1. It's good because it creates a principled vision of how America should work that is distinct from tired and broken political issues. In part, it's new. In part, it says that we realize things aren't perfect, but we want to do our best to make sure that the views of all Americans have a place in government.
In part, I think it's good because the political middle is practical. They aren't ideologues and they're looking for government to help them make their lives a little better. They're not worried about ideas, but solutions.
Reforming legislative processes is about ensuring that people are actually represented in their government. This is who we are--we're the democratic party. It exposes Republicans who are ideologues. It exposes right wingers who only want to impose their beliefs on the whole of the nation--people who are more interested in their own power than doing what's best for the American people.
In a way, it comes back to a Holmesian conception of a democracy in which the structures of government allow robust political discourse and the people ultimately get to decide, even if we think they're wrong sometimes, and even if sometimes we lose. So, it says that we care about doing what the country wants more than we care about being in power. It's that we care about doing what the American people want, even if we can never control the entire government.
Update: I also think it is good because the polarization right now makes people feel excluded from the government. They're looking around and saying that this system doesn't represent them. It's a way to appeal to people--we're going to bring you back in, give you a say again.
That's part of the reason we started this blog: We're two guys from the Midwest and we're not seeing politicians appealing to what we believe in.
2. I'm not yet sure how to answer this one. My answer would be related to my belief that most people are in the center and are forced to split in favor of candidates who roughly approximate their beliefs at best. It is government for the people, and 'the people' aren't just 51% of the population. The people is the whole of the population. So, in order for a government to be truly democratic, it must be as inclusive as possible.
One of the problems I have had in expressing myself is that there can be an equivocation in the term 'anti-majoritarian.' I believe there exists a natural majority in the middle. That people in the center of the bell curve pretty much agree on most issues. Our system is designed to be against that majority. It's more representative of the extremes than of the actual majority. That's the polarization story, isn't it? So, inclusivity is good because it reaches across the artificial divide created by winner-take-all elections.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Okay
I think I understand a little bit better now, but you are begging a couple of questions:
1) Why is espousing electoral reform in this manner beneficial to the Democratic party, now and in the future?
2) Why is inclusivity an inherent good? You seem to be assuming it is, and not explaining that point. You kind of mention the whole "government for the people" business, but don't really develop it fully.
Deez Nutz!
1) Why is espousing electoral reform in this manner beneficial to the Democratic party, now and in the future?
2) Why is inclusivity an inherent good? You seem to be assuming it is, and not explaining that point. You kind of mention the whole "government for the people" business, but don't really develop it fully.
Deez Nutz!
A Quick Restatement
The Senate may have been an effective manner of countering the will of the majority at the time of ratification. The founders were rightly concerned about citizens being more loyal to their home state and prejudiced against individuals from other states.
But regional factionalism died. I can't pinpoint when, but it did. The Civil War helped, and so did New Deal and the rise of the national economy, and so did the Civil Rights movement. Today, we are a uniform nation and not a federation of sovereign states.
The Senate was designed to stop majorities that wanted to harm people from a different region. We don't have that problem anymore. The problem we have reflects the nation we have. Our nation has specific problems that affect everyone equally, but which we differ on how to address. It really is about politics and not region.
But the Senate doesn't reflect that.
Eh, this post is half-baked. I can't seem to get it out.
But regional factionalism died. I can't pinpoint when, but it did. The Civil War helped, and so did New Deal and the rise of the national economy, and so did the Civil Rights movement. Today, we are a uniform nation and not a federation of sovereign states.
The Senate was designed to stop majorities that wanted to harm people from a different region. We don't have that problem anymore. The problem we have reflects the nation we have. Our nation has specific problems that affect everyone equally, but which we differ on how to address. It really is about politics and not region.
But the Senate doesn't reflect that.
Eh, this post is half-baked. I can't seem to get it out.
Clearing some things up.
I started using shorthand below. It wasn't clear, so let me try again. In part, what I was writing was a thought process. That's why it wasn't clear--I was still thinking through it myself.
Let's start at what may be the end and work backwards.
We have a representative democracy. One could call it a republic, I suppose, but the term democracy is important. In a direct democracy, the people themselves legislate. In ancient Athens, that meant that 6000 citizens got together in one place, anyone could propose legislation, and policy was decided by vote.
Our country is still a democracy, but in place of the 6000 citizens, we have elected representatives. Our representatives stand in for us in the legislative project. Instead of us making the laws, they do it for us.
The democratic aspects of our federal government are not in the elections we hold every two years, but in the actual legislative process. Any democracy, however, can be tyrranical, i.e. if an unchecked majority exercises its legislative power to the detriment of a minority.
Democracy itself does not mean majority rule. To be simple, it is government by and for the people. The second part of that statement implies that whatever government is formed must be as inclusive as possible. This is what I was saying about the parties representing specific positions on a political spectrum. Government for the people can't rationally mean "government for the 51% of the people who voted." That is unrepresentative and undemocratic precisely because it excludes a large portion of the people.
Most people fall into the middle of the political spectrum, and they have to split in an election between two groups that don't really reflect their actual beliefs.
We can drop all the issues with the electoral structures from my analysis, except as historical artifacts. Let me explain: The writers of the basic constitution--not the Bill of Rights or other amendments--were worried about the House of Representatives running amok with democratic fever. They were afraid that the House, as a purely representative body, could become tyrranical--that a majority could control it and harm minorities. In order to counter the tyrrany of the majority, they had to institute specifically anti-majoritarian provisions. They chose to do this by creating the Senate which is not proportionally representative.
It is important to think of the Senate as existing for a reason. When we ask what that reason is, we find that it exists to check the majoritarian design of the House. The crucial point, however, is that we don't need the Senate to do that. We can build anti-majoritarian government (and thus achieve democratic inclusivity) in other ways.
Let me try to clear up what I mean by majoritarian and anti-majoritarian. A governmental structure is majoritarian insofar as it favors the interests of a majority, regardless of the size of the majority, through any means, including through assigning governmental power based on the whim of a shifting polity. A structure is anti-majoritarian if it seeks to limit the will of such a majority and provides protection for minorities who may be out of power for just a moment.
It is clear that the Senate is intended to be anti-majoritarian. Membership of the Senate is not connected to the desires of the majority. Imagine what would happen if each state had three people living in it, except Kansas, and Kansas had 300 million people. In our federal structure, the interests of Kansas would represent the majority, but Kansas would only have 2 votes in the Senate, and the other 49 states could counter Kansas's control of the House.
The House tends to be majoritarian, as should be clear from the example.
So, that's our federal scheme as we have it. What's odd, however, is that our actual legislative processes are purely majoritarian If you consider the House and Senate as direct democracies for a moment, you see that there aren't any anti-majoritarian protections. Both the House and Senate are subject to the tyrranical whims of the majority of their members.
If you take a look at direct democracies, the problem of the tyrrany of the majority arises in the legislative process. That's what we're really concerned about--how the laws are made, not how individuals are selected for office. It seems to me that our founding fathers thought that the method of selecting officers would cure the tyrrany of the majority that arises during actual legislation. This is fallacious.
And furthermore, the structure as it is designed is problematic because the majority of the anti-representative Senate has the same power as the majority of the representative House. A majority of the Senate can represent a tiny majority of the population. Consider the Kansas hypothetical above. In that situation, 147 citizens (3 per 49 states) would have more legislative clout than 300 million. If the 98 senators from the 3 person states didn't want to go along with the House, there wouldn't be anything the House could do about it.
Hm, this could almost be called 'overinclusive,' but that term already means something.
In any case, my point below was to suggest that we need to create inclusive anti-majoritarian protections in the legislature for the simple reason that that is where the action is.
Hope that helps.
Let's start at what may be the end and work backwards.
We have a representative democracy. One could call it a republic, I suppose, but the term democracy is important. In a direct democracy, the people themselves legislate. In ancient Athens, that meant that 6000 citizens got together in one place, anyone could propose legislation, and policy was decided by vote.
Our country is still a democracy, but in place of the 6000 citizens, we have elected representatives. Our representatives stand in for us in the legislative project. Instead of us making the laws, they do it for us.
The democratic aspects of our federal government are not in the elections we hold every two years, but in the actual legislative process. Any democracy, however, can be tyrranical, i.e. if an unchecked majority exercises its legislative power to the detriment of a minority.
Democracy itself does not mean majority rule. To be simple, it is government by and for the people. The second part of that statement implies that whatever government is formed must be as inclusive as possible. This is what I was saying about the parties representing specific positions on a political spectrum. Government for the people can't rationally mean "government for the 51% of the people who voted." That is unrepresentative and undemocratic precisely because it excludes a large portion of the people.
Most people fall into the middle of the political spectrum, and they have to split in an election between two groups that don't really reflect their actual beliefs.
We can drop all the issues with the electoral structures from my analysis, except as historical artifacts. Let me explain: The writers of the basic constitution--not the Bill of Rights or other amendments--were worried about the House of Representatives running amok with democratic fever. They were afraid that the House, as a purely representative body, could become tyrranical--that a majority could control it and harm minorities. In order to counter the tyrrany of the majority, they had to institute specifically anti-majoritarian provisions. They chose to do this by creating the Senate which is not proportionally representative.
It is important to think of the Senate as existing for a reason. When we ask what that reason is, we find that it exists to check the majoritarian design of the House. The crucial point, however, is that we don't need the Senate to do that. We can build anti-majoritarian government (and thus achieve democratic inclusivity) in other ways.
Let me try to clear up what I mean by majoritarian and anti-majoritarian. A governmental structure is majoritarian insofar as it favors the interests of a majority, regardless of the size of the majority, through any means, including through assigning governmental power based on the whim of a shifting polity. A structure is anti-majoritarian if it seeks to limit the will of such a majority and provides protection for minorities who may be out of power for just a moment.
It is clear that the Senate is intended to be anti-majoritarian. Membership of the Senate is not connected to the desires of the majority. Imagine what would happen if each state had three people living in it, except Kansas, and Kansas had 300 million people. In our federal structure, the interests of Kansas would represent the majority, but Kansas would only have 2 votes in the Senate, and the other 49 states could counter Kansas's control of the House.
The House tends to be majoritarian, as should be clear from the example.
So, that's our federal scheme as we have it. What's odd, however, is that our actual legislative processes are purely majoritarian If you consider the House and Senate as direct democracies for a moment, you see that there aren't any anti-majoritarian protections. Both the House and Senate are subject to the tyrranical whims of the majority of their members.
If you take a look at direct democracies, the problem of the tyrrany of the majority arises in the legislative process. That's what we're really concerned about--how the laws are made, not how individuals are selected for office. It seems to me that our founding fathers thought that the method of selecting officers would cure the tyrrany of the majority that arises during actual legislation. This is fallacious.
And furthermore, the structure as it is designed is problematic because the majority of the anti-representative Senate has the same power as the majority of the representative House. A majority of the Senate can represent a tiny majority of the population. Consider the Kansas hypothetical above. In that situation, 147 citizens (3 per 49 states) would have more legislative clout than 300 million. If the 98 senators from the 3 person states didn't want to go along with the House, there wouldn't be anything the House could do about it.
Hm, this could almost be called 'overinclusive,' but that term already means something.
In any case, my point below was to suggest that we need to create inclusive anti-majoritarian protections in the legislature for the simple reason that that is where the action is.
Hope that helps.
Some Thoughts
I am still trying to collect responses to your two latest huge posts. But here is something I have been thinking about lately.
Has the politicization of the military hurt recruiting? Of course, one can take issue with whether or not the military is politicized, but given the recent scandal at the Air Force Academy regarding fundamentalist christians, and the Republican insistence in 2000 that the military vote would swing Florida for them, I think there is evidence that the military is politicized for the republican party. So the point is, what patriotic liberal would want to serve in such a military? Versus republicans, liberals are much more committed to sacrifice, remember conservatives are the ones always bitching about having to pay for the society in which we live through taxes. Many liberals are committed to the idea of service as well. So the question remains as to whether or not the politicization of the military has hurt recruiting.
Personally, I think it has, and I think it will continue to hurt recruiting.
Has the politicization of the military hurt recruiting? Of course, one can take issue with whether or not the military is politicized, but given the recent scandal at the Air Force Academy regarding fundamentalist christians, and the Republican insistence in 2000 that the military vote would swing Florida for them, I think there is evidence that the military is politicized for the republican party. So the point is, what patriotic liberal would want to serve in such a military? Versus republicans, liberals are much more committed to sacrifice, remember conservatives are the ones always bitching about having to pay for the society in which we live through taxes. Many liberals are committed to the idea of service as well. So the question remains as to whether or not the politicization of the military has hurt recruiting.
Personally, I think it has, and I think it will continue to hurt recruiting.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Democracy with a Side of Social Responsibility
What strikes me lately is how normal "social" issues aren't selling. Higher minimum wages, which would help millions of people aren't pulling in the votes. And while Bush's privatization plans aren't popular, neither is an expanded social safety net. There may be play in that idea though depending on actual programs proposed.
So, here's my suggestion: democratic reforms.
At this point, neither party represents a majority of Americans. They just don't. The parties represent specific points on a spectrum of political beliefs. The people, however, fill every other point on that spectrum
Call it polarization. Call it partisanship. Call it whatever you want.
It is only the parties who are polarized though. The people remain in the vast middle of the political spectrum, and every election the parties still fight it out for the middle. Most people in this country are swing voters.
But when they vote, they can't help but elect representatives who don't actually represent their beliefs. One problem is that electoral structures are strongly anti-majoritarian while the actual representative bodies are strongly majoritarian.
The anti-majoritarian aspects of our electoral structures should be viewed in a particularly democratic light. Specifically, both the Senate and the Electoral College are designed to ensure that minority positions are strongly considered in federal politics. Democracy, as an idea, requires inclusivity. A country that does not act in the interests of the people is not democratic. The Senate was supposed to ensure that individuals from smaller states would not be subject to the whims of representatives of larger states. It's anti-majoritarian, but it's not inherently anti-democratic.
The mistake in our constitution, however, lies in giving the Senate the same power as the House of Representatives. The design of the Senate goes too far in enforcing the inclusivity necessary for successful democracy by providing minority positions too much power within the Senate.
Similar criticism can be made for the Electoral College.
What do we do about it though?
As I stated above, the anti-majoritarian electoral structures are problematic in the face of the strongly majoritarian processes of the actual representative bodies.
It may be thought that in order to achieve the right balance, anti-majoritarian electoral structures should be set against majoritiarian political bodies. This can't be correct. In fact, anti-majoritarian electoral structures can only be balanced by anti-majoritarian political structures. Majority/majority leads to tyrrany, but so does Anti-majority/majority. Inclusivity can only be affected by anti/anti; or by majority/anti-majority.
The last of those would be parliamentary, I think.
All this sounds like a constitutional amendment. Ultimately, our constitution needs reform, but I think serious democratic reforms can happen without a constitutional amendment.
Consider reorganizing the internal rules of the Senate. The Constitution defaults to the House and Senate for their own rules of proceeding. So, much of this work could be done by starting with those--without even talking about the Constitution. I have a couple related ideas here.
First, we could make committee chairs selected by lot. Sounds strange, but it would work. Every session of congress, each senator puts his name in a hat and chairs are randomly assigned. The effect, on average, would be to put the percentage of the senate from one party in to the same percentage of leadership positions. If there were 55 senators from one party, they would have 55% of the committee chairs.
This is effectively parliamentarizing (I love making up words) the Senate. So, the same effect could be achieved by selecting Senate leadership positions in a parliamentary manner. If a party gets 55 senators, then they get 55% of the leadership positions.
Third, if selected by lot, minority leadership could be counterbalanced by specific provisions ensuring a minority party doesn't control a majority of the committees.
In any case, the point would be to ensure that a party--however polarized it is--doesn't tyrranically control a powerful part of our government. One party wouldn't be able to kill legislation, and there would be greater incentive to work together.
We've talked a little about tax reform, and I think that's also a good place to start. Government accountability should also mean that you know what you're getting for your tax dollars. I think restructuring and simplifying the tax system is a good place to start. But set that aside for a second.
It's a start at least. The Constitution does need to be amendment. It isn't perfect, and we can't fetishize it any more. The argument shouldn't be that the founders couldn't foresee our problems, it should be that the structures they designed aren't as good at achieving the intended purpose as other structures that we could design.
So, here's my suggestion: democratic reforms.
At this point, neither party represents a majority of Americans. They just don't. The parties represent specific points on a spectrum of political beliefs. The people, however, fill every other point on that spectrum
Call it polarization. Call it partisanship. Call it whatever you want.
It is only the parties who are polarized though. The people remain in the vast middle of the political spectrum, and every election the parties still fight it out for the middle. Most people in this country are swing voters.
But when they vote, they can't help but elect representatives who don't actually represent their beliefs. One problem is that electoral structures are strongly anti-majoritarian while the actual representative bodies are strongly majoritarian.
The anti-majoritarian aspects of our electoral structures should be viewed in a particularly democratic light. Specifically, both the Senate and the Electoral College are designed to ensure that minority positions are strongly considered in federal politics. Democracy, as an idea, requires inclusivity. A country that does not act in the interests of the people is not democratic. The Senate was supposed to ensure that individuals from smaller states would not be subject to the whims of representatives of larger states. It's anti-majoritarian, but it's not inherently anti-democratic.
The mistake in our constitution, however, lies in giving the Senate the same power as the House of Representatives. The design of the Senate goes too far in enforcing the inclusivity necessary for successful democracy by providing minority positions too much power within the Senate.
Similar criticism can be made for the Electoral College.
What do we do about it though?
As I stated above, the anti-majoritarian electoral structures are problematic in the face of the strongly majoritarian processes of the actual representative bodies.
It may be thought that in order to achieve the right balance, anti-majoritarian electoral structures should be set against majoritiarian political bodies. This can't be correct. In fact, anti-majoritarian electoral structures can only be balanced by anti-majoritarian political structures. Majority/majority leads to tyrrany, but so does Anti-majority/majority. Inclusivity can only be affected by anti/anti; or by majority/anti-majority.
The last of those would be parliamentary, I think.
All this sounds like a constitutional amendment. Ultimately, our constitution needs reform, but I think serious democratic reforms can happen without a constitutional amendment.
Consider reorganizing the internal rules of the Senate. The Constitution defaults to the House and Senate for their own rules of proceeding. So, much of this work could be done by starting with those--without even talking about the Constitution. I have a couple related ideas here.
First, we could make committee chairs selected by lot. Sounds strange, but it would work. Every session of congress, each senator puts his name in a hat and chairs are randomly assigned. The effect, on average, would be to put the percentage of the senate from one party in to the same percentage of leadership positions. If there were 55 senators from one party, they would have 55% of the committee chairs.
This is effectively parliamentarizing (I love making up words) the Senate. So, the same effect could be achieved by selecting Senate leadership positions in a parliamentary manner. If a party gets 55 senators, then they get 55% of the leadership positions.
Third, if selected by lot, minority leadership could be counterbalanced by specific provisions ensuring a minority party doesn't control a majority of the committees.
In any case, the point would be to ensure that a party--however polarized it is--doesn't tyrranically control a powerful part of our government. One party wouldn't be able to kill legislation, and there would be greater incentive to work together.
We've talked a little about tax reform, and I think that's also a good place to start. Government accountability should also mean that you know what you're getting for your tax dollars. I think restructuring and simplifying the tax system is a good place to start. But set that aside for a second.
It's a start at least. The Constitution does need to be amendment. It isn't perfect, and we can't fetishize it any more. The argument shouldn't be that the founders couldn't foresee our problems, it should be that the structures they designed aren't as good at achieving the intended purpose as other structures that we could design.
Well...
To begin, Let's look at the history of this "traditional" view of american politics.
First, the public trusting Republicans more on foreign affairs:This view only really came about since Korea, or perhaps a little before. I say perhaps a little before the Korean war because of the right wing canard that Roosevelt somehow knew of the Pearl Harbor attack, and let it occur. I don't think the reputable evidence lends itself to that conclusion. The point of the attack is that you cannot trust Democrats to defend the country because Roosevelt let us get attacked.
In the post war period, the Republicans had two competing viewpoints within their party. 1) The traditional conservative isolationism and 2) the desire to "confront" communism in a more aggressive manner, if for no other purpose than to beat up on Democrats who were then in power and whose New Deal policies appeared "red" to the far right. The "Democrats-can't-be-trusted-because-they-let-us-get-attacked" idea was used to discredit the crusading idealism of american intervention in the world that the left in america traditionally espoused. This led to the right attacking Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson with the two apparently contradictory strains of republican thought on foreign affairs. When Korea, and later Vietnam, turned into unwinnable messes, at least unwinnable in the traditional sense, (meaning we weren't going to get unconditional surrenders of our opponents in those wars) the right attacked the Democratic party for getting us into those messes in the first place, representing the traditional isolationism view. The right also attacked the Democratic policy makers for failing to "confront" communism more aggressively. The best examples here are MacArthur's insubordination against Truman and the later lies and attacks that we did not let the generals fight Vietnam the way they wanted to. This represents the second right wing viewpoint. As stated, as Korea, but really more importantly for recent politics, Vietnam, devolved into quagmire, the Republicans attacked the Democrats for the policy failures those wars represented, and argued that they, the republicans, could handle foreign affairs better. On the republicans' "plus" column was Nixon's trip to China and his draw down of forces in Vietnam. This idea repeated itself in the Iranian revolution and later hostage crisis. While I have done an exceptionally poor job outlining the history right now, I hope at least the skeleton is there for a future outline because the point is that these events led to the "traditional" view you describe, namely, that the public trusts the republican party more on foreign affairs.
As to the second point, that the public trusts the Democrats more on domestic issues, well that has really been the case since the Depression, and nothing the republicans have offered since then, except maybe tax cuts, ever garners much public support. My domestic policy analysis is WEAK. I cannot tell you why the public doesn't support the Republican domestic agenda, but they don't. If you, or anyone else can suggest a good book, I will put it on the reading list.
So having analyzed (hahaha because I didn't do any analysis on the domestic front, and there is so much more I could write on the international side) the history of those views, I agree it should be possible to develop a third axis. I think it is incumbent upon the Democrats to do that at this point. We are also uniquely suited to attack the Republicans in the same way they attacked us during the Cold War and Vietnam because this Iraq adventure (I hate doing that by the way, writing something so flippant about a place where our soldiers are living and, more importantly, dying right now.) is turning out to be a mess. We as Democrats and liberals need to develop an alternative foreign policy and attacks that we can use against the current idea that republicans are better at international relations. Iraq presents us with a unique opportunity to accomplish both those goals.
Now, what would this third axis look like? I dunno, we can discuss that more in the future.
First, the public trusting Republicans more on foreign affairs:This view only really came about since Korea, or perhaps a little before. I say perhaps a little before the Korean war because of the right wing canard that Roosevelt somehow knew of the Pearl Harbor attack, and let it occur. I don't think the reputable evidence lends itself to that conclusion. The point of the attack is that you cannot trust Democrats to defend the country because Roosevelt let us get attacked.
In the post war period, the Republicans had two competing viewpoints within their party. 1) The traditional conservative isolationism and 2) the desire to "confront" communism in a more aggressive manner, if for no other purpose than to beat up on Democrats who were then in power and whose New Deal policies appeared "red" to the far right. The "Democrats-can't-be-trusted-because-they-let-us-get-attacked" idea was used to discredit the crusading idealism of american intervention in the world that the left in america traditionally espoused. This led to the right attacking Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson with the two apparently contradictory strains of republican thought on foreign affairs. When Korea, and later Vietnam, turned into unwinnable messes, at least unwinnable in the traditional sense, (meaning we weren't going to get unconditional surrenders of our opponents in those wars) the right attacked the Democratic party for getting us into those messes in the first place, representing the traditional isolationism view. The right also attacked the Democratic policy makers for failing to "confront" communism more aggressively. The best examples here are MacArthur's insubordination against Truman and the later lies and attacks that we did not let the generals fight Vietnam the way they wanted to. This represents the second right wing viewpoint. As stated, as Korea, but really more importantly for recent politics, Vietnam, devolved into quagmire, the Republicans attacked the Democrats for the policy failures those wars represented, and argued that they, the republicans, could handle foreign affairs better. On the republicans' "plus" column was Nixon's trip to China and his draw down of forces in Vietnam. This idea repeated itself in the Iranian revolution and later hostage crisis. While I have done an exceptionally poor job outlining the history right now, I hope at least the skeleton is there for a future outline because the point is that these events led to the "traditional" view you describe, namely, that the public trusts the republican party more on foreign affairs.
As to the second point, that the public trusts the Democrats more on domestic issues, well that has really been the case since the Depression, and nothing the republicans have offered since then, except maybe tax cuts, ever garners much public support. My domestic policy analysis is WEAK. I cannot tell you why the public doesn't support the Republican domestic agenda, but they don't. If you, or anyone else can suggest a good book, I will put it on the reading list.
So having analyzed (hahaha because I didn't do any analysis on the domestic front, and there is so much more I could write on the international side) the history of those views, I agree it should be possible to develop a third axis. I think it is incumbent upon the Democrats to do that at this point. We are also uniquely suited to attack the Republicans in the same way they attacked us during the Cold War and Vietnam because this Iraq adventure (I hate doing that by the way, writing something so flippant about a place where our soldiers are living and, more importantly, dying right now.) is turning out to be a mess. We as Democrats and liberals need to develop an alternative foreign policy and attacks that we can use against the current idea that republicans are better at international relations. Iraq presents us with a unique opportunity to accomplish both those goals.
Now, what would this third axis look like? I dunno, we can discuss that more in the future.
Third Axis of American Politics
It is traditionally believed that Americans trust Republicans in foreign affairs and Democrats in domestic affairs. What if there were a third axis of our politics that cut across these distinctions?
I'm beginning to think there is one. I've got some ideas, but they're still incubating.
What do you think, WMD?
I'm beginning to think there is one. I've got some ideas, but they're still incubating.
What do you think, WMD?
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Conservatives love that story because it is
the classic "conversion" story. Think about it in terms of the universal messianic nature of Christianity, and you will understand the meme better.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Why is it that . . .
conservatives love the story of the liberal who changed sides?
I seem to regularly come across stories in which there is a person whose criticism of Democrats is bolstered by the fact that he was once a Democrat?
Or the the-author-started-out-to-tear-down-George-Bush-but
-realized-Bush-has-been-right-all-along book.
Is this tendency as widespread on the left? It could be, but I don't seem to see it as much.
I seem to regularly come across stories in which there is a person whose criticism of Democrats is bolstered by the fact that he was once a Democrat?
Or the the-author-started-out-to-tear-down-George-Bush-but
-realized-Bush-has-been-right-all-along book.
Is this tendency as widespread on the left? It could be, but I don't seem to see it as much.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
The Banality of Political Discourse
Just over two weeks ago, Joshua Michael Marshall of Talking Points Memo fame opened a new website dedicated to liberal political discussion. The website is conveniently titled TPM Café, which serves to note the relationship between the site and his blog, and his intent that the site act as a coffee house where like-minded people come to discuss the events of the day. The site has several blogs, provides topic-specific discussion forums, and allows readers to create their own blogs. And all of that in the creams, rich earth tones, and themes of your local coffee house. In fact, the coffeehouse theme may go a few steps too far—the forums are called ‘tables,’ the main blog is ‘The Coffee House,” and the weekly guest blog is “A Table for One.”
This post has been a bit disjointed and long, and I thought about leaving it at that. But I have been using it to think through some of the problems I have with
Friday, June 17, 2005
Electoral Problems
Here's a problem I see:
What makes it worthwhile to go after Florida? We lost Florida by 400,000 or so. We lost Missouri by 200,000; Iowa by 10,000; New Mexico by 6,000; and Colorado by 100,000. The margin of loss in those 4 states combined was smaller than all of Florida. 316<400.
So, is it at all logical then to pursue those four states more than we go after Florida? Obviously, FL is a big prize and we should contest it, but how should the campaign money be allocated?
Of course, we have 3 years for lots of things to change. Everything could be completely different in 2008.
What makes it worthwhile to go after Florida? We lost Florida by 400,000 or so. We lost Missouri by 200,000; Iowa by 10,000; New Mexico by 6,000; and Colorado by 100,000. The margin of loss in those 4 states combined was smaller than all of Florida. 316<400.
So, is it at all logical then to pursue those four states more than we go after Florida? Obviously, FL is a big prize and we should contest it, but how should the campaign money be allocated?
Of course, we have 3 years for lots of things to change. Everything could be completely different in 2008.
More states
Looking at the 04 map, we could also seek to pick up Nevada, Arkansas, and maybe Virginia.
But again, Hillary doesn't have any qualities that appeal to voters in those states.
But again, Hillary doesn't have any qualities that appeal to voters in those states.
Good Question!
The reason is in 2008, the Democrats need to win a minimum of 2 and maybe up to 6 states we did not win in '04 to win the presidency. These states are: 1) Ohio, 2) Florida, 3) Iowa, 4) New Mexico, and two on the outside 5) Missouri, and 6)Colorado.
If we win just the first two, Ohio and FLorida, and we win all others Kerry and Gore won, we win the presidency.
If we were to pick up states 3 through 6, and we still lost Ohio and Florida, we would still win the presidency.
So the goal for the Democratic nominee is to appeal to voters in those 6 states, and frankly, NOTHING about Hillary Clinton provides any indication that she would appeal to those voters. In fact, the cons listed against her are part of the reason she DOES NOT appeal to those voters. I am not trying to make a "the-heartland-is-full-of genuine-americans-who-see-through-fake-politicians-BS" argument. It is just that things like looking unnatural eating barbeque matters to people out here in the middle.
You also might be saying, "but what about the other blue states?" Yeah, what about them? If the Democratic party cannot generate the votes it needs to win in the "blue" states without nominating someone from there, then we are a longer way away from majority than I thought.
If we win just the first two, Ohio and FLorida, and we win all others Kerry and Gore won, we win the presidency.
If we were to pick up states 3 through 6, and we still lost Ohio and Florida, we would still win the presidency.
So the goal for the Democratic nominee is to appeal to voters in those 6 states, and frankly, NOTHING about Hillary Clinton provides any indication that she would appeal to those voters. In fact, the cons listed against her are part of the reason she DOES NOT appeal to those voters. I am not trying to make a "the-heartland-is-full-of genuine-americans-who-see-through-fake-politicians-BS" argument. It is just that things like looking unnatural eating barbeque matters to people out here in the middle.
You also might be saying, "but what about the other blue states?" Yeah, what about them? If the Democratic party cannot generate the votes it needs to win in the "blue" states without nominating someone from there, then we are a longer way away from majority than I thought.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Pros/Cons
You got all the pros and cons of Hillary, but why do you think the analysis comes out against her?
She should work with Chris Farley and David Spade
Hillary just reminds me of the governor from Black Sheep.
Stop Hillary!
Drudge has a link to a story about how Hillary Clinton apparently won a South Carolina Straw Poll.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/11905946.htm
In typical Drudge fashion he therefore proclaims her to be the frontrunner for '08. (Sidenote: I wonder how many small donations the RNC will get today? Way to carry water for your masters, Matt!)
While the title of this post is "Stop Hillary!", I really hope to examine the pros and cons of a Hillary for President campaign. Reece, I am looking your way to contribute more as you are signficantly smarter than I am.
Before we begin, I want to explain why I titled the post the way I did. It is not because the fix is in against a Hillary candidacy, but because while being able to objectively discuss the pros and cons of Hillary Clinton as a potential Democratic nominee, she will NEVER have my vote for one simple reason: She reminds me of someone from high school. Uncharacteristically, I am not going to name names, but I will provide a description. Back in the ol' high school, I had a friend who dated this girl who every time I look at Hillary Clinton I cannot stop thinking about. This isn't some long lost love crush. This friend's girlfriend was quite possibly the most annoying woman on the face of the earth. For one, she couldn't curse. I mean she tried to curse, but she couldn't. You know, one of those "oh (thinking space should I say "poo" or "rats", alright I will say it) shit!" type of people. It was disingenuous. It was fake. The girl wasn't true to her upbringing. Her parents were conservative christians who raised their daughter to be an upper middle class suburban housewife, and she was trying ever so hard to be anything but an upper middle class suburban housewife. Watching her though, you could tell she was straining to be something close to what she thought other people would consider "hip". No High school Hillary, be yourself, be genuine. Hillary Clinton is the same way. Look at Reece's previous post regarding her interview on CNN as evidence of this similar behavior. That is the reason Hillary will never have my vote, in a primary or general election. (who am I kidding, I will vote a straight Democratic ticket, like I have every year since 1998)
Moving on.
Let us start with the Pros about a Hillary candidacy.
1) Her negatives may already be maxed.
Folks can't hate her more. Most of those folks wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway. To some extent this makes her impervious to attacks. Of course, the Republicans will still find a way to attack her, and those of us on the left will need to be ready to deflect those attacks and respond in kind.
2) Incorporated in point 1) is that we already know most of what we need to know about Hillary Clinton. Everyone knows who she is, what she stands for, and where she is coming from. This is a pro because there is no need to waste precious campaign resources on "introducing the candidate" to the people. We just need to find a ways to get the American people to spend their political "money", or their vote, on our candidate. However, there is a pitfall here, any attempt to redefine Hillary is going to make her look disengenuous. That will open up a huge soft spot for republican attack.
3) Knowing what we do about Hillary, she comes off as tough and as a fighter. In the context of the idiotic "war on terror" (idiotic because you cannot have a war on a tactic) the Democrats need to nominate a fighter, someone the American people will trust to "defend the nation" While I personally would rather attack the entire idea of the "war on terror", I don't think it will be an easy sell, so we do what we can with what we have to work with. Hillary comes off as tough and a fighter, and that appears to make it easier to sell the idea of a woman president defending the nation to the american people.
4) this space reserved for future thoughts.
Let us now turn to the negatives
1) Hillary ain't Bill. Hillary doesn't connect with the american people like Bill, she is not from
2) She's a senator. I am sorry but I am sick of Senators getting big heads thinking they should run for president. 2004 showed us the essence of why legislators should not run for President straight from the legislature. Namely, Did she vote for it before she voted against it? or is it the other way around. The legislative process is too arcane for most americans to understand, and the process presents situations in which Legislators are forced to make votes that can be used to define who they are, and what kind of president that legislator will be. The arcane nature of the legislative process allows a candidate to get pasted as anti-defense because of a vote in which the candidate votes against a defense spending bill because of a "poison pill", but then votes for the defense spending later in another bill without such "poison pill". Sure one might argue that it is only necessary to make political arguments against such attacks, but guess what happens then! You are bogged down in the minutiae of the legislative process and open to the charge that you lack a "vision" for the country. Either way, bad idea to nominate a Senator.
3) I am sure I have another negative, but this post is huge, so I will come back to it. I need to get some lunch and get to work.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Iraq Disconnect
There seems to be a real disconnect occurring right now in the way the Left looks at where we are in Iraq. I don't really have a citation to prove my point, meaning I don't have a link that will demonstrate what I am talking about, but I am going forward with my point anyway.
If you look at Buzzflash.com, they have been linking stories that on the one hand call for us to pull out of Iraq immediately, or at least bash the Bush administration for getting us in that mess.
On the other hand Buzzflash has been linking to stories bashing the Bush administration for failure to recognize what a mess Iraq has become, given the Bush administrations continued pollyanna-ish views on the current situation in Iraq.
While I acknowledge that bashing the bush administration is a good thing, I fail to understand what Buzzflash's point is. I guess the apparent conflict is just that, apparent. I mean one can recognize that Iraq is a mess with no end in sight, and therefore we must make an end by beginning to withdraw our troops.
Personally, I think it would be disasterous for us to withdraw now. I also think it is disasterous that we are not doing more to pacify the country. I realize the shortages of manpower the U.S. military has, but I don't know how effective we can be relying on barely trained Iraqi units to pacify the country. This doubt is further encouraged by the fact that Iraqi policemen and military recruits seem to be the prime targets of the insurgency at the moment. It just makes sense to me that United States soldiers should be doing the jobs of the Iraqi police and military units we are training until the insurgency is defeated. Put more bluntly, why are we trusting native allies to help us in our colonial experiment when it would be better for the long term stability of the country if we just did things ourselves? I realize that I am essentialy calling for more U.S. troops to be put in harm's way, and that a higher U.S. body count would result from my position, but we are in this mess up to our necks and something must be done to insure we win.
If you look at Buzzflash.com, they have been linking stories that on the one hand call for us to pull out of Iraq immediately, or at least bash the Bush administration for getting us in that mess.
On the other hand Buzzflash has been linking to stories bashing the Bush administration for failure to recognize what a mess Iraq has become, given the Bush administrations continued pollyanna-ish views on the current situation in Iraq.
While I acknowledge that bashing the bush administration is a good thing, I fail to understand what Buzzflash's point is. I guess the apparent conflict is just that, apparent. I mean one can recognize that Iraq is a mess with no end in sight, and therefore we must make an end by beginning to withdraw our troops.
Personally, I think it would be disasterous for us to withdraw now. I also think it is disasterous that we are not doing more to pacify the country. I realize the shortages of manpower the U.S. military has, but I don't know how effective we can be relying on barely trained Iraqi units to pacify the country. This doubt is further encouraged by the fact that Iraqi policemen and military recruits seem to be the prime targets of the insurgency at the moment. It just makes sense to me that United States soldiers should be doing the jobs of the Iraqi police and military units we are training until the insurgency is defeated. Put more bluntly, why are we trusting native allies to help us in our colonial experiment when it would be better for the long term stability of the country if we just did things ourselves? I realize that I am essentialy calling for more U.S. troops to be put in harm's way, and that a higher U.S. body count would result from my position, but we are in this mess up to our necks and something must be done to insure we win.
Fun at nytimes.com
I love these face-the-enemy pieces they do occasionally.
The Next Generation of Conservatives (By the Dormful)
The Next Generation of Conservatives (By the Dormful)
Monday, June 13, 2005
Politics involves
the careful use of language. Failure to use language effectively results in a marginalization of oneself and one's political beliefs.
Monday, June 06, 2005
Why?
I don't understand why the left should bother attempting to engage those who are absolutist in their thought processes. More specifically, why is the burden upon liberals to seek out right wingers, read their blogs, and talk with them? Why is the burden not on the right to seek out left wingers, read our blogs, and talk with us in the hope of greater understanding?
If you read the responses to the your posts, 90 percent of the right's reaction to you is ad hominem attacks. While not quoting directly, you were called things like "brainwashed", "confused", or a liar. Sure we need to know their arguments so we can properly attack those arguments, but that presupposes that political discourse in this country is anywhere near a rational debate.
If you read the responses to the your posts, 90 percent of the right's reaction to you is ad hominem attacks. While not quoting directly, you were called things like "brainwashed", "confused", or a liar. Sure we need to know their arguments so we can properly attack those arguments, but that presupposes that political discourse in this country is anywhere near a rational debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)