A New Direction for America?

The House Democrats have "A New Direction for America" in the platform they've proposed for this fall's election:

A New Direction For America: The American people are facing difficult times. Rising gas and health care costs are taking a toll on family budgets. Wages have not kept pace with inflation. Bright and eager high school graduates can no longer afford to go to college. And record deficits threaten to bury future generations in debt. America needs a New Direction. House Democrats will lead the way.

Democrats in Congress offer a New Direction, putting the common good of all Americans first for a change, and will:

MAKE HEALTH CARE MORE AFFORDABLE Fix the prescription drug program by putting people ahead of drug companies and HMOs, eliminating wasteful subsidies, negotiating lower drug prices and ensuring the program works for all seniors; invest in stem cell and other medical research.

LOWER GAS PRICES AND ACHIEVE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE Crack down on price gouging; eliminate billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop American alternatives, including biofuels; promote energy efficient technology.

HELP WORKING FAMILIES Raise the minimum wage; repeal tax giveaways that encourage companies to move jobs overseas.

CUT COLLEGE COSTS Make college tuition deductible from taxes; expand Pell grants and cut student loan costs.

ENSURE DIGNIFIED RETIREMENT Prevent the privatization of Social Security; expand savings incentives; ensure pension fairness.

REQUIRE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY Restore the budget discipline of the 1990s that helped eliminate deficits and spur record economic growth.

Learn more at www.HouseDemocrats.gov.

Here's more detail from the NY Times:.

Democrats Outline a Platform for the Fall, by Kate Zernike, NY Times: Declaring their party "ready for this election," Democratic leaders in Congress on Friday announced the platform they hope to use to regain the majority in November. Their plan, presented at a news conference, included promises to raise the minimum wage, make college tuition tax deductible, eliminate subsidies for oil and gas companies, negotiate lower drug prices for the prescription plan passed last year, increase stem cell research and restore a pay-as-you-go policy for federal budgets.

They noted that Congress had not increased the minimum wage, now at $5.15, since 1997, a fact that Representative Nancy Pelosi of California ... declared "immoral." Their proposal to raise it to $7.25, they said, would benefit seven million workers. They rejected the argument that such a raise would shrink the economy, noting that jobs increased after the last raise.

The Democratic leaders also pledged a 25 percent reduction in oil use by 2020, largely by developing fuel alternatives in the United States...

Does this platform grab you and scream vote Democrat? It doesn't quite get there for me. For example, the health care proposal does not give the sense that there is a well thought out plan to reign in growing health care costs. The plan appears to be (a) fix prescription drugs and negotiate lower prices, (b) eliminate subsidies, and (c) invest in medical research. That's it. Issues such as health insurance are not even mentioned. I would also make other changes such as taking the price-gouging statement out, but I'm curious to hear how others react to this. Also, these are all economic issues. Should social issues, security, terrorism, etc. be on the list?

Update: Jim Hamilton at econbrowser says:

The Democrats call it a New Direction for America. But to me, it looks like the same old same old. ... Let me focus today just on the Democrats' plan to address our energy challenges...

Umm, so that's it? That's the Democrats' energy plan? Well, I'm all for brevity, but a few more details might be welcome... This surely is no energy plan, but is instead a collection of empty slogans. Once again America's leaders display their complete contempt for the intelligence of American voters.

More at econbrowser...

Comments

[supersaurus]

health care: gee, not even a mention of universal health care, single payer, ending the fear of insurance loss, etc? how brave!

lower gas prices...: promote energy efficiency how? specifics where?

raise the minimum wage: long overdue, and how about indexing it to CPI or similar, as it is in Oregon?

require fiscal responsibility: specifics?

and the elephant in the room: no mention of the biggest voluntary foreign policy and military fiasco in many years? (oh yeah, most of the dems voted to authorize the war, so heaven forbid taking new data into consideration).

if this is the best the dems can do then I look forward to the depressing prospect of many more years of GOP dominance. why not just disband the congress altogether, cut out the middleman, and explicitly delegate all power to the executive branch?

[Cassius Maximus]

I am not very enthusiastic about either party. Both party's #1 priority is getting reelected. All else is only a vehicle to support #1. Neither is working on any real problems in a substantive way, in my opinion.

Health Care
Medicare seems to work. Why not just expand a Medicare-like structure to the uninsured in some way?

Identity Theft
Are they even working on this? I have heard that there is legislation in committee that would override the state laws allowing you to put a fraud alert on your credit.

Corruption, Collusion, and Crime by Political Leaders
They appear to be working to cover this up.

Explosive growth in government spending and deficits
Pork is King.

I could go on and on, but I would make myself crazy.

I worry that things will start getting much worse after November, no matter who is elected.

[spencer]

As a supposed pragmatic liberal this looks like a useless grab bag of ideas thrown together by some college freshman. there is no depth or rational to these thought that maybe appeal to party activitist but will not appeal to middle america.

[anne]

Government spending, other than for the needless tragic self-destructive war in and occupation of Iraq, has not exploded. We turned from surplus to deficit because of a series of tax cuts that have been designed for the wealthiest. But, running to reverse the tax cuts will obviously not help so complaining about spending is a ploy by Democrats who will fortunately not cut social benefit programs and a deception by Republicans who will cut any possible social benefit and for whom war is considered costless.

[nyuk]

I believe that the Democrats recognize that the electorate just isn't ready to embrace universal health coverage, even if there was a detailed plan to make it happen. It's an uphill battle for the time being. I think that Dems getting the majority in this election cycle will not help them. They could be in the majority when the worst of the consequences hits. Their best political strategy is to appear to be blameless. Let the Repubs have their way on tort reform, and HSA's. These things aren't going to do squat to quell the anxiety of the masses. We would all be better off if the Dems were swept to power with a mandate: "Give us universal health coverage."

The idea of raising taxes is cleverly disguised in the plank about restoring budget discipline. Part of the budget discipline of the 90's was the tax rates. And if I remember correctly, Gore was campaigning on a targeted tax cut to the middle class, and expanding the Earned income credit to help lower income families. That would have been an excellent, effective and wise use of the surpluses, and may have even led to greater economic growth by stimulating demand.

But here we are, watching the tug of war, and the marker may or may not move just to the left of center. Which won't be far enough to have any significant impact at all. Maybe I should just be thankful that the marker isn't headed drastically toward the right.

[dryfly]

Does this platform grab you and scream vote Democrat?

What Spencer said. Grab bag at best. Except this platform wasn't designed to appeal to 'activists' it was designed to NOT scare wealthy donors. It is more 'GOP-lite'... We will do what the GOP does only better. F that.

It is obvious Democrats either don't know what they believe or can't agree on even the most basic principles so throw something out there and see if it sticks.

I am feeling even more confident that the GOP gains seats in both the House and the Senate this cycle. The GOP has been a disaster but at least they know where they are taking us all.

"Given the choice between a Republican and a Republican, the American people will choose the Republican every time." - Harry Truman

[Brian]

Why not pledge to take all of the money devoted to farm subsidies and corporate subsidies and devote it to universal coverage? If we implement something like John Kerry's plan, wouldn't we come close to funding all of it by doing just those two things?

Also, why not make a big issue about eliminating trade barriers for professionals, something Dean Baker's been talking about for a while? That would make a fairly decent dent--to the tune of $80 billion, if memory serves me correctly--in the high cost of health care.

[Brian]

"Are they even working on this? I have heard that there is legislation in committee that would override the state laws allowing you to put a fraud alert on your credit."

I read Hillary Clinton is working on a privacy bill of rights that may include stuff to help protect people against identity theft.

Regardless, I am puzzled as to why the Democrats haven't made this a bigger issue. As far as I can tell, the Republicans haven't mentioned it either, and if they need an issue that will gain some traction, this would be it. My mom goes on and on about this all of the time. She and everyone else she knows would definitely vote for someone who made this a priority.

[anne]

"Also, why not make a big issue about eliminating trade barriers for professionals, something Dean Baker's been talking about for a while? That would make a fairly decent dent--to the tune of $80 billion, if memory serves me correctly--in the high cost of health care."

Hmmm; I had not noticed such a suggestion. Import enough doctors or accountants or lawyers or technology specialists or professors, with no professional or hiring requirements or limits, to completely undermine the professions. When should I give up tenure?

[Bruce Wilder]

I don't think the list is sooo bad. It is a fairly realistic list; they might actually be able to do something about these things. It is necessary to say what you are for, I suppose, but it is far more important to say what the other guy is for. In this, the Republicans are for more effective.

If the Democrats were better at pulling back the curtain and exposing the Republicans for who and what they are, there would not be so many people -- even among the well-informed commenters on this blog -- accusing the Democrats of being Republican-lite, saying there is no difference between the Parties, or feeling even slightly complacent about the possibility of Republicans retaining power.

Bush is a dangerously incompetent and corrupt moron, and a Democratic Congress can rein him in. The core reason to vote Democratic is to stop Bush. The issue -- THE ISSUE -- that makes this Congressional election a national election, rather than a collection of local elections, is Bush. Bush -- that's what screams, vote Democratic! -- is issue 1, 2, 3.

That neither Bush nor the Iraq War is on the Democrat's list speaks volumes about the weakness of the Democratic Party. The Democrats are constantly being tied up in knots by what the Republicans say about Democratic policy proposals, and Iraq is as much an example as anything. Some Democrats propose a timetable for withdrawal and the Republicans attack this as "cut and run".

The key is not that difficult to find. It lies with characterizing what the Republicans are doing. The Democrats have to be able to summarize Republican policies accurately and pejoratively. They don't do it. Instead, they make earnest lists of what they are for, and wait to be savaged.

The Iraq War is the worst disaster in American foreign policy, ever. It surpasses even Vietnam, which was, at least, somewhat idealistic in its purposes. We have spent fantastic amounts of money on nothing, accomplished nothing, fostered massive corruption, lost allies and trashed our own Constitution and reputation in the world. And, the Democrats are cowering before accusations that they want to cut and run. Amazing!

The core difficulty is that the Democratic inclination toward inclusiveness makes it hard for the Democrats to adopt the premise that the Republicans do not want what Democrats want. Republicans have no hesitation to accuse Democrats of being pro-terrorist, but Democrats hold back. The previous Democratic slogan -- "Together, America can do better" -- summarized the attitude -- it immediately concedes the premise that Republicans are trying to help the country, but falling short somehow.

If I were able to advise the Democrats on Iraq policy, I would say that job 1 is to agree on Bush's purpose in Iraq. Say that Bush invaded Iraq to stop Iraq from using deteriorating sanctions to expand oil production and dampen world oil prices. Say that Bush invaded Iraq with the intention to establish permanent American bases. Say that the Bush plan in Iraq is to keep the Iraqi government so weak that it cannot ask the U.S. to leave. Bush wanted the Iraqi Reconstruction to benefit Halliburton, Bechtel, but not strengthen the Iraqi government, not to result in increased oil production, and it did. Bush does not want a strong Iraqi government, which is why the Iraqi forces are still not adequately trained or equipped. If the Democrats can capture the narrative, which "explains" the Bush policy in Iraq, they will have won the argument and the election.

I don't think the Democrats realize that they have to clarify for the American People what Bush's goals are. Explaining that the Republicans are a gang of fools and corrupt incompetents is far more important than earnest policy proposals.

[spencer]

Bruce -- what you say is very good, but how do you boil it down to a soundbite that people will buy?

My preference for a key message is that Bush is losing the war on terror.

Next, you need a reason. Buh is losing he war becuause his tax cuts for the wealthy were more important then providing the military with the resources they need to win. From day one he tried to fight this war on the cheap and that is why we are losing. How true it is is secondary, it is the message that can win.

It is a simple straight forward message that can be sold in a sound bite and it will put the republicans on the defensive.

Running on a platform of pulling out of Iraq is a mistake. Run on a platform that we will win, but that it will take a real sacrifice by the american people -- higher taxes and a larger defense budget-- that the republicans are unwilling to do. The alternative is just to continue having low level casualties for year after year while you hope for some miracle to bail you out -- the current bush policy.

This theme can win and it is one Hillary looks like she is preparing to run on.

[camille roy]

I think Kerry's idea for health care was useful: have the govt take on catastrophic care insurance. That would be huge for America's workers. Or did the Rethugs attack it one too many times, and drive the Dems into such shame about trying to fix our health care crisis that they will never mention it ever again, ever?

As for the Dems, their strain to be nice enough to be elected is laughable, when obviously, as the Rethugs show, niceness has nothing to do with being elected.

Busby in San Diego was a classic example. When an illegal immigrant at a campaign event asked how he could help, she told him papers had nothing to do with being able to vote - and that lost her the election. Bending over backwards to get illegal immigrant votes and campaign participation in a border community turned out not to be a winning tactic. Duh!

The Dems need to focus on two things:
1. blasting their opponents.
2. addressing the real problems workers face with effective policies.

Both can and must be done at the same time - indeed, at the same moment.

I think Dems misunderstand politics and voters. Voters don't examine policies and then pick who to vote for. They look for insights from the back and forth of political combat: insights into the candidates and the problems we all face. Those insights govern their votes.

Dems focus on offering up policies, not insights. Policies don't yield insights like a cherry tree gives cherries.

Insight: the Republicans have constructed a politics that is not about voters, or democracy, but about kissing rich and corporate butt. Vote for the Republicans if you value kissing rich and corporate butt more than the welfare of your children, your family, your community.

Repeat, repeat, repeat, and the electorate will see the truth in this view, and turn from the Rethugs. But this approach takes persistance and boldness, of which the Dems have hardly a grain.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/opinion/09KRUG.html?ex=1247198400&en=03486596e9b6302d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

July 9, 2004

Health Versus Wealth
By PAUL KRUGMAN

John Kerry has proposed an ambitious health care plan that would extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, while reducing premiums for the insured. To pay for that plan, Mr. Kerry wants to rescind recent tax cuts for the roughly 3 percent of the population with incomes above $200,000.

George Bush regards those tax cuts as sacrosanct. I'll talk about his health care policies, such as they are, in another column.

Considering its scope, Mr. Kerry's health plan has received remarkably little attention. So let me talk about two of its key elements.

First, the Kerry plan raises the maximum incomes under which both children and parents are eligible to receive benefits from Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. This would extend coverage to many working-class families, who often fall into a painful gap: they earn too much money to qualify for government help, but not enough to pay for health insurance. As a result, the Kerry plan would probably end a national scandal, the large number of uninsured American children.

Second, the Kerry plan would provide "reinsurance" for private health plans, picking up 75 percent of the medical bills exceeding $50,000 a year. Although catastrophic medical expenses strike only a tiny fraction of Americans each year, they account for a sizeable fraction of health care costs.

By relieving insurance companies and H.M.O.'s of this risk, the government would drive down premiums by 10 percent or more.

This is a truly good idea. Our society tries to protect its members from the consequences of random misfortune; that's why we aid the victims of hurricanes, earthquakes and terrorist attacks. Catastrophic health expenses, which can easily drive a family into bankruptcy, fall into the same category. Yet private insurers try hard, and often successfully, to avoid covering such expenses. (That's not a moral condemnation; they are, after all, in business.)

All this does is pass the buck: in the end, the Americans who can't afford to pay huge medical bills usually get treatment anyway, through a mixture of private and public charity. But this happens only after treatments are delayed, families are driven into bankruptcy and insurers spend billions trying not to provide care.

By directly assuming much of the risk of catastrophic illness, the government can avoid all of this waste, and it can eliminate a lot of suffering while actually reducing the amount that the nation spends on health care....

[Bruce Wilder]

spencer: "how do you boil it down to a soundbite that people will buy?"

If I were good with the soundbites, I would go to D.C. and kick some butt, instead of wasting my time commenting on blogs.

The most politically potent thing: I would say that the primary purpose of the War in Iraq was to RAISE the price of oil.

The Republicans feel free to accuse fiscally responsible Democrats of wanting to raising taxes. I would accuse Republicans of wanting to increase oil prices, of wanting to increase the profits of Halliburton and Exxon/Mobil, of wanting to benefit Dubai and Saudi Arabia.

Bush's unpopularity is directly tied to the price of gas. A large part of American electorate is just that superficial. And, the core of Republican support denies that the President has anything to do with the price of gas (or the price of pharmaceuticals), when clearly, Bush and his friends have benefitted mightily from higher oil prices.

If Democrats successfully push a narrative of the War in Iraq that ties that War to raising the price of gas, the Republicans are dead meat.

But, the Democrats would have to be utterly ruthless in attributing bad motives to the Republicans. If Halliburton makes billions failing in the Iraq reconstruction, you cannot equivocate, by calling that incompetence or falling short; you have to assert that the Republican objective was to deliver billions to Halliburton, AND to keep Iraq weak, because only a weak Iraq will not kick us out.

Republican talking heads are preparing the ground for the stab-in-the-back theory, saying that we will only "lose" in Iraq, if we withdraw. Democrats have to come back and say that the Republican purpose in Iraq is different from the American purpose. The Democrats do not have to have a plan of their own, so much as a clear, convincing view of what the Bush Plan is.

[Bruce Wilder]

what camille roy wrote about how voters evaluate the parties and the candidates reminded me of what Mark Schmidt has said: "it is not what you say about the issues that matters, it is what the issues say about you"

[anne]

Bruce Wilder:

The Iraq War is the worst disaster in American foreign policy, ever. It surpasses even Vietnam, which was, at least, somewhat idealistic in its purposes. We have spent fantastic amounts of money on nothing, accomplished nothing, fostered massive corruption, lost allies and trashed our own Constitution and reputation in the world. And, the Democrats are cowering before accusations that they want to cut and run. Amazing!

[anne]

What was being urged early on of course was an end to the war in Vietnam, which was needless in the beginning and became ever more tragic as it continued and continued. Nonetheless, Republicans could not seem more pleased to have begun another needless war and to have occupied Iraq and to repeatedly accuse the few Democrats who support leaving Iraq, to stem the tragedy that has gone on for more than 3 years, of lack of patriotism and cowardly cutting and running.

[anne]

Heroic Democrats such as John Murtha are repeatedly vilified by Republicans, so the Democratic Party is vilified, but too few Democrats understand how critically important it is to support the courageous stance of a Murtha. Save for the objections of 6 Senate Democrats, where is there a difference between the disastrous complete Republican support for George Bush's war and Democratic support? Save for the objections of 6 Senate Democrats, the Republicans have completely supported a self-destructive occupation of Iraq forever "if necessary."

[anne]

As for the "New Direction," I am astonished at how poorly written the Democratic platform proposals are, how needlessly antagonistic rather than positive, how timid. I am not interested in attacking drug and health care companies, rather than providing a vision for better health care provision. I am not interested in attacking oil companies, rather than providing a vision of energy efficiency and alternatives. I am interested in lowering public college costs for students and parents, not tax this and do not tax that. I am interested in taking the $10 billion a month spent in Irag and spending it at home and the "hell" with the budget balance which smacks of tax increases. I am interested in saving Americans from harm in Iraq for no sane reason.

[anne]

I am so tired of Democrats who will pretend to be Republicans, thinking there is the way to be elected and there is the way to be American leaders. Imagine more than 3 lunatic years in Iraq, and only 6 Democratic Senators with courage enough to save Americans by leaving Iraq. Republicans moan and groan over every cent spent on helping American families afford decent health care, and never a word on $10 billion a month on the physical and moral lunacy of Iraq. So, cut and run and save Americans now.

[anne]

Looking again to Dean Baker's supposed wish to import more professionals to America to make prossional services cheaper, I would find such a proposal if serious, even if not, lunacy. The idea is to strengthen American labor, not weaken. Strengthen. If professionals are well protected, then we need more protection for other "non-professionals." Can you imagine the lunacy of sending your daughter to medical school to be replaced at a glance by a doctor from aborad? Please.

[Brian]

"Hmmm; I had not noticed such a suggestion. Import enough doctors or accountants or lawyers or technology specialists or professors, with no professional or hiring requirements or limits, to completely undermine the professions. When should I give up tenure?"

Okay, you got me. I don't know much about the issue, beyond the arguments of fairness that Baker tries to point out. But Max Sawicky has, I believe, made similar comments about how certain types of professional licensing raise costs.

What attracts me to the idea, without knowing anything more, is that this will save money. But you suggest it would erode standards and so forth (or at least it appears that way). Why? Is a medical center going to risk its stability by putting someone underqualified in an important position? Probably not.

I really should learn more about the specifics, but can't you see why I find this issue attractive?

[anne]

Brian, thank you so much for the important post :) What I am complaining and wondering about is how to further secure labor through a range of occupations, or a range of "classes" if the term is ever appropriate. I quite agree with the intent, however.

[anne]

Dean Baker and Max Sawicky are always sumpathetic to workers, but they can be worth arguing with with :) So, we will think about costs and argue away. My argument as well is that the cost of medicine is much beyond labor.

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=4690&exhibition=69&u=11672|0|...

Black-billed Cuckoo
New York City--Central Park, The Pool.

Clever Brian, argue away :)

[save_the_rustbelt]

"Also, why not make a big issue about eliminating trade barriers for professionals, something Dean Baker's been talking about for a while? That would make a fairly decent dent--to the tune of $80 billion, if memory serves me correctly--in the high cost of health care."

Whoever proposed this does not understand the health care system - residency, contracting, licensing, credentialing, hospital privileges, etc.

We intentionally make it somewhat difficult to get into the system, which was fine with me the last time an anesthesiologist asked me to count backwards from 100.

And since most physicians are self-employed flooding the market with foreign-trained doesn't necessarily have the same impact on wages as flooding the tech markets.

[save_the_rustbelt]

On the package as a whole, this is not exactly the stuff of FDR and JFK - more mid-level bureaucrat.

The tax deductibility of tuition is yet another attempt to use the IRC for social engineering, and would tend to reward the more affluent who often send their youngsters to higher priced schools.

[anne]

Franklin Roosevelt:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/18/opinion/18herbert.html?ex=1271476800&en=9f23787f95925a8f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

April 18, 2005

A Radical in the White House
By BOB HERBERT

Last week - April 12, to be exact - was the 60th anniversary of the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "I have a terrific headache," he said, before collapsing at the Little White House in Warm Springs, Ga. He died of a massive cerebral hemorrhage on the 83rd day of his fourth term as president. His hold on the nation was such that most Americans, stunned by the announcement of his death that spring afternoon, reacted as though they had lost a close relative.

That more wasn't made of this anniversary is not just a matter of time; it's a measure of the distance the U.S. has traveled from the egalitarian ideals championed by F.D.R. His goal was "to make a country in which no one is left out." That kind of thinking has long since been consigned to the political dumpster. We're now in the age of Bush, Cheney and DeLay, small men committed to the concentration of big bucks in the hands of the fortunate few.

To get a sense of just how radical Roosevelt was (compared with the politics of today), consider the State of the Union address he delivered from the White House on Jan. 11, 1944. He was already in declining health and, suffering from a cold, he gave the speech over the radio in the form of a fireside chat.

After talking about the war, which was still being fought on two fronts, the president offered what should have been recognized immediately for what it was, nothing less than a blueprint for the future of the United States. It was the clearest statement I've ever seen of the kind of nation the U.S. could have become in the years between the end of World War II and now. Roosevelt referred to his proposals in that speech as "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed."

Among these rights, he said, are:

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

"The right of every family to a decent home.

"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.

"The right to a good education."

I mentioned this a few days ago to an acquaintance who is 30 years old. She said, "Wow, I can't believe a president would say that." ...

[anne]

Remember, as I was reminded, it was Franklin Roosevelt who in the depths of the Depression told us there was nothing to fear save fear itself, when there were those for whom fear was as a proper corrective.

[anne]

Possibly another year will pass and there will be little stand on war and peace by legislators, a few Democrats who are mocked for wishing peace and knowing that peace is there for the having for we can leave Iraq no matter the cries that we must not. The government was deposed, never to return. There was not a hint of threat to be found. There have been elections, and a government governs. We can leave, no matter if we should ever have gone. When we turn round years from now, when an artist captures our attention and causes us to turn, imagine what the vision may be.

[anne]

Remember:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=EE05E7DF1730E762BC4850DFB266838B629EDE

April 30, 1930

All Quiet On the Western Front
By MORDAUNT HALL

From the pages of Erich Maria Remarque's widely read book of young Germany in the World War, All Quiet on the Western Front, Carl Laemmle's Universal Pictures Corporation has produced a trenchant and imaginative audible picture, in which the producers adhere with remarkable fidelity to the spirit and events of the original stirring novel. It was presented last night at the Central Theatre before an audience that most of the time was held to silence by its realistic scenes. It is a notable achievement, sincere and earnest, with glimpses that are vivid and graphic. Like the original, it does not mince matters concerning the horrors of battle. It is a vocalized screen offering that is pulsating and harrowing, one in which the fighting flashes are photographed in an amazingly effective fashion.

Lewis Milestone, who has several good films to his credit, was entrusted with the direction of this production. And Mr. Laemmle had the foresight to employ those well-known playwrights, George Abbott and Maxwell Anderson, to make the adaptation and write the dialogue. Some of the scenes are not a little too long, and one might also say that a few members of the cast are not Teutonic in appearance; but this means but little when one considers the picture as a whole, for wherever possible, Mr. Milestone has used his fecund imagination, still clinging loyally to the incidents of the book. In fact, one is just as gripped by witnessing the picture as one was by reading the printed pages, and in most instances it seems as though the very impressions written in ink by Herr Remarque had become animated on the screen.

In nearly all the sequences, fulsomeness is avoided. Truth comes to the fore, when the young soldiers are elated at the idea of joining up, when they are disillusioned, when they are hungry, when they are killing rats in a dugout, when they are shaken with fear, and when they, or one of them, becomes fed up with the conception of war held by the elderly man back home.

Often the scenes are of such excellence that if they were not audible one might believe that they were actual motion pictures of activities behind the lines, in the trenches, and in No Man's Land. It is an expansive production with views that never appear to be cramped. In looking at a dugout one readily imagines a long line of such earthy abodes. When shells demolish these underground quarters, the shrieks of fear, coupled with the rat-tat-tat of machine guns, the bang-ziz of the trench mortars, and the whining of shells, it tells the story of the terrors of fighting better than anything so far has done in animated photography coupled with the microphone.

There are heartrending glimpses in a hospital, where one youngster has had his leg amputated and still believes that he has a pain in his toes. Just as he complains of this, he remembers another soldier who had complained of the same pain in the identical words. He then realizes what has happened to him, and he shrieks and cries out that he does not want to go through life a cripple....

[anne]

Interesting that "Catch-22" and "MASH" could in time catch the lunacy of war, even war that was considered necessary, and be worried about by critics but respected by audiences and understood by critics in time, in time, in time.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/02/15/home/heller-catch.html

October 23, 1961

'Catch-22'
By ORVILLE PRESCOTT

"Catch-22," by Joseph Heller, is not an entirely successful novel. It is not even a good novel. It is not even a good novel by conventional standards. But there can be no doubt that it is the strangest novel yet written about the United States Air Force in World War II. Wildly original, brilliantly comic, brutally gruesome, it is a dazzling performance that will probably outrage nearly as many readers as it delights. In any case, it is one of the most startling first novels of the year and it may make its author famous. Mr. Heller, who spent eight years writing "Catch-22," is a former student at three universities--New York, Columbia and Oxford--and a former teacher at Pennsylvania State College. Today he is a promotion man busily engaged in the circulation wars of women's magazines. From 1942 to 1945 he served as a combat bombardier in the Twelfth Air Force and was stationed on the Island of Corsica. That experience provided only the jumping-off place for this novel.

"Catch-22" is realistic in its powerful accounts of bombing missions with men screaming and dying and planes crashing. But most of Mr. Heller's story rises above mere realism and soars into the stratosphere of satire, grotesque exaggeration, fantasy, farce and sheer lunacy. Those who are interested may be reminded of the Voltaire who wrote "Candide" and of the Kafka who wrote "The Trial."

Multiplicity of Targets

"Catch-22" is a funny book--vulgarly, bitterly, savagely funny. Its humor, I think, is essentially masculine. Few women are likely to enjoy it. And perhaps "enjoy" is not quite the right word for anyone's reaction to Mr Heller's imaginative inventions. "Relish" might be more accurate. One can relish his delirious dialogue and his ludicrous situations while recognizing that they reflect a basic range and disgust.

Joseph Heller's key sentence is this: "Men went mad and were rewarded with medals." His story is a satirical denunciation of war and of mankind that glorifies war and wages war cruelly, stupidly, selfishly. So Mr. Heller satirizes among other matters: militarism, red tape, bureaucracy, nationalism, patriotism, discipline, ambition, loyalty, medicine, psychiatry, money, big business, high finance, sex, religion, mankind and God....

[anne]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=EE05E7DF173FE46EBC4E51DFB766838B669EDE

January 26, 1970

M*A*S*H
By Roger Greenspun

To my knowledge Robert Altman's M*A*S*H is the first major American movie openly to ridicule belief in God—not phony belief; real belief. It is also one of the few (though by no means the first) American screen comedies openly to admit the cruelty of its humor. And it is at pains to blend that humor with more operating room gore than I have ever seen in any movie from any place.

All of which may promote a certain air of good feeling in the audience, an attitude of self-congratulation that they have the guts to take the gore, the inhumanity to appreciate the humor, and the sanity to admire the impiety—directed against a major who prays for himself, his Army buddies, and even "our Commander in Chief."

Actually M*A*S*H, which opened yesterday at the Baronet, accepts without question several current pieties (for example, concern for a child's life, but not a grown man's soul), but its general bent is toward emotional freedom, cool wit, and shocking good sense.

Based upon a barely passable novel of the same name (the title stands for Mobile Army Surgical Hospital, but "MASH," of course, stands for a few other things as well). M*A*S*H takes place mostly in Korea during the war. However, aside from the steady processing of bloody meat through the operating room, the film is not so much concerned with the war as with life inside the Army hospital unit and especially with the quality of life created by the three hot-shot young surgeons (Donald Sutherland, Elliott Gould, and Tom Skerritt) who make most things happen.

But, unlike Catch-22, with which it has already been incorrectly compared (I mean the novel, not the legendary unfinished movie), M*A*S*H makes no profoundly radical criticism either of war or of the Army. Although it is impudent, bold, and often very funny, it lacks the sense of order (even in the midst of disorder) that seems the special province of successful comedy. I think that M*A*S*H, for all its local virtues, is not successful. Its humor comes mostly in bits and pieces, and even in its climax, an utterly unsporting football game between the MASH unit and an evacuation hospital, it fails to build toward either significant confrontation or recognition. At the end, the film simply runs out of steam, says good-bye to its major characters, and calls final attention to itself as a movie—surely the saddest and most overworked of cop-out devices in the comic film repertory....

[pgl]

As I said over at Hamilton's place (in addition to telling what Brad D drink coffee and really blast the low gasoline price Democrats) - it'd be nice if a few Democrats extending the "fiscal responsibility" with the obvious - "this means tax rate increases". DUH!

[camille roy]

it'd be nice if a few Democrats extending the "fiscal responsibility" with the obvious - "this means tax rate increases". DUH!

I think advocating tax increases is like advocating flag burning. It's a No Go with voters. The current Dem nominee for govenor in California has done it and I think he'll crash and burn against Schwarzenegger. Sad.

I think it's typical of Dems to try and come up with policies, such as tax increases, when they need values and story line. If you sell a story that people believe, then you may have the credibility to sell needed tax increases. => Not before <=.

[anne]

There is lunacy on lunacy, Arnold Schwarzenegger is governor because a mad-as-a-hatter Democratic governor decided to teach Californians a lesson on what to drive by allowing vehicle taxes to raise. Now, another Democratic candidate for governor is trying to teach California to ride bicycles by raising taxes on gasoline.

There are no problems in America, no joys in America, other than gasoline prices that are too low. Support the occupation of Iraq, with $6 a gallon gasoline. Such are the supposed moralists of the time. Lunatics.

[anne]

Republicans preach the virtues of war, while the word "peace" is too dangerous for all but a few supposed Democratic leaders. So we have the Democratic cry, $6 gasoline." Lunatics.

[James Kroeger]

I think there's a good chance that the Democrats could end up getting stunned once again this fall by failing to take control of either house of Congress.

While Democrats knock themselves out every election cycle trying to talk to Swing Voters about The Issues, Republicans have calmly focused their attention on winning The Image Campaign. The Issues might actually be important to many Swing Voters early on in a political campaign, but when both sides start to pick apart each other’s facts & interpretations, the typical Swing Voter quickly becomes confused. As the debate over The Issues drags on, Swing Voters realize that they don’t understand the details well enough to make an informed decision, so they end up relying on their impressions of the candidates.

Republican strategists see this clearly. That is why they continuously try to create doubts in the minds of the Swing Voters about the character of the Democratic candidate. They know that it doesn’t really matter if they can’t find any real flaws in their Democratic opponents. Accusations, insinuations, & innuendo will work just fine. They hope to encourage voters to question the motivation and dependability of The Democrats. They try to create the perception that Democrats are “defective” in a disturbing way. By accusing, the Republicans suggest to Swing Voters that they are not [defective like the Democrats].

Republican strategists know they would rarely win if election results were always determined by a logical discussion of The Issues and nothing more (they know that most voters would benefit more from Democratic economic policies than from Republican policies). They know they must win the Image Campaign to have any chance of winning. That is why they are committed, now and forever, to negative campaigning.

The most important reason why negative campaigning has worked so well for the Republicans is because their negative attacks on the Democrats create a positive impression of Republican candidates, who appear---in contrast---to be individuals who do not possess the defects that they have accused others of having. They define themselves [positively] by defining their Democratic opponents [negatively]. On a visceral level, what the Republicans actually “stand for” in the minds of Swing Voters on election day is that they are not Democrats---those defective people who seem to have been born to ruin everything.

As much as I fear the Republicans, I cannot help but shake my head in wonder at the people who are running the Democratic Party (the DLC in particular). Combine their general cluelessness about the fine points of the Image Game with the extremely lame "New Direction" that the Congressionial Democrats have put together and I am left without a lot of hope...

[anne]

Nicely argued, James :)

[anne]

We know Iraq is tragedy on tragedy. Why we are in Iraq, we cannot say, what to expect if we stay or leave we cannot know, what winning or losing may be we cannot know for other than peace what is to be hoped for from the sadness, but whether staying or leaving will bring peace even this we cannot know. We can however have our own peace by leaving, and only hope the Iraqis will have peace as well. There is only reason to leave immediately.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/opinion/18sun1.html?ex=1308283200&en=7772460af21f30b6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

June 18, 2006

A Long Road Ahead in Iraq

Rather than engage in a serious debate about America's future course in Iraq, President Bush and the Republican Congress have again opted for sound bites and partisanship. Yet all the choreographed posturing and a one-week flurry of good news cannot blot out the larger picture of dubious trends and dismal prospects. Not only is the glass less than half full. The water level, viewed over months rather than days, is not noticeably rising.

Take the police. It is meaningless to talk about Iraq's taking charge of its own security when the police forces that patrol its cities and run its prisons are rife with sectarian militias and death squads that would sooner wage a civil war than prevent one.

While Mr. Bush holds out visions of Iraqi security forces standing up so that Americans can stand down, Iraq's deputy justice minister more candidly told The Washington Post last week that "we cannot control the prisons; it's as simple as that." He added that "our jails are infiltrated by the militias from top to bottom, from Basra to Baghdad." ...

Consider also the level of sectarian violence, a clear indicator of whether Iraq is moving toward national unity or sectarian conflict. In May 2003, there were five recorded incidents of sectarian violence. In May 2004, there were 10. In May 2005, there were 20. Last month there were 250. This is a very discouraging trend, as is the predictable response: thousands of families fleeing their homes.

Or look over the abysmal record of America's multibillion-dollar reconstruction effort in Iraq, ground to a near halt by the lethal combination of military insecurity, incompetent Pentagon management and rampant American and Iraqi corruption. Electric power output has virtually flat-lined for two years. Baghdad residents still have power for only five to eight hours a day. Oil output, the key to Iraq's paying its bills, remains below depressed prewar levels and not much higher than two years ago. Health clinics that were supposed to build good will toward America are so badly over budget and behind schedule that most may never be built.

Pretending things are better than they are will not make them so....

Should Washington continue to tolerate the operations of Shiite militias and death squads or should it use American military power to loosen their hold? Should the United States resign itself to slow-motion "ethnic cleansing" in some mixed areas or try to stop it by pouring more American troops into zones around Baghdad and Basra where the threat seems most acute? Is it more urgent to convince Iraq's Arab neighbors that they share a stake in Iraqi stability or to scare them off by proclaiming that America's larger goal in Iraq is to ratchet up the pressure for democratic change in a neighborhood almost universally ruled by authoritarians? ...

After a week in which the American military death toll in Iraq passed 2,500 and in which an Iraqi official spoke of a possible amnesty offer to insurgents who killed some of those Americans — an offer we can safely predict Washington will never allow — the real tragedy of Iraq lies not just in the thousands of Iraqi and American lives lost or the shame of Abu Ghraib or Haditha.

It lies even more in the continued lack of leadership and candor from the White House. No upbeat presidential trip to Baghdad or flag-waving Congressional resolution can long divert attention from the sorry reality....

[anne]

War is not peace, and we have been able to choose peace for ourselves at any time these last years. We can and should choose appropriately and leave Iraq immediately.

[reason]

How about election reform? Surely de-corruption should be point #1.