ward Churchills.
As for Ward Churchill, I hope he hangs in there and rides out the attempts to fire him. At the same time, I concede that his style is not one that encourages reasonable debate and isn't geared towards winning over opponents. But, as I've indicated, this is the fallout for conservatives from pushing a strict, no holds barred, right or wrong way of looking at the world, a debate they will not always win or be able to control.
Friday, February 11, 2005
18 Suckers
Sam Heldman says the class action "reform" bill is crazy. And 18 of our boys and girls in the U.S. Senate voted for it. 18.
[I checked some of the Senate member websites to see what rationale they were offering for why they supported or opposed this legislation. Tom Carper has a press release on his site, explaining why he voted for it, but most of the others have nothing.]
While Kos is encouraged by reports of a new unity among the Senate Democratic caucus, Seeing the Forest concludes we have work to do.
What I wanna know is, how many bills supported by Clinton and the Democratic majority during the 1993-1994 session, got 18 Republican votes in the Senate? I can't imagine 2, let alone 18, Republicans voting for anything Clinton supported. Republicans would have voted against a bill to have a likeness of Ronald Reagan carved into Mount Rushmore, if Clinton or the Democrats favored it.
Harry, Nancy, I know you're trying. And I know you object to having the DNC chair trying to control policy, but when you can't keep our own guys in line on something like this, you don't exactly do a lot for our confidences, you know what I mean?
In other news, President Bush has vowed to veto any changes to the Medicare prescription drug bill passed last year. With cost estimates for the bill--which prevents price negotiations with drug companies over the cost of drugs the federal government would cover for beneficiaries--now projected to rise to $724 billion over the next decade, some members of Congress are calling for changes in the government's bargaining position. But Bush is pledging to veto any such changes on the grounds that "I signed Medicare reform proudly, and any attempt to limit the choices of our seniors and to take away their prescription drug coverage under Medicare, will meet my veto".
Now obviously, Bush's remarks and veto threat have nothing to do with wanting or being able to fullfill the promises of the legislation to Medicare beneficiaries. Rather, he wants to make sure the profits of the pharmaceutical companies and the lifestyles of its executives are protected at all cost.
If only we had a real news media, and a real oppositional party...
[I checked some of the Senate member websites to see what rationale they were offering for why they supported or opposed this legislation. Tom Carper has a press release on his site, explaining why he voted for it, but most of the others have nothing.]
While Kos is encouraged by reports of a new unity among the Senate Democratic caucus, Seeing the Forest concludes we have work to do.
What I wanna know is, how many bills supported by Clinton and the Democratic majority during the 1993-1994 session, got 18 Republican votes in the Senate? I can't imagine 2, let alone 18, Republicans voting for anything Clinton supported. Republicans would have voted against a bill to have a likeness of Ronald Reagan carved into Mount Rushmore, if Clinton or the Democrats favored it.
Harry, Nancy, I know you're trying. And I know you object to having the DNC chair trying to control policy, but when you can't keep our own guys in line on something like this, you don't exactly do a lot for our confidences, you know what I mean?
In other news, President Bush has vowed to veto any changes to the Medicare prescription drug bill passed last year. With cost estimates for the bill--which prevents price negotiations with drug companies over the cost of drugs the federal government would cover for beneficiaries--now projected to rise to $724 billion over the next decade, some members of Congress are calling for changes in the government's bargaining position. But Bush is pledging to veto any such changes on the grounds that "I signed Medicare reform proudly, and any attempt to limit the choices of our seniors and to take away their prescription drug coverage under Medicare, will meet my veto".
Now obviously, Bush's remarks and veto threat have nothing to do with wanting or being able to fullfill the promises of the legislation to Medicare beneficiaries. Rather, he wants to make sure the profits of the pharmaceutical companies and the lifestyles of its executives are protected at all cost.
If only we had a real news media, and a real oppositional party...
Thursday, February 10, 2005
How I Connect Two Seemingly Unrelated Events...
So I went to the Capital City Brewery last night to hear Howard Dean after RSVP-ing to the Democracy For America website, along with about 1200 other people. I don't know how many people were actually there, but both levels of the place were filled to standing room only, and later on I realized there was a substantial crowd standing outside as well, to which Dean afterward went out to provide a second speech. Yeah, I know, this is DC, land of policy wonks, government workers, and political staff, not the revered "heartland" of conservative Republican lore where things like this transpire, but I digress...now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
Other than the substance and passion typical for Dean, and the surprise accompaniment of fellow Vermonter, Senator Jim Jeffords, who joined him on stage, two things stood out for me. One, I have a hard time imagining someone like Tim Roemer, or Donnie Fowler, or, heaven forbid, Martin Frost, generating this kind of turnout or enthusiasm. In fact, I have a hard time imagining any Democrat besides the Clintons getting this kind of reaction.
Two, while I don't want to overstate the importance of Saturday's upcoming DNC election and Dean's likely victory in it, for its ability to dramatically change the political landscape (a point Dean underscored last night), it is clear that at a minimum, a different wind is blowing in Democratic politics. Whatever else happens, business as usual in the Democratic Party is over. The blogosphere and emerging grassroots progressive movement typified by Dean has changed how the party responds to its constituency, current events, and selects its leadership. While the change in party head may take time to produce tangible benefits, the change in process and selection this time indicates a new, more ground-up era, where we have a voice in shaping the party's and country's destiny.
The other seemingly unrelated event concerns the de-talonization of "Talon News" and its Bushie devotie and propogandist, "Jeff Gannon" masquerading as a "journalist" with press credentials and White House briefing room access. Although the Howard Kurtz piece in today's Post credits Kos, Atrios, and World O' Crap with the "outing", David Brock and Media Matters for America got the ball rolling.
And here's a memo to the wingnuts (and Reynolds, this means you) who are now crying foul: If you want to be the Administration's waterboy, at least use your own damn real name. And if you now think it's A-OK for journalists and their employers to be biased, than shut y're trap about "media bias". If you don't care that this guy was a partisan shill, than your whole bogus haranging of The Liberal Media is a sham.
Anyway, so what's the connection? The connection is that despite November's losses, there are signs of life that a new progressive movement is beginning to gel and have focus. The Democratic Party and the conservative establishment have been put on notice. We're paying attention.
Other than the substance and passion typical for Dean, and the surprise accompaniment of fellow Vermonter, Senator Jim Jeffords, who joined him on stage, two things stood out for me. One, I have a hard time imagining someone like Tim Roemer, or Donnie Fowler, or, heaven forbid, Martin Frost, generating this kind of turnout or enthusiasm. In fact, I have a hard time imagining any Democrat besides the Clintons getting this kind of reaction.
Two, while I don't want to overstate the importance of Saturday's upcoming DNC election and Dean's likely victory in it, for its ability to dramatically change the political landscape (a point Dean underscored last night), it is clear that at a minimum, a different wind is blowing in Democratic politics. Whatever else happens, business as usual in the Democratic Party is over. The blogosphere and emerging grassroots progressive movement typified by Dean has changed how the party responds to its constituency, current events, and selects its leadership. While the change in party head may take time to produce tangible benefits, the change in process and selection this time indicates a new, more ground-up era, where we have a voice in shaping the party's and country's destiny.
The other seemingly unrelated event concerns the de-talonization of "Talon News" and its Bushie devotie and propogandist, "Jeff Gannon" masquerading as a "journalist" with press credentials and White House briefing room access. Although the Howard Kurtz piece in today's Post credits Kos, Atrios, and World O' Crap with the "outing", David Brock and Media Matters for America got the ball rolling.
And here's a memo to the wingnuts (and Reynolds, this means you) who are now crying foul: If you want to be the Administration's waterboy, at least use your own damn real name. And if you now think it's A-OK for journalists and their employers to be biased, than shut y're trap about "media bias". If you don't care that this guy was a partisan shill, than your whole bogus haranging of The Liberal Media is a sham.
Anyway, so what's the connection? The connection is that despite November's losses, there are signs of life that a new progressive movement is beginning to gel and have focus. The Democratic Party and the conservative establishment have been put on notice. We're paying attention.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Can I Get a Witness?
Jesse Taylor says:
The Washington Post details today conservative concerns over the expansion of federal government under Bush. The typical objections are kindly trotted out, paraded around the sparsely populated arena, and trotted back in to the stables to a smattering of lazy claps and overheard questions about why hot dogs cost three dollars.
It's a nice show, but the core of Republican attitudes on the federal government are less an ideological opposition to the expansion of government power than an ideological opposition to the expansion of liberalism....
It's the decimation of personal control, the wholehearted embrace of the federal government's power to remove power from the individual. It's not about helping, supporting through hard times, ensuring a basic standard of living. It's about restriction, whether through fear, judicial fiat, or simple gross paternalism. It has nothing to do with the liberal embrace of the government's power to ensure and expand opportunity - the conservative ideal of government declares that its only power is to restrict rights...and they're perfectly fine with that.
The Washington Post details today conservative concerns over the expansion of federal government under Bush. The typical objections are kindly trotted out, paraded around the sparsely populated arena, and trotted back in to the stables to a smattering of lazy claps and overheard questions about why hot dogs cost three dollars.
It's a nice show, but the core of Republican attitudes on the federal government are less an ideological opposition to the expansion of government power than an ideological opposition to the expansion of liberalism....
It's the decimation of personal control, the wholehearted embrace of the federal government's power to remove power from the individual. It's not about helping, supporting through hard times, ensuring a basic standard of living. It's about restriction, whether through fear, judicial fiat, or simple gross paternalism. It has nothing to do with the liberal embrace of the government's power to ensure and expand opportunity - the conservative ideal of government declares that its only power is to restrict rights...and they're perfectly fine with that.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
6
The title of this post refers to:
a) The name George Constanza wanted to give his child;
b) The number of U.S. Senators elected to the Presidency while serving in the Senate;
c) The number of blogs that have linked to this humble blog;
d) The number of NHL teams that don't make the playoffs on any given non-strike year
Did you choose this blog's self-serving answer "C"? Then you were correct.
Blogging for two months and the number of my linked bloggers has increased to 6:
That Colored Fella
Suburban Guerilla
Seeing The Forest
Blonde Sense
Alt Hippo
The Rogue Progressive
If you've linked to me and I've neglected your inclusion in this list, please let me know. To those who have, thank you very much.
a) The name George Constanza wanted to give his child;
b) The number of U.S. Senators elected to the Presidency while serving in the Senate;
c) The number of blogs that have linked to this humble blog;
d) The number of NHL teams that don't make the playoffs on any given non-strike year
Did you choose this blog's self-serving answer "C"? Then you were correct.
Blogging for two months and the number of my linked bloggers has increased to 6:
That Colored Fella
Suburban Guerilla
Seeing The Forest
Blonde Sense
Alt Hippo
The Rogue Progressive
If you've linked to me and I've neglected your inclusion in this list, please let me know. To those who have, thank you very much.
Don't I Know You?
Republican Fascism
There have been a number of references from progressive blogosland to this article in the American Conservative, which expresses a concern from the right about the fascist tinges of America's current political climate. In particular, this passage was insightful:
"I dont think there are yet real fascists in the administration, but there is certainly now a constituency for them, hungry to bomb foreigners and smash those Americans who might object. And when there are constituencies, leaders may not be far behind. They could be propelled into power by a populace ever more frustrated that the imperialist war it has supported, generally for the most banal of patriotic reasons, cannot possibly end in victory. And so scapegoats are sought, and if we cant bomb Arabs into submission, or the French, domestic critics of Bush will serve."
If I hadn't known any better, I would have bet my house that that passage had come from some leftish blog or from The Nation. That it is coming from the right is telling.
The AC article is of a special interest, coming as it does on the heels of yet another, previous warning shot from the (admittedly libertarian) right about the new state-embracing, freedom snuffing, "Red-State Bourgeoisie" that has come of age in the hyper-post-9-11-Iraq-War era.
That the conservative movement-turned-establishment harbors anti-democratic tendencies is not news to most of us on the left. It has been evident more or less since the country's founding in one form or another, regardless of whichever party label it cared to clothe itself with for the purposes of the moment. And there are many more capable than I who have outlined the excruciating details of the modern conservative fascist strain (in particular, see David Niewert) , so I won't attempt a further elucidation here, other than to note, as I have previously, what I believe to be its two main, distinguishing features: militant nationalism; and authoritarian religious sentiment; along with a third, more derivative pillar, corporate oligarchy.
This is not to label all Republicans or even all conservatives as fascists. To a large extent, I doubt whether most party adherents and group activists on the right think at this level of abstraction or would salute these darker ends if it was laid out to them.
But I would go further than the AC article's author in identifying the new radical evangelicalism (of both protestant and catholic stripes) as being a considerable source from which this red-state bourgeoisie may emerge. And I believe its a problem that, however present in the masses, is particularly evident in the religious hierachy and elite. Some of these figures and organizations I have identified before: D. James Kennedy (The Coral Ridge Hour television program from Fort Lauderdale, FL), Rod Parsley (from Columbus, OH, and who also hosts his own show on cable), and of course, James Dobson from Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, CO. Each enthusiastically calls for a "return to America's Christian heritage", which manages to combine both a seemingly historical patriotism with a call for greater restrictions on individual liberty and the freedom of conscience.
And as I have also argued previously, it is this threat, more than generalities about improving economic welfare, that should be recognized by the Democratic Party, and because of which, I believe it to be a mistake for Democrats to try to accomodate the right-ward drift in American politics for the purposes of expendiency.
"I dont think there are yet real fascists in the administration, but there is certainly now a constituency for them, hungry to bomb foreigners and smash those Americans who might object. And when there are constituencies, leaders may not be far behind. They could be propelled into power by a populace ever more frustrated that the imperialist war it has supported, generally for the most banal of patriotic reasons, cannot possibly end in victory. And so scapegoats are sought, and if we cant bomb Arabs into submission, or the French, domestic critics of Bush will serve."
If I hadn't known any better, I would have bet my house that that passage had come from some leftish blog or from The Nation. That it is coming from the right is telling.
The AC article is of a special interest, coming as it does on the heels of yet another, previous warning shot from the (admittedly libertarian) right about the new state-embracing, freedom snuffing, "Red-State Bourgeoisie" that has come of age in the hyper-post-9-11-Iraq-War era.
That the conservative movement-turned-establishment harbors anti-democratic tendencies is not news to most of us on the left. It has been evident more or less since the country's founding in one form or another, regardless of whichever party label it cared to clothe itself with for the purposes of the moment. And there are many more capable than I who have outlined the excruciating details of the modern conservative fascist strain (in particular, see David Niewert) , so I won't attempt a further elucidation here, other than to note, as I have previously, what I believe to be its two main, distinguishing features: militant nationalism; and authoritarian religious sentiment; along with a third, more derivative pillar, corporate oligarchy.
This is not to label all Republicans or even all conservatives as fascists. To a large extent, I doubt whether most party adherents and group activists on the right think at this level of abstraction or would salute these darker ends if it was laid out to them.
But I would go further than the AC article's author in identifying the new radical evangelicalism (of both protestant and catholic stripes) as being a considerable source from which this red-state bourgeoisie may emerge. And I believe its a problem that, however present in the masses, is particularly evident in the religious hierachy and elite. Some of these figures and organizations I have identified before: D. James Kennedy (The Coral Ridge Hour television program from Fort Lauderdale, FL), Rod Parsley (from Columbus, OH, and who also hosts his own show on cable), and of course, James Dobson from Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, CO. Each enthusiastically calls for a "return to America's Christian heritage", which manages to combine both a seemingly historical patriotism with a call for greater restrictions on individual liberty and the freedom of conscience.
And as I have also argued previously, it is this threat, more than generalities about improving economic welfare, that should be recognized by the Democratic Party, and because of which, I believe it to be a mistake for Democrats to try to accomodate the right-ward drift in American politics for the purposes of expendiency.
I've Very Angry
Why am I angry, you ask? I'll tell you why.
Because I didn't get to write this:
I am saying I do not understand why CNN or NPR would hire someone to talk about Iraq policy who has not read a book on the subject under discussion. Actually, of course, it would be desirable that he had read more than one book. Books are nice. They are rectangular and soft and have information in them. They can even be consumed on airplanes. Goldberg should try one.
and
An argument that judgment matters but knowledge does not is profoundly anti-intellectual. It implies that we do not need ever to learn anything in order make mature decisions. We can just proceed off some simple ideological template and apply it to everything. This sort of thinking is part of what is wrong with this country. We wouldn't call a man in to fix our plumbing who knew nothing about plumbing, but we call pundits to address millions of people on subjects about which they know nothing of substance.
and
But Goldberg is just a dime a dozen pundit. Cranky rich people hire sharp-tongued and relatively uninformed young people all the time and put them on the mass media to badmouth the poor, spread bigotry, exalt mindless militarism, promote anti-intellectualism, and ensure generally that rightwing views come to predominate even among people who are harmed by such policies. One of their jobs is to marginalize progressives by smearing them as unreliable.
But that is not all. I'm also angry I didn't get to write this:
And now I have to see I didn't get to write this either:
And, of course, the true irony is that all this breast beating and calls for dismissal and censorship comes on the heels of years of braying about political correctness in academia squelching free speech and dissenting points of view. It seems like only yesterday that I was reading conservative intellectuals like Walter Williams saying universities are "the equivalent of the Nazi brownshirt thought-control movement" and Paul Hollander calling it "the most widespread form of institutionalized intolerance in American higher education." (I won't even mention that champion of intellectual diversity David Horowitz.) Well now, it would appear that "political correctness vs academic freedom" comes in all flavors.
And it's always a-ok for mainstream, influential intellectuals like Frank "cakewalk" Gaffney to say things like "The U.N. is a hateful and anti-Semitic mobocracy" or Michael Ledeen to publicly float a theory that 9/11 was the result of a "Franco-German strategy ...based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States." These inflammatory statements at a time of great global unease are not repudiated by anyone. Indeed, such dangerous rabble rousing is completely accepted and in some cases endorsed by the Republican establishment. No one questinos whether such statements might endanger American security or its stated foreign policy. Indeed, one is left to ponder whether it might actually be American foreign policy, considering the fact that those who write these screeds are welcome in the White House.
And that brings us to the crucial difference between Ward Churchill's politically incorrect ravings and Gaffney, Ledeen and Williams' politically incorrect ravings --- the latter are powerful, well known intellectuals in the conservative movement who are on the inside of government policymaking at the highest reaches. Churchill on the other hand is a nobody.
Liberals have nothing to apologise for. Indeed, intellectual honesty requires that we do not. These conservative critics' facts are wrong and their analysis is self-serving. They have concocted a "mental model" that is designed to marginalize and intimidate those who speak out against them. I'm not talking about obscure college professors with eccentric views. I'm talking about average Americans with mainstream views that don't hew exactly to the Republican party line who are now viewed with suspicion as UnAmerican by association with this leftist chimera that sides with terrorists.
So, I think you will agree with me that I have a lot to be angry about. I didn't get to write these great pieces. But thanks to Juan Cole, James Wolcott, and Digby, we can all read them. Thank you gentlemen for your courage and wit in articulating that which I am unable to express.
Because I didn't get to write this:
I am saying I do not understand why CNN or NPR would hire someone to talk about Iraq policy who has not read a book on the subject under discussion. Actually, of course, it would be desirable that he had read more than one book. Books are nice. They are rectangular and soft and have information in them. They can even be consumed on airplanes. Goldberg should try one.
and
An argument that judgment matters but knowledge does not is profoundly anti-intellectual. It implies that we do not need ever to learn anything in order make mature decisions. We can just proceed off some simple ideological template and apply it to everything. This sort of thinking is part of what is wrong with this country. We wouldn't call a man in to fix our plumbing who knew nothing about plumbing, but we call pundits to address millions of people on subjects about which they know nothing of substance.
and
But Goldberg is just a dime a dozen pundit. Cranky rich people hire sharp-tongued and relatively uninformed young people all the time and put them on the mass media to badmouth the poor, spread bigotry, exalt mindless militarism, promote anti-intellectualism, and ensure generally that rightwing views come to predominate even among people who are harmed by such policies. One of their jobs is to marginalize progressives by smearing them as unreliable.
But that is not all. I'm also angry I didn't get to write this:
And now I have to see I didn't get to write this either:
And, of course, the true irony is that all this breast beating and calls for dismissal and censorship comes on the heels of years of braying about political correctness in academia squelching free speech and dissenting points of view. It seems like only yesterday that I was reading conservative intellectuals like Walter Williams saying universities are "the equivalent of the Nazi brownshirt thought-control movement" and Paul Hollander calling it "the most widespread form of institutionalized intolerance in American higher education." (I won't even mention that champion of intellectual diversity David Horowitz.) Well now, it would appear that "political correctness vs academic freedom" comes in all flavors.
And it's always a-ok for mainstream, influential intellectuals like Frank "cakewalk" Gaffney to say things like "The U.N. is a hateful and anti-Semitic mobocracy" or Michael Ledeen to publicly float a theory that 9/11 was the result of a "Franco-German strategy ...based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States." These inflammatory statements at a time of great global unease are not repudiated by anyone. Indeed, such dangerous rabble rousing is completely accepted and in some cases endorsed by the Republican establishment. No one questinos whether such statements might endanger American security or its stated foreign policy. Indeed, one is left to ponder whether it might actually be American foreign policy, considering the fact that those who write these screeds are welcome in the White House.
And that brings us to the crucial difference between Ward Churchill's politically incorrect ravings and Gaffney, Ledeen and Williams' politically incorrect ravings --- the latter are powerful, well known intellectuals in the conservative movement who are on the inside of government policymaking at the highest reaches. Churchill on the other hand is a nobody.
Liberals have nothing to apologise for. Indeed, intellectual honesty requires that we do not. These conservative critics' facts are wrong and their analysis is self-serving. They have concocted a "mental model" that is designed to marginalize and intimidate those who speak out against them. I'm not talking about obscure college professors with eccentric views. I'm talking about average Americans with mainstream views that don't hew exactly to the Republican party line who are now viewed with suspicion as UnAmerican by association with this leftist chimera that sides with terrorists.
So, I think you will agree with me that I have a lot to be angry about. I didn't get to write these great pieces. But thanks to Juan Cole, James Wolcott, and Digby, we can all read them. Thank you gentlemen for your courage and wit in articulating that which I am unable to express.
Monday, February 07, 2005
The Iran Blues
I don't know about you, but I'm so ready to wack Iran. Well, not me, actually, but I'm totally down with somebody else doing it. Who says progressives can't be chickenhawks?
I'm just not sure who that somebody would be. We can barely staff the military in that other Arab-muslim country we're occupying, er, liberating now. What? Iran isn't Arab? Oh. Well, you know what I mean. Anyway, if we invaded Iran, we might have to have a draft. Even though I'm overage, there are a lot of other people who could still serve. And I'm pretty sure that Brit Hume, Bill Oh-Really?, and those other Faux gangbangers have kids of their own that'll serve. I'm not sure how old Hannity is, but I'd recommend him, too.
Invading Iran would be awesome. I wish MSGOP and Faux would start putting up their Countdown Iran banners. I'm bored with Iraq already. We've been there long enough and these intermittent rebel attacks just don't do much for me. I miss those retired generals and their topographical map models, pointing our where The Troops are and which bomb is being dropped where. Sadly, the Shock and Awe from March 2003 has worn off. Can we have some more?
If Ofgeorge doesn't want to go against Iran, yet, how about North Korea or Syria or both? I suspect that NK would be a bit of a challenge, but then again, as I've said, I'm sure we have plenty of right winger offspring that can serve as cannon fodder, so long as I don't have to go.
Wow, this progressive, chickenhawk stuff is starting to feel good. All I ask is that Ezra and Jesse head to Canada before it's too late.
Bring It On!!!
I'm just not sure who that somebody would be. We can barely staff the military in that other Arab-muslim country we're occupying, er, liberating now. What? Iran isn't Arab? Oh. Well, you know what I mean. Anyway, if we invaded Iran, we might have to have a draft. Even though I'm overage, there are a lot of other people who could still serve. And I'm pretty sure that Brit Hume, Bill Oh-Really?, and those other Faux gangbangers have kids of their own that'll serve. I'm not sure how old Hannity is, but I'd recommend him, too.
Invading Iran would be awesome. I wish MSGOP and Faux would start putting up their Countdown Iran banners. I'm bored with Iraq already. We've been there long enough and these intermittent rebel attacks just don't do much for me. I miss those retired generals and their topographical map models, pointing our where The Troops are and which bomb is being dropped where. Sadly, the Shock and Awe from March 2003 has worn off. Can we have some more?
If Ofgeorge doesn't want to go against Iran, yet, how about North Korea or Syria or both? I suspect that NK would be a bit of a challenge, but then again, as I've said, I'm sure we have plenty of right winger offspring that can serve as cannon fodder, so long as I don't have to go.
Wow, this progressive, chickenhawk stuff is starting to feel good. All I ask is that Ezra and Jesse head to Canada before it's too late.
Bring It On!!!
Report Card
I know the semester has just started, but I'm itchy to start handing out grades. The Senate Democrat's legislative goals, summarized at their website is as good a place to start as any.
Slogan: Security, Opportunity, Responsibility
Grade: D
Comments: Sounds like something thought up by the Republican's host of newspeak jabberwockies
1. S.11: Standing With Our Troops
Increases size of standing military by 40,000 by 2007 and promises greater income support and health care access for those who serve.
Grade: D+
Comments: On increasing size of standing army, please see earlier post.
2. S.12: Targeting the Terrorists More Effectively
We're going to get those terrorists.
Grade: D-
Comments: essentially adopts neocon rhetoric about taking the fight to the terrorists but throws in some stuff about preventing nuclear proliferation. Lacks creativity.
3. S.13: Fullfilling Our Duty to America's Veterans
Ensure better treatment for our veterans.
Grade: C
Comments: Worthwhile goal, but doesn't clarify change from current policies.
4. S.14: Expanding Economic Opportunity
Increase minimum wage, better trade protections, end tax breaks for outsourcing, etc.
Grade: B-
Comments: outside of minimum wage part, unimaginative
5. S.15: Quality Education for All
Fully fund NCLB, increase Pell Grants, some other stuff
Grade: C
Comments: why is college tuition "skyrocketing"? What're the budgetary implications?
6. S.16: Making Health Care More Affordable
allows drug reimportation, tax credits for businesses, "protect Medicaid"
Grade: C-
Comments: Does the notion of sending of our subsidized and overpriced pharmaceuticals to Canada, where they get priced down, and then reimporting them strike anyone besides me as being just a little bit bizzarre?
7. S. 17: Democracy Begins at Home
federal standards for elections, same day registration, shorter lines, paper trails, etc.
Grade: B
Comments: The best of the lot so far. Any thoughts on federal redistricting guidelines?
8. S. 18: Meeting Our Responsibility to Medicare Beneficiaries
gets rid of "donut" in recent Medicare prescription drug legislation and allows govt to negotiate lower group prices with Pharma.
Grade: C+
Comments: Sounds expensive
9. S. 19: Fiscal Responsibility for a Sound Future
Restores Pay as You Go and sequestration; restricts misuse of reconciliation
Grade: B
Comments: Sidesteps sunsetting of 2001 and 2003 tax cuts
10. S. 20: Putting Prevention First
more $ for family planning and contraceptives
Grade:
Substance: C
Symbolism: B+
Comments: Right to choose?
Total Grade: C-
Comments: while recognizing that these items are intended to look like bills that might actually be considered by this congress and could even pass on a good day, there's not much here that indicates an underlying Democratic ideology or sense of purpose for government; doesn't do much to challenge Republican orthodoxy. What about the Republican "junk lawsuit bill"?
Later: Senator Bulworth offers his own agenda
Slogan: Security, Opportunity, Responsibility
Grade: D
Comments: Sounds like something thought up by the Republican's host of newspeak jabberwockies
1. S.11: Standing With Our Troops
Increases size of standing military by 40,000 by 2007 and promises greater income support and health care access for those who serve.
Grade: D+
Comments: On increasing size of standing army, please see earlier post.
2. S.12: Targeting the Terrorists More Effectively
We're going to get those terrorists.
Grade: D-
Comments: essentially adopts neocon rhetoric about taking the fight to the terrorists but throws in some stuff about preventing nuclear proliferation. Lacks creativity.
3. S.13: Fullfilling Our Duty to America's Veterans
Ensure better treatment for our veterans.
Grade: C
Comments: Worthwhile goal, but doesn't clarify change from current policies.
4. S.14: Expanding Economic Opportunity
Increase minimum wage, better trade protections, end tax breaks for outsourcing, etc.
Grade: B-
Comments: outside of minimum wage part, unimaginative
5. S.15: Quality Education for All
Fully fund NCLB, increase Pell Grants, some other stuff
Grade: C
Comments: why is college tuition "skyrocketing"? What're the budgetary implications?
6. S.16: Making Health Care More Affordable
allows drug reimportation, tax credits for businesses, "protect Medicaid"
Grade: C-
Comments: Does the notion of sending of our subsidized and overpriced pharmaceuticals to Canada, where they get priced down, and then reimporting them strike anyone besides me as being just a little bit bizzarre?
7. S. 17: Democracy Begins at Home
federal standards for elections, same day registration, shorter lines, paper trails, etc.
Grade: B
Comments: The best of the lot so far. Any thoughts on federal redistricting guidelines?
8. S. 18: Meeting Our Responsibility to Medicare Beneficiaries
gets rid of "donut" in recent Medicare prescription drug legislation and allows govt to negotiate lower group prices with Pharma.
Grade: C+
Comments: Sounds expensive
9. S. 19: Fiscal Responsibility for a Sound Future
Restores Pay as You Go and sequestration; restricts misuse of reconciliation
Grade: B
Comments: Sidesteps sunsetting of 2001 and 2003 tax cuts
10. S. 20: Putting Prevention First
more $ for family planning and contraceptives
Grade:
Substance: C
Symbolism: B+
Comments: Right to choose?
Total Grade: C-
Comments: while recognizing that these items are intended to look like bills that might actually be considered by this congress and could even pass on a good day, there's not much here that indicates an underlying Democratic ideology or sense of purpose for government; doesn't do much to challenge Republican orthodoxy. What about the Republican "junk lawsuit bill"?
Later: Senator Bulworth offers his own agenda
What I Wanna Know Is....
Ezra Klein reminds us that although heavily marginalized, Democrats are trying to put forward alternatives to the GOP.
That may be. But, "what I wanna know is", why are our representatives still allowing us to get punked over stuff like this? The We-Need-to-Get-Rid-of-Junk-Lawsuits plank has been in the GOP top 10 list for so long it has its own AARP card (yeah, I stold that from Wolcott) and the fallacy upon which it rests is likewise well known, but nevertheless, our guys still seemed determined to bend over and let the GOP give us the business on it.
And I'll admit I'm clueless why we're promoting this, too:
"Democrats will work to increase our military end strength by up to 40,000 by 2007."
(from S. 11: "Standing With Our Troops")
Huh? We're calling for more troops? If we need greater security (against an army from ?????) and more troops to guard that security, why don't we just bring the ones over in Iraq home? Iraq's had its "successful" elections. The Republicons and the press have told us so.
Of course I'm acting as if bringing the military home from Iraq is a real policy objective that is just waiting for a favorable time. Now, of course it could be, just maybe, that the administration's intention all along has been to establish military bases in Iraq to serve as a visual reminder to Iraq's "leaders" of our desire to better police the Middle East and control its natural resources that we covet. But I don't know why I'd think that.
That may be. But, "what I wanna know is", why are our representatives still allowing us to get punked over stuff like this? The We-Need-to-Get-Rid-of-Junk-Lawsuits plank has been in the GOP top 10 list for so long it has its own AARP card (yeah, I stold that from Wolcott) and the fallacy upon which it rests is likewise well known, but nevertheless, our guys still seemed determined to bend over and let the GOP give us the business on it.
And I'll admit I'm clueless why we're promoting this, too:
"Democrats will work to increase our military end strength by up to 40,000 by 2007."
(from S. 11: "Standing With Our Troops")
Huh? We're calling for more troops? If we need greater security (against an army from ?????) and more troops to guard that security, why don't we just bring the ones over in Iraq home? Iraq's had its "successful" elections. The Republicons and the press have told us so.
Of course I'm acting as if bringing the military home from Iraq is a real policy objective that is just waiting for a favorable time. Now, of course it could be, just maybe, that the administration's intention all along has been to establish military bases in Iraq to serve as a visual reminder to Iraq's "leaders" of our desire to better police the Middle East and control its natural resources that we covet. But I don't know why I'd think that.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Open Letter to President George W. Bush
Congratulations, Mr. President.
You've had a very heady time, these last few months. You won re-election and increased your Party's majorities in both chambers. You've just come off a two week period of having given a very lofty, if not entirely realistic, inaugural address, followed by this past weekend's elections in Iraq, and last night, your second-term launching SOTU address, in which you included your eye-popping, opening salvo on the Social Security wars, which is certain to continue to draw considerable attention for at least the next day or two.
But, Mr. President, as the snarly Jack Nicholson character said in As Good As It Gets, "What if this is as good as it gets?" Mr. President, this is as good as it gets for you and your presidency. There is no more upside. The coverage in Iraq will return to the latest bombing and the calls for bringing the military home will escalate. Your Social Security initiative will certainly fail without at least some Democratic votes, and it isn't looking as if you're going to get many of them, especially after the implications of your plan's private account "offset" and other benefit reductions start making the rounds. The best you can hope for is some face-saving gesture that will make minor adjustments to the system, but that's about it.
I suspect that your tax magic is wearing thin, too. The deficit will continue to grow as long as the war in Iraq continues and will increase exponentially if your previous tax cuts are not sunsetted, as you oppose, in 2010.
And even though you may content yourself with the thought of the friendly Republican majority in Congress, recognize that now, they can divorce you. They have their own campaigns and goals to worry about. Many of them are even now as we speak, making hushed plans to succeed you. Rumours of Iowa and New Hampshire will soon start popping up.
And your congressional partners are busy slitting the throat of any high moral reformation you may have in mind. I know you've been busy, but did you catch the fact that on the day of your SOTU, your Party's majority leader and House Speaker sacked the chair of the Ethics Committee, and two of his fellow members, as punishment for opposing a change in the House rule requiring party and House leaders to relinquish their posts in case they should ever be indicted?
And even though its hard to imagine the prospect, some Democrats are sharpening their knives, waiting to rush in at the first sight of blood. While you can continue to gloat over winning 51% of the vote, the truth is, nobody thought you were going to lose this election anyway. The main party lights are gearing up for 2008. And the party leadership is about to be given over to a very caustic critic of yours, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
Yes, Mr. President, this is as good as it will get for you. But at least you have Faux News you can continue to count on.
Best,
Senator J. Bulworth
P.S. Sorry I missed last night's speech. I was under the mistaken impression that Simple Life 3 would be on TV last night and it wasn't, even though I did enjoy the Law and Order: SVU reruns just fine.
You've had a very heady time, these last few months. You won re-election and increased your Party's majorities in both chambers. You've just come off a two week period of having given a very lofty, if not entirely realistic, inaugural address, followed by this past weekend's elections in Iraq, and last night, your second-term launching SOTU address, in which you included your eye-popping, opening salvo on the Social Security wars, which is certain to continue to draw considerable attention for at least the next day or two.
But, Mr. President, as the snarly Jack Nicholson character said in As Good As It Gets, "What if this is as good as it gets?" Mr. President, this is as good as it gets for you and your presidency. There is no more upside. The coverage in Iraq will return to the latest bombing and the calls for bringing the military home will escalate. Your Social Security initiative will certainly fail without at least some Democratic votes, and it isn't looking as if you're going to get many of them, especially after the implications of your plan's private account "offset" and other benefit reductions start making the rounds. The best you can hope for is some face-saving gesture that will make minor adjustments to the system, but that's about it.
I suspect that your tax magic is wearing thin, too. The deficit will continue to grow as long as the war in Iraq continues and will increase exponentially if your previous tax cuts are not sunsetted, as you oppose, in 2010.
And even though you may content yourself with the thought of the friendly Republican majority in Congress, recognize that now, they can divorce you. They have their own campaigns and goals to worry about. Many of them are even now as we speak, making hushed plans to succeed you. Rumours of Iowa and New Hampshire will soon start popping up.
And your congressional partners are busy slitting the throat of any high moral reformation you may have in mind. I know you've been busy, but did you catch the fact that on the day of your SOTU, your Party's majority leader and House Speaker sacked the chair of the Ethics Committee, and two of his fellow members, as punishment for opposing a change in the House rule requiring party and House leaders to relinquish their posts in case they should ever be indicted?
And even though its hard to imagine the prospect, some Democrats are sharpening their knives, waiting to rush in at the first sight of blood. While you can continue to gloat over winning 51% of the vote, the truth is, nobody thought you were going to lose this election anyway. The main party lights are gearing up for 2008. And the party leadership is about to be given over to a very caustic critic of yours, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
Yes, Mr. President, this is as good as it will get for you. But at least you have Faux News you can continue to count on.
Best,
Senator J. Bulworth
P.S. Sorry I missed last night's speech. I was under the mistaken impression that Simple Life 3 would be on TV last night and it wasn't, even though I did enjoy the Law and Order: SVU reruns just fine.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
The Firing Circle
I really like Matt, but where in the world did this come from?
There's also certainly no need for Dean to serve as the party's chief national spokesman, but my strong suspicion is that this is precisely the role Dean wants to play. We'll have to wait and see, but I have more confidence in Reid, Pelosi, and some of the other Senate Democrats as party leaders and spokespeople and don't really want to see them overshadowed.
More confidence in Reid, Pelosi, and some of the other Senate Democrats?! I can think of a Rude Pundit-like response here, but because this is a family-friendly blog, I'll leave it to your imagination.
Kevin Drum seems overly pessimistic, too.
What is it? Is it "the scream"? Is that what you're worried about? The party is in free fall, don't you get that? We keep moving to the center and the Republicans keep moving the center further and further to the radical right. They're about set to undue the New Deal and tell you you're going to like it. Our leadership supported their tax cuts and their war and in the last election LOST more seats in Congress. Again.
He's from Vermont. Is that what's bothering you? The other side wants to turn the country into its version of the old south, and you're getting squishy because the guy's from the land of Ben and Jerry?
Civil Unions? Is that what's bothering you? The separation of church and state is about to be made a swear word and a relic. The other side wants to replace the Constitution with the Book of Leviticus. Is that what you want?
Big Money will leave us. Is that what you're worried about? Democrats outraised Republicans this year for the first time, most of that coming from the Web and small donors. Big Money, don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out.
Any questions?
There's also certainly no need for Dean to serve as the party's chief national spokesman, but my strong suspicion is that this is precisely the role Dean wants to play. We'll have to wait and see, but I have more confidence in Reid, Pelosi, and some of the other Senate Democrats as party leaders and spokespeople and don't really want to see them overshadowed.
More confidence in Reid, Pelosi, and some of the other Senate Democrats?! I can think of a Rude Pundit-like response here, but because this is a family-friendly blog, I'll leave it to your imagination.
Kevin Drum seems overly pessimistic, too.
What is it? Is it "the scream"? Is that what you're worried about? The party is in free fall, don't you get that? We keep moving to the center and the Republicans keep moving the center further and further to the radical right. They're about set to undue the New Deal and tell you you're going to like it. Our leadership supported their tax cuts and their war and in the last election LOST more seats in Congress. Again.
He's from Vermont. Is that what's bothering you? The other side wants to turn the country into its version of the old south, and you're getting squishy because the guy's from the land of Ben and Jerry?
Civil Unions? Is that what's bothering you? The separation of church and state is about to be made a swear word and a relic. The other side wants to replace the Constitution with the Book of Leviticus. Is that what you want?
Big Money will leave us. Is that what you're worried about? Democrats outraised Republicans this year for the first time, most of that coming from the Web and small donors. Big Money, don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out.
Any questions?
Who Said That?
Welcome to the first edition of our Who Said That? series, where we single out interesting quotes and ask you to choose from among several alternatives the person or group you believe responsible for them.
Ready? Let's begin.
1. "None of us believe that there should be a religious government (in Iraq)"
a. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte
b. U.S. Secretary of State, Ofgeorge
c. Former U.S. head of the Iraqi Occupation, Paul Bremer
d. Ibrahim Bahr Uloom, a top Shiite candidate in Iraq's recent elections
2. "We should separate religion from policy"
a. Iraqi voter, Abdel Waheed
b. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family
c. Marion "Pat" Roberton, head of television's The 700 Club
d. U.S. Senator, Rick Santorum (R-PA)
3. "If the people want (name of country) to be developed and rise in every aspect of modern life, religion has to be separated from government"
a. Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition
b. Former Alabama Supreme Court Justice, Roy Moore
c. Iraqi voter, Abdel Waheed
d. Televangelist, D. James Kennedy
Answers:
1. d
2. a
3. c
Ready? Let's begin.
1. "None of us believe that there should be a religious government (in Iraq)"
a. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte
b. U.S. Secretary of State, Ofgeorge
c. Former U.S. head of the Iraqi Occupation, Paul Bremer
d. Ibrahim Bahr Uloom, a top Shiite candidate in Iraq's recent elections
2. "We should separate religion from policy"
a. Iraqi voter, Abdel Waheed
b. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family
c. Marion "Pat" Roberton, head of television's The 700 Club
d. U.S. Senator, Rick Santorum (R-PA)
3. "If the people want (name of country) to be developed and rise in every aspect of modern life, religion has to be separated from government"
a. Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition
b. Former Alabama Supreme Court Justice, Roy Moore
c. Iraqi voter, Abdel Waheed
d. Televangelist, D. James Kennedy
Answers:
1. d
2. a
3. c
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
The Show Me Party
If the new chairman of the DNC doesn't start off his opening speech to the party and the country by saying:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, there is one thing you cannot say about today's Republican Party, and that is that they haven't shown us. They have shown us. Let's look at what they've shown us.
1. there shalt not be academic freedom;
2. there shalt not be political dissent;
3. there shalt not be a social safety net;
4. there shalt not be a separation between church and state;
5. there shalt not be a right to privacy;
6. remember the Republican Party to keep it holy;
7. thou shalt love and respect thy neighbor except if they're non-heterosexual;
8. and except if they're non-Christian-Coalition-approved religious adherents;
9. and except if they're non-Americans;
10. only white males that own property shalt be free and able to vote"
then their speech will have been a major disappointment.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, there is one thing you cannot say about today's Republican Party, and that is that they haven't shown us. They have shown us. Let's look at what they've shown us.
1. there shalt not be academic freedom;
2. there shalt not be political dissent;
3. there shalt not be a social safety net;
4. there shalt not be a separation between church and state;
5. there shalt not be a right to privacy;
6. remember the Republican Party to keep it holy;
7. thou shalt love and respect thy neighbor except if they're non-heterosexual;
8. and except if they're non-Christian-Coalition-approved religious adherents;
9. and except if they're non-Americans;
10. only white males that own property shalt be free and able to vote"
then their speech will have been a major disappointment.
Why I am not a conservative, reason # 4358
Fred Barnes, of Faux News and the Weakly Standard, goes unplugged.
This has been building for awhile. It was especially high in the lead up to, and during "main combat operations" in Iraq. Dubya's narrow reelection win and the increase in GOP seats in November has no doubt emboldened the conservative establishment in its push to destroy Democracy at home while it obstensibly promotes it abroad.
Now in charge, conservatives would have us forget the Clinton years and the abundance of reckless personal charges they leveled at the president then, smear campaigns that included daughter Chelsea among the targets. Real values, that conservative crowd.
And I expect it to get worse. Naturally, the presence of the U.S. military over seas in an ongoing military conflict provides an extra layer of cover for anti-first amendment conservatives to do what they would do anyway, and that's attempt to suppress any and all opposition.
One hopes conservatives will be seen as overreaching. But I'm not hopeful. Once upon a time, before they seized power, conservatives were seen as the "radicals", the non-status quo party. Recall, if you will, the early estimates of Ronald Reagan, and later, Newt Gingrich. They were viewed as too rough around the edges, too extreme for the mainstream. But now, in the eyes of most of the media, what was radical has become the norm. As conservatives continue their attempts to turn back the clock on social welfare and individual liberty, liberals are busy playing defense on a ground of issues that were once, comfortably thought protected.
Academic freedom and political dissent are on the chopping block.
This is why Democrats cannot "move to the center".
This has been building for awhile. It was especially high in the lead up to, and during "main combat operations" in Iraq. Dubya's narrow reelection win and the increase in GOP seats in November has no doubt emboldened the conservative establishment in its push to destroy Democracy at home while it obstensibly promotes it abroad.
Now in charge, conservatives would have us forget the Clinton years and the abundance of reckless personal charges they leveled at the president then, smear campaigns that included daughter Chelsea among the targets. Real values, that conservative crowd.
And I expect it to get worse. Naturally, the presence of the U.S. military over seas in an ongoing military conflict provides an extra layer of cover for anti-first amendment conservatives to do what they would do anyway, and that's attempt to suppress any and all opposition.
One hopes conservatives will be seen as overreaching. But I'm not hopeful. Once upon a time, before they seized power, conservatives were seen as the "radicals", the non-status quo party. Recall, if you will, the early estimates of Ronald Reagan, and later, Newt Gingrich. They were viewed as too rough around the edges, too extreme for the mainstream. But now, in the eyes of most of the media, what was radical has become the norm. As conservatives continue their attempts to turn back the clock on social welfare and individual liberty, liberals are busy playing defense on a ground of issues that were once, comfortably thought protected.
Academic freedom and political dissent are on the chopping block.
This is why Democrats cannot "move to the center".
Monday, January 31, 2005
Dean, the DNC and Us
I'm not sure what to make of the fuss and skirmeshes involved in electing the new DNC chairman. As most of you probably know, the executive board of some Democratic subsystem called the association of state Democratic chairs, or something, has voted to support the young Don Fowler for chair over Dean. The vote by the larger association of state chairs is supposed to be today.
Ordinarily, the position of DNC chair is more about organization than substance, and for that reason, while I support Dean, the election of someone else to the position probably wouldn't make much difference. Except. The primacy of Dean in the race and the opposition to him have made the race a larger symbol of the direction of the party. And for that reason, Dean's losing would be a bitter pill to swallow.
But in the big picture view of things, the importance of the DNC chair is less than the existence of a prominent message or messenger, both of which the party today lacks. Organization and "strategery" is more critical when you are trying to disseminate a message and elect candidates across the country. But when you lack a message or compelling cause, the role of organization is only of peripherical impact.
I caught some of the replaying of the conference on Saturday on C-SPAN, getting to hear Fowler, Roemer, and Lindley(sp) address the caucus directly, and a few of the others respond to questions from the audience. There wasn't much of "message substance" covered, just some queries on how to respond to this or that event. I don't know whether to be disappointed by that or not. I know the DNC chair isn't necessarily about message: he or she will more likely reflect rather than direct the party's message. But for those of us who are starving for an unapologetic response to the Republican juggernaut, and a reshaping of the boundaries of political debate that conservatives have continued to shift further and further to the right, maybe our or my expectations have shifted.
Ordinarily, the position of DNC chair is more about organization than substance, and for that reason, while I support Dean, the election of someone else to the position probably wouldn't make much difference. Except. The primacy of Dean in the race and the opposition to him have made the race a larger symbol of the direction of the party. And for that reason, Dean's losing would be a bitter pill to swallow.
But in the big picture view of things, the importance of the DNC chair is less than the existence of a prominent message or messenger, both of which the party today lacks. Organization and "strategery" is more critical when you are trying to disseminate a message and elect candidates across the country. But when you lack a message or compelling cause, the role of organization is only of peripherical impact.
I caught some of the replaying of the conference on Saturday on C-SPAN, getting to hear Fowler, Roemer, and Lindley(sp) address the caucus directly, and a few of the others respond to questions from the audience. There wasn't much of "message substance" covered, just some queries on how to respond to this or that event. I don't know whether to be disappointed by that or not. I know the DNC chair isn't necessarily about message: he or she will more likely reflect rather than direct the party's message. But for those of us who are starving for an unapologetic response to the Republican juggernaut, and a reshaping of the boundaries of political debate that conservatives have continued to shift further and further to the right, maybe our or my expectations have shifted.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Edwards
From Dionne's WashPost column today--
It needs to be clear to the country what our core beliefs are, and the last thing we need is strategic maneuvering," Edwards says. "What people want to see is leadership and strength and conviction. This is about what's inside us. It's not about how we get to the right place."
.......
It's true, of course, that rejecting political calculation can itself be a form of political calculation. Conviction politics was a big winner for Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Even President Bush's critics concede -- well, they don't concede anything these days, but they might grudgingly admit -- that Bush's core political edge is just that, the appearance of strength and of standing for something.
But conviction politics has not been in vogue in progressive circles. This era's two great center-left politicians, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, have been resolute Third Wayers, tacking carefully between left and right. The Third Way was a tacit admission of conservatism's momentum.
Edwards is well positioned to offer Third Way 3.0. He's a young southerner, a working-class kid made good whose dad was a deacon in his church. He speaks admiringly of Clinton's skills, particularly the former president's ability to make others feel that he identifies with their struggles.
But Edwards's instincts tell him that tepid politics are exactly what the Democrats don't need now. "I don't think this is about moderate, conservative, liberal," he says. "Americans are looking for strength, an idealistic strength. They want to know what we'd do on Day One if we ran the country."
Moral issues matter, Edwards says, but Democrats won't look moral by getting into a bidding war over how often they can invoke the name of God. Instead, Democrats should speak with conviction about an issue that has always animated them: the alleviation of poverty. "I think it is a moral issue; it's something we should be willing to fight about and stand up for," he says.
Those who counsel caution, he says, would let calculation push Democrats away from their historical commitments. "They think it's associated with some political label," he says, carefully avoiding the L-word himself. "They think that a lot of people who live in poverty don't vote and don't participate and so they don't think there's a lot of political capital there."
Edwards, who is planning to set up a center to study ways to alleviate poverty, is enough of a politician to insist that he wants to advocate not only on behalf of the destitute but also for those just finding their footing on mobility's ladder. But he offers the unexpected claim that the very voters who have strayed from the Democrats would respond forcefully to the moral imperative of aiding the poor.
"The people who love their guns and love their faith, they care about this," Edwards says. "There is a deep abiding feeling of moral responsibility people have about those who are doing everything right and are still having a hard time."
Okay, okay, it's bound to be said that Edwards is making a shrewd political wager that Democrats have tired of capitulation. The test will be whether he sticks with it. It's a fair bet that someone who talks about a real moral issue for the next four years will at least be easier to listen to than politicians who place all their money on yesterday's focus groups.
Here's my problems with what appears to be Edwards' take on the situation:
1) he's afraid of the term--and by extension the concept and past achievements of--liberal politics and policy;
2) The "two Americas" and "we need to help those who are playing by the rules and still can't get ahead" rhetoric is Clinton-est which among other things may cause some people to wonder, hey, haven't we heard this before? Your party had eight years in the WH from '93-2000. Why are the rule-players still struggling?
3) He either doesn't understand, or cares not to address, the nature of the tragedy that is this administration's policies and supporters' agenda, namely, the "Right's" substantive war against the courts, civil liberties, the "wall" separating church and state, "liberals", and other deemed undesirables, by any means necessary, but particularly by consolidating media control and smothering dissent, academic and otherwise.
Yes, we need conviction in our candidates, but we also need an awareness and willingness to confront the country's greatest dangers.
It needs to be clear to the country what our core beliefs are, and the last thing we need is strategic maneuvering," Edwards says. "What people want to see is leadership and strength and conviction. This is about what's inside us. It's not about how we get to the right place."
.......
It's true, of course, that rejecting political calculation can itself be a form of political calculation. Conviction politics was a big winner for Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Even President Bush's critics concede -- well, they don't concede anything these days, but they might grudgingly admit -- that Bush's core political edge is just that, the appearance of strength and of standing for something.
But conviction politics has not been in vogue in progressive circles. This era's two great center-left politicians, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, have been resolute Third Wayers, tacking carefully between left and right. The Third Way was a tacit admission of conservatism's momentum.
Edwards is well positioned to offer Third Way 3.0. He's a young southerner, a working-class kid made good whose dad was a deacon in his church. He speaks admiringly of Clinton's skills, particularly the former president's ability to make others feel that he identifies with their struggles.
But Edwards's instincts tell him that tepid politics are exactly what the Democrats don't need now. "I don't think this is about moderate, conservative, liberal," he says. "Americans are looking for strength, an idealistic strength. They want to know what we'd do on Day One if we ran the country."
Moral issues matter, Edwards says, but Democrats won't look moral by getting into a bidding war over how often they can invoke the name of God. Instead, Democrats should speak with conviction about an issue that has always animated them: the alleviation of poverty. "I think it is a moral issue; it's something we should be willing to fight about and stand up for," he says.
Those who counsel caution, he says, would let calculation push Democrats away from their historical commitments. "They think it's associated with some political label," he says, carefully avoiding the L-word himself. "They think that a lot of people who live in poverty don't vote and don't participate and so they don't think there's a lot of political capital there."
Edwards, who is planning to set up a center to study ways to alleviate poverty, is enough of a politician to insist that he wants to advocate not only on behalf of the destitute but also for those just finding their footing on mobility's ladder. But he offers the unexpected claim that the very voters who have strayed from the Democrats would respond forcefully to the moral imperative of aiding the poor.
"The people who love their guns and love their faith, they care about this," Edwards says. "There is a deep abiding feeling of moral responsibility people have about those who are doing everything right and are still having a hard time."
Okay, okay, it's bound to be said that Edwards is making a shrewd political wager that Democrats have tired of capitulation. The test will be whether he sticks with it. It's a fair bet that someone who talks about a real moral issue for the next four years will at least be easier to listen to than politicians who place all their money on yesterday's focus groups.
Here's my problems with what appears to be Edwards' take on the situation:
1) he's afraid of the term--and by extension the concept and past achievements of--liberal politics and policy;
2) The "two Americas" and "we need to help those who are playing by the rules and still can't get ahead" rhetoric is Clinton-est which among other things may cause some people to wonder, hey, haven't we heard this before? Your party had eight years in the WH from '93-2000. Why are the rule-players still struggling?
3) He either doesn't understand, or cares not to address, the nature of the tragedy that is this administration's policies and supporters' agenda, namely, the "Right's" substantive war against the courts, civil liberties, the "wall" separating church and state, "liberals", and other deemed undesirables, by any means necessary, but particularly by consolidating media control and smothering dissent, academic and otherwise.
Yes, we need conviction in our candidates, but we also need an awareness and willingness to confront the country's greatest dangers.
Bulworth Says...
You cannot simultaneously brag that your favorite cable television "news" station is No. 1 while also crying that the media is conspiring against you...
I wished I had watched Nightline last night...
It's funny that somehow affiliation with the ACLU is accorded the kiss of death but affiliation with cabinet secretaries and interest groups who attack cartoon characters isn't...
Dear Christian "Right" Leaders and Members: when you attack cartoon characters you can't expect the public to respect you...
Suburban Guerilla and Steve Gilliard describe U.S. Senator George Allen (R-VA) to a tee...
Why did you think I was watching Trading Spaces for, anyway?
I wished I had watched Nightline last night...
It's funny that somehow affiliation with the ACLU is accorded the kiss of death but affiliation with cabinet secretaries and interest groups who attack cartoon characters isn't...
Dear Christian "Right" Leaders and Members: when you attack cartoon characters you can't expect the public to respect you...
Suburban Guerilla and Steve Gilliard describe U.S. Senator George Allen (R-VA) to a tee...
Why did you think I was watching Trading Spaces for, anyway?
Thursday, January 27, 2005
The '60's are Dead, Long Live the '60's!
To further understand the conservative agenda, one must recognize the true point of origin for its wrath--the decade that ushered in the end of hierarchy and conformity in American and world politics--the 1960's.
The 1960's are the conservatives' favorite whipping boy, the source of all that has gone wrong with the American experiment. The 1960's are the headline atop the great "backlash myth" as Thomas Frank explains it in What's Wrong With Kansas? , the holy grail of conservative politics.
Liberals must ask ourselves, and our conservative friends, why this is the case. Moral blowhards like William Bennett will be quick to point us to their narrowly constructed list of "moral indicators" and the "decline" of these factors that began when the evil 1960's unleashed their unvaunted rage and rebellion against God's America by protesting the Vietnam War, kicking God out of our schools, encouraging free love and hippy communes, and perhaps worst of all, daring to question the White Christian Male Right To Rule. During the 1960's, that unAmerican institution of "The Courts" began to be used to increase the rights available to all Americans when its executive and legislative institutions failed to respond.
But conservatives will undoubtedly point to things like, "well, teen pregnancy increased, out of wedlock births increased, divorces increased, school violence increased, drug use increased, marriages decreased, abortions increased, disrespect for authorities increased" and so on. For conservatives, America before the 1960's was heaven on earth, where peace, love, joy and unquestioning obedience to the powers that be existed, undisturbed by such ideas as social democracy, freedom of expression, opposition to unjust wars, civil rights, and diversity. Whatever America did on the world stage was perfect and holy. Americans and their institutions were godly and upright. Now, undoubtedly, some of these measures conservatives will recite will have some truth to them. But, as Donald Rumsfeld might say, "Hey, freedom and democracy are 'messy' ".
Now, as it happens, I wasn't birthed until 1966, so I can't speak from experience about the years before 1960. But, thankfully, history has managed to record a few things I think bring into question the great conservative claim about the pre-1960 era. There was slavery of course for the first 74 years of our constitutional history, segregation for the 100 years following that, and of course the violence and hatred needed to keep segregation in place.
Before the 1960's, if you're weren't a member of the state religion, you were ridiculed, harrassed, and forced to engage in religious worship anyway. The separation of church and state became a reality.
Before the 1960's, America's right to war was unquestioned, its moral superiority and "exceptionalism" in the world unchallenged by students, professors, or press alike.
Before the 1960's, women were relegated pretty much to the kitchen.
Before the 1960's, people of color didn't enjoy the same rights and protections as white Americans. At this point I'm tempted to say that blacks and other racial minorities contributed as much to society as whites in that they served and died in combat, paid taxes, and maintained families just as other Americans. But that would be to suggest that our rights are earned. I don't believe they are. Thomas Jefferson and many of the constitutional framers didn't believe that either (at least not when they were busy justifying their rebellion against British rule). They believed we were all endowed by our Creator with inaliable rights. For many Americans, this vision hadn't become a reality until the 1960's.
Before the 1960's, it wasn't "politically correct", to use a revived conservative concept, to speak out against the actions of government or those of certain groups where injustice, cruelty, and oppression were ignored or condoned. Now, it is (or until Faux News tell us it isn't).
Conservatives loved the pre-1960 era when they could do what they want and assume that everyone else would either agree with them or not question them if they didn't. Those days are over, and understandably, conservatives are angry.
But Bulworth says liberals should contest the conservatives' treatment of the 1960's and challenge the conservatives' attempts to roll back the clock on civil rights and democratic freedoms. Liberal should challenge attempts to demonize "rights", privacy, and the democratic use of the court system for what they are, conservatives' attempts to recreate their dominant past.
Bulworth says, tell the conservatives to get over the 1960's and recognize their day in the sun is over. When conservatives speak badly of our friend, the 1960's, remind them of what America was really like before then.
The 1960's rocked. So Bulworth says, tell the conservatives to stick it.
The 1960's are the conservatives' favorite whipping boy, the source of all that has gone wrong with the American experiment. The 1960's are the headline atop the great "backlash myth" as Thomas Frank explains it in What's Wrong With Kansas? , the holy grail of conservative politics.
Liberals must ask ourselves, and our conservative friends, why this is the case. Moral blowhards like William Bennett will be quick to point us to their narrowly constructed list of "moral indicators" and the "decline" of these factors that began when the evil 1960's unleashed their unvaunted rage and rebellion against God's America by protesting the Vietnam War, kicking God out of our schools, encouraging free love and hippy communes, and perhaps worst of all, daring to question the White Christian Male Right To Rule. During the 1960's, that unAmerican institution of "The Courts" began to be used to increase the rights available to all Americans when its executive and legislative institutions failed to respond.
But conservatives will undoubtedly point to things like, "well, teen pregnancy increased, out of wedlock births increased, divorces increased, school violence increased, drug use increased, marriages decreased, abortions increased, disrespect for authorities increased" and so on. For conservatives, America before the 1960's was heaven on earth, where peace, love, joy and unquestioning obedience to the powers that be existed, undisturbed by such ideas as social democracy, freedom of expression, opposition to unjust wars, civil rights, and diversity. Whatever America did on the world stage was perfect and holy. Americans and their institutions were godly and upright. Now, undoubtedly, some of these measures conservatives will recite will have some truth to them. But, as Donald Rumsfeld might say, "Hey, freedom and democracy are 'messy' ".
Now, as it happens, I wasn't birthed until 1966, so I can't speak from experience about the years before 1960. But, thankfully, history has managed to record a few things I think bring into question the great conservative claim about the pre-1960 era. There was slavery of course for the first 74 years of our constitutional history, segregation for the 100 years following that, and of course the violence and hatred needed to keep segregation in place.
Before the 1960's, if you're weren't a member of the state religion, you were ridiculed, harrassed, and forced to engage in religious worship anyway. The separation of church and state became a reality.
Before the 1960's, America's right to war was unquestioned, its moral superiority and "exceptionalism" in the world unchallenged by students, professors, or press alike.
Before the 1960's, women were relegated pretty much to the kitchen.
Before the 1960's, people of color didn't enjoy the same rights and protections as white Americans. At this point I'm tempted to say that blacks and other racial minorities contributed as much to society as whites in that they served and died in combat, paid taxes, and maintained families just as other Americans. But that would be to suggest that our rights are earned. I don't believe they are. Thomas Jefferson and many of the constitutional framers didn't believe that either (at least not when they were busy justifying their rebellion against British rule). They believed we were all endowed by our Creator with inaliable rights. For many Americans, this vision hadn't become a reality until the 1960's.
Before the 1960's, it wasn't "politically correct", to use a revived conservative concept, to speak out against the actions of government or those of certain groups where injustice, cruelty, and oppression were ignored or condoned. Now, it is (or until Faux News tell us it isn't).
Conservatives loved the pre-1960 era when they could do what they want and assume that everyone else would either agree with them or not question them if they didn't. Those days are over, and understandably, conservatives are angry.
But Bulworth says liberals should contest the conservatives' treatment of the 1960's and challenge the conservatives' attempts to roll back the clock on civil rights and democratic freedoms. Liberal should challenge attempts to demonize "rights", privacy, and the democratic use of the court system for what they are, conservatives' attempts to recreate their dominant past.
Bulworth says, tell the conservatives to get over the 1960's and recognize their day in the sun is over. When conservatives speak badly of our friend, the 1960's, remind them of what America was really like before then.
The 1960's rocked. So Bulworth says, tell the conservatives to stick it.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
The Problem Isn't Bush
I realize that coming from a die-hard, unapologetic liberal blogger, the above title may sound strange, but hear me out.
There's a passage or passages in the excellent David Herbert Donald biography of Abraham Lincoln where the President is listening to general McClellan time after time recite his various and always delayed plans to lauch attacks against cities in the South to which Lincoln increasingly and with ever more frustration responds by trying to get McClellan to recognize that he needs to direct his attacks against the real threat, the Confederate army.
As with McClellan's unwillingness to focus on the source of the Union's main threat from the South, I'm afraid that a lot of what has been passed off as Democratic Party strategy by its operatives and even by some Democratic leaning blogs has been I believe an inordinate focus on the words and actions of President Bush himself, and time staking analysis of current events, as opposed to the more serious and pervasive threat demonstrated by the conservative movement turned establishment itself.
There's lots of analysis on what's going wrong in Iraq from day to day, considerable parsing of the president's inaugural address, and so on. In the most recent presidential campaign, and underlying the Democrats' approach to campaigns generally, seems to be a haphard and uncertain preoccupation with opposing the president based on events as they develop rather than a more thorough and purposely communicated message to the public as to the problem with conservative policies and intentions themselves. This can be seen in the constant references, mostly by media observers, but accepted by some Democratic leaning bloggers as well, for the Democrats to come across "stronger" on national security and so-called "values" issues, to move to the center of the political arena, etc.
The problem isn't primarily the president, who I think we all realize by now isn't terribly interested in the affairs of government, but exists only to recite speeches prepared for him by zeolous staffers, to stuff the bureaucracy and court systems with conservative operatives (which is the same as would be carried out by any Republican president) and to carry on his family's name. The conservative establishment, it's authoritarian and undemocratic ambitions, and its malicious character sleezing and fear mongering appetite should be the most constant target of our (and hopefully the soon to be new Democratic Party heads as well) analysis, strategy, and communication.
Contrary to the chatter among the media that Democrats need to get more conservative, it is the conservative establishment itself that is the problem, and which must be opposed. This is why the Democrats cannot "move towards the center".
There's a passage or passages in the excellent David Herbert Donald biography of Abraham Lincoln where the President is listening to general McClellan time after time recite his various and always delayed plans to lauch attacks against cities in the South to which Lincoln increasingly and with ever more frustration responds by trying to get McClellan to recognize that he needs to direct his attacks against the real threat, the Confederate army.
As with McClellan's unwillingness to focus on the source of the Union's main threat from the South, I'm afraid that a lot of what has been passed off as Democratic Party strategy by its operatives and even by some Democratic leaning blogs has been I believe an inordinate focus on the words and actions of President Bush himself, and time staking analysis of current events, as opposed to the more serious and pervasive threat demonstrated by the conservative movement turned establishment itself.
There's lots of analysis on what's going wrong in Iraq from day to day, considerable parsing of the president's inaugural address, and so on. In the most recent presidential campaign, and underlying the Democrats' approach to campaigns generally, seems to be a haphard and uncertain preoccupation with opposing the president based on events as they develop rather than a more thorough and purposely communicated message to the public as to the problem with conservative policies and intentions themselves. This can be seen in the constant references, mostly by media observers, but accepted by some Democratic leaning bloggers as well, for the Democrats to come across "stronger" on national security and so-called "values" issues, to move to the center of the political arena, etc.
The problem isn't primarily the president, who I think we all realize by now isn't terribly interested in the affairs of government, but exists only to recite speeches prepared for him by zeolous staffers, to stuff the bureaucracy and court systems with conservative operatives (which is the same as would be carried out by any Republican president) and to carry on his family's name. The conservative establishment, it's authoritarian and undemocratic ambitions, and its malicious character sleezing and fear mongering appetite should be the most constant target of our (and hopefully the soon to be new Democratic Party heads as well) analysis, strategy, and communication.
Contrary to the chatter among the media that Democrats need to get more conservative, it is the conservative establishment itself that is the problem, and which must be opposed. This is why the Democrats cannot "move towards the center".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)