There’s a mini-cottage industry of people trying to figure out the Democratic version of “smaller government, lower taxes.” Lord knows I’ve tried. Here’s the thought of the day, a version of What We Stand For:
Peace, Freedom and Hope.
If we hammer all of our wonky positions into this frame, we’d get somewhere. No? Try it yourself and see.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Missing the Point on Schiavo
I don't think we'd be going down this road if Rove & Co. hadn't figured out the "win" strategy. And I think it's this: all the judges who rule "against life" will be used as the reason that the public has to get behind the upcoming slate of judges "who respect life."
And the media will promote the heck out of it, and the public will be herded into Rove's desired belief-print.
The other point that I think is strangely absent is the Bush brothers aspect: W is surely impelled by a sense of family loyalty to Jeb, who stuck his neck out (and perhaps pledged his honor to those poor parents) for this.
And the media will promote the heck out of it, and the public will be herded into Rove's desired belief-print.
The other point that I think is strangely absent is the Bush brothers aspect: W is surely impelled by a sense of family loyalty to Jeb, who stuck his neck out (and perhaps pledged his honor to those poor parents) for this.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
These Guys Have Some 'Splainin' To Do
Somewhere there are about 65,000 people in Ohio who have some 'splainin' to do.
We've witnessed a flurry of unwise and unpopular policy moves in just the last few days. We've decided that drilling in the acrtic wildlife preserves really is a good idea after all. We've decided that Amtrak is a useless drain on the taxpayers' resources and should be cut off. We've decided to saddle the UN with a US ambassador who is openly hostile to the UN's mission. We've decided that the World Bank should be led by a senior defense department official who'se judgment about foreign affairs has been startlingly bad for decades, and who has never shown the slightest interest in helping poor people around the world. We've decided that Americans who face financial ruin should be punished more, not less, except of course if they were previously very rich. We've decided that the rights of America's corporations are too important to leave to state-by-state experimentation when it comes to potential class liability for their screw-ups. We've found out that those injured by the negligence of America's corporations and wealthy individuals have been getting a free-ride and must stop. We've also discovered that the best source of judicial nominees is the pool of already-rejected nominees.
And that's just in the last week or two.
Now, almost all of this stuff is wildly unpopular. And, almost all of this stuff is what the losers of the 2004 election said would happen if they lost. And yet, some 65,000 people in Ohio (and, oh, many millions more elsewhere) voted for this any way. Maybe they thought it was like voting on American Idol, where it didn't really matter. Or viting for a favorite flavor of ice cream. Or student council president. Or something else where the vote was disconnected from real world consequences.
Who knows what millions of voters "thought." What I know is that our country has been betrayed by nothing so much as its own citizens giving themselves permission to ignore reality.
Before too long, the Social Security debate will devolve into something about tax fairness, and then Bush will drop the other bomb, as he promised he would in the election. He will propose a tax overhaul that will place more of the burden of paying for government on those that can least afford it, while giving those with the most means even more wealth and even less responsibility for taking care of their fellow citizens. And it will be deeply unpopular. Just like Social Security Benefit Cuts has been.
And the press will all scratch their heads wondering why so many people voted for the president and then are diappointed when he acts as he said he would. Is it their desire for "split government" (a fabled cunard that we had to deal with while the Dems held the WH). Is it they trust him on the big issues, and don't really object all that much to these policy choices? Is it that they are really conservative in name only? Oh, Timmy R. and company will really scratch their heads. But the answer seems to me quite simple: too many Americans are uninterested and self-deceiving about what's happened to this country, and are unwilling to admit that the political leadership of this country is deeply corrosive and serves only the interests of the very rich.
We've witnessed a flurry of unwise and unpopular policy moves in just the last few days. We've decided that drilling in the acrtic wildlife preserves really is a good idea after all. We've decided that Amtrak is a useless drain on the taxpayers' resources and should be cut off. We've decided to saddle the UN with a US ambassador who is openly hostile to the UN's mission. We've decided that the World Bank should be led by a senior defense department official who'se judgment about foreign affairs has been startlingly bad for decades, and who has never shown the slightest interest in helping poor people around the world. We've decided that Americans who face financial ruin should be punished more, not less, except of course if they were previously very rich. We've decided that the rights of America's corporations are too important to leave to state-by-state experimentation when it comes to potential class liability for their screw-ups. We've found out that those injured by the negligence of America's corporations and wealthy individuals have been getting a free-ride and must stop. We've also discovered that the best source of judicial nominees is the pool of already-rejected nominees.
And that's just in the last week or two.
Now, almost all of this stuff is wildly unpopular. And, almost all of this stuff is what the losers of the 2004 election said would happen if they lost. And yet, some 65,000 people in Ohio (and, oh, many millions more elsewhere) voted for this any way. Maybe they thought it was like voting on American Idol, where it didn't really matter. Or viting for a favorite flavor of ice cream. Or student council president. Or something else where the vote was disconnected from real world consequences.
Who knows what millions of voters "thought." What I know is that our country has been betrayed by nothing so much as its own citizens giving themselves permission to ignore reality.
Before too long, the Social Security debate will devolve into something about tax fairness, and then Bush will drop the other bomb, as he promised he would in the election. He will propose a tax overhaul that will place more of the burden of paying for government on those that can least afford it, while giving those with the most means even more wealth and even less responsibility for taking care of their fellow citizens. And it will be deeply unpopular. Just like Social Security Benefit Cuts has been.
And the press will all scratch their heads wondering why so many people voted for the president and then are diappointed when he acts as he said he would. Is it their desire for "split government" (a fabled cunard that we had to deal with while the Dems held the WH). Is it they trust him on the big issues, and don't really object all that much to these policy choices? Is it that they are really conservative in name only? Oh, Timmy R. and company will really scratch their heads. But the answer seems to me quite simple: too many Americans are uninterested and self-deceiving about what's happened to this country, and are unwilling to admit that the political leadership of this country is deeply corrosive and serves only the interests of the very rich.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Meanwhile…A Cure for What Ails Us
I’ve taken a break to deal with some serious personal stuff the last few weeks. If you knew, you’d understand (which you will any way – I hereby command you as the World Most Reasonable Man to do so).
Any hoo…
I’ve spent a non-trivial amount of time thinking about politics and government. I even joined my local Democratic “club.” (A dangerous step on the road to Actual Action, I know, I know.)
As anyone who has read my stuff knows, I am passionately convinced that the key to our electoral failures lies in our failure to provide meaningful leadership. Of course, we’ve been correct in all our arguments (well, most of them, any way). We’ve presented bright, experienced and appealing candidates (OK, just go with me here). But we have wholly failed to demonstrate enough voters that we have real leadership ability.
Right now, we are as reactive as Republicans ever were. We have an agenda free of meaningful ideas and littered with half-measures on the margins, the political equivalent of pushing peas around on your plate. We are tied down with preserving our past victories against the onslaught of the Evil Repubs. All of which is, of course, fine by them.
To break the current cycle (which I’ve thought of as our “wondering in the woods” period, which seemed to do Jesus a world of good), we need, of course, a charismatic leader or two. Our Ronald Reagan as it were (but hopefully not evil).
The other thing we need to move forward is to get off of defense and go on offense by staking out issues that lead us forward. Rather than chasing voters with issues we think they’ll they like, we need to unveil new ideas that we think voters will gravitate toward, both from the left and the right. We have to make them want to like us. We can’t talk them into it.
For us to be the rulers, we must convince people that we are real leaders. Think about where we are today. Bush’s ideas are unquestionably out of step with a majority of voters. (So says the NY Times in a recent poll). Logically, for Bush to have won re-election, he had to have millions of voters vote against any rational definition of their own self-interest.
And yet they did. Think about that. Why would people do that? One part of the explanation, no doubt, is the extent to which people are horribly misinformed about what Bush actually has done and has said he’ll do. But what I heard over and over in the run-up to the election is that Bush is resolute, says what he means and means what he says, and won’t waver in his commitment.
And in fact, that is the Bush campaign’s own meme. Not that if Bush is elected he’ll find Osama. Or he’ll whack your social security benefits. Or raise your taxes (he will, just wait). Or embarrass our Canadian friends. Or bully our European allies. No, those things weren’t front and center.
Character. Strength. Resolute. Won’t waiver. Straight-shooter. All these things are what they wanted to telegraph into voters’ skulls, and they were (by my lights) plenty successful.
In fact, though a reasonably hard-core progressive liberal, I have found myself attracted to Bush’s aura of strength. And why not? It’s appealing. Too bad it’s in the cause of evil and not good.
John Kerry was certainly by any measure a strong man. Downright muscular for a 60 something year old guy. And I think in many ways he did project leadership.
But I think he was ill-served by his party’s agenda (and here we can put aside the notion that he likely had it in his power to redefine that agenda). His agenda was primarily that Bush is a failure (which of course he is), and if elected, I (Kerry) will be successful.
But he did not stake out any bold new ideas that voters connected with. What would we as voters get if we voted for Kerry? A more accommodating posture viz. our allies? Many more incremental government programs to help address our loss of economic competitiveness? Lower deficits? Higher taxes on the rich?
None of these are things voters can relate to on a gut level. (And watch out, because here’s the other Big Insight.) To succeed, we need to take positions that voters connect with on a basic emotional level. I can just about hear John Kerry saying, “How about sending your kid to college? Can you connect with that? Because I’m going to help you do that.” Or, “How about affordable health care? Is that something basic enough? Because I’ve got a plan to make sure we cover most of the Americans not currently covered by health insurance.”
Blah. And I’m one of his most ardent supporters!
Bill Clinton used to talk about the need to understand “gateway” issues. In his book he writes eloquently (the whole thing is quite eloquent in my view) about how the voters would never take him seriously about the 1001 government programs he wanted to implement until they were convinced he wasn’t going to spend them out of house and home. And that meant convincing them that his #1 priority was getting the federal budget deficit under control. And in office, he made sure to produce a plan that would deliver on that promise from the get-go. And deliver he did (over the screaming protests of the (almost-always-wrong) Repubs).
Now the federal deficit is back. And the winner of our next presidential election will surely promote his or her plan to reduce that deficit. I’m not sure if this is the issue we should put at the center of our agenda, but it’s certainly up there.
But the larger point is that we will surely be losers if we don’t build the emotional subtext to support that (or any other) policy position. The Repubs subtext is so clear that it ain’t so “sub” any more: bad people who are different than you think you’re a boob and want to take your freedom away because they think they know what’s good for you better than you do.
What’s ours? It seems to me that it ought to be something like, “Hey, we’re all in this together, and we need to make some decisions and share some resources so we can be there for each other when we need it. And someone has to watch the bosses.” Of course, I’m sure there are professionals who could do much better. Actually, at age 44 and a varied career across several industries, I’m pretty sure a professional would do no better. Either way…
Repubs have developed a talking point around taxes that is in many ways the defining issue for their subtext. All taxes are bad, because they allow evil government bureaucrats in far away places to decide what’s best for you. Besides, they just piss the money away on fraud and waste, and payments to people too stupid not to need help.
So I think I’ve come up with an issue that will allow us to start telegraphing our position. (Can anyone say, “drop the dead donkey?”)
Civil service reform.
This issue has been a fruitful area for well over a hundred years. If we don’t grab it, they will. Here’s how it would work. We would be appalled, shocked and appalled I tell you, at the amazing inefficiency of the government at all levels under the Repub’s watch. (We should probably just own up to, or ignore, our own role in devising the system.) Can anyone else hear Professor Harold Hill’s song about “Pool with a capital P” in their head?
We would then get every single Democrat in the country to start espousing the need for the following simple program: introduction into the civil service of the basic evaluation tools of private enterprise at all levels. We would call for bonuses for the top, say, 5% of performers, and remedial action leading to termination for the bottom 10%, with raises and promotions for everyone else depending on their reviews.
I can’t see how anyone could really be against this. Of course, I can imagine constituents on our side, notably those who in fact labor for the taxpayers, being anywhere from deeply concerned to outraged by this. OK, so right there, that’s benefit one. Having corps of civil servants righteously mad at us will get us at least a million new net voters. Don’t forget, as much as this proposal may irk these government worker-voters, we are likely to keep a lot of them any way. And those we lose we may well have lost in any case.
But to me this position has many additional benefits. First of course is the introduction (OK, a lot of this may already be place), of the same system of sticks and carrots that so many voters face in their work lives -- the direct policy benefit. Second, it equates government workers with all other workers, a door which swings both ways. In other words, if the government workers should be managed the same as me, maybe they are not in fact evil aliens from planet Tax’n’Spend who want to take my gun or my bible. Maybe they're just a bit like me after all.
Third, it massively shifts the discussion onto territory that is good for us – the government. It puts the working of the government at the center of our thinking. And that is a good thing for our society, and not half-bad for the Dems. We should be all about making the government deliver real value for the voters. That is, after all, what it is for. Plus its terrific politics.
Finally, it would put us on the offensive while putting the Repubs in the not-very-enviable position of having to argue against it. And, heaven forfend if they join us, we will have improved government while showing leadership. Nothin’ wrong with that. Declare victory and move on to the next one.
I would introduce another similar issue. Call it “Salary and Wage Fairness.” (Add/delete some synonyms, play with the initials and maybe we can get a catchy acronym out of it.) The idea is to call for legislation requiring that in all companies, the total pay of the CEO may be no more than 20 times the total pay of the least compensated employee.
There are probably about a thousand sharp edges to this one, maybe some fatal. We'll see. First, as one who at least completed law school, there are likely jurisdictional limits on what the government can do here. But surely we could get at federal and state contractors and others who receive direct government benefits. In fact, why couldn’t we reach the same companies who are reached by the minimum wage law? Just askin’.
Second, there will undoubtedly be problems with figuring out what any given individual’s pay actually is. Options, health club fees, employee cafeteria’s, etc. So many challenges, so little time!
A third concern is the very real prospect that potential CEO talent will refuse to serve in companies affected by this law. Actually, I’m not troubled by this one at all. I don’t think our current CEO class has performed all that admirably, do you? And in my experience, most CEO’s come to the job rich as Croceus in the first place. Maybe some CEO’s who actually need the money is exactly what our businesses need.
There are universities and governments all over the place that labor under this kind of wage ratio restriction. For all I know there are companies too who already live by this.
I’d think we’d be able to get a bunch of shareholder rights types like TIAA-CREF on board. Most importantly, it’s hard to see the downside here. I love the prospect of putting Repubs in the totally-not-enviable position of defending astronomical CEO pay. Or, conversely, horribly underpaying our lowest paid people. Either way, we win.
These are the sort of “wedge issues” we should be exploring.
Two more quick thoughts:
We on the left
1. need to start a dialog with the business community about globalization, focusing on two main points. One is health care. We should make the lack of access to affordable health care a key point in our thinking about globalization. Our competitors in Europe and Asia are beating us on this, one of the largest costs most businesses face.
The other point we need to start to talking to businesses about is energy independence. American businesses are too dependent on cheap foreign oil, and that has got to stop.
2. Which leads me into #2. We need to develop our next technology-leading businesses, and the area most ripe is alternative energy, which is already attracting billions of investment capital. We can be the world leaders on this, giving us not only lots of jobs as this industry grows and prospers, but giving all American businesses a leading-edge advantage in the use of cheaper and better energy supplies.
All of these issues, however, have to be positioned into a narrative that the government is not some far-away foreign influence, but is our chance to do the right thing for ourselves and for us to be the boss for once.
Another post coming soon on Things We Agree On. (Hint: there are more than you think!)
Any hoo…
I’ve spent a non-trivial amount of time thinking about politics and government. I even joined my local Democratic “club.” (A dangerous step on the road to Actual Action, I know, I know.)
As anyone who has read my stuff knows, I am passionately convinced that the key to our electoral failures lies in our failure to provide meaningful leadership. Of course, we’ve been correct in all our arguments (well, most of them, any way). We’ve presented bright, experienced and appealing candidates (OK, just go with me here). But we have wholly failed to demonstrate enough voters that we have real leadership ability.
Right now, we are as reactive as Republicans ever were. We have an agenda free of meaningful ideas and littered with half-measures on the margins, the political equivalent of pushing peas around on your plate. We are tied down with preserving our past victories against the onslaught of the Evil Repubs. All of which is, of course, fine by them.
To break the current cycle (which I’ve thought of as our “wondering in the woods” period, which seemed to do Jesus a world of good), we need, of course, a charismatic leader or two. Our Ronald Reagan as it were (but hopefully not evil).
The other thing we need to move forward is to get off of defense and go on offense by staking out issues that lead us forward. Rather than chasing voters with issues we think they’ll they like, we need to unveil new ideas that we think voters will gravitate toward, both from the left and the right. We have to make them want to like us. We can’t talk them into it.
For us to be the rulers, we must convince people that we are real leaders. Think about where we are today. Bush’s ideas are unquestionably out of step with a majority of voters. (So says the NY Times in a recent poll). Logically, for Bush to have won re-election, he had to have millions of voters vote against any rational definition of their own self-interest.
And yet they did. Think about that. Why would people do that? One part of the explanation, no doubt, is the extent to which people are horribly misinformed about what Bush actually has done and has said he’ll do. But what I heard over and over in the run-up to the election is that Bush is resolute, says what he means and means what he says, and won’t waver in his commitment.
And in fact, that is the Bush campaign’s own meme. Not that if Bush is elected he’ll find Osama. Or he’ll whack your social security benefits. Or raise your taxes (he will, just wait). Or embarrass our Canadian friends. Or bully our European allies. No, those things weren’t front and center.
Character. Strength. Resolute. Won’t waiver. Straight-shooter. All these things are what they wanted to telegraph into voters’ skulls, and they were (by my lights) plenty successful.
In fact, though a reasonably hard-core progressive liberal, I have found myself attracted to Bush’s aura of strength. And why not? It’s appealing. Too bad it’s in the cause of evil and not good.
John Kerry was certainly by any measure a strong man. Downright muscular for a 60 something year old guy. And I think in many ways he did project leadership.
But I think he was ill-served by his party’s agenda (and here we can put aside the notion that he likely had it in his power to redefine that agenda). His agenda was primarily that Bush is a failure (which of course he is), and if elected, I (Kerry) will be successful.
But he did not stake out any bold new ideas that voters connected with. What would we as voters get if we voted for Kerry? A more accommodating posture viz. our allies? Many more incremental government programs to help address our loss of economic competitiveness? Lower deficits? Higher taxes on the rich?
None of these are things voters can relate to on a gut level. (And watch out, because here’s the other Big Insight.) To succeed, we need to take positions that voters connect with on a basic emotional level. I can just about hear John Kerry saying, “How about sending your kid to college? Can you connect with that? Because I’m going to help you do that.” Or, “How about affordable health care? Is that something basic enough? Because I’ve got a plan to make sure we cover most of the Americans not currently covered by health insurance.”
Blah. And I’m one of his most ardent supporters!
Bill Clinton used to talk about the need to understand “gateway” issues. In his book he writes eloquently (the whole thing is quite eloquent in my view) about how the voters would never take him seriously about the 1001 government programs he wanted to implement until they were convinced he wasn’t going to spend them out of house and home. And that meant convincing them that his #1 priority was getting the federal budget deficit under control. And in office, he made sure to produce a plan that would deliver on that promise from the get-go. And deliver he did (over the screaming protests of the (almost-always-wrong) Repubs).
Now the federal deficit is back. And the winner of our next presidential election will surely promote his or her plan to reduce that deficit. I’m not sure if this is the issue we should put at the center of our agenda, but it’s certainly up there.
But the larger point is that we will surely be losers if we don’t build the emotional subtext to support that (or any other) policy position. The Repubs subtext is so clear that it ain’t so “sub” any more: bad people who are different than you think you’re a boob and want to take your freedom away because they think they know what’s good for you better than you do.
What’s ours? It seems to me that it ought to be something like, “Hey, we’re all in this together, and we need to make some decisions and share some resources so we can be there for each other when we need it. And someone has to watch the bosses.” Of course, I’m sure there are professionals who could do much better. Actually, at age 44 and a varied career across several industries, I’m pretty sure a professional would do no better. Either way…
Repubs have developed a talking point around taxes that is in many ways the defining issue for their subtext. All taxes are bad, because they allow evil government bureaucrats in far away places to decide what’s best for you. Besides, they just piss the money away on fraud and waste, and payments to people too stupid not to need help.
So I think I’ve come up with an issue that will allow us to start telegraphing our position. (Can anyone say, “drop the dead donkey?”)
Civil service reform.
This issue has been a fruitful area for well over a hundred years. If we don’t grab it, they will. Here’s how it would work. We would be appalled, shocked and appalled I tell you, at the amazing inefficiency of the government at all levels under the Repub’s watch. (We should probably just own up to, or ignore, our own role in devising the system.) Can anyone else hear Professor Harold Hill’s song about “Pool with a capital P” in their head?
We would then get every single Democrat in the country to start espousing the need for the following simple program: introduction into the civil service of the basic evaluation tools of private enterprise at all levels. We would call for bonuses for the top, say, 5% of performers, and remedial action leading to termination for the bottom 10%, with raises and promotions for everyone else depending on their reviews.
I can’t see how anyone could really be against this. Of course, I can imagine constituents on our side, notably those who in fact labor for the taxpayers, being anywhere from deeply concerned to outraged by this. OK, so right there, that’s benefit one. Having corps of civil servants righteously mad at us will get us at least a million new net voters. Don’t forget, as much as this proposal may irk these government worker-voters, we are likely to keep a lot of them any way. And those we lose we may well have lost in any case.
But to me this position has many additional benefits. First of course is the introduction (OK, a lot of this may already be place), of the same system of sticks and carrots that so many voters face in their work lives -- the direct policy benefit. Second, it equates government workers with all other workers, a door which swings both ways. In other words, if the government workers should be managed the same as me, maybe they are not in fact evil aliens from planet Tax’n’Spend who want to take my gun or my bible. Maybe they're just a bit like me after all.
Third, it massively shifts the discussion onto territory that is good for us – the government. It puts the working of the government at the center of our thinking. And that is a good thing for our society, and not half-bad for the Dems. We should be all about making the government deliver real value for the voters. That is, after all, what it is for. Plus its terrific politics.
Finally, it would put us on the offensive while putting the Repubs in the not-very-enviable position of having to argue against it. And, heaven forfend if they join us, we will have improved government while showing leadership. Nothin’ wrong with that. Declare victory and move on to the next one.
I would introduce another similar issue. Call it “Salary and Wage Fairness.” (Add/delete some synonyms, play with the initials and maybe we can get a catchy acronym out of it.) The idea is to call for legislation requiring that in all companies, the total pay of the CEO may be no more than 20 times the total pay of the least compensated employee.
There are probably about a thousand sharp edges to this one, maybe some fatal. We'll see. First, as one who at least completed law school, there are likely jurisdictional limits on what the government can do here. But surely we could get at federal and state contractors and others who receive direct government benefits. In fact, why couldn’t we reach the same companies who are reached by the minimum wage law? Just askin’.
Second, there will undoubtedly be problems with figuring out what any given individual’s pay actually is. Options, health club fees, employee cafeteria’s, etc. So many challenges, so little time!
A third concern is the very real prospect that potential CEO talent will refuse to serve in companies affected by this law. Actually, I’m not troubled by this one at all. I don’t think our current CEO class has performed all that admirably, do you? And in my experience, most CEO’s come to the job rich as Croceus in the first place. Maybe some CEO’s who actually need the money is exactly what our businesses need.
There are universities and governments all over the place that labor under this kind of wage ratio restriction. For all I know there are companies too who already live by this.
I’d think we’d be able to get a bunch of shareholder rights types like TIAA-CREF on board. Most importantly, it’s hard to see the downside here. I love the prospect of putting Repubs in the totally-not-enviable position of defending astronomical CEO pay. Or, conversely, horribly underpaying our lowest paid people. Either way, we win.
These are the sort of “wedge issues” we should be exploring.
Two more quick thoughts:
We on the left
1. need to start a dialog with the business community about globalization, focusing on two main points. One is health care. We should make the lack of access to affordable health care a key point in our thinking about globalization. Our competitors in Europe and Asia are beating us on this, one of the largest costs most businesses face.
The other point we need to start to talking to businesses about is energy independence. American businesses are too dependent on cheap foreign oil, and that has got to stop.
2. Which leads me into #2. We need to develop our next technology-leading businesses, and the area most ripe is alternative energy, which is already attracting billions of investment capital. We can be the world leaders on this, giving us not only lots of jobs as this industry grows and prospers, but giving all American businesses a leading-edge advantage in the use of cheaper and better energy supplies.
All of these issues, however, have to be positioned into a narrative that the government is not some far-away foreign influence, but is our chance to do the right thing for ourselves and for us to be the boss for once.
Another post coming soon on Things We Agree On. (Hint: there are more than you think!)
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
And While We're At It
And while we're reframing the debate, here's a meme I never hear, and I don't know why.
According to the President's party, the economy is "strong and getting stronger." Things are going great, economically, for our country. Jobs, investments, wages -- all good.
So what's with the austerity budget then? Why in the middle of such a great economy are we looking at drastic cuts for virtually everything not going to Halliburton?
The President has proposed what can only be called an auterity budget, of the type one might expect to see in particulaly tough economic times. Why? Are we not doing as well as he says? Or is he just mean? Timmy, what say you -- wanna ask a question?
According to the President's party, the economy is "strong and getting stronger." Things are going great, economically, for our country. Jobs, investments, wages -- all good.
So what's with the austerity budget then? Why in the middle of such a great economy are we looking at drastic cuts for virtually everything not going to Halliburton?
The President has proposed what can only be called an auterity budget, of the type one might expect to see in particulaly tough economic times. Why? Are we not doing as well as he says? Or is he just mean? Timmy, what say you -- wanna ask a question?
Real Talking Points -- All Aboard!
Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh surely has the right idea:
So, bloggers, let's get on it.
By not demanding that the President put his cards on the table, aren't we taking the bait on this one? Anyone remember Wiley E. Coyote on the branch of the tree, sawing away? All our constant and detailed deconstruction of "privatization" is just giving the President a roadmap to success.
Here's a thought. How 'bout we shut up, and start demanding that Mr. Bush level with us. What is he proposing, exactly? Stop playing games, Mr. President, with our hopes and fears for the future, and come clean.
Here's an oratorical hint: imply that the President is hiding something (he is). Words/phrases that we should use: come clean, level, tell the truth, stop hiding, playing games, whack-a-mole, secret, hidden, agenda, deceptive, scare tactics, etc.
Our frame, if you will, is that this is another instance of the President taking a position which proves controversial, then reverses himself in face of political pressure. The flip-flopper. The poll-follower. (Back story: Providing health insurance to needy Texas children, nation building, stretching military too thin, Department of Homeland Security, 9/11 Commission, Condi Rice's testimony, finding bin Ladn, will seek UN vote, deficits are good/bad, etc.) Bush is weak, without principles, inept, hapless, utterly without a clue.
Surely this would be a great deal more fun than another 2,500 words on why the latest revisions from the Association of American Acturarials show that the trust fund won't hit the cashflow breakeven point 'til 2024, and not as we had thought 2018? We are totally bogged down in fighting a plan that the President can disavow, and can use to pivot to something else that he has clearly indicated he will pursue: raising taxes on the poor (which he calls "tax reform," a phrase we should be allergic to).
So from here on out, no more 'splainin' about how horrible the President's plan is. Mission accomplished, folks. Let's have a single meme out there on SS: Tell us the truth Mr. President: What are you proposing?
Let's use the power of the blogosphere to focus our fire on a single thing, and maybe we can move the debate (and our society) forward a bit.
Shouldn't his critics just be saying over and over: level with the public? Tell
them what you want to do to Social Security.
So, bloggers, let's get on it.
By not demanding that the President put his cards on the table, aren't we taking the bait on this one? Anyone remember Wiley E. Coyote on the branch of the tree, sawing away? All our constant and detailed deconstruction of "privatization" is just giving the President a roadmap to success.
Here's a thought. How 'bout we shut up, and start demanding that Mr. Bush level with us. What is he proposing, exactly? Stop playing games, Mr. President, with our hopes and fears for the future, and come clean.
Here's an oratorical hint: imply that the President is hiding something (he is). Words/phrases that we should use: come clean, level, tell the truth, stop hiding, playing games, whack-a-mole, secret, hidden, agenda, deceptive, scare tactics, etc.
Our frame, if you will, is that this is another instance of the President taking a position which proves controversial, then reverses himself in face of political pressure. The flip-flopper. The poll-follower. (Back story: Providing health insurance to needy Texas children, nation building, stretching military too thin, Department of Homeland Security, 9/11 Commission, Condi Rice's testimony, finding bin Ladn, will seek UN vote, deficits are good/bad, etc.) Bush is weak, without principles, inept, hapless, utterly without a clue.
Surely this would be a great deal more fun than another 2,500 words on why the latest revisions from the Association of American Acturarials show that the trust fund won't hit the cashflow breakeven point 'til 2024, and not as we had thought 2018? We are totally bogged down in fighting a plan that the President can disavow, and can use to pivot to something else that he has clearly indicated he will pursue: raising taxes on the poor (which he calls "tax reform," a phrase we should be allergic to).
So from here on out, no more 'splainin' about how horrible the President's plan is. Mission accomplished, folks. Let's have a single meme out there on SS: Tell us the truth Mr. President: What are you proposing?
Let's use the power of the blogosphere to focus our fire on a single thing, and maybe we can move the debate (and our society) forward a bit.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Defeat on Page A8
The Washington Post lets everybody know that the President’s idea to invade Iraq was a bonehead move, as predicted by everyone with a brain:
In this Era of Accountability, it’s nice to know that when the President stakes his reputation on something, it doesn’t really matter because if he turns out to be tragically and needlessly wrong, it’ll go straight down the memory hole.
Thanks, So-Called Main Stream Media! Hope you guys sleep well!
Here’s the Reasonable Man Headline:
“Iraqi Election Results Doom US Goals for Military Intervention.”
And CNN could scroll: …Iraqi election results in Shiite government…Shiites aligned with Iran against the US…Iran already possesses nuclear weapons…US intervention appears to backfire grievously…
OK, that last one may be a bit over the top…But the rest? I don’t think so… You tell me!
When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq two years ago, it envisioned a quick handover to handpicked allies in a secular government that would be the antithesis of Iran's theocracy -- potentially even a foil to Tehran's regional ambitions.
But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base -- and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy -- $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts say.
In this Era of Accountability, it’s nice to know that when the President stakes his reputation on something, it doesn’t really matter because if he turns out to be tragically and needlessly wrong, it’ll go straight down the memory hole.
Thanks, So-Called Main Stream Media! Hope you guys sleep well!
Here’s the Reasonable Man Headline:
“Iraqi Election Results Doom US Goals for Military Intervention.”
And CNN could scroll: …Iraqi election results in Shiite government…Shiites aligned with Iran against the US…Iran already possesses nuclear weapons…US intervention appears to backfire grievously…
OK, that last one may be a bit over the top…But the rest? I don’t think so… You tell me!
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Most Lucid Man on the Planet Speaks
Matt Yglesias, the Most Lucid Man on the Planet, devotes another zillion words to proving to even the most unwilling mind that the President's Social Security Privitization scheme is bunk.
Read if you must.
My own view is that we have so thoroughly debunked the scheme, it's time to move into the "real agenda" phase. In other words, let's treat this like an investigation following what is an obvious cover-up. What is the President's real motive? What is he trying to do? Is it simply the destruction of a popular program that tends to create Democrats by the million? Is it an effort to destroy the creditworthiness of the United States of America so he can just legislate his debts away?
The President clearly did not like Saddam Hussein, and wanted to teach him a lesson for the benefit of all the guys the President did not like. That's my surmise of the President's "Real "Agenda" in Iraq. But here, for me at least, the jury is still out.
And I think it is way past time our discussion moved off the question of "just how bogus is this plan" to "why are our elected officials promoting a clear and obvious lie?"
Read if you must.
My own view is that we have so thoroughly debunked the scheme, it's time to move into the "real agenda" phase. In other words, let's treat this like an investigation following what is an obvious cover-up. What is the President's real motive? What is he trying to do? Is it simply the destruction of a popular program that tends to create Democrats by the million? Is it an effort to destroy the creditworthiness of the United States of America so he can just legislate his debts away?
The President clearly did not like Saddam Hussein, and wanted to teach him a lesson for the benefit of all the guys the President did not like. That's my surmise of the President's "Real "Agenda" in Iraq. But here, for me at least, the jury is still out.
And I think it is way past time our discussion moved off the question of "just how bogus is this plan" to "why are our elected officials promoting a clear and obvious lie?"
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Dean's In -- Kos says Let's Get His Back.
If we're serious about victory, we need to give Dr. Dean a lot of money. If you have any, please give it to him. He'll use it to make Republicans appear as they are -- ridiculous.
It's the reasonable thing to do.
It's the reasonable thing to do.
Richard Clarke's Al Quaida Warning To Rice
What jumps out at me from Clarke's memo is his resisting the new administration's plan to review the threats to the US on a region by region basis. Clarke points out that this very template will be the cause of Al Quaida slipping through the cracks.
The reason this pops out at me is that it is indicative of the Bush administration's approach to its entire rule: they have a template for analysis, and we will make everything conform to that template, experts and evidence be damned. In their minds, it is how strong leadership is implemented, and to them (and me), the American people want just one thing from GWB: strong leadership. Policy and results be damned.
If you look carefully, you'll see this same approach over and over again. It is a way of being out in front of issues, rather than responding to them, which in Bush land is the weakest form of leadership -- and sadly for us, the Democrats specialty.
Bush & Co. figured out a while back that the public wants a government that seems to know what it's doing. When all we can do is react to unfolding events, they are setting a positive agenda. Until we start to do the same (but obviously in the name of good, not evil), we will remain in the opposition.
The reason this pops out at me is that it is indicative of the Bush administration's approach to its entire rule: they have a template for analysis, and we will make everything conform to that template, experts and evidence be damned. In their minds, it is how strong leadership is implemented, and to them (and me), the American people want just one thing from GWB: strong leadership. Policy and results be damned.
If you look carefully, you'll see this same approach over and over again. It is a way of being out in front of issues, rather than responding to them, which in Bush land is the weakest form of leadership -- and sadly for us, the Democrats specialty.
Bush & Co. figured out a while back that the public wants a government that seems to know what it's doing. When all we can do is react to unfolding events, they are setting a positive agenda. Until we start to do the same (but obviously in the name of good, not evil), we will remain in the opposition.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Maybe Not So Bad
It's a bright spring-like day here in NYC, enough to make one think that hope is indeed not gone.
Friday, February 04, 2005
Bush has got to be the worst financial advisor ever
From today's Krugman:
There. That's pretty easy to understand, isn't it? Protect your future by buying stocks on margin.
[T]he logic of Bush-style Social Security privatization: it is, in effect, as if your financial adviser told you that you wouldn't have enough money when you retire - but you shouldn't save more. Instead, you should borrow a lot of money, buy stocks and hope for capital gains.
There. That's pretty easy to understand, isn't it? Protect your future by buying stocks on margin.
Dear Dr. Dobson
Dear Dr. Dobson,
I am writing to let you know my views about you and your organization.
I take you to be a purveyor of hatred and bigotry. Your entire agenda depends upon protecting children and families from various threats. You set yourself up as victims of a press attack against “those of us who care about defending children.” Are there people somewhere that don’t care about defending children? Why would anyone attack you or anyone else for defending children. Obviously, you use phrases like “defending children” and “Focus on Family” to obscure your real message.
Which is a message of fear and hatred. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You claim to be unfairly maligned by being accused of saying SpongeBob is gay. And of course, that’s not what you said. Nor is that why you’re being vilified. You’re being vilified because you preach of philosophy of hatred – hatred of gay people, hatred of people who support and defend their fellow humans’ right to live as they wish, hatred of those who wish to ensure equality of the sexes, hatred of those who do not share your radical views on reproductive health, people who in general are full of love and respect.
Instead, you seem to embrace those who enforce a rigid ideology that can only be described a Puritannical. Dr. Dobson, we have had to live with fools (charlatans, really, as I bet a vow of poverty is not in your lexicon) since we left Europe 500 hundred years ago. Your kind have enjoyed intermittent periods of ascendancy, typically during dark periods where fear was prevalent. Unfortunately, our leaders have discovered how profitable it can be to spread fear, and there is quite a bit of it about.
But in the end, hope always prevails. If you look at our history – indeed human history – you cannot help but see that in the end, the forces of hope and love always triumph over the forces of fear and hatred. And the reason is simple: God’s love is in each and every one of us, and no matter how much you try to convince your followers that God doesn’t love gay people, or people who stand against oppression and unfairness, or who stand up for the least amongst us, your mission will fail. Indeed, I know that in your heart it is already failed: deep down, you know the truth. Gay people aren’t evil. Children raised by two loving moms or two loving dads will be fine, and our society’s need for population growth will be satisfied. Why, that’s what MTV’s all about!
I wanted to write you because, come the judgment day, I do not want it to be said that I sat idly by while the Pharisees peddled their hate. I want the world to know that at least I tried to call you to account.
For all the unhappiness you have created and brought into this world needlessly, I hope you reap what you sow.
I am writing to let you know my views about you and your organization.
I take you to be a purveyor of hatred and bigotry. Your entire agenda depends upon protecting children and families from various threats. You set yourself up as victims of a press attack against “those of us who care about defending children.” Are there people somewhere that don’t care about defending children? Why would anyone attack you or anyone else for defending children. Obviously, you use phrases like “defending children” and “Focus on Family” to obscure your real message.
Which is a message of fear and hatred. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You claim to be unfairly maligned by being accused of saying SpongeBob is gay. And of course, that’s not what you said. Nor is that why you’re being vilified. You’re being vilified because you preach of philosophy of hatred – hatred of gay people, hatred of people who support and defend their fellow humans’ right to live as they wish, hatred of those who wish to ensure equality of the sexes, hatred of those who do not share your radical views on reproductive health, people who in general are full of love and respect.
Instead, you seem to embrace those who enforce a rigid ideology that can only be described a Puritannical. Dr. Dobson, we have had to live with fools (charlatans, really, as I bet a vow of poverty is not in your lexicon) since we left Europe 500 hundred years ago. Your kind have enjoyed intermittent periods of ascendancy, typically during dark periods where fear was prevalent. Unfortunately, our leaders have discovered how profitable it can be to spread fear, and there is quite a bit of it about.
But in the end, hope always prevails. If you look at our history – indeed human history – you cannot help but see that in the end, the forces of hope and love always triumph over the forces of fear and hatred. And the reason is simple: God’s love is in each and every one of us, and no matter how much you try to convince your followers that God doesn’t love gay people, or people who stand against oppression and unfairness, or who stand up for the least amongst us, your mission will fail. Indeed, I know that in your heart it is already failed: deep down, you know the truth. Gay people aren’t evil. Children raised by two loving moms or two loving dads will be fine, and our society’s need for population growth will be satisfied. Why, that’s what MTV’s all about!
I wanted to write you because, come the judgment day, I do not want it to be said that I sat idly by while the Pharisees peddled their hate. I want the world to know that at least I tried to call you to account.
For all the unhappiness you have created and brought into this world needlessly, I hope you reap what you sow.
Neocons Make me Crazy! My Letter to the Editor
There's a review today of something called The Neocon Reader. It sounds like its worthwhile reading, since I find the exact ideas of the neocons remain something of a mystery.
The review was written by someone who is a self-proclaimed neocon, even though she voted for Gore (can't quite figure that one). As I understand their idea, they seem terribly opposed to terrorists and dictators possessing WMDs, which they seem to think distinguished them from others, somehow. I'm not sure who. Even terrorists and dictators tend to think that other terrorists and dictators shouldn't have WMDs -- only them.
Any hoo, I wrote a letter to the editor, and thought I'd share it here. Here the link to the review (Salon is usually pretty good about keeping things up for quite some time) http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/02/04/neocon_reader/index.html
Dear Editor:
I feel much better about liberalism in the US after reading this review. Ms. Marlowe's praise for the neocon philosophy confirms to me its inherent emptiness. The entire point of view depends on slamming imaginary strawmen (e.g., the left wing pundits so upset about not stopping the Afghan war -- all 4 of them). The fact that she seems to have a mostly emotional connection to politics and policy (Kerry tedious and boring, Bush somehow rebellious and punk) just shows that the current ascendenncy of the neocons is a hiccup -- if we're so convervative as a nation, why did Bush just deliver a speech as his SOTU that any Democrat could have given.
It's OUR ideas that lead the way forward. One may think our spokespeople dull (no real argument from me), or one may find the business of harnessing the power of collective action to better all our lives (i.e., governing) to be tedious. One may even find it really fun to lambaste those whose earnestness and sincerity seem so humorless. But the truth is that one side is interested in moving our society to forward to ever greater heights, while the other is content to take pot shots for kicks.
The review was written by someone who is a self-proclaimed neocon, even though she voted for Gore (can't quite figure that one). As I understand their idea, they seem terribly opposed to terrorists and dictators possessing WMDs, which they seem to think distinguished them from others, somehow. I'm not sure who. Even terrorists and dictators tend to think that other terrorists and dictators shouldn't have WMDs -- only them.
Any hoo, I wrote a letter to the editor, and thought I'd share it here. Here the link to the review (Salon is usually pretty good about keeping things up for quite some time) http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/02/04/neocon_reader/index.html
Dear Editor:
I feel much better about liberalism in the US after reading this review. Ms. Marlowe's praise for the neocon philosophy confirms to me its inherent emptiness. The entire point of view depends on slamming imaginary strawmen (e.g., the left wing pundits so upset about not stopping the Afghan war -- all 4 of them). The fact that she seems to have a mostly emotional connection to politics and policy (Kerry tedious and boring, Bush somehow rebellious and punk) just shows that the current ascendenncy of the neocons is a hiccup -- if we're so convervative as a nation, why did Bush just deliver a speech as his SOTU that any Democrat could have given.
It's OUR ideas that lead the way forward. One may think our spokespeople dull (no real argument from me), or one may find the business of harnessing the power of collective action to better all our lives (i.e., governing) to be tedious. One may even find it really fun to lambaste those whose earnestness and sincerity seem so humorless. But the truth is that one side is interested in moving our society to forward to ever greater heights, while the other is content to take pot shots for kicks.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Attack Ad
Over at http://attackadoftheday.blogspot.com/2005/01/social-security-attack-ads-average-guy.html#comments, (Attack Ad of the Day), I've posted my effort, which I'll post here as well:
OK, here's my attack ad of the day.
We open on a beautiful shot of an attractive older woman, probably close to 80. She's sitting in her lovely garden, on a lush spring day.
Grandma: Of course I remember! How could I forget. My parents, they worked so hard, and scrimped, and just tried to scrimp and save and put a little bit aside. But then, almost over night -- nothing. They lost everything. Wiped out.
We cut and see that she is talking with her 20 something granddaughter, who's holding a baby.
AVO: The Democrats created Social Security to ensure every worker would have a secure future no matter if they were winners or losers in the stock market.
We're cutting to the face of Granddaughter, and then Baby.
Grandma: I think it's crazy to take that away. Why would Bush want to jeopardize something we've worked so hard for?
Shot goes blurry. We see vaguely that Grandma is getting up, granddaughter is passing baby, Grandma is playing with baby, etc.
Title card comes up "Tell President Bush not to gamble with your future," with a URL, "Save Social Security.com" and an 800 number, "800-SAVE-SOC"AVO: Tell President Bush that our future is too improtant to gamble [play games] with.That's it. I'd put it on the air tomorrow. We have got to start an emotional conversation with our fellow Americans.
And I have a Message for You
“I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you; for you, the Social Security system will not change in any way.” -- SOTU
Is there a journalist in the house who can ask the obvious question: Isn’t that another way of saying that Social Security is definitely going to be changing for everyone under 55? And not in a good way?
Just wondering…
Is there a journalist in the house who can ask the obvious question: Isn’t that another way of saying that Social Security is definitely going to be changing for everyone under 55? And not in a good way?
Just wondering…
It’s the Accountability, Stupid
I continue to believe that one of our core values has to be accountability. The current administration seems dedicated to creating a 100% accountability-free environment, where the broadest promises can be freely ignored without consequence. What’s our mission in Iraq? To disarm Saddam. Pre 9/11, is terrorism important? No, not really. What’s the best way to stave off recession? Tax cuts. The best way to get out of a recession? Tax cuts. The best way to create jobs? Tax cuts. Best way to trim the deficit? Tax cuts. Most comfortable chair to sit in for the Super Bowl? Tax cuts.
In the end, accountability is a form of credibility. When congressional candidate Bush swore on a stack of bibles that Social Security would be flat-broke, busted in just 10 years, and 1988 sailed by with no actual bankruptcy, this should diminish the guy’s credibility when he starts crying wolf 25 years later.
I can think of no more apt literary reference for the boy-president than the boy who cried wolf. Saddam! Gay marriage! Social Security collapse!
To say nothing of No 9/11 inquiry! No Condi testifying! No Me testifying! No increase in death benefits to those killed in combat! And so on.
One of these days, this guy is going to need us to believe him for real, and a whole bunch of us will have a hard time putting aside our oft-vindicated skepticism.
In the end, accountability is a form of credibility. When congressional candidate Bush swore on a stack of bibles that Social Security would be flat-broke, busted in just 10 years, and 1988 sailed by with no actual bankruptcy, this should diminish the guy’s credibility when he starts crying wolf 25 years later.
I can think of no more apt literary reference for the boy-president than the boy who cried wolf. Saddam! Gay marriage! Social Security collapse!
To say nothing of No 9/11 inquiry! No Condi testifying! No Me testifying! No increase in death benefits to those killed in combat! And so on.
One of these days, this guy is going to need us to believe him for real, and a whole bunch of us will have a hard time putting aside our oft-vindicated skepticism.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
An Hour with This Guy
I don't believe I will be able to get through much of the President's SOTU tonight.
I can recall getting my kids around the TV for President Clinton's SOTU's, telling them that this is an important and historic ritual in our nation's history.
Now, it seems obscene to observe this utterly and completely corrupt charade, brazenly designed to manipulate the electorate to increase the party's grip on power.
I used to think we were nearing a state like 1930's Germany. I now think we are undeniably there, and the road to normalcy will be a long and arduous one, which sadly is likely to lead through a horrible and bloody conflict in the Middle East.
I wish my fellow Americans could/would understand that the actions we are taking today are shaping our future, whether we think so or not. And that we won't have a happy future just by wishin'.
I can recall getting my kids around the TV for President Clinton's SOTU's, telling them that this is an important and historic ritual in our nation's history.
Now, it seems obscene to observe this utterly and completely corrupt charade, brazenly designed to manipulate the electorate to increase the party's grip on power.
I used to think we were nearing a state like 1930's Germany. I now think we are undeniably there, and the road to normalcy will be a long and arduous one, which sadly is likely to lead through a horrible and bloody conflict in the Middle East.
I wish my fellow Americans could/would understand that the actions we are taking today are shaping our future, whether we think so or not. And that we won't have a happy future just by wishin'.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Hurrah! Democracy in Iraq!
The habit of reacting negatively to anything the Bushies tout as good is so ingrained that many on the left seem to be unhappy about the elections in Iraq. The security is terrible, the risks are great, many of the Sunni minority may boycott, the Kurds may think it an irrelevancy – the list of problems could go on and on.
And yet, there is no reason not to celebrate this turn of events. Destroying a tyrannical dictatorship in favor of a democracy is a good thing. Reversing the usual roles, many on the left believe that the price we paid for this is simply too high, and cannot get over the undeniable fact that we were out and out misled into this war.
Few wars are ever about what the people who started them thought they should be about. WWI had something to do with Serbia’s failure to prostrate itself 110% in showing proper deference to the wronged Austrian empire, whose heir had just been killed in Serbia. Well, I guess those Serbians are really, truly, extra sorry now.
WWII would not have been fought at all if the prize were the liberation of Europe and the stopping of the Hitlerites. The thing went on for two years with a solid majority of our fellow Americans perfectly happy to let those foreigners duke it out.
And we have paid a heavy price to keep China at bay, in Korea and Viet Nam. Given the utter futility of trying to stop, let alone delay, China’s ascendancy to the role of the world’s first power, could any one say it was worth it?
America’s experience in Iraq today reminds me so much of Viet Nam. We were intensely interested in every little tidbit of news from this far away and tiny beacon of hope for freedom and democracy. A new defense minister? Why, front page news. The capture of a rebel leader? Time to break into Bewitched for an urgent update.
We all turn our attention today to Iraq’s terribly flawed elections. NBC will undoubtedly take us to some polling place and interview voters who will assure us that Iraq is finally on the road to freedom. With a bit of luck, CNN will find the Iraqi’s who are prepared to chant, “Thank you America!” on camera. And thanks, on some level, we are owed.
But soon our attention will wander. We’ll forget all about the ongoing battles between the Shii’as and and Sunni’s (which one, we’ll wonder, is aligned with Iran?). The troubles of the newly elected Iraqi government in keeping the peace will be forgotten. Even the efforts to keep terrorists – real actual terrorists, not just Bush-imagined ones – will fade without new terrors perpetrated on American shores.
Today, most Americans have returned Viet Nam to the place of obscurity they reserve for virtually all places not in the continental US. It is a distant, irrelevant place, the name only meaningful as a reminder of the terrible cost we incurred so many years ago, for gains that we can no longer even articulate or remember.
Sure, we were duped into this war by a President far too comfortable with bad faith. President Bush repeatedly and without any equivocation laid out that the sole reason to go to war was to disarm Saddam. Period. Any intimation that there was any other reason was blasphemy, not to be even entertained.
Since it appeared that Saddam didn’t actually need disarming, and that that fact should have been apparent to all who weren’t trying – really, really hard – to avert their gaze, we’ve embarked on a crusade to justify our incursion. (“Never mind” just won’t seem to cut it.) For now, we’ve settled on the notion that bringing democracy and freedom to the oppressed people of Iraq is what made this all worth while.
I welcome the right wing of the Republican party to the left’s long-standing campaign to bring freedom to everyone on the planet. When the tables are turned (as they will inevitably be), and we are back in power, I wonder how many of today’s ruling party will remember how much they were prepared to pay to secure the freedom of the great Iraqi people?
How many will support us as we seek to bring freedom to the great people of Saudi Arabia, where they are not voting today? Or Egypt? Or Pakistan? Or the Sudan? Or Russia? Did I mention Ohio, where the right to vote seems to be unavailable to those who would use it against our rulers?
I’d like to think that a deeply conservative President has been able to do a deeply liberal thing – use US military might to secure freedom for a people oppressed by a terrible dictator. And perhaps he has. But I suspect that the President’s people are in fact not on-board with the current justification for war, but are rather signed on to the traditional right-wing foreign policy: we’re OK with dictators who play ball with us, and those that seem prone to aid our enemies, well, if they keep that up for a decade or two, they’d better watch out.
I think celebrating the liberation of an oppressed people is something we shall not see again any time soon. We have paid far too dear a cost for this unilateral madness -- let us at least savor the fruits.
And yet, there is no reason not to celebrate this turn of events. Destroying a tyrannical dictatorship in favor of a democracy is a good thing. Reversing the usual roles, many on the left believe that the price we paid for this is simply too high, and cannot get over the undeniable fact that we were out and out misled into this war.
Few wars are ever about what the people who started them thought they should be about. WWI had something to do with Serbia’s failure to prostrate itself 110% in showing proper deference to the wronged Austrian empire, whose heir had just been killed in Serbia. Well, I guess those Serbians are really, truly, extra sorry now.
WWII would not have been fought at all if the prize were the liberation of Europe and the stopping of the Hitlerites. The thing went on for two years with a solid majority of our fellow Americans perfectly happy to let those foreigners duke it out.
And we have paid a heavy price to keep China at bay, in Korea and Viet Nam. Given the utter futility of trying to stop, let alone delay, China’s ascendancy to the role of the world’s first power, could any one say it was worth it?
America’s experience in Iraq today reminds me so much of Viet Nam. We were intensely interested in every little tidbit of news from this far away and tiny beacon of hope for freedom and democracy. A new defense minister? Why, front page news. The capture of a rebel leader? Time to break into Bewitched for an urgent update.
We all turn our attention today to Iraq’s terribly flawed elections. NBC will undoubtedly take us to some polling place and interview voters who will assure us that Iraq is finally on the road to freedom. With a bit of luck, CNN will find the Iraqi’s who are prepared to chant, “Thank you America!” on camera. And thanks, on some level, we are owed.
But soon our attention will wander. We’ll forget all about the ongoing battles between the Shii’as and and Sunni’s (which one, we’ll wonder, is aligned with Iran?). The troubles of the newly elected Iraqi government in keeping the peace will be forgotten. Even the efforts to keep terrorists – real actual terrorists, not just Bush-imagined ones – will fade without new terrors perpetrated on American shores.
Today, most Americans have returned Viet Nam to the place of obscurity they reserve for virtually all places not in the continental US. It is a distant, irrelevant place, the name only meaningful as a reminder of the terrible cost we incurred so many years ago, for gains that we can no longer even articulate or remember.
Sure, we were duped into this war by a President far too comfortable with bad faith. President Bush repeatedly and without any equivocation laid out that the sole reason to go to war was to disarm Saddam. Period. Any intimation that there was any other reason was blasphemy, not to be even entertained.
Since it appeared that Saddam didn’t actually need disarming, and that that fact should have been apparent to all who weren’t trying – really, really hard – to avert their gaze, we’ve embarked on a crusade to justify our incursion. (“Never mind” just won’t seem to cut it.) For now, we’ve settled on the notion that bringing democracy and freedom to the oppressed people of Iraq is what made this all worth while.
I welcome the right wing of the Republican party to the left’s long-standing campaign to bring freedom to everyone on the planet. When the tables are turned (as they will inevitably be), and we are back in power, I wonder how many of today’s ruling party will remember how much they were prepared to pay to secure the freedom of the great Iraqi people?
How many will support us as we seek to bring freedom to the great people of Saudi Arabia, where they are not voting today? Or Egypt? Or Pakistan? Or the Sudan? Or Russia? Did I mention Ohio, where the right to vote seems to be unavailable to those who would use it against our rulers?
I’d like to think that a deeply conservative President has been able to do a deeply liberal thing – use US military might to secure freedom for a people oppressed by a terrible dictator. And perhaps he has. But I suspect that the President’s people are in fact not on-board with the current justification for war, but are rather signed on to the traditional right-wing foreign policy: we’re OK with dictators who play ball with us, and those that seem prone to aid our enemies, well, if they keep that up for a decade or two, they’d better watch out.
I think celebrating the liberation of an oppressed people is something we shall not see again any time soon. We have paid far too dear a cost for this unilateral madness -- let us at least savor the fruits.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Everything in Timmy Russert’s Mind…
...would fit in a thimble. Or his navel, which he seems so fond of contemplating.
Somehow or other, Russert occupies a place of high esteem as an analyst, especially amongst those who work for NBC. (What is that saying about how it is impossible to convince a man of something if his livelihood depends upon not believing it?) Pretty good for someone who is 100% insight-free.
Over at MSNBC, Tim is holding forth on What the Iraqi Elections Means. He hasn’t the first clue. His opinions have less insight than a steaming bowl of NY Times Conventional Wisdom.
Here’s a few of my favorites from this MSNBC Interview of Timmy R.:
Except that we will leave whether or not the Iraqis can provide their own security, just as soon as our willingness to keep losing soldiers runs out, and/or we’re distracted with something else.
And we'll all forget about Sunday in 6 weeks when President Bush tells us to.
I remember when people used to say that we wouldn’t leave South Viet Nam unless and until the South Vietnamese people were capable of holding the North Vietnamese at bay all by themselves. And then we did. Leave, I mean. With the South utterly and completely exposed. Thirty years on, it's harder and harder to see what we accomplished in Southeast Asia. I remember it had something to with freedom...
Saying “never mind” is an awfully painful thing to do. Let’s hope we say it sooner rather than later, for the sake of the many dead people we are in the process of creating.
One last tidbit, this from the “questioner” (probably Timmy’s secretary):
Success story? Sheesh.
Somehow or other, Russert occupies a place of high esteem as an analyst, especially amongst those who work for NBC. (What is that saying about how it is impossible to convince a man of something if his livelihood depends upon not believing it?) Pretty good for someone who is 100% insight-free.
Over at MSNBC, Tim is holding forth on What the Iraqi Elections Means. He hasn’t the first clue. His opinions have less insight than a steaming bowl of NY Times Conventional Wisdom.
Here’s a few of my favorites from this MSNBC Interview of Timmy R.:
There you have it, folks. we won’t go “unless and until” the Iraqis “have an armed forces that is capable of defending their country. And, "everything rests on this Sunday."America’s entire exit strategy in Iraq is based upon a successful and legitimate election, where an Iraqi government could take hold and then create its own security and armed forces, so that Iraqis would be willing, frankly, to join the military and die for their new country. That’s the only thing that’s going to allow Americans to leave.
…
[E]verything rests on this Sunday – a successful election – as the first step. A year from now, perhaps, a lot of other people might share Senator Kennedy’s sentiments (that we should discuss a timetable for withdrawal with the winner, with an eye toward withdrawing substantially by the end of next year), but I do not see a lot of bipartisan support for an immediate withdrawal.
MSNBC: The longer the American troops stay; won’t it be harder to get them out?Russert: No doubt about it. We have seen occupations that have lasted years and years and years. [Ed: We’ve also seen occupations that lasted just a few months.]The key is for the Iraqis to have an armed forces that is capable of defending their country. Unless and until that happens, Americans are there.
Except that we will leave whether or not the Iraqis can provide their own security, just as soon as our willingness to keep losing soldiers runs out, and/or we’re distracted with something else.
And we'll all forget about Sunday in 6 weeks when President Bush tells us to.
I remember when people used to say that we wouldn’t leave South Viet Nam unless and until the South Vietnamese people were capable of holding the North Vietnamese at bay all by themselves. And then we did. Leave, I mean. With the South utterly and completely exposed. Thirty years on, it's harder and harder to see what we accomplished in Southeast Asia. I remember it had something to with freedom...
Saying “never mind” is an awfully painful thing to do. Let’s hope we say it sooner rather than later, for the sake of the many dead people we are in the process of creating.
One last tidbit, this from the “questioner” (probably Timmy’s secretary):
MSNBC: Afghanistan is something of a success story. Is there a possibility the
problems of Iraq are overblown and there is enough spirit toward democracy in
Iraq that might gain some momentum as a result of Sunday’s elections and we
could see more rapid progress than anyone expected?
Success story? Sheesh.
Shameless Piling On
I'd like to formally join the list (pile) of people urging a no vote. I'm sure my dozens of readers will find it no surprise that I am urging a strong "NO" on the Gonzales nomination, for reasons I've already covered at length (which are, in short, torture, jury duty, and unbelievably bad memory).
I'm finding the idea of a whole bunch of political bloggers joining together to state the obvious a peculiar one. Blogs tend not to have penetrated the SCLM in any significant way, other than as a brand extension of Drudge (i.e., "on-line crazies"). And I can't imagine our pile of anti-blogs will be any larger (and probably smaller than) their pile of pro-blogs. All in all, an interesting exercise in the power of community, which regular readers know is the #1 core value of the left.
For you newbies, welcome to the World's Most Reasonable Man, telling you What To Think.
You can check out the definitive pile of pilers-on at Kos (http://newsfare.com/no-to-gonzales/).
I'm finding the idea of a whole bunch of political bloggers joining together to state the obvious a peculiar one. Blogs tend not to have penetrated the SCLM in any significant way, other than as a brand extension of Drudge (i.e., "on-line crazies"). And I can't imagine our pile of anti-blogs will be any larger (and probably smaller than) their pile of pro-blogs. All in all, an interesting exercise in the power of community, which regular readers know is the #1 core value of the left.
For you newbies, welcome to the World's Most Reasonable Man, telling you What To Think.
You can check out the definitive pile of pilers-on at Kos (http://newsfare.com/no-to-gonzales/).
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Turning a Corner?
I believe I detect the first notes of a new, more assertive tone from the D.C. Dems. The confronting of Condi, the lack of support for Al G., calling Condi and the administration a “liar.” I believe this is a new day dawning, where establishment Dems begin the process of joining with the rest of their party to resist tooth and nail the evils perpetrated by the other side.
At some point, every journey in the desert must come to an end. Is this the end of ours?
At some point, every journey in the desert must come to an end. Is this the end of ours?
This Guy Knows Why Republicans Win. Now You Do, too.
Here's post from blog called "Forest Through the Trees" (via Oliver Wills). The best graphs are these:
The Republicans win because the modern Right has developed around the core idea of persuading people to support their ideology, which then leads to support for their issues and candidates. In other words: marketing. The Right developed this ersuasion capability in reaction to the dominance of the existing "liberal establishment." Because of this, most of their organizations are designed as advocacy and communications organizations, with the mission of reaching the general public and explaining what right-wing ideas are and why they are better for people.
Today's Progressives, on the other hand, think there already is a public consensus supporting their ideals and values, so they have not developed a culture that is oriented around persuading people, and their organizations are not designed at their core to persuade the public to support them.For example, everyone used to think that it is moral to help the poor or protect the environment, so there are organizations that are designed to do that. Then along comes the right, funding organizations designed to convince people it is wrong to do these things. The result today is that on one side you have organizations trying to help the poor, protect the environment, etc. On the other you have organizations telling people what those organizations are doing is wrong. But now you have no one explaining to people that it is GOOD to help the poor and protect the environment so over time support for helping the poor obviously will erode and eventually the organizations that help the poor will be in trouble and have little public support.Here's the link: http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_
seetheforest_archive.html#110584065281446220
Well worth reading in its entirety.
I Know Why Senators Should Oppose Al Gonzalez
Many people point to Gonzalez’ role in crafting a legal structure to facilitate the government’s policy of torture as grounds for denying him the AG job. Others point to his dismissive approach in presenting clemency pleas to then Governor Bush. Myself, I’ve always like his rather unlikely hairdo as a reason to stop him from taking the nation’s top law enforcement job.
But now I’ve got a new one. He has some sort of memory problem. Can’t remember what he thought about a Justice Department memo explaining that the Geneva Convention wasn’t anything to worry about after all. Doesn’t remember using Texas taxpayers’ money to get his friend out of jury duty. Doesn’t remember a whole ton of things.
Like we need more reasons to vote no on this guy, here’s another one: You can’t run a large governmental agency if you have no functioning memory.
But now I’ve got a new one. He has some sort of memory problem. Can’t remember what he thought about a Justice Department memo explaining that the Geneva Convention wasn’t anything to worry about after all. Doesn’t remember using Texas taxpayers’ money to get his friend out of jury duty. Doesn’t remember a whole ton of things.
Like we need more reasons to vote no on this guy, here’s another one: You can’t run a large governmental agency if you have no functioning memory.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
I Know Why SS is Team Bush’s #1 Priority
In all of the commentary I’ve seen about the latest, manufactured, fake, emergency crisis, I’ve seen precious little discussion of what agenda does this issue serve for the right. Like most on the left (which is becoming pretty synonymous for “those with a brain”), the President’s stated objectives have never seemed particularly likely to be true: to let workers have more control, to let retirees live better, to avert the disaster that will strike in 2042 when we may actually have to – gulp! – raise taxes a bit to cover the SS obligations.
No, this is all of course utter nonsense. But I think I’ve got the answer. If Iraq was about changing the landscape of the Middle East, SS “Reform” is about changing the political landscape of the US – for the next 50 years.
I saw the President’s remarks yesterday that he made to one of his patented “town-hall” events. On the stage with him were young workers who were worried that SS wasn’t going to be there. One after another, these poor deluded youths brayed, “I was raised to believe in personal responsibility, and I’ve taken responsibility for my life. I went to school, I worked hard, got married, and I want to know that when I retire, the money I put in for SS will be there for me.” And so on.
Then the President stood up and tried to make the case for the urgent nature of the crisis. (I always think of the comment of my friend, the litigator, on the case for Iraq: it just doesn’t take six months to argue exigent circumstances.) His basic point was that we owe to to today’s younger workers, whose future are so clouded by this crisis, to resolve it today, so that they can get on with their lives. Today’s young workers need to know that SS will be there, that we’ve honored our commitment to them, …etc., etc., etc.
And then I saw a Repub-robotron, Mr. Toomey, come on The Newshour to deliver the day’s Talking Points. And guess what? No matter what was asked, no matter what the other person said, all wind-up Toomey said was that all he knew was that today’s younger workers need to know that we will take the steps needed to protect their futures, and that the only way to do this was to let these young workers have their own private accounts that because they are private will be worth at minimum several hundred thousand dollars – dollars they will be free to use as they please once they get old. Oh, and by the way, these ideas are the purview of the ultra-wise Republicans, because the liberals are tied to the old failed ways of doing things.
And that’s when it hit me: the whole point of this exercise is to establish the right as the party of youth. This whole issue is meant to wed younger workers to the right the way retirees are wed to the Dems. The game is all about shifting the demographic so that as new voters enter the body politic, they will flock to the right, because that’s where the hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars-for-them-to-use-as-they-please are. Democrats will be the party trying to steal these young people’s future to squander it on governmental spending for special interest groups like old people.
If their anti-labor tax program is class warfare, this is age warfare. And by getting young voters on their side, they need only wait for the doddery old generation of liberals to die before there will be nothing but Republicans left, right and center.
After that, I can’t imagine what they will do, since there only real value seems to be the acquisition and retention of power. They don’t seem too terribly interested in improving anyone’s lives – hell, even rich people can only use so many homes and airplanes after a while.
So that’s the big insight. And it just confirms my own instinct that the way forward here is NOT to become the party of the old and just defend the New Deal wonder that is SS. No, the way forward here is for us to propose our own young worker retirement program, so that young workers can see that some of us actually want to improve their retirements, while others of us would be just fine if they’re eatin’ ALPO in their dotage.
No, this is all of course utter nonsense. But I think I’ve got the answer. If Iraq was about changing the landscape of the Middle East, SS “Reform” is about changing the political landscape of the US – for the next 50 years.
I saw the President’s remarks yesterday that he made to one of his patented “town-hall” events. On the stage with him were young workers who were worried that SS wasn’t going to be there. One after another, these poor deluded youths brayed, “I was raised to believe in personal responsibility, and I’ve taken responsibility for my life. I went to school, I worked hard, got married, and I want to know that when I retire, the money I put in for SS will be there for me.” And so on.
Then the President stood up and tried to make the case for the urgent nature of the crisis. (I always think of the comment of my friend, the litigator, on the case for Iraq: it just doesn’t take six months to argue exigent circumstances.) His basic point was that we owe to to today’s younger workers, whose future are so clouded by this crisis, to resolve it today, so that they can get on with their lives. Today’s young workers need to know that SS will be there, that we’ve honored our commitment to them, …etc., etc., etc.
And then I saw a Repub-robotron, Mr. Toomey, come on The Newshour to deliver the day’s Talking Points. And guess what? No matter what was asked, no matter what the other person said, all wind-up Toomey said was that all he knew was that today’s younger workers need to know that we will take the steps needed to protect their futures, and that the only way to do this was to let these young workers have their own private accounts that because they are private will be worth at minimum several hundred thousand dollars – dollars they will be free to use as they please once they get old. Oh, and by the way, these ideas are the purview of the ultra-wise Republicans, because the liberals are tied to the old failed ways of doing things.
And that’s when it hit me: the whole point of this exercise is to establish the right as the party of youth. This whole issue is meant to wed younger workers to the right the way retirees are wed to the Dems. The game is all about shifting the demographic so that as new voters enter the body politic, they will flock to the right, because that’s where the hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars-for-them-to-use-as-they-please are. Democrats will be the party trying to steal these young people’s future to squander it on governmental spending for special interest groups like old people.
If their anti-labor tax program is class warfare, this is age warfare. And by getting young voters on their side, they need only wait for the doddery old generation of liberals to die before there will be nothing but Republicans left, right and center.
After that, I can’t imagine what they will do, since there only real value seems to be the acquisition and retention of power. They don’t seem too terribly interested in improving anyone’s lives – hell, even rich people can only use so many homes and airplanes after a while.
So that’s the big insight. And it just confirms my own instinct that the way forward here is NOT to become the party of the old and just defend the New Deal wonder that is SS. No, the way forward here is for us to propose our own young worker retirement program, so that young workers can see that some of us actually want to improve their retirements, while others of us would be just fine if they’re eatin’ ALPO in their dotage.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Teach ‘Em Creationism – What do We Care?
In Dover Pa., local school board officials are planning to teach students a about “intelligent design,” which is somewhere between Genesis and the Prime Mover (i.e., the idea is that the universe is so totally awesome that it could only possible be the product of some intelligent designer.”
And like moths to a flame, liberals are rising in outrage. See, this would be a good chance to avoid “taking the bait.” This nonsense about where we came from seems rather obscure to me from virtually any standpoint. But the purpose of positing that we were created by God’s own hand, and that Mr. Darwin is a silly old poopy-head, is not to really argue the point about our origins. It’s their way of saying, “You pointy-headed intellectuals who think you know it all, you all are, are…poopy-heads.”
One of my favorite bumper stickers from Bible-land is “Evolution is just a theory.” As is the idea that lower taxes spur economic growth. Or that free markets are efficient distributors of resources. Or, for example, gravity. How about a counter-bumper-sticker saying “So’s Gravity (Just A Theory, I Mean).” (OK, OK, I’m not likely destined for a career in the automotive décor field. Shut up.)
On the range of issues that matter even a little, Were We Monkeys is way, way down the list. Let’s let the right play with themselves on this one. Instead of marveling at their stupidity, let’s applaud their deep interest in biology, philosophy and high school science in general. Sure they’re completely nutty – let’s let their nuttry collapse of its own weight.
And like moths to a flame, liberals are rising in outrage. See, this would be a good chance to avoid “taking the bait.” This nonsense about where we came from seems rather obscure to me from virtually any standpoint. But the purpose of positing that we were created by God’s own hand, and that Mr. Darwin is a silly old poopy-head, is not to really argue the point about our origins. It’s their way of saying, “You pointy-headed intellectuals who think you know it all, you all are, are…poopy-heads.”
One of my favorite bumper stickers from Bible-land is “Evolution is just a theory.” As is the idea that lower taxes spur economic growth. Or that free markets are efficient distributors of resources. Or, for example, gravity. How about a counter-bumper-sticker saying “So’s Gravity (Just A Theory, I Mean).” (OK, OK, I’m not likely destined for a career in the automotive décor field. Shut up.)
On the range of issues that matter even a little, Were We Monkeys is way, way down the list. Let’s let the right play with themselves on this one. Instead of marveling at their stupidity, let’s applaud their deep interest in biology, philosophy and high school science in general. Sure they’re completely nutty – let’s let their nuttry collapse of its own weight.
Friday, January 07, 2005
Sheesh. Yikes!
Watching/hearing clips from the Alberto Gonzalez hearings, plus the circus of the formal selection of the President in the Congress, I’m struck by the pathetic awfulness of our situation.
Sheesh.
And then, when I thought about it, I had the faint, creeping and totally unmistakable conviction that we have gone too far. That our society has been corrupted so deeply and thoroughly that there will be no return to normal.
Yikes!
I can’t find the transcripts, but I heard an exchange with between Senator Spector of Pa. and Alberto. Senator Spector lobbed a softball: Are you against the kind of torture we saw depicted in the widely publicized Abu Greib pictures?
Now, the only correct answer to this questions is yes, of course. But that wasn’t Alberto’s answer. First, he responded that as a human being, he reacted with shock and horror to what was depicted in those infamous photos. And then he unwittingly revealed everything you need to know about this guy.
He said “but.” “But.” As in "in contradistinction to what I've just said."
But, he said, as someone who might be involved with the ongoing criminal investigation of the individual acts depicted, he thought it best if he did not condemn the acts. He thought it best for the legal processes against the people involved to run their due course.
So pretty cheesy-weasely, right? You bet.
Senator Spector then came to the rescue (presumably his job). He thanked Alberto, then went on to what started out as a chastisement: Sen. Spector said he had some experience as a prosecutor, and that in his judgment a prosecutor could condemn something without expressing a view as to whether or not something was criminal or not.
So, I thought, Senator Spector seems to be calling Alberto on his complete lack of candor and courage.
Not so fast. Sen. Spector then went to to say that in light of that, he was going to thank Alberto for his strong condemnation of the acts depicted.
Which Alberto had carefully not given. But which Sen. Spector pretended happened, right there, in front of all the TV cameras, senators, the world and God, pretended that Alberto hadn’t weaseled, had forthrightly and unequivocally condemned those acts.
It was when I heard this that I thought that we may have allowed things to get so far gone that there will be no return. (Yikes!) Sen. Spector figured he would just brazenly lie in front of everyone, and that no one would call him on it. Not only was he so divorced from his own conscience that he would be happy to lie, he knew his people so dominated the media that the men and women in the room would go along with it.
The checks and balances of our system are only as good as the men and women who operate them. If the people running our government, our businesses, our schools – hell, just the ordinary men and women of our society – are so corrupt that we no longer mind when the government lies to us, or are pretty much OK when companies scheme and deceive their way into the market, well, I’m not sure I see the way forward. Our government will only ever be as good as we are. If we are corrupt, so too will our government be. And more and more, it seems to me that we are terribly corrupt.
Are Canadians as bad as we are? Can we find salvation in the North? Is there any refuge for those of us who want to live in a society where we value community? Value intelligence, reason and analysis? Who abhor the hatred and violence that the US is coming to represent?
Sheesh.
And then, when I thought about it, I had the faint, creeping and totally unmistakable conviction that we have gone too far. That our society has been corrupted so deeply and thoroughly that there will be no return to normal.
Yikes!
I can’t find the transcripts, but I heard an exchange with between Senator Spector of Pa. and Alberto. Senator Spector lobbed a softball: Are you against the kind of torture we saw depicted in the widely publicized Abu Greib pictures?
Now, the only correct answer to this questions is yes, of course. But that wasn’t Alberto’s answer. First, he responded that as a human being, he reacted with shock and horror to what was depicted in those infamous photos. And then he unwittingly revealed everything you need to know about this guy.
He said “but.” “But.” As in "in contradistinction to what I've just said."
But, he said, as someone who might be involved with the ongoing criminal investigation of the individual acts depicted, he thought it best if he did not condemn the acts. He thought it best for the legal processes against the people involved to run their due course.
So pretty cheesy-weasely, right? You bet.
Senator Spector then came to the rescue (presumably his job). He thanked Alberto, then went on to what started out as a chastisement: Sen. Spector said he had some experience as a prosecutor, and that in his judgment a prosecutor could condemn something without expressing a view as to whether or not something was criminal or not.
So, I thought, Senator Spector seems to be calling Alberto on his complete lack of candor and courage.
Not so fast. Sen. Spector then went to to say that in light of that, he was going to thank Alberto for his strong condemnation of the acts depicted.
Which Alberto had carefully not given. But which Sen. Spector pretended happened, right there, in front of all the TV cameras, senators, the world and God, pretended that Alberto hadn’t weaseled, had forthrightly and unequivocally condemned those acts.
It was when I heard this that I thought that we may have allowed things to get so far gone that there will be no return. (Yikes!) Sen. Spector figured he would just brazenly lie in front of everyone, and that no one would call him on it. Not only was he so divorced from his own conscience that he would be happy to lie, he knew his people so dominated the media that the men and women in the room would go along with it.
The checks and balances of our system are only as good as the men and women who operate them. If the people running our government, our businesses, our schools – hell, just the ordinary men and women of our society – are so corrupt that we no longer mind when the government lies to us, or are pretty much OK when companies scheme and deceive their way into the market, well, I’m not sure I see the way forward. Our government will only ever be as good as we are. If we are corrupt, so too will our government be. And more and more, it seems to me that we are terribly corrupt.
Are Canadians as bad as we are? Can we find salvation in the North? Is there any refuge for those of us who want to live in a society where we value community? Value intelligence, reason and analysis? Who abhor the hatred and violence that the US is coming to represent?
Monday, January 03, 2005
OK, So What's Up Since November 22?
OK, this whole regular/frequent updating thing has gotten past me, rather spectacularly so. But rather than continue to acquiesce in failure, I’m turning over new leaf with the new year.
Probably last a week or two, tops.
Let’s chalk it up to an extended holiday period, and move on, people.
First, the holidays. Bittersweet, overall, as is so often the case following the loss of a loved one. Well, that plus lots of other items that continue to conspire to provide me with a rich broth of depression, resentment, despair and plenty of doom and gloom.
But let’s accentuate the positive, shall we? And blather on about politics in a half-informed, sort-of-coherent manner.
On the positive side, I have resolved that 2005 will see me getting involved in owning my own business. Hopefully one that produces scads of revenues. Also, considering letting my hair grow a bit. We’ll see.
Now, turning to the main event: the tragedy of our nation’s politics. Over the last month or two, I have become despondent over the failure of so many Americans to openly embrace the progressive philosophy. November provided us with the clearest possible choice, and we clearly made a decisive choice against progressivism and in favor of stupidity, vulgarity, greed, and cynicism. Sheesh. Hard to pull the silver lining out of that one.
In fact, my pessimism over losing the election so clearly has spread and grown to a rather dark view of our society as a whole. The day after Christmas, a sub-oceanic earthquake in the Indian Ocean triggered a tsunami that killed 150,000 people. In virtually the entire world outside the US, this was seen as a human catastrophe and relief emergency of the first order. In the US, it played like an infomercial for Save the Children – lots of shots of wailing women in colorful exotic garb, and scenes of villages that could have been the “before” pictures in urban development schemes. The only news coverage was of the “news-for-budgies” variety – “White Child Feared Lost, Found,” “Europeans Find Vacations Cut Short by Asian Disaster,” and so on.
I didn’t see a single Hollywood mogul hop on the phone to organize a relief concert, or the NFL commissioner wonder how his league could help, or the Senate out front of the Capital singing Amazing Grace. Just didn’t see that.
And I couldn’t help but note the stark contrast between our rather pitiful reaction, and the reaction of the world on 9/11, when people all over the planet pured into the streets, the churches, mosques and temples, to show their solidarity.
We, on the other hand, enjoyed a spirited round of college football playoffs.
When I consider this against the backdrop of 50-something percent of my fellow Americans actually voting for GW Bush, I see broader problem far deeper than any single election, or the failure of our political system. I see a society that has collapsed, that may or may not revive.
I am an innately optimistic person, and continue to believe against all the evidence that the righteous shall prevail. But on November 2 I thought we were beginning the long journey back to a society that valued human communities. I’m now concerned that our long march toward the forces of greed and cruelty is not yet over, and that in fact things will get considerably worse before they get any better.
“The Bush administration yesterday pledged $15 million to Asian nations hit by a tsunami that has killed more than 22,500 people,” sayeth a right-wing paper on December 28. On January 1, the AP reported that the President’s Inauguration committee “planned to raise $40 million to $50 million for the inaugural events, scheduled for Jan. 18-21.”
Of course, the outcry over the initial $15 million pledge has resulted in a large increase in that amount being promised, though as a New Yorker I’d advise the nice people of Asia not to spend anything until Uncle Sam’s check clears. And the latest news is even more bizarre: President Bush has enlisted his dad and Bill Clinton to lead a fund-raising drive amongst American citizens. I’m having a hard time seeing what Bill Clinton is doing consorting with these bastards, though I suspect he in anxious to play a role in helping our fellow humans who have been hit so terribly hard. It’s just that it smacks of enabling these punks who feel the government has no role to play in disaster relief – except in doling out dollars to prospective voters in Florida.
I also read today that Senator Kerry is so far not releasing his core team members from their loyalty to him, holding the group together in contemplation of an ’08 run. I have decidedly mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I was as convinced as could be that John Kerry was going to make a fine commander in chief, and possibly help Southern people understand that We Do Not In Fact Hate Them (which is the key in my view to getting them back on our side, where they belong – hell, where everybody who’s not a billionaire belongs).
On the other hand, he is not someone that many working class or red-staters warmed up to, nor did he strike me as combative enough. I’d like a newer, tougher, far-less mealy-mouthed John Kerry to show his fighting spirit and rally for a crushing victory in 08. But I suspect that’s not what I’m going to get. John, call me!
As we head into what looks to be another year of Anti-Robin Hooding (taking from the poor to give to the rich), as well as a year of utter coarseness and cynicism, it’s hard not to be depressed. Where are the bright lights of hope? Where are the beacons of sanity? When I look back over our nation’s history, I see a disturbing and ultimately tragic pattern playing itself out yet again: we indulge our childishness by engaging in these flights of fancy that what goes on politically doesn’t really matter and it’s fine to use politics to make all manner of silly statements, all the while letting fester wounds that ultimately erupt in carnage. I sure as hell hope I’m misreading these particular tea leaves, but more and more, that’s what it looks like. We seem to be drifting helplessly toward a conflagration with the extremist Muslims, which is unnecessary, but which I fear will come at some point, perhaps much sooner than anyone could possibly guess.
And on that happy, note, Happy New Year Everybody! Happy 2005!
Probably last a week or two, tops.
Let’s chalk it up to an extended holiday period, and move on, people.
First, the holidays. Bittersweet, overall, as is so often the case following the loss of a loved one. Well, that plus lots of other items that continue to conspire to provide me with a rich broth of depression, resentment, despair and plenty of doom and gloom.
But let’s accentuate the positive, shall we? And blather on about politics in a half-informed, sort-of-coherent manner.
On the positive side, I have resolved that 2005 will see me getting involved in owning my own business. Hopefully one that produces scads of revenues. Also, considering letting my hair grow a bit. We’ll see.
Now, turning to the main event: the tragedy of our nation’s politics. Over the last month or two, I have become despondent over the failure of so many Americans to openly embrace the progressive philosophy. November provided us with the clearest possible choice, and we clearly made a decisive choice against progressivism and in favor of stupidity, vulgarity, greed, and cynicism. Sheesh. Hard to pull the silver lining out of that one.
In fact, my pessimism over losing the election so clearly has spread and grown to a rather dark view of our society as a whole. The day after Christmas, a sub-oceanic earthquake in the Indian Ocean triggered a tsunami that killed 150,000 people. In virtually the entire world outside the US, this was seen as a human catastrophe and relief emergency of the first order. In the US, it played like an infomercial for Save the Children – lots of shots of wailing women in colorful exotic garb, and scenes of villages that could have been the “before” pictures in urban development schemes. The only news coverage was of the “news-for-budgies” variety – “White Child Feared Lost, Found,” “Europeans Find Vacations Cut Short by Asian Disaster,” and so on.
I didn’t see a single Hollywood mogul hop on the phone to organize a relief concert, or the NFL commissioner wonder how his league could help, or the Senate out front of the Capital singing Amazing Grace. Just didn’t see that.
And I couldn’t help but note the stark contrast between our rather pitiful reaction, and the reaction of the world on 9/11, when people all over the planet pured into the streets, the churches, mosques and temples, to show their solidarity.
We, on the other hand, enjoyed a spirited round of college football playoffs.
When I consider this against the backdrop of 50-something percent of my fellow Americans actually voting for GW Bush, I see broader problem far deeper than any single election, or the failure of our political system. I see a society that has collapsed, that may or may not revive.
I am an innately optimistic person, and continue to believe against all the evidence that the righteous shall prevail. But on November 2 I thought we were beginning the long journey back to a society that valued human communities. I’m now concerned that our long march toward the forces of greed and cruelty is not yet over, and that in fact things will get considerably worse before they get any better.
“The Bush administration yesterday pledged $15 million to Asian nations hit by a tsunami that has killed more than 22,500 people,” sayeth a right-wing paper on December 28. On January 1, the AP reported that the President’s Inauguration committee “planned to raise $40 million to $50 million for the inaugural events, scheduled for Jan. 18-21.”
Of course, the outcry over the initial $15 million pledge has resulted in a large increase in that amount being promised, though as a New Yorker I’d advise the nice people of Asia not to spend anything until Uncle Sam’s check clears. And the latest news is even more bizarre: President Bush has enlisted his dad and Bill Clinton to lead a fund-raising drive amongst American citizens. I’m having a hard time seeing what Bill Clinton is doing consorting with these bastards, though I suspect he in anxious to play a role in helping our fellow humans who have been hit so terribly hard. It’s just that it smacks of enabling these punks who feel the government has no role to play in disaster relief – except in doling out dollars to prospective voters in Florida.
I also read today that Senator Kerry is so far not releasing his core team members from their loyalty to him, holding the group together in contemplation of an ’08 run. I have decidedly mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I was as convinced as could be that John Kerry was going to make a fine commander in chief, and possibly help Southern people understand that We Do Not In Fact Hate Them (which is the key in my view to getting them back on our side, where they belong – hell, where everybody who’s not a billionaire belongs).
On the other hand, he is not someone that many working class or red-staters warmed up to, nor did he strike me as combative enough. I’d like a newer, tougher, far-less mealy-mouthed John Kerry to show his fighting spirit and rally for a crushing victory in 08. But I suspect that’s not what I’m going to get. John, call me!
As we head into what looks to be another year of Anti-Robin Hooding (taking from the poor to give to the rich), as well as a year of utter coarseness and cynicism, it’s hard not to be depressed. Where are the bright lights of hope? Where are the beacons of sanity? When I look back over our nation’s history, I see a disturbing and ultimately tragic pattern playing itself out yet again: we indulge our childishness by engaging in these flights of fancy that what goes on politically doesn’t really matter and it’s fine to use politics to make all manner of silly statements, all the while letting fester wounds that ultimately erupt in carnage. I sure as hell hope I’m misreading these particular tea leaves, but more and more, that’s what it looks like. We seem to be drifting helplessly toward a conflagration with the extremist Muslims, which is unnecessary, but which I fear will come at some point, perhaps much sooner than anyone could possibly guess.
And on that happy, note, Happy New Year Everybody! Happy 2005!
Monday, November 22, 2004
From Eschaton -- Deja Vu All Over Again
I just want to make sure I've got this because as we run up to war with Iran, I want to be sure this doesn't go down my own memory hole:
Groundhog DayWe really are in repeat. I'd forgotten Ken Pollack has a big new book out warning us about Iran. I'm sure we can look forward to his numerous appearances on chat shows saying diplomacy is the best solution, but absent that war is probably a better choice than doing nothing. Rumsfeld will deny that there are any "war plans on his desk," giggling as our press fails to note that he neither bothers to make any plans nor does he actually use a desk. Andy Card will comment that one waits until after Labor Day to roll out any new product. Judith Miller, the current Queen of All Iraq, will develop exciting new sources within the new Iranian National Congress. With any luck, the balsa wood drones of death will reappear, as will scary plans for weapons of mass destruction which look like they'd been scribbled by a 5 year old. And, it'll all hit the fan right before the midterms as the Dems once again run and hide.Wake me up, please....oh no, it's going to be worse. We'll have endless weepy tributes to "Iranian college students" who will overthrow the government by Crazy Andy and Tom Friedman. Friedman will write endless "soul searching" columns about "Tom Friedman's war." Oh Lord, it goes on and on... the last two years really did righteously suck. I don't want to do them again.
-Atrios 2:31
PM
11.20.04
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Here’s another one
Howard Dean yesterday railing against the media for the way it absolutely refuses to engage in any meaningful scrutiny of the Republicans. Sure, Howard, the media are awful. Are they biased by the fear of getting yelled at by an intensely angry Republican flack? Sure. Are they under-talented, under-educated and under-trying? Of course. But here’s the real point of Media Bias: the corporatization of the media has led to a media solely dedicated to selling soap. Our 11:00 o’clock local news carries story after story about fake threats ("Are your children safe from poisoned food? Film after the game."), and about celebrities ("Jude Law Named Sexiest Man Alive"). They do this not because they love Karl Rove, but because in their experience it sells soap. They get more viewers paying better attention when they keep us up to date with the latest on Scott Peterson or Martha Stewart than when they explain how John Kerry’s healthcare proposals will allow virtually every child to receive affordable quality healthcare.
It’s not the media that’s the problem, it’s the voters, stupid. We need to re-discover ways to interest viewers/voters in our stories. For going-on-four decades, the now-geriatrics at 60 Minutes have been more or less doing the job. Their show is commercially successful. It sells soap. Lots of it. And they do it with the breathless expose, the stinging rebuke, the final reveal of conclusively damning evidence. They sell the outrage, so people buy it.
If the Democrats were to make a Big Stink about the House’s changing of the rules in order to permit its leaders to remain in their posts even after they’re indicted, highlighting the utter hypocrisy of their reversing their moral position for no reason other than their unwillingness to condemn one of their own for his moral shortcomings, I think it would work. Dems should spread out on all the talk shows and other media outlets and talk about nothing else for two weeks. Get invited on under false pretenses if need be , but no matter what the question, the answer is the moral bankruptcy of the Republican House.
It’s not the media that’s the problem, it’s the voters, stupid. We need to re-discover ways to interest viewers/voters in our stories. For going-on-four decades, the now-geriatrics at 60 Minutes have been more or less doing the job. Their show is commercially successful. It sells soap. Lots of it. And they do it with the breathless expose, the stinging rebuke, the final reveal of conclusively damning evidence. They sell the outrage, so people buy it.
If the Democrats were to make a Big Stink about the House’s changing of the rules in order to permit its leaders to remain in their posts even after they’re indicted, highlighting the utter hypocrisy of their reversing their moral position for no reason other than their unwillingness to condemn one of their own for his moral shortcomings, I think it would work. Dems should spread out on all the talk shows and other media outlets and talk about nothing else for two weeks. Get invited on under false pretenses if need be , but no matter what the question, the answer is the moral bankruptcy of the Republican House.
Here’s One...
I can’t help but think of the Democrats as the Washington Generals of politics. The Washington Generals would appear at the start of every single game against the Harlem Globetrotters, warming up with as much earnestness and seriousness-of-purpose as could possibly be mustered. Of course, we all knew that it was an act, and that their whole reason for existence was to provide a foil (fool?) for our beloved Globetrotters to literally run rings around. But the charade only really worked if the poor Generals – for the 1641st time – played with sufficient sobriety (whiteness?) that the inevitable triumph of the All-Fun All-the-Time Globetrotters over them seemed satisfying.
Hence, our friends in the Democrat Party. Here comes Curly Lemon holding out a spinning ball tantalizingly close to a Generals player – and surprise: just as he lunger for the ball, Curly almost by magix flips the ball off of his head – then off of the ceiling! – then, swoosh, into the hoop.
Now here comes Karl Rove, railing against the de-sanctification of marriage caused by the unnatural acts of men marrying men and then actually having sex AS IF IT IS OK. Joe Democrat looks at the issue longingly – he wants nothing more than to stand up and shout "THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING GAY AND NOT A REASON IN THE WORLD TWO MEN SHOULDN’T GET MARRIED AND – GASP – EVEN HAVE SEX IF THEY WANT." You can almost see steam coming out of Joe D.’s ears as he restrains himself, knowing that such an outburst would alineate something like 80% of the electorate outside of Greenwich Village. But he can’t restrain himself: "While I hold the sanctity of marriage inviolate and believe that if should be reserved for a union between a man and a woman, I believe that same-sex civil unions are appropriate." THE CROWQD GOES WILD! Karl grabs the ball before Joe D. Even knows it’s gone and throws it into the hoop, banking it off the corner of the hot dog guy’s cart.
It doesn’t help either that Joe D. Has not only taken the bait, but has done so in a reserved, analytic, nuanced manner. KARL RULES!
So here’s the learning. From Sun Tzu, we all know that the war is won or lost before the battle is even begun (you got that, Mr. Wolfowitz?). There is no winning move for Joe D. on gay marriage. He can either alienate voters or betray his own values and compromise his cherished integrity (gee, this would be a lot easier if Republicans had integrity, wouldn’t it?). So Mr, Tzu (and several millenia of military thoerists), what’s the answer: decline to engage in a war one cannot win.
So Joe D., the next time Killer Karl comes at you with gay marriage, or the pledge of allegiance, or school prayer, or abortion, or flag-burning, or Presidential oral-zex-outside-of-marriage, just refuse to take the bait. Watch the ball spinning. Say to your constituents who are being malisciously maligned, "Sorry, but this is one battle I just can;t fight for you – let’s hope the courts will do their job!" Do not, Joe D., lunge for that ball.
Because without the nuancing Joe D. To make fun of, the Globetrotters’ don’t have much of a show.
Hence, our friends in the Democrat Party. Here comes Curly Lemon holding out a spinning ball tantalizingly close to a Generals player – and surprise: just as he lunger for the ball, Curly almost by magix flips the ball off of his head – then off of the ceiling! – then, swoosh, into the hoop.
Now here comes Karl Rove, railing against the de-sanctification of marriage caused by the unnatural acts of men marrying men and then actually having sex AS IF IT IS OK. Joe Democrat looks at the issue longingly – he wants nothing more than to stand up and shout "THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING GAY AND NOT A REASON IN THE WORLD TWO MEN SHOULDN’T GET MARRIED AND – GASP – EVEN HAVE SEX IF THEY WANT." You can almost see steam coming out of Joe D.’s ears as he restrains himself, knowing that such an outburst would alineate something like 80% of the electorate outside of Greenwich Village. But he can’t restrain himself: "While I hold the sanctity of marriage inviolate and believe that if should be reserved for a union between a man and a woman, I believe that same-sex civil unions are appropriate." THE CROWQD GOES WILD! Karl grabs the ball before Joe D. Even knows it’s gone and throws it into the hoop, banking it off the corner of the hot dog guy’s cart.
It doesn’t help either that Joe D. Has not only taken the bait, but has done so in a reserved, analytic, nuanced manner. KARL RULES!
So here’s the learning. From Sun Tzu, we all know that the war is won or lost before the battle is even begun (you got that, Mr. Wolfowitz?). There is no winning move for Joe D. on gay marriage. He can either alienate voters or betray his own values and compromise his cherished integrity (gee, this would be a lot easier if Republicans had integrity, wouldn’t it?). So Mr, Tzu (and several millenia of military thoerists), what’s the answer: decline to engage in a war one cannot win.
So Joe D., the next time Killer Karl comes at you with gay marriage, or the pledge of allegiance, or school prayer, or abortion, or flag-burning, or Presidential oral-zex-outside-of-marriage, just refuse to take the bait. Watch the ball spinning. Say to your constituents who are being malisciously maligned, "Sorry, but this is one battle I just can;t fight for you – let’s hope the courts will do their job!" Do not, Joe D., lunge for that ball.
Because without the nuancing Joe D. To make fun of, the Globetrotters’ don’t have much of a show.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Emerging Themes
A few ideas are starting to emerge as keepers.
I continue to believe that essentially ignoring so-called social issues, rather than digging in our heels, is the right move. Wanna outlaw abortion? Our position should be something like, "We recognize that abortion presents our society with fundamental questions that should be fully explored. As a party, we believe in upholding the Constitution of the United States, which at this time protects a woman's right to choose."
That's it. Same for gay marriage. School prayer. Let's recognize these issues for the winners they are: either the Republicans get their way and alienate everybody, or the right eventually figures out that the Repubs don't really care about these issues.
The best possible outcome would be for these things to simply fade away from public view, enjoying the obscurity they so richly deserve.
Another tactic: we should pick a few government programs that enjoy broad support, and demand that they be improved and beefed up. Take food inspections: most Americans are reasonably enthusiastic about their tax dollars going to make sure our food supply is safe. But as any viewer of local news shows during sweeps knows, our food supply is far from as safe as it could be. Let's propose a massive increase in the number and thoroughness of food inspections.
It may be that safe food is a loser, but let's picka couple.
The other area I think we should explore consists of issues that make Republicans uncomfortable. Let's get back to talking about our wasteful defense spending. I suspect the Conventional Wisdom is something like, "Oh, no, we'd be seen as weak on terror." But Democrats have made hay for generations by focusing on obvious pork. A riff on this might be to become the anti-pork barrel party, and make that a centerpiece of our message (analagous to smaller government or lower taxes). Of course, that would mean we would have to lay off the pork, but hey, it's pretty good policy, and with our guys on the outs in DC, how much are we really giving up any way?
Two last thoughts: One, we have to put the lie to the various strawmen that Republicans need to survive. So when red-staters voice fears about higher taxes, the question we should be asking is which Democrat raised your taxes to such high levels? Or, which Democrat want to take away your guns? Or force your kids to be gay? Or prevent you from practicing your faith? We're the guys who are tolerant, not the Republicans. In a similar vien, we should stand up and defend forthrightly our own values. The Ivy League is a good thing. East Coast liberals are the guys who favor raising everybody's living standards, and are really good about being caring and selfless.
Finally, we have got to find some leading voices with a Southern accent. This doesn't mean that our PResidential candidate must be a Southerner, but we do have too many New York and California voices. We should be reaching out to bright people from our toughest areas to join the cause, instead of hiring so many from our strength. (We could also look into finding more enterprising ways to tap into young creative talent: right now, there are too few oppportunities to make a career in the politics of helping each other.)
I continue to believe that essentially ignoring so-called social issues, rather than digging in our heels, is the right move. Wanna outlaw abortion? Our position should be something like, "We recognize that abortion presents our society with fundamental questions that should be fully explored. As a party, we believe in upholding the Constitution of the United States, which at this time protects a woman's right to choose."
That's it. Same for gay marriage. School prayer. Let's recognize these issues for the winners they are: either the Republicans get their way and alienate everybody, or the right eventually figures out that the Repubs don't really care about these issues.
The best possible outcome would be for these things to simply fade away from public view, enjoying the obscurity they so richly deserve.
Another tactic: we should pick a few government programs that enjoy broad support, and demand that they be improved and beefed up. Take food inspections: most Americans are reasonably enthusiastic about their tax dollars going to make sure our food supply is safe. But as any viewer of local news shows during sweeps knows, our food supply is far from as safe as it could be. Let's propose a massive increase in the number and thoroughness of food inspections.
It may be that safe food is a loser, but let's picka couple.
The other area I think we should explore consists of issues that make Republicans uncomfortable. Let's get back to talking about our wasteful defense spending. I suspect the Conventional Wisdom is something like, "Oh, no, we'd be seen as weak on terror." But Democrats have made hay for generations by focusing on obvious pork. A riff on this might be to become the anti-pork barrel party, and make that a centerpiece of our message (analagous to smaller government or lower taxes). Of course, that would mean we would have to lay off the pork, but hey, it's pretty good policy, and with our guys on the outs in DC, how much are we really giving up any way?
Two last thoughts: One, we have to put the lie to the various strawmen that Republicans need to survive. So when red-staters voice fears about higher taxes, the question we should be asking is which Democrat raised your taxes to such high levels? Or, which Democrat want to take away your guns? Or force your kids to be gay? Or prevent you from practicing your faith? We're the guys who are tolerant, not the Republicans. In a similar vien, we should stand up and defend forthrightly our own values. The Ivy League is a good thing. East Coast liberals are the guys who favor raising everybody's living standards, and are really good about being caring and selfless.
Finally, we have got to find some leading voices with a Southern accent. This doesn't mean that our PResidential candidate must be a Southerner, but we do have too many New York and California voices. We should be reaching out to bright people from our toughest areas to join the cause, instead of hiring so many from our strength. (We could also look into finding more enterprising ways to tap into young creative talent: right now, there are too few oppportunities to make a career in the politics of helping each other.)
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Stray Thoughts…
Starting to calm down a bit, and slightly more rational thoughts are starting to poke through the haze…
First: John Kerry should remain the unquestioned leader of our party, a sort of President-in-waiting. Could there be a more perfect time than now for us to have a shadow President? While there are plenty of warts on our candidate, that would surely be true of any candidate we run. Unless (until?) a powerful, charismatic leader emerges to challenge Kerry’s dominance, all Hail Future-President Kerry.
Second: Ya know how Kerry’s been painted as an out-of-touch elitist East Coast lefty snob? Well, remember Bill Clinton? He was a low-class, trailer-trash amoral bastard hick who didn’t know how the real world worked. If you think about it, you can write the script for any Democratic nominee. (Try it with Edwards: an inexperienced, young, ambulance chaser, driven mad with ambition, with no foreign policy experience. Or how about Dean: an overly smart, hyper doctor from a patrician New York family who went to Vermont because he wanted to be governor, who lacks the temperament needed to be President.)
All of which is a wind-up to #3:Third: Whatever the short-comings of our candidates, we can still focus on re-formulating our message and our approach. I’d begin with the Oklahoma chapter of Christian Evangelicals for Kerry. There is no way we should cede the Bible Belt to the Republicans. People who think of themselves as Christians belong with us and our whole “help-your-neighbor” schtick, not with those on the “every-man-for-himself” right.
Which brings me round to #4:Fourth: We have fallen into the trap set for us by the Evil Ones: the Republicans absolutely require an “us vs. them” mentality, and we’ve taken the bait, hook, line, sinker, rod, the whole damn boat. All of the Red State/Blue State crap should be thought of as unpatriotic Republican dogma. What unites us is far stronger than what divides us. That’s a big part of what was so thrilling about Barak’s speech: he absolutely blew up the us/them dichotomy, and claimed for our side our traditional approach: we’ll win because the majority are with us, and we’ll focus on building that majority.
Let’s start with Alabama: if you’re poor, white, have a truck, and are pissed off at “special interest groups,” get on board out train, because we’re fighting for you. Some of this is cultural (no more condescending East Coast intelligentsia crap), but a lot of this is convincing folks that we’re on their side against their real enemies.
Round 5? OK, since you insist:
Fifth: Let’s quit playing with these guys on the so-called social issues. If they want to outlaw gay marriage, let’s let them. As much as it’s obvious gay hatred, we only make it successful if we acknowledge it. It’s rather like a petulant teenager saying that they’re going to out and do awful things – the whole entire point is to antagonize Mom and Dad. If Mom and Dad stay focused on what counts, the gambit quickly loses its appeal. So fine. Outlaw gay marriage (it’s not legal now any way.) Wanna outlaw abortion – knock yourselves out. With a significant moderate wing, the Republicans will defeat themselves on this junk.
Why yes, let’s even let them ban flag burning. I think the good people of the United States would somehow stumble through history even if burning the flag were illegal.
OK, Round 6, but then I gotta go.
Sixth (Can you tell I was a lawyer): We have got to lose the earnest, analytical, reasoned approach to talking with voters. When choosing the Big Leader, voters are conducting a job interview. We show up with the stronger resume and better skills, but we bore the crap out of the interviewer, while the other guy shows up with no skills and just out of rehab, but he’s totally more fun to hang out with, plus he seems like he’d to a kick-ass job. So we lose. Every freakin’ time. So l loosen up, have some fun that doesn’t involve clucking over how inept the Bushies are (or how medieval the Bible Belt is – it isn’t, you know – they have Wal-Marts there just like everywhere else). Look, I love Al Franken as much as the next snarky New York liberal, but I can see where he’s just pissing off a whole lotta folks. Glad to have him, but let’s get more folks who connect with the non-Harvard educated. (Hey I know: let’s give Jeff Foxworthy a whole lotta cash and see if we can get him on-board). Which leads me to
Big Finish:Right after Fundamentalists for Kerry, how about Country Musicians for Pay Equity? How great would it be to have all of country music’s biggest stars lined up with us pushing for a decent standard of living for their fans?
Folks, it’s all just a matter of imagination and packaging. When it comes to substance, we’ve got the goods. We just need to sell it in better.
First: John Kerry should remain the unquestioned leader of our party, a sort of President-in-waiting. Could there be a more perfect time than now for us to have a shadow President? While there are plenty of warts on our candidate, that would surely be true of any candidate we run. Unless (until?) a powerful, charismatic leader emerges to challenge Kerry’s dominance, all Hail Future-President Kerry.
Second: Ya know how Kerry’s been painted as an out-of-touch elitist East Coast lefty snob? Well, remember Bill Clinton? He was a low-class, trailer-trash amoral bastard hick who didn’t know how the real world worked. If you think about it, you can write the script for any Democratic nominee. (Try it with Edwards: an inexperienced, young, ambulance chaser, driven mad with ambition, with no foreign policy experience. Or how about Dean: an overly smart, hyper doctor from a patrician New York family who went to Vermont because he wanted to be governor, who lacks the temperament needed to be President.)
All of which is a wind-up to #3:Third: Whatever the short-comings of our candidates, we can still focus on re-formulating our message and our approach. I’d begin with the Oklahoma chapter of Christian Evangelicals for Kerry. There is no way we should cede the Bible Belt to the Republicans. People who think of themselves as Christians belong with us and our whole “help-your-neighbor” schtick, not with those on the “every-man-for-himself” right.
Which brings me round to #4:Fourth: We have fallen into the trap set for us by the Evil Ones: the Republicans absolutely require an “us vs. them” mentality, and we’ve taken the bait, hook, line, sinker, rod, the whole damn boat. All of the Red State/Blue State crap should be thought of as unpatriotic Republican dogma. What unites us is far stronger than what divides us. That’s a big part of what was so thrilling about Barak’s speech: he absolutely blew up the us/them dichotomy, and claimed for our side our traditional approach: we’ll win because the majority are with us, and we’ll focus on building that majority.
Let’s start with Alabama: if you’re poor, white, have a truck, and are pissed off at “special interest groups,” get on board out train, because we’re fighting for you. Some of this is cultural (no more condescending East Coast intelligentsia crap), but a lot of this is convincing folks that we’re on their side against their real enemies.
Round 5? OK, since you insist:
Fifth: Let’s quit playing with these guys on the so-called social issues. If they want to outlaw gay marriage, let’s let them. As much as it’s obvious gay hatred, we only make it successful if we acknowledge it. It’s rather like a petulant teenager saying that they’re going to out and do awful things – the whole entire point is to antagonize Mom and Dad. If Mom and Dad stay focused on what counts, the gambit quickly loses its appeal. So fine. Outlaw gay marriage (it’s not legal now any way.) Wanna outlaw abortion – knock yourselves out. With a significant moderate wing, the Republicans will defeat themselves on this junk.
Why yes, let’s even let them ban flag burning. I think the good people of the United States would somehow stumble through history even if burning the flag were illegal.
OK, Round 6, but then I gotta go.
Sixth (Can you tell I was a lawyer): We have got to lose the earnest, analytical, reasoned approach to talking with voters. When choosing the Big Leader, voters are conducting a job interview. We show up with the stronger resume and better skills, but we bore the crap out of the interviewer, while the other guy shows up with no skills and just out of rehab, but he’s totally more fun to hang out with, plus he seems like he’d to a kick-ass job. So we lose. Every freakin’ time. So l loosen up, have some fun that doesn’t involve clucking over how inept the Bushies are (or how medieval the Bible Belt is – it isn’t, you know – they have Wal-Marts there just like everywhere else). Look, I love Al Franken as much as the next snarky New York liberal, but I can see where he’s just pissing off a whole lotta folks. Glad to have him, but let’s get more folks who connect with the non-Harvard educated. (Hey I know: let’s give Jeff Foxworthy a whole lotta cash and see if we can get him on-board). Which leads me to
Big Finish:Right after Fundamentalists for Kerry, how about Country Musicians for Pay Equity? How great would it be to have all of country music’s biggest stars lined up with us pushing for a decent standard of living for their fans?
Folks, it’s all just a matter of imagination and packaging. When it comes to substance, we’ve got the goods. We just need to sell it in better.
Friday, November 05, 2004
New Framework
I’m finally cured of the “Oh No! We’re All Going to Die” despair that loomed so large Wednesday and Thursday after Kerry’s crushing loss. No longer do I want to take our Good Democratic Dominoes and Go Home. I’m (almost enthusiastically) resigned to the slow, hard grind of incrementally evolving our messaging for 2006.
BUT I cannot escape the notion that our message must evolve significantly to get us back on track. To that end , I have an observation and a suggestion:
Observation. I heard Al Franken and Joe Conason going at it today, Franken saying that our next candidate had better be a Southern Baptist because boy, did the Republicans make a lot of hey from Kerry’s New England patrician status, which also singularly failed to connect with voters outside of core blue states. (True enough, Al.) But Conason quite correctly reminded Al that when we in fact ran a Southern Baptist (our last two winners, actually), the Republicans did not hesitate to paint him as a hick, a low-class schemer from a alcoholic mother and a who-knows-who father. (Touche, Joe.) They agreed that no matter who we run, the Republicans will smear that person as out of the mainstream. (Good job, boys.)
All of this is pretty common pratter these days. But there’s a deeper truth that I haven’t heard much about, but is basic and fundamental. The Democrat and Republican parties are not similarly situated in our society. We hold certain beliefs about the two sides that we do not articulate. This is a key example: the Democrats are the Dudley Do-Right, while the Republicans are Snively Whiplash. So, a smear from a Democrat of a Republican is going to be viewed (by the press and by at least some voters) as heinous, vicious and beyond the pale. Shoe on the other foot (Republican smears Democrat): well, what did you expect?
Can you imagine a Democratic primary with the kind of tactics that are completely normal on the right? Insinuations from “3d parties” about black babies? Leaks about a candidate’s wife’s prescription drug problems? I’m sure it happens, but on the other side it’s a way of life.
Another example is the “flip-flopper” affair. Bush changes positions like I change underwear (once weekly whether I need it or not). Kerry slightly rephrases his detailed and nuanced positions and wham! Flip Flopper! The reason why the right’s smears stick and the left’s don’t is the unspoken premise that the Democrats are the good guys, and should be above such things, while the Republicans are, shall we say, unencumbered with such expectations.
Suggestion. In the quest to reframe the debate to terms more favorable to our side, I have written before about the transformative power of the concept of value, so that we can move the discussion away from the cost side of government services (taxes) and balance it with the benefit side (clean air, the Air Force, roads, etc.) Here’s another buzzword that I think we should start to focus on: accountability. I’ve mentioned this before, but the more I think about it, the more I think that we must become the party of accountability. I think it’s a more constructive way to highlight the outright deceptive campaign of the Bushes and their lyin’ ilk, and I think it gives us the basis to move the conversation back onto our territory: away from whether the government should help people, and onto the question of how the government should help people.
So that’s two: Values, and Accountability. And when it comes to message discipline, it should go something like this:
Press: “What do you think of the fact that so many voters cited Mr. Bush’s moral values?
Democrat: “I think we need to focus on accountability and providing the American people with the kind of service they deserve.
Press: “But what about this tuna sandwich?”
Democrat: “That’s why I think we need to focus on accountability and delivering value to the American people.
And so on.
BUT I cannot escape the notion that our message must evolve significantly to get us back on track. To that end , I have an observation and a suggestion:
Observation. I heard Al Franken and Joe Conason going at it today, Franken saying that our next candidate had better be a Southern Baptist because boy, did the Republicans make a lot of hey from Kerry’s New England patrician status, which also singularly failed to connect with voters outside of core blue states. (True enough, Al.) But Conason quite correctly reminded Al that when we in fact ran a Southern Baptist (our last two winners, actually), the Republicans did not hesitate to paint him as a hick, a low-class schemer from a alcoholic mother and a who-knows-who father. (Touche, Joe.) They agreed that no matter who we run, the Republicans will smear that person as out of the mainstream. (Good job, boys.)
All of this is pretty common pratter these days. But there’s a deeper truth that I haven’t heard much about, but is basic and fundamental. The Democrat and Republican parties are not similarly situated in our society. We hold certain beliefs about the two sides that we do not articulate. This is a key example: the Democrats are the Dudley Do-Right, while the Republicans are Snively Whiplash. So, a smear from a Democrat of a Republican is going to be viewed (by the press and by at least some voters) as heinous, vicious and beyond the pale. Shoe on the other foot (Republican smears Democrat): well, what did you expect?
Can you imagine a Democratic primary with the kind of tactics that are completely normal on the right? Insinuations from “3d parties” about black babies? Leaks about a candidate’s wife’s prescription drug problems? I’m sure it happens, but on the other side it’s a way of life.
Another example is the “flip-flopper” affair. Bush changes positions like I change underwear (once weekly whether I need it or not). Kerry slightly rephrases his detailed and nuanced positions and wham! Flip Flopper! The reason why the right’s smears stick and the left’s don’t is the unspoken premise that the Democrats are the good guys, and should be above such things, while the Republicans are, shall we say, unencumbered with such expectations.
Suggestion. In the quest to reframe the debate to terms more favorable to our side, I have written before about the transformative power of the concept of value, so that we can move the discussion away from the cost side of government services (taxes) and balance it with the benefit side (clean air, the Air Force, roads, etc.) Here’s another buzzword that I think we should start to focus on: accountability. I’ve mentioned this before, but the more I think about it, the more I think that we must become the party of accountability. I think it’s a more constructive way to highlight the outright deceptive campaign of the Bushes and their lyin’ ilk, and I think it gives us the basis to move the conversation back onto our territory: away from whether the government should help people, and onto the question of how the government should help people.
So that’s two: Values, and Accountability. And when it comes to message discipline, it should go something like this:
Press: “What do you think of the fact that so many voters cited Mr. Bush’s moral values?
Democrat: “I think we need to focus on accountability and providing the American people with the kind of service they deserve.
Press: “But what about this tuna sandwich?”
Democrat: “That’s why I think we need to focus on accountability and delivering value to the American people.
And so on.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Joy in Mudville
From the Department of Making Lemonade, here are the good things about not winning the White House:
-Bush will have to face more of the consequences of his actions, from the quagmire in Iraq to the failing economy.
-We can all make fun of a hapless incompetent boob for 4 more years,
-There are a whole bunch of incriminating reports coming out that will make Bush voters regret their foolishness.
-Democrats will have 4 more years to sharpen their thinking, build their infrastructure, and find a SOUTHERN PERSON to run in 08. (President Edwards, anyone?)
-The ultra-radical right will no doubt get embroiled with the super-ultra-radical right on issues of whether unwed teen mothers should be shot or drawn and quartered and then shot.
-We can all marvel at the hutzpah of the speculation that Jeb will get the party’s nomination in 08.
-We can finally get a supreme court that is prepared to do away with the pesky commerce clause.
-Democrats can quit attending congressional sessions, and practice fiery oratory.
-Hilariously incompetent “2d Term” appointees.
There are a few negatives, however, that might not be so obvious:
-More smirk, more swagger.
-Smarmy, hard-to-stomach “Veneration of Bush The Elder,” if he should pass on before 08.
-More twins.
-Confirmation that the answer to any public policy challenge is either to cut taxes or invade Iraq.
-Re-definition of political dissent as “providing aid and comfort to the enemy.”
Of course, this list of negatives leaves off such things as the Clash of Civilizations ("WW3"), The 2d Depression, and the transformation of the US into a neo-fascist state. But I thought they went without saying...
-Bush will have to face more of the consequences of his actions, from the quagmire in Iraq to the failing economy.
-We can all make fun of a hapless incompetent boob for 4 more years,
-There are a whole bunch of incriminating reports coming out that will make Bush voters regret their foolishness.
-Democrats will have 4 more years to sharpen their thinking, build their infrastructure, and find a SOUTHERN PERSON to run in 08. (President Edwards, anyone?)
-The ultra-radical right will no doubt get embroiled with the super-ultra-radical right on issues of whether unwed teen mothers should be shot or drawn and quartered and then shot.
-We can all marvel at the hutzpah of the speculation that Jeb will get the party’s nomination in 08.
-We can finally get a supreme court that is prepared to do away with the pesky commerce clause.
-Democrats can quit attending congressional sessions, and practice fiery oratory.
-Hilariously incompetent “2d Term” appointees.
There are a few negatives, however, that might not be so obvious:
-More smirk, more swagger.
-Smarmy, hard-to-stomach “Veneration of Bush The Elder,” if he should pass on before 08.
-More twins.
-Confirmation that the answer to any public policy challenge is either to cut taxes or invade Iraq.
-Re-definition of political dissent as “providing aid and comfort to the enemy.”
Of course, this list of negatives leaves off such things as the Clash of Civilizations ("WW3"), The 2d Depression, and the transformation of the US into a neo-fascist state. But I thought they went without saying...
One Moment More of Pure Resentment, Please
I know, of course, that the path forward is not through recrimination and resentment. But I think I may be indulged just a bit more…
We are now safe from the specter of gay marriage. And…
Activist judges.
Racial Quotas.
Flag-burning.
A God-less Pledge of Allegiance
Trial Lawyers.
Death taxes.
Tax-and-spend liberals.
Terrorists.
Tyrants.
Government health care.
Byur-o-crats.
The French.
The UN.
Special Interests.
Too bad the Repubs have forsaken the dogma of the crushing federal deficits that under Bush I were coming to eat your children. It might have helped rein in some of the current crowd’s wild spending and tax-cutting.
We are now safe from the specter of gay marriage. And…
Activist judges.
Racial Quotas.
Flag-burning.
A God-less Pledge of Allegiance
Trial Lawyers.
Death taxes.
Tax-and-spend liberals.
Terrorists.
Tyrants.
Government health care.
Byur-o-crats.
The French.
The UN.
Special Interests.
Too bad the Repubs have forsaken the dogma of the crushing federal deficits that under Bush I were coming to eat your children. It might have helped rein in some of the current crowd’s wild spending and tax-cutting.
Shock & Awe
It’s the morning after, and in the cool light of the new day it seems clear that well over half of all Americans are idiots, concentrated in the South and Mid-West.
The Democrats have spent considerable time and and thought trying to reach out to red-staters. In fact, there may be some truth in the idea that the Democrats come across as less than genuine because they are trying so hard to understand and accommodate those with whom they fundamentally disagree.
But far better a certain amount of perceived patronizing than the outright indifference of the Republicans, whose message to those on the other side of the divide is, “screw off.” It’s straight from the Pat Buchanan playbook: the Dems try to win by building a large coalition in the middle, uniting those from opposing points of view, while the Repubs win by breaking the electorate in two in the hopes of ending up with the slightly larger half. We’re terribly concerned about them; they could care less about us.
Of course, the conventional wisdom is something like, “Well, it’s time for the Dems to return to first principles, and with a blank slate start the hard work of re-building their party.” To heck with that. I’m so mad and disappointed in my fellow citizens that this morning, at least, I’m perfectly happy for them to go off and ruin their lives. Work at Wal-Mart. Live in shacks. Be afraid of gay people.
Only in doing so, they threaten my life as well.
I’m really torn between wanting to return to our old custom of trying to explain, patiently, why giving a larger and larger share of your income to rich people is a bad idea. Why sending your sons and daughters off to the military is not an act of honor but too often of desperation. Why invading unarmed nations for no good reason – and then boasting about it – is likely to lead to serious consequences. Why disdaining science is likely to return us to the dark ages. Why hubris is invariably repaid with come-uppance.
If our fellow Americans don’t get these basic principles, I’m not sure what can be done for them. That’s why the other alternative that seems so appealing on this most difficult of mornings is to abandon them as they have abandoned me. Forget fighting for the common good. Fight only for my own. Leave. Secede. Fight to end the flow of untold billions from the blue to the red states. If the red states are so sure that our Boston Brahman doesn’t “get” them, and that the little man from “Crawford” is their guy, then let them go it alone. We have labored mightily to make a go of things with these people as a united people. They have clearly said that our concerns are not theirs, and that they want to go in a different direction.
Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War to defend the principal that no state could withdraw from the Union of its own volition. That a Union comprised of states so loosely held was no union at all. But what of a state that withdraws with the full consent of the union. Why shouldn’t the East & West Coasts take their industry, their jobs, their wits and wisdom, and form a union that better suits their needs, and let the middle states form the theocracy they so earnestly desire?
Today, this hardest of days, I’m having a hard time seeing why that isn’t the right answer. Something about a higher moral calling. But to protect our security, our Blue-State security, the very best plan may well be to re-join the community of nations on our own, and let our swaggering, misguided brethern reap the bitter harvest of their unconscionable hubris.
The Democrats have spent considerable time and and thought trying to reach out to red-staters. In fact, there may be some truth in the idea that the Democrats come across as less than genuine because they are trying so hard to understand and accommodate those with whom they fundamentally disagree.
But far better a certain amount of perceived patronizing than the outright indifference of the Republicans, whose message to those on the other side of the divide is, “screw off.” It’s straight from the Pat Buchanan playbook: the Dems try to win by building a large coalition in the middle, uniting those from opposing points of view, while the Repubs win by breaking the electorate in two in the hopes of ending up with the slightly larger half. We’re terribly concerned about them; they could care less about us.
Of course, the conventional wisdom is something like, “Well, it’s time for the Dems to return to first principles, and with a blank slate start the hard work of re-building their party.” To heck with that. I’m so mad and disappointed in my fellow citizens that this morning, at least, I’m perfectly happy for them to go off and ruin their lives. Work at Wal-Mart. Live in shacks. Be afraid of gay people.
Only in doing so, they threaten my life as well.
I’m really torn between wanting to return to our old custom of trying to explain, patiently, why giving a larger and larger share of your income to rich people is a bad idea. Why sending your sons and daughters off to the military is not an act of honor but too often of desperation. Why invading unarmed nations for no good reason – and then boasting about it – is likely to lead to serious consequences. Why disdaining science is likely to return us to the dark ages. Why hubris is invariably repaid with come-uppance.
If our fellow Americans don’t get these basic principles, I’m not sure what can be done for them. That’s why the other alternative that seems so appealing on this most difficult of mornings is to abandon them as they have abandoned me. Forget fighting for the common good. Fight only for my own. Leave. Secede. Fight to end the flow of untold billions from the blue to the red states. If the red states are so sure that our Boston Brahman doesn’t “get” them, and that the little man from “Crawford” is their guy, then let them go it alone. We have labored mightily to make a go of things with these people as a united people. They have clearly said that our concerns are not theirs, and that they want to go in a different direction.
Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War to defend the principal that no state could withdraw from the Union of its own volition. That a Union comprised of states so loosely held was no union at all. But what of a state that withdraws with the full consent of the union. Why shouldn’t the East & West Coasts take their industry, their jobs, their wits and wisdom, and form a union that better suits their needs, and let the middle states form the theocracy they so earnestly desire?
Today, this hardest of days, I’m having a hard time seeing why that isn’t the right answer. Something about a higher moral calling. But to protect our security, our Blue-State security, the very best plan may well be to re-join the community of nations on our own, and let our swaggering, misguided brethern reap the bitter harvest of their unconscionable hubris.
Monday, November 01, 2004
Let's Test the Conventional Wisdom.
The media hold that the race is tied. But there's an emerging Democrat consensus that there are a number of factors that clearly indicate a Kerry win, perhaps even a landslide. Let's get that Emerging CV on paper to see how it holds up under the weight of events.
1. The New Registrants. Millions of new people have been registered, and they are largely Democratic voters. And they do not appear in the polls, as they have not previously voted.
2. In a similar vein the Cel Phone Vote. In this nugget of ECV, there are millions of voters who do not have land line phones, and are therefore not being counted in the polls. And, of course, they lean heavily Democratic.
3. Nothing Added, Much Lost. This is simply an instinctual theory that few Gore supporters have moved to Bush, while numerous Bush supporters have defected to Kerry. This is often expressed in discussing subsets of voters, like Arab-Americans. Bush got many of them last time, but now many have crossed over to Kerry. Or Cuban-Americans. Or Security Moms. Or White Men. Whoever. This seems compelling on a gut level. Will it pan out in reality?
4. Pissed-off Dems. In 2000, this theory goes, Dems were lazily riding a wave of peace and prosperity, and were surprised by the strength of Bush. Bush's harsh and divisive approach has only served to fire up the Democrats, and the result is an unprecedented effort to mobilize the voters, both in the campaign and on election day.
5. Undecideds Break for the Challenger. In all of the current polls, there remain a non-trivial number of undecideds. Historically, these have generally ended up on the challengers' side. If there are still 4-8% of voters undecided, Sen. Kerry can expect to win 80% of them.
6. The Nader of the Right. Some libertarian clown on the right, Michael Badnarik, is seriously pulling votes away from Bush. If Bush won by a few hundred votes last time, it can't be good news that there is a Nader on his right pulling off ANY votes.
7. Nader ain't Nader any more. In 2000, Nader pulled many key votes from Gore, costing him the election (so goes the conventional wisdom, though there are serious arguments to the contrary). But in 2004, goes the Emerging Conventional Widsdom, Nader is far less of a factor: he is no longer supported by a party, he is on many fewer ballots, and most of his supporters have come to regret handing the presidency to the Evil One.
8. Polls Undercount Votes to Challangers. In this gem, the ECV holds that the polls overstate the results, as people say they're voting for the incumbent, but in reality vote the other way. This is especially true when the incumbent is popular with dominant types (white, male, etc.), and the challenger appeals to the disadvantaged.
9. The Secret 50% Rule. The Secret 50% Rule holds that the incumbent needs an approval rating of at least 50%, or else he cannot win, and President Bush has been holding well below this necessary threshold. I suspect this falls into the same "correlation, not causation" bucket as the Redskins loss = incubent loss, but nonetheless, it is part of the ECV.
10. The Back-firing of Republicans' Voter Suppression Efforts. Many minority, young and new voters will so resent the efforts by the Bush camp to keep them from voting, it just energizes them to vote all the more. "Keep me from voting, will you? Ha! In fact, I'm gonna vote twice just for spite!" Or something.
Well, that's 10, which is more than I would have guessed. Now, let's see how it pans out.
Oh, and let's also hope that Tim Russert managers to make a big enough fool of himself that NBC decides to replace him with Someone With A Functioning Brain.
1. The New Registrants. Millions of new people have been registered, and they are largely Democratic voters. And they do not appear in the polls, as they have not previously voted.
2. In a similar vein the Cel Phone Vote. In this nugget of ECV, there are millions of voters who do not have land line phones, and are therefore not being counted in the polls. And, of course, they lean heavily Democratic.
3. Nothing Added, Much Lost. This is simply an instinctual theory that few Gore supporters have moved to Bush, while numerous Bush supporters have defected to Kerry. This is often expressed in discussing subsets of voters, like Arab-Americans. Bush got many of them last time, but now many have crossed over to Kerry. Or Cuban-Americans. Or Security Moms. Or White Men. Whoever. This seems compelling on a gut level. Will it pan out in reality?
4. Pissed-off Dems. In 2000, this theory goes, Dems were lazily riding a wave of peace and prosperity, and were surprised by the strength of Bush. Bush's harsh and divisive approach has only served to fire up the Democrats, and the result is an unprecedented effort to mobilize the voters, both in the campaign and on election day.
5. Undecideds Break for the Challenger. In all of the current polls, there remain a non-trivial number of undecideds. Historically, these have generally ended up on the challengers' side. If there are still 4-8% of voters undecided, Sen. Kerry can expect to win 80% of them.
6. The Nader of the Right. Some libertarian clown on the right, Michael Badnarik, is seriously pulling votes away from Bush. If Bush won by a few hundred votes last time, it can't be good news that there is a Nader on his right pulling off ANY votes.
7. Nader ain't Nader any more. In 2000, Nader pulled many key votes from Gore, costing him the election (so goes the conventional wisdom, though there are serious arguments to the contrary). But in 2004, goes the Emerging Conventional Widsdom, Nader is far less of a factor: he is no longer supported by a party, he is on many fewer ballots, and most of his supporters have come to regret handing the presidency to the Evil One.
8. Polls Undercount Votes to Challangers. In this gem, the ECV holds that the polls overstate the results, as people say they're voting for the incumbent, but in reality vote the other way. This is especially true when the incumbent is popular with dominant types (white, male, etc.), and the challenger appeals to the disadvantaged.
9. The Secret 50% Rule. The Secret 50% Rule holds that the incumbent needs an approval rating of at least 50%, or else he cannot win, and President Bush has been holding well below this necessary threshold. I suspect this falls into the same "correlation, not causation" bucket as the Redskins loss = incubent loss, but nonetheless, it is part of the ECV.
10. The Back-firing of Republicans' Voter Suppression Efforts. Many minority, young and new voters will so resent the efforts by the Bush camp to keep them from voting, it just energizes them to vote all the more. "Keep me from voting, will you? Ha! In fact, I'm gonna vote twice just for spite!" Or something.
Well, that's 10, which is more than I would have guessed. Now, let's see how it pans out.
Oh, and let's also hope that Tim Russert managers to make a big enough fool of himself that NBC decides to replace him with Someone With A Functioning Brain.
Flash Update: Republicans Are Always Wrong!
For the Accountability Historians, let me make this easy.
If Kerry is elected, Republicans predict:
1. He will show irresolution and weakness leading to renewed terrorist attacks. On schools.
2. His perverse love of high taxes will lead to Americans shouldering huge new tax burdens.
3. His liberal DNA will compel him to create numerous huge new goverment programs.
4. He will force us all into crappy government healthcare.
5. The economy will crash and burn.
6. We won't go on the offense against the terrorists, opting instead for a mealy-mouthed law enfocement approach.
7. He will slash intelligence spending and cut vital defense projects.
8. He will eat your babies.
OK, the last one is probably a stretch, but I should point out that I haven't technically reviewed all of the BC04 campaign literature, and it jus tmight be in there.
When the dust settles on the Kerry Presidency, let's look back at the Republicans' track record to see how many of their predictions came true. So far, they are 0 for 27,542.
If Kerry is elected, Republicans predict:
1. He will show irresolution and weakness leading to renewed terrorist attacks. On schools.
2. His perverse love of high taxes will lead to Americans shouldering huge new tax burdens.
3. His liberal DNA will compel him to create numerous huge new goverment programs.
4. He will force us all into crappy government healthcare.
5. The economy will crash and burn.
6. We won't go on the offense against the terrorists, opting instead for a mealy-mouthed law enfocement approach.
7. He will slash intelligence spending and cut vital defense projects.
8. He will eat your babies.
OK, the last one is probably a stretch, but I should point out that I haven't technically reviewed all of the BC04 campaign literature, and it jus tmight be in there.
When the dust settles on the Kerry Presidency, let's look back at the Republicans' track record to see how many of their predictions came true. So far, they are 0 for 27,542.
Homestretch. Endgame. And then...
Election Eve – 2004
Senator Kerry seems to have a victory well in hand. Polls do not agree, but the better view is that Kerry has a significant lead in the so-called swing states. It may end up with Senator Kerry losing the popular vote and winning the EV, but I doubt it. My prediction is for Senator Kerry to command a 2-5% point margin of victory in the total count, and to collect 300+ EV’s.
And then. And then...
All too suddenly, we will be embroiled with a newly embittered right-wing, whose adherents are increasingly young and ill-used to losing. Freshly-minted conservatives really do seem to believe that all taxes are bad, all government spending is to be avoided, that Democrats have loose morals, and that urban Americans and not as worthy as good rural folk. They will take the defeat hard, letting their innate bitterness ferment and rage. Given that most conservatives are not really for anything, they will relish their re-found role as accusers of the left.
In ruminating on President Kerry’s campaign, I’m struck by a couple of moments. One of the most powerful moments to me was in the 2d debate, where young George sat on his stool, while Big John towered over him, clearly the indicting prosecutor condemning the unrepentant wrong-doer.
Also from the debates, “I know that. I know that.” And from the Republican convention in NYC, the drum beats of fear: Saddam. Terror. September 11. Death.
The two campaigns home pages: Bush’s, all about Sen. Kerry, Kerry’s, also all about Kerry. No one focused on Bush.
Two Kerry endorsements. One, in the NY Times, as much a back-handed compliment as could be imagined. With friends like that, who needs enemies? The other, in the New Yorker, which had never before endorsed a candidate for President. A thorough, calm, unflinching catalog of the incumbent’s failures, and a singing review of the challenger’s credentials. Only the perfidy of the present incumbent could politicize corners of American culture that had previously been above (or below, or next to) the fray.
From a Halloween party Saturday night: “Who’re you gonna vote for?” asks one of the moms to another. “Well, I know who my husband is voting for, but I think I’m gonna vote for Kerry. I think things have just gotten out of hand, and just gonna get worse.”
The current media mindset, worn like an iron helmet: the race is so close, both candidates have done their best and their worst, and thank God the president is likely to win. The President is seen as stronger on terror. Kerry has made a good effort at portraying himself more in tune with the domestic concerns of Americans. Just like 2000: neck and neck down to the wire (even though in 2000 the press had anointed Bush the winner by a 3-5 point margin prior to the actual vote). Republicans accused of voter suppression, Democrats of registering millions of new voters (these charges are meant to counter-balance each other in the media’s idiotic on-the-one-hand-on-the-other Scale of Justice).
A great line from Al Franken today (who remains really quite annoying overall, even as he oh-so-earnetly slogs away for progressivism: On November 3, the minimum wage won’t be any higher, we won’t be any closer to health care for all, we won’t have taken a single step toward a free and democratic Iraq, etc. As put by the blogger who wins the award for my favorite blog title Max Speaks (You Listen) put it, “Polictics begins November 3.
Congratulations to President Kerry on his stunning victory.
Senator Kerry seems to have a victory well in hand. Polls do not agree, but the better view is that Kerry has a significant lead in the so-called swing states. It may end up with Senator Kerry losing the popular vote and winning the EV, but I doubt it. My prediction is for Senator Kerry to command a 2-5% point margin of victory in the total count, and to collect 300+ EV’s.
And then. And then...
All too suddenly, we will be embroiled with a newly embittered right-wing, whose adherents are increasingly young and ill-used to losing. Freshly-minted conservatives really do seem to believe that all taxes are bad, all government spending is to be avoided, that Democrats have loose morals, and that urban Americans and not as worthy as good rural folk. They will take the defeat hard, letting their innate bitterness ferment and rage. Given that most conservatives are not really for anything, they will relish their re-found role as accusers of the left.
In ruminating on President Kerry’s campaign, I’m struck by a couple of moments. One of the most powerful moments to me was in the 2d debate, where young George sat on his stool, while Big John towered over him, clearly the indicting prosecutor condemning the unrepentant wrong-doer.
Also from the debates, “I know that. I know that.” And from the Republican convention in NYC, the drum beats of fear: Saddam. Terror. September 11. Death.
The two campaigns home pages: Bush’s, all about Sen. Kerry, Kerry’s, also all about Kerry. No one focused on Bush.
Two Kerry endorsements. One, in the NY Times, as much a back-handed compliment as could be imagined. With friends like that, who needs enemies? The other, in the New Yorker, which had never before endorsed a candidate for President. A thorough, calm, unflinching catalog of the incumbent’s failures, and a singing review of the challenger’s credentials. Only the perfidy of the present incumbent could politicize corners of American culture that had previously been above (or below, or next to) the fray.
From a Halloween party Saturday night: “Who’re you gonna vote for?” asks one of the moms to another. “Well, I know who my husband is voting for, but I think I’m gonna vote for Kerry. I think things have just gotten out of hand, and just gonna get worse.”
The current media mindset, worn like an iron helmet: the race is so close, both candidates have done their best and their worst, and thank God the president is likely to win. The President is seen as stronger on terror. Kerry has made a good effort at portraying himself more in tune with the domestic concerns of Americans. Just like 2000: neck and neck down to the wire (even though in 2000 the press had anointed Bush the winner by a 3-5 point margin prior to the actual vote). Republicans accused of voter suppression, Democrats of registering millions of new voters (these charges are meant to counter-balance each other in the media’s idiotic on-the-one-hand-on-the-other Scale of Justice).
A great line from Al Franken today (who remains really quite annoying overall, even as he oh-so-earnetly slogs away for progressivism: On November 3, the minimum wage won’t be any higher, we won’t be any closer to health care for all, we won’t have taken a single step toward a free and democratic Iraq, etc. As put by the blogger who wins the award for my favorite blog title Max Speaks (You Listen) put it, “Polictics begins November 3.
Congratulations to President Kerry on his stunning victory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)