Gentlemen - It seems something rancorous has transpired while I've been away a couple weeks. (I suppose I'll have to troll around to uncover exactly what!) But I have no problem with the idea. One issue is that it will limit the size of posts to being smaller than intended; that innovation cuts both ways. However, be prepared for some (a growing contingent?) to be unhappy as the "Off-topic discussions" become dull, stodgy, and uncontentious. But there is no shame in experimenting - therefore let us go forth. One practical question: Will Chip (or somebody else) take responsiblity for archiving a stale political thread and posting a new one from time-to-time? This seems advisable so as not to have this thread run 20 gazillion pages.... It's true that the election comes soon, and, to my mind, the nails are being driven into the DNC's campaign coffin presently. My sense is that people are going with the Devil they know, rather than the Devil they don't. The weeks after labor day will tell us if the Bush "bounce" holds or not. Or else debate time. Launching a new or renewed set of topics here, "what next for leftish politics?" Hugh Hewitt avers (3 Sept) "Kerry could have chosen to lose with dignity, running a Bob Dole race. Instead he has decided on a march through the fever swamps. As in his midnight speech from Ohio. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/03/politics/campaign/03kerry.html) It will be an ugly 60 days as a result, but perhaps on the other end, the Democratic Party will get the jolt it needs to exile the Moore nuts from its midst. The GOP is in a commanding position, but the country needs two responsible parties, and right now, the Democrats have become unhinged." Which echoes a theme I've developed through the past two years on this board. The Left needs new ideas; our democracy needs two functioning parties to be competitive and succor the soul of our world leading polity. Dems need to be able to take defense issues seriously. For instance, had Kerry taken Liebermann instead of Edwards as VP and downplayed the "Vietnam heroism" of an anti-war leader, this stumbling block might have been removed.) Finally, I attended a conference in June, and politcal scientist Paul Gottfried presented a paper showing how the Left in Europe takes its cues from the US! Prior to the fall of communism there was a tendency for the reverse direction for influence. The Left in the US have a chance to turn things around IF they take ideas instead of vituperation, innuendo, and invective seriously. -Orson
Orson -- The problem with Left and Right is that there are many Lefts and many Rights. On the Right you have fiscal libertarians, neoconservatives, theocrats, and capitalists; on the Left you have social libertarians, socialists, progressives, and pacifists. And even those categories don't begin to cover it, because many on the Left fall into the subcategories I've listed for the Right (and vice versa). I hate to break this down to two terms, but for the sake of simplicity: the politicians we generally describe as the Right do a better job of putting together a persuasive message because their arguments are more appealing and less complicated. Bush is essentially saying to the majority of us: "Here; let me give you your tax money back, bomb countries that scare you, and reflect your religious beliefs in my policies--and don't worry about a thing, because I'll take care of you." What could the Left possibly offer to compete with that? That's why you never see a Democratic candidate admit to being a liberal. Even Howard Dean insisted on calling himself a moderate (though to be honest, he mostly was as governor; fiscally conservative and a darling of the NRA). The problem is not a lack of ideas; the problem is a lack of easy ideas. Conservative politicians tend to represent the ideology of McDonald's and liberal politicians tend to represent the ideology of Weight Watchers--and McDonald's will outsell Weight Watchers every time. Cheers,
Tom, It is this kind of condescending nonsense that turns so many of us off from liberalism. Why not just say, "Conservatives are stupid and Liberals are smart"? This is John Kerry's problem also. He thinks that he is intellectually superior when he is not...nor are most liberals. If anything I would reverse your argument, but without the pretentiousness. I have often wondered how those who are supposed to be so intelligent could actually be liberal? BLD
Because that's not what I said. Yes, it can be more complex and intellectually rigorous than that (and I pointed out the limitations of the two-label system), but the point of U.S. conservatism tends to be "You can keep everything you make, do anything you want fiscally (even run up a deficit), invade other countries, and impose your religious beliefs on other people, all without anything bad happening as a result." The point of U.S. liberalism tends to be "You have to pay more taxes, you have to avoid deficits, you can't invade other countries just because you feel like it, you can't impose your beliefs on other people, and bad things might still happen." That's a McDonald's versus Weight Watchers scenario if I've ever seen one. The Republican Party is the party of the tobacco lobby--the ideology of smoke all you want and you won't get cancer, honest. And this attitude is carried over in every public policy position the party takes, be it taxes or gun control or the First Amendment or foreign policy or just about anything else. Cheers,
Oh, I would be the first to say that this doesn't represent historical U.S. conservatism, or even what the average U.S. conservative believes. But it's the platform, the selling point, the catchy jingle of "the Right" (inasmuch as there is any single "the Right"). There was a time when Republican Party believed in fiscal discipline, social libertarianism, and cautious foreign policy; now it's the Democratic Party that represents those positions. This shift happened to coincide with the overwhelming success of the Reagan presidency and the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. Think that's a coincidence? Why do you think there's all this talk of the Republican Party being the "party of optimism"? What makes the Republican Party optimistic, if not a public policy version of the adolescent confidence that we can drive fast without crashing, smoke pot without getting addicted, skip school without living in poverty? Right now, the Republican Party is the buddy party, the hakuna-metata party, the we'll-take-care-of-it party. That doesn't necessarily mean they're always wrong in this belief, but let's get real about what the parties are really trying to sell us. Cheers,
Well Tom, I will partially agree with you here. The present day Republican party has certainly not shown nearly enough discipline when it comes to fiscal issues. And while I think G.W. has been a great President (in particular when it comes to defense), he has been more liberal in spending than many Democrats. During his speech at the RNC, every time I heard him name another new program, my mind was thinking "more deficit." I think the other points you make are completely groundless, especially the idea that the Democrat party now takes the positions the Republican party once held. BLD
You know, you've got a point. I see on a second reading that I did oversimplify things a little bit, which is why I hate to talk in general terms about "the Right" and "the Left"; that's tribal language, too vague to be of much use. But you have to admit that since 1992, national elections have presented Republicans as tax-cutters and Democrats as party-pooping deficit hawks. A few decades ago, the Republicans had to be the heavies when it came to the economy, and it used to cost them votes that they're now getting. Another thing that has changed is social spending. Used to be the Republican Party advocated very little social spending as part of its deficit hawk position; now it adds social spending into the tax cut mix, with (I think) disastrous results. And I can't fault them a bit, because I like social spending and tax cuts; I'm just afraid of what will happen to our economy if we go too far into the red, or stay there for too long. Cheers,
Would you care to mention specific examples of where and how Kerry "thinks he is intellectually superior?" And, while we're at it, why you think "he is not" and "most liberals" are not either? Or is this just a "feeling" you have?
