In a Coconut Shell

Can you summarize Democratic ideology succinctly, Republican-like even?:

Democrats, don't put it in writing It's the party of case-by-case, not sweeping dogmas, by Jonathan Chait , Commentary, LA Times: After the 2004 presidential election, some of us liberals came away with the conclusion that it's awfully hard to defeat an incumbent president during wartime. And some of us came away with the conclusion that John Kerry is a really awful politician.

Other liberals, though, decided that what this country needs are some good policy journals. It is because of liberals like these that so many Americans think we're all a bunch of weenies. One of those weenies is my friend Kenneth Baer, who, along with Andrei Cherney, has founded a center-left journal called Democracy. The premise of Democracy is that conservatives have taken power in large part because of their intellectual journals — and that liberals can reclaim that power by fighting back likewise.

"Conservative policy journals," writes Baer, "helped take a marginal movement in American life that was thumped at the polls (Goldwater in 1964) and, over four decades, turn it into a dominant force." ... Democracy's editors believe that the central purpose of this journal-led restoration is to Think Big. No policy papers, please. ... Their role is to formulate sweeping principles.

Alas, this is inherently a losing game for liberals. Here is the problem: Conservatism and liberalism are not really mirror images of each other. Conservatives venerate the free market and see smaller government as an end in itself. Liberals do not venerate government in the same way, and we do not see larger government as an end in and of itself. For us, everything works on a case-by-case basis. Should government provide everybody's education? Yes. Should government manufacture everybody's blue jeans? No. And so on. ...

Everybody knows what [Republicans] stand for. They're for lower taxes, strong defense and less spending — even if they habitually fail at the spending part and have royally screwed up the defense portion of late.

But nobody knows what Democrats stand for because you cannot, and should not, formulate sweeping dogmas when you're operating on a case-by-case basis.

Consider the Clinton administration. What did it stand for on, say, economic policy? Well, progressive taxation, reducing the deficit (but not at the expense of Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment), expanding health coverage, investing in technology, and … you see? We're long past the point where it can be described by a single overarching theory...

Some liberals see this problem and conclude that Democrats got too wishy-washy under President Clinton. If we'd just held firm to strong liberal, pro-government principles, they say, the public would know where we're coming from.

Well, that's probably true. But it wouldn't win any elections. Why not? Because, as social psychologists Lloyd A. Free and Hadley Cantril concluded in 1964, Americans are ideological conservatives and operational liberals. Everybody's for less spending and regulation in the abstract. When you try to translate that into specifics — say, lower Medicare benefits or looser standards on pollution — voters run screaming in the other direction.

Any debate that takes place at the level of ideological generality, then, inherently favors the right. Liberals can try to come up with slogans of their own. ... But that brings you back to the problem of nobody understanding what you believe in. ...

The editors of Democracy scorn this pragmatic interpretation. "Progressives too often have come to eschew bold ambition," they write, "preferring to take shelter in the safe harbor of 'realism' and 'competence.' "

Realism and competence may not make for a stirring theme, but when you've had eight years of the alternative, they look pretty good.

"For us, everything works on a case-by-case basis." That makes it sound ad hoc, random, without any underlying principles. For me it's not, or I hope it isn't. I try to use two main principles to decide if the government should intervene, but make no claim this is a mainstream Democratic position. First, will the private market provide adequate quantities of the good, or are there significant market failures? Since no market is perfect, are the market failures substantial enough so that government, even with it's own inherent inefficiencies, still does a better job of providing the goods? If so, the government should intervene by providing the appropriate incentives to the marketplace (which can be as simple as full disclosure requirements on sales, or as complex as pricing rules for telecommunications), or providing the good itself when market incentives are insufficient. Second, does the policy overcome social or economic problems and equalize opportunity? Of course people shouldn't starve or go without housing, healthcare, schooling, legal defense, etc., but I'm not much for equalizing outcomes. However, I do believe in equalizing opportunity and that can involve redistributive policies as it does in the provision of universal education. In any case, it's not hard to boil things down to simple slogans:

Making markets work for all of America,
Equalizing  opportunity, and
Protecting our future.

Something along those lines would work for me. What would you add/subtract, or do you agree that "[Y]ou cannot ... formulate sweeping dogmas... We're long past the point where it can be described by a single overarching theory"?

Comments

[dryfly]

I can't give you the democratic elevator speech because they don't have one.

But the 'bullets' I'd like to see them address are...

1) Equal justice applied to all
2) Sustainable prosperity
3) Right to privacy in personal affairs
4) Personal as well as public security

[anne]

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]

Currently political principles, political values, have included fear mongering to deceptively drive us to a needless war and an even more needless forever-occupation of another country, reducing taxes of the wealthiest insuring they will not have to pay for the war and occuption, slashing or trying to slash social insurance and social benefit programs insuring middle and lower income households will pay for the war and occuption. So much for having political values or principles :)

[hj]

There was still some of that left at the time of Lyndon Johnson, but he allowed the Goldwaterites and imperialists to push him into the disaster of the Vietnamese war and it has been, with a few pauses along the way, downhill ever since. When you compare Bush II with Roosevelt, both from the top ranks of privilege and wealth, you can see how sad and steep the descent has been.

[Curt Doolittle]

Regarding:
1) Equal justice applied to all
2) Sustainable prosperity
3) Right to privacy in personal affairs
4) Personal as well as public security

DESIRE FOR PREDICTABILITY AND CERTAINTY
The problem with all of these bullets is that they are undefinable as they are stated, and exposition would cast them quite differently than the noble words above would imply. Socrates himself couldn't handle justice and neither can leftists or the Democratic party. Doing so has only been possible with relatively recent economic philosophy. With that knowledge we can understand that Justice can, and only can, mean "the honest resolution of differences over property" unless it means "taking property from one person to give it to another". Any debate over justice will inevitably end up with that underlying question.

Aside from the fact that what it takes to create "sustainable prosperity" is completely different under Left and Right visions, the other three "bullets" above evision that the individual's universe becomes predictable, and that it becomes predictable by the labors and resources of "someone else".

The right wants each person to create that predictability by hard work and saving that is accomplished with the labor and resources of the individuals themselves. And they see the left as destroying the traditional "common sense" that is the underlying economic model that is the source of our prosperity.

With Predictability as the goal, the vast majority of leftism effectively tries to eliminate the stress that creates the incentive for people to develop the discipline necessary to accumulate knowledge and resources for self support. The right wants people to develop that discipline on their own, and sees it only possible to develop on their own.

Questions of personal and public security will likewise beg the question, first, what security means, and secondly, what would be necessary to implement it. If it means emotional security and predictability, then again, this will be accomplished only by undermining the discipline the right requires, and the taking of property. If it means physical security, then the means of accomplishing that both locally, domestically, and internationally will vary by the same criteria as the general debate: whether we are safer using tolerance or intolerance, and redistribution or self reliance as our guiding principles. Again, the right wants people to learn even if it is stressful, the left wants people to have the opportunity to learn without that stress. And this difference is driven by one's perception of scarcity of all things.

And this is driven by the underlying difference in philosophical frameworks: The right sees everything as scarce and the obligation of all people to manage scarcity. The left sees the world as plentiful and some people as hoarders of common property that could be put to a better use, that they determine, rather than satisfying the preferences of the people who actually created the prosperity.

The "operational liberalism" that we see in americans is simply the traditional western version of charity. The problem is that it is not possible to know when that charity that is motivated by temporary compassion, causes the long term lack of discipline that the right fears. This is their quandry. The left sees this as a lifestyle mandate that should exist in perpetuity. The right sees it as an occasional temporary compassion that is justifiable as long as the underlying discipline and accountability are in place.

Production and innovation and prosperity work together to create a world where each of us must reorganize our lives, our relationships and our skills as preferences, technologies, and scarcity vary from day to day, year to year, and decade to decade. I is not possible to create certainty and prosperity at the same time for long periods of time. The economy is a network for the mananagement of scarcity and it changes all the time. If you make it more certain and predictable, it will also make us less prosperous, with fewer opportunities. It is not our job to create a world of predictable certainty and comfort, it is to create a population of people with the skills, discipline and resources to alter our relationshps, lives, and resources in response to changes in scarcity, technology and preferences. It is certain that all of us would prefer to live in a world that was free of this dynamism, but it is also certain, that without that dynamism we would not live in such prosperity, and without the stress that such change places upon us, we would lack the incentive to implement those changes in ourselves.

LANGUAGE
The right uses the language of religion and mythology to convey a methodologically consistent philosophy based upon consistenly confirmed axis of economic principles. The left uses the language of science and emotion to convey a methodologically impossible philosophy based upon a consistenly disproven axis of economic principles. This set of differences lead to conflict over form and language rather structure and objectives. It is simply too hard for each side to understand the other because of these differences. It is not that ambitions are so different, but that methods of attaining them are so different, and the means of discussing them so different as to create an impenetrable barrior for honest debate in those rare circumstances where it is desired.

Right wing intellectuals find the idea that the left "only needs to better communicate" with the population an exciting opportunity. They find the idea humorous, as if in some Lakoffian world reality is goverened by language and perception where such perception creates physical laws by human consensus, rather than perception helping us understand physical laws from which one must obtain meaning for one's use independent of consensus. But when that communication is consistent, then will the right be able to conduct the debate on their terms. They long for it.

Realistically, if political achievement of policy is the objective, then the left should stay with slogans, "piecemeal" policy for coalition development, and embracing the disaffected and non-conforming. It is possible to build many coalitions in this manner and inevitably take control of coastal and high density populations by using infinite tolerance as an incentive for brokering policy between disaffected groups, made disaffected by thier policies.

Because the underlying economic laws that govern all men are necessarily equal, it is not a question of preference for one method of human organization or another. It is that one set of ideas is simply better suited to creating prosperity than is another.

If we could but agree on the mechanics (the right does agree regardless of faction) then the debate would simply be over the degree of insurance given to each citizen, and the limits of that insurance, and the means of paying for it. Should we survive the coming demographic crisis, hopefully this insurance scheme will be the outcome that satisfies both sides.

JOURNALS
Unless there is a more blatant Marxist revival (which while impossible is at least consistent), I would venture that it is not possible to create a scholarly journal for leftism that is nearly as logically consistent as those on the right are, and for the same reason as it is not possible to create a lefitst radio network. And that is, that under scrutiny and under debate, the noble sounding words appropriated by the left from the lanaguage of the enlightement are in fact, simply noble labels for the theft and redistribution of property, and the failure to use social and economic pressure to teach people the discipline necessary to accumulate knowledge and resources in universe of dynamic scarcity.

In other words, it means that people who work hard and save, must be penalized to support the lifestyles of those who do not. They must sacrifice the betterment of their families for the temporary comforts of those that make no such sacrifices. This is the perception of the conflict.

Any journal that attempts to accomplish the goal of developing a consistent Democratic philosophy will simply create evidence and fodder that feeds the right's analytical engine of criticism. Anyone on the left will continue current trends, and simply bow out of the argument, or use a quip, sarcasm or humor, or employ emotional drama as a distraction. That is because the philosophy is logically and economically inconsistent and unsustainable. There is no platform, not because of lack of will, but because it is functionally impossible to create one that can survive scrutiny.

Therefore, it is not that such leftist journals do not exist by choice. It is because they cannot exist by merit. Right wing pundits will salivate at their inception, since one of the right's core beliefs, is that if the Democratic party actually wrote down what they believed and why, it would mean the destruction of the party by a population that was horrified by the implication of it.

[ChrisA]

Only problem with the suggested democratic WWSF (What We Stand For)credos by both Mark and Dryfly is that the republicans don't disagree with them, in fact they are all mainstream republican. You may as well add in free speech and apple pie. The only problem with the Rooselvelt promised "rights" are that either no government could ever deliver on them or they are so vauge that they mean nothing. The real problem, as I see it, for the democrats is that since the demise of socialism and the end of the belief in government paternalism (I mean, come on, everyone is now a Hayek disciple) is that they have offered nothing more than Republican lite. Kerry's policies were basically "I will do everything that the Republicans do, but nicer, with an east coast accent, and I will care more". As a non-american may I suggest that best approach for the democrats to get elected might to establish the brand of competency in government - i.e. they become the party that can be trusted to do the things that governments need to do, and don't get involved in the debate about what Govts do. Clinton actually did quite well on this, largely through technocracts like Rubin. Blair and Brown have established this position in the UK. As was mentioned in the post this is really where Bush and co have fallen down.

[realpc]

You seem to be saying conservatives mindlessly follow their ideology while liberals are flexible and practical.
But the "other side" is always perceived as irrational and dogmatic.
Most people are practical, balanced and non-dogmatic, whether they consider themselves liberal or conservative.

To understand what words like liberal or conservative mean, you have to consider how they evolved historically. American liberalism became associated with labor unions, civil rights, feminism, pacifism, and tended to sympathize with socialism. The conservatism we have now formed as a reaction to some of these liberals ideals, especially when they became excessive.

Most conservatives have a case-by-case approach, unless they are ideological fanatics. The same is true of all political groups.

Democrats are strugging to define themselves as different from Republicans, but we really all have similar goals. Defining yourself as a rational, flexible centrist in no way separates you from conservatives in general.

[Greg Leisner]

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

1) "We the people...": Not as the Right thinks "We the collected individuals..". Human societies are made up of vast interweaved social support networks: nuclear families, extended families, clans, friendships, religious communities, ethnic communities, social organizations, insurance groups, and governments among others. They provide material, social, spiritual and phychological support. Human society is definded by these networks, not by the individual. Western society has expanded both the support networks and the3 right of the individual to opt-out. Other societies are different because the individual can't opt-out. That doesn't mean that Western Man is at his greatest when he entierly opts-out however.

2)"...a more perfect union...": Society doesen't have, never had and never will have a "golden" or perfect state. Societies have to keep adapting to the present. The Right, not the Left, believes in Utopia.

3) "... establish justice...": Not just laws, police, courts and prisions (as the Right believes) but justice.

4) "...insure domestic tranquility...": That phrase is alien to the Right but reconnizes that societies exist for this purpose. Scraching out a mean existance without hope for the future is the lack of tranquility and a failure of society; no matter what a "marketplace" may dictate.

5) "...provide for the common defense.."": Wow, both the Right and the Left can probably agree on this in principal.

6) "...promote the general welfare...": The Right would say it is if GDP is rising; the Left would say it is if everybody's real incomes were rising.

7) "...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...": That's 'liberty' as in the word 'liberal'; the Left owns this clause and needs to embrace it and proclaim it the to voters! Who says the Left can't "Think Big"?

If the Left goes back to the roots of this nation, it will find the intellectial farmework already established. Today's Right doesn't conserve American values, it destroyes them.

[Robert]

The niche that leftism holds is that the philosphy of selfishness - that "hold a candle to yer ass boy, and pull yerself up by yer bootstraps, let the chips fall where they may" yields, in modernity, a world that no sensible citizen would choose to live in. For we have the power to choose, organize, and create the world that we, as intelligent beings in charge of our own fate, desire BOTH individually and, more important. societally.

Who with free-will would choose a society where when one is sick, one may be denied treatment? Who with free-will would choose to create an eduicational system whose funding and qualities are wholly dependent the size one's home? Who with free-will would choose to spend half our immense budget - the money we collectively contribute to the betterment of our society - upon weapons or war and destruction rather than upon useful things that make our day-to-day world a better place such as quality primary education, training, healthcare, minimum safety nets for the indigant & those in need, technological research & development, public transport, protection of the enviroment for posterity? The simple answer is, very very few people in developed nations outside the USA, and a modest minority inside the USA - i.e. those that don't achieve direct tangible benefit from pooling of resources, and further, deny the indirect benefits of cooperation. Benefits such as more-sustainable longer-term growth, a better world left to posterity, lower crime, greater security, and yes Mr Doolittle, greater personal control and less "stress", which is an unashamedly valid human goal, and not incogruent with efficiency, hard work, productivity or the work-ethic itself as obviously demonstrated by Japan, Singapore, and Western Germany, and most of northern Euurope for that matter.

The right is the party that believes in magical conjuring of suuch goods, services, and enabling organization that a modern society doesn't and cannot create in the wake of Randian chaos. And if not magical conjuring, then perhaps they are relying on divine intervention. And wherer these lables are not applicable, they deny that such godds, things ans services are in any way desirable. But few of our peers amongst civilized nations agree with such justifications that selfishness will m ake them apparate without the will and effort of men.

The left must practically paint these distinctions, and the visions of the future evidenced in the reality of the differences as they exist today between the truly soocially advanced nations in Asian and Northern Europe who understand and implement what people are capable of when cooperating and working together, and the fractured divisiveness of the "haves", and "the have nots" whose fault lines define the divisions in the American polity.

[Bruce Webb]

"(I mean, come on, everyone is now a Hayek disciple)"

Not me pal, and that anyone could even say this from an ostensibly progressive perspective is a simple result of people buying into the Big Lie of 1983. The Economic Right made a deliberate, open, concerted attempt to sell the notion that Big Government solutions were proven failures. They were not particularly subtle, everyone deserves it to themselves to read this article from the special Social Security issue of Cato Journal Fall 1983: Social Security: Continuing Crisis or Real Reform? warning opens as PDF Butler & Germanis: Social Security: Achieving a "Leninist" Strategy

People who have accepted "the end of the belief in government paternalism" are for the most part those who bought into Butler and Germanis's con over the last 20 years.

Maybe I am just an obsessed nut. on the other hand no one has ever once made a numeric case for why the economy will not return better numbers than Low Cost, i.e. fully funded Social Security.

Government parternalism works. Social Security is overfunded going forwards. And there is nothing wrong with Medicare that cannot be addressed by a strong move to universal Single-Payer. People who insist that the answer is triangulating away from the New Deal are factually in error about the basic economic numbers in play.

Unleash your Inner FDR: Social Security as Political Opportunity the intro:
"Time for Politics.

Social Security offers the opportunity to reverse a whole generation of political defensivism on the part of Democrats. We have the unique chance of changing the entire narrative.

Because Social Security "crisis" is not a matter of numbers, not really, it is a story in support of an ideology which can be boiled down to "Markets Good, Government Bad". This story has been carefully crafted for seventy years and finally got its opportunity to be put in play in 1980 with the election of Ronald "Government is not the solution, government is the problem" Reagan."

Friedrich Hayek can kiss my ass. And Hayekians out there can bring some actual numbers. Democrats have a proven plan with real numbers. Its called the New Deal and anyone who claims that its central program is a failure just got taken for a 23 year ride.

FDR is a hero, Reagan is a zero, and "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself". Somehow Democrats just lost their way, time to reclaim the high ground. Because we have the numbers. And I am perfectly willing to show them to you.

[dryfly]

The problem with all of these bullets is that they are undefinable as they are stated, and exposition would cast them quite differently than the noble words above would imply.

Right Curt... its short & could be spun if the Dems don't defend & support. That's why they call them an elevator speech. If you try to give details on every point & lock in the SPECIFICS & close out every possible rebuttal up front in the dissertation... your audience has already got off at the 24th floor and you're only into paragraph three of bullet item one.

Look at they GOP version...

Small government.
Lower taxes.
Strong defense.

They have won and won & won on those bullets even though it should be OBVIOUS their 'noble words' haven't been exactly followed. No problem, they say them over, louder and win again.

Start with simple themes & principles, generate interest and build on that. Basic marketing. If you want the masses to buy in, sell them like you sell anything else. If you only want eight eggheads on board go through the scholarly journals.

Short & sweet is what 'in a nutshell means'.

[dryfly]

BTW - Kos had an exercise on this subject a couple years ago... A sort of 'Democratic Elevator Speech' contest... 25 words or less what do Democrats stand for. I didn't stick around to taste the final product but watched while the sausage was being made. Not very appetizing.

From the eyes of the public THIS IS THE PROBLEM... What DO Democrats believe in? Not being Republicans? Is that all there is?

[hj]

The point about Roosevelt is not that his goals could not all be achieved. Any stupid cynic can say that. The point is in his attitude and what he wanted to work toward: a more just and fair America. Compare that with Bush II whose only goals are to execute the Cheney agenda: enrich the rich, please the Zionist lobby, and make America as selfish a society as possible.

[donna]

How about, "Let's all quit thinking like a bunch of simpletons and deal with our complex problems"?

I'm sick of slogans and stupid kneejerk thinking, myself.

[bakho]

This is a stupid editorial.

Republicans believe in using military supremacy to bully the world to do what the US wants and a have contemptuos attitude toward international institutions except for occasions when they might prove useful. Republicans prefer to stake a position and back it with military threats rather than engage in tough political negotiations. Repulbicans operate under the Bush doctrine of preemtive engagement.

Democrats believe in engaging the world, supporting and building international institutions and strengthening international laws and agreements. Democrats are reluctant to use military force except as a last resort.

Republicans believe that government is too large and should not try to address social issues. Republicans would prefer to turn the role of the government in education and social services over to religious institutions. Republicans do not have faith that agencies can or will be well run. As a result, allowing them to run the agencies invites diversion of funds to corrupt purposes. After all, they don't believe in the institutions so why should it matter if the budget is diverted to corporate or religious groups with little or no oversight?

Democrats believe that government programs and agencies can address important social and economic problems. Democrats are committed to making these agencies serve the needs of the people in an efficient and just manner.

Republicans are against any adjustment in economic rules designed to fix flaws that allow some individuals to use the rules to their advantage for enormous financial gain.

Democrats recognize that no economic rules are ever perfect and some redistribution is one way to compensate for flaws in the laws.

Republicans support a hands off approach to development that allows developers to do what they please.

Democrats support planned growth for more efficent utilization of space and resources.

Republicans are in favor of borrowing money in order to pay for their spending programs

Democrats would prefer less borrowing and more revenue collection.

Republicans want to keep the tax burden on the poor and middle class as high as possible to dampen demands for new social spending programs or efforts at redistribution.

Democrats prefer to increase taxes on the wealthy and exaxt their fair share to support the society that enabled their economic success.

Republicans prefer private schools and privatizing as much of government as possible. Republicans seek to divert public monies from public schools through combinations of vouchers and underfunding of public schools.

Democrats support public schools.

Republicans support a paternalistic and punative approach to social issues especially regarding sexual matters. Republicans want government to intervene in the sex lives, reproductive decisions and end of life decisions of its citizens.

Democrats support a more tolerant and individualistic approach to these issues.

[bakho]

More succinctly:

Republicans are for God and against Guns and Gays.

Democrats are for jobs and peace.

[James Kroeger]

Unless there is a more blatant Marxist revival (which while impossible is at least consistent), I would venture that it is not possible to create a scholarly journal for leftism that is nearly as logically consistent as those on the right are...There is no platform, not because of lack of will, but because it is functionally impossible to create one that can survive scrutiny.

If you are serious about your boast, Curt Dolittle, then I defy you to find a logical inconsistency in the "leftist platform" implied here and here and here. Take note of the supporting arguments found here, here, here, and here. Together, they defend an economic agenda that promises to increase the amount of real wealth produced and consumed by the American people (both the poor and the rich) to levels that the Republican Party will never be able to achieve while at the same time optimizing real economic investment in the economy.

You'll want to note this agenda does not seek to equalize incomes, it does not reward indolence, and it does not advocate any government effort directly 'manage' the economy. Further, it does not propose any initiative that would actually impose any kind of material sacrifice on the wealthy. They would retain their claim to the scarcest goods and services that the economy is able to produce.

Although you will try to find a logical inconsistency, you will not be able to find one, so I fully expect that you will simply "bow out of the argument, or use a quip, sarcasm or humor, or employ emotional drama as a distraction."

says...

How about, "Let's all quit thinking like a bunch of simpletons and deal with our complex problems"?

I'm sick of slogans and stupid kneejerk thinking, myself.

Me too, Donna. Well said.

[Bernard Yomtov]

That was me, agreeing with Donna.

[Robert Cote]

A hand up not a hand out.
Justice prevails.
Great success brings great responsibility.
The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Society is judged by how it treats the least of its members.
Optimism is attitude not platitudes.
Certitude is not a moral failing.

I'd vote for this liberal. Oh wait, I did.

[Winslow R.]

I'd add we need 'balance', balance between the 'father' and the 'mother', 'individual' and the 'society', 'yin' and 'yang', 'left brain' and 'right brain', 'Republican' and 'Democrat'.

We have a structural shift towards 'balance' but have a temporary cyclical shift towards the 'individual'. I'm not convinced Democrats can do anything to prematurely shift the cycle back towards balance since they tend to be close to the 'middle' already.

We may need an extreme on the far left to provide a true contrast before the shift towards the 'middle' continues. The Great Depression/WWII provided an extreme contrast in the past. What is worrisome is the escalation in intensity of these cycles, even as the cycle length has been extended. Will we be capable of surviving another? Hopefully cooler, more 'balanced' heads prevail in the fullness of time.

[dryfly]

We may need an extreme on the far left to provide a true contrast before the shift towards the 'middle' continues.

I agree. The conservatives had that guy in Barry Goldwater YEARS ago when they were in the wilderness - he lost his battle quite decisively in '64 but set the conservatives on a path where they were later to win their war and have been winning ever since.

The left needs the equivalent of BG - somebody who will define 'liberalism' in modern terms (not 1930s), unashamed of it and who inspires others to follow even in the wake his/her personal defeat. It might get REALLY ugly before it gets better.

I can't think of anyone out there in the DEm camp who fits that description right now - Gore maybe after the success of his movie & previous defeat might be willing to fight (win or lose) on his own terms this time. If so I hope he shoots each and every Washington political consultant that approaches him.

[Blissex]

«There is no platform, not because of lack of will, but because it is functionally impossible to create one that can survive scrutiny»

That applies to the right-wing platform too, which boils down to some well disproved cliches, usually of the Horatio Alger/Say's Law/''trickle down'' variety, plus moralistic homilies.

The real problem is that american politics are singularly not ideological, and they are based almost exclusively on coalitions of interests.

The Democrats are in trouble because of two big reasons:

* It used to be urban blue collar workers plus southern racists who could not bring themselves to vote for the party of Lincoln.

* Urban clue collar workers are not as big or organized as they used to be, and as Republicans have lost the stigma of being Lincoln's party, and L. Johnson signed anti-segregation laws, southern racists now vote for the Republicans.

A friend was telling me recently that Johnson when he was signing one of the anti-segregation laws said ''and now we Democrats will lose the south for 60 years'', which gives a lot of credit to him, cynical operator as he was.

There is a third smaller factor: the USA constitution over-represents in some important cases smaller and more sparsely populated states (to prevent the rural vote to be made irrelevant by the urban vote), and Democrats are stronger in the more densely populated ones.

But this is largely a technicality. The main problem is that the current Republican coalition has two big and coherent and allied blocks (based on wealth and values), and the remaining Democratic coalition is a rainbow bedlam of small interest groups with little coherence.

It is thus easier for the Republicans to articulate their position (because the wealthy economic conservatives are well prepared to endorse the social conservativism of the value crowd, and viceversa) than for the Democrats...

Jerrymandering for House districts also tends to be based on creating homogeneous voting blocks, and this means that more extreme positions are rewarded, as in each district the outcome does not depend on marginal voters (usually the undecided and centrists) which rewards those parties with more coherent coalitions.

It has nothing to do with creating a position that can survive scrutiny... Just to make a cheap point, the position of the right on the war etc. has not much survived scrutiny, yet this has had little impact on voting patterns yet.

[Blissex]

«Democrats support public schools.»

As to this particular point, this cannot pass under silence: Democrats support public school unions, they could not care less about public schools, and in particular their students.

«Republicans prefer private schools and privatizing as much of government as possible. Republicans seek to divert public monies from public schools through combinations of vouchers and underfunding of public schools.»

But vouchers are an excellent idea for students and the poor... And the democrats are against that.

Republicans want to have bad public schools (for the children of poor Democrats) and good private schools (for the children of rich Republicans), but the tool is not so much vouchers as such but small vouchers that can be topped up.

Problem is, bad public schools and good private ones is also what Democrats end up doing, except that their tool is different...

[bullbust]

Nothing the democrats do will make them win. When a population beleives that it can have it's cake and eat it too, it will continue to do so till reality intervenes.

Free money has corrupted traditional democrat/labour constituencies. They are indulging in spending by taking on debt, while the plutocrats are accumulating real wealth. The idea of living beyond ones means is not one given up voluntarily by a society. Rather it is one that is clung to at all costs. If the history of colonialism and slavery teaches us anything worth learning, that idea is never given up without a crisis (WWII, civil war) that forces it to reality.

Democrats cannot fight their constituencies and win. In fact they are set to go down in flames, as their constituents wake up and realize that higher taxes are going to be needed and TANSTAAFL. This thing's going to get worse, until it begets FDR 2.0 (not a depression, but the extreme inequality of wealth)

When I speak about democratic constituenices here, I'm taking into account only the middle, that which has switched it's allegiance to conservatism.

[bakho]

Blissex, I would have no problem with vouchers if they were paid for by say an estate tax on the wealthy or by extra taxes on those with incomes over $250,000. What Republicans mean by vouchers is taking money away from already strapped public schools and giving it to private schools that don't have to be responsive to all the unfunded mandates placed on public schools by the same politicians.

As for public schools, there are some that are as good as many private schools. It all depends on the school district. Basically, schools in wealthy suburbs are very good. Many poor urban and rural public schools are not good. The amount these districts may spend per student varies by over $10,000 per student per year.

Vouchers are only good for the poor if they pay enough of the additional cost to make the school affordable. They are also only good for the poor if the vouchers are available to students of all abilities, not just the best and the brightest. Pulling all the best students out of a school is a sure way to kill the academics at that school for everyone remaining. This is because the leadership and creativity necessary for students to learn from each other is decapitated. Private schools don't have to take students that need remedial reading. They don't have to take "special needs" students that have been "mainstreamed". Try teaching two classes, one full of bright students that challenge each other and the other class full of dullards. One class will make you out as one of the best teachers. The other will make you seem like one of the worst.

The best indication of whether a school is good or poor is the median income of the parents of the students.

[Lee A. Arnold]

The Democrats are already falling, once again -- under a sophisticated Rovian campaign that has already begun on several types of media -- into being forced to talk about "issues," when the underlying Republican message, once again, is "character."

Example: "The Democrats want to cut-and-run from Iraq!" -- and the Dems are put into the position of having-to-answer, with a plan. but the topic here being addressed is NOT the war; the Republicans don't have a plan either. When will the Democrats hire a thinker and rhetorician who understands this?

[Lee A. Arnold]

"the Republicans don't have a plan either." -- Scratch that; news reports today show that the Switcheroo Administration is planning to withdraw some troops before the election, and most of the rest in the middle of next year. First though, they had to get the Democrats to look like "cut-and-runners" in the phony Congressional vote, last week.

The usual pattern of the Switcheroo Republicans has been to trumpet the first event (e.g the Congressional vote on Iraq) loudly on the Fox Propaganda network, then to play the second item small and quietly a week or month later, so most of the populace misses it. They have pulled this trick several dozen times over the years.

I don't watch Fox anymore, so somebody please let me know when they run the story that the troops are going to be brought home, just as the Democrats insisted... I predict it won't be for a week or a month, and very late at night.

(And did Fox cover the fact that some Republican Senators voted against "no amnesty," i.e. effectively voted IN FAVOR OF amnesty for insurgents who killed U.S. troops?)

In another three months of course, the populace's short term memory will have entirely emptied of all these events, and bringing the troops home will look like a brilliant reason to vote Republican.

So once again, the Switcheroo Republicans have struck! The Democrats are simply inept at the emotional game. They should hire new advisors. They should hire me -- even I, a bonehead, can do better than this!

[Movie Guy]

dryfly - "From the eyes of the public THIS IS THE PROBLEM... What DO Democrats believe in? Not being Republicans? Is that all there is?"

This is the message that the DNC and Congressional Democrat leadership have conveyed to the American public for the past few years.

The majority of the nation's adult voters will never follow a party that fails to develop and support its own identity.

The Democrats are once again squandering an opportunity to adopt strong positions backed by details and proposed legislation, and, at a minimum, represent the majority of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Democratic Party is a failed party. Confused, lost, and weak, it has no business running the affairs of the United States of America in its present mental state.

It's time for a sustainable third party which can replace the continuing weaknesses of the Democratic Party and extremists' seizure of the Republican Party.

While many individuals may prefer the extreme positions on one side of the political spectrum or the other, neither political group and thinking represent the majority views of citizens in the United States of America. Not even close.

Frankly, a growing number of American voters are sick of both major political parties. Both are disgusting.

The existing political parties are not cutting it.

Democratic National Committee Link
Democratic National Committee - Issues Link
Democratic National Committee - Press Releases Link

Republican National Committee Link
Republican National Committee - Issues Link
Republican National Committee - Press Releases Link

Libertarian National Committee Link
Libertarian National Committee - Issues Link and Link
Libertarian National Committee - Press Releases Link

Green Party of the United States Link
Green Party - Issues (2004 Platform) Link
Green Party - Press Releases Link

[Curt Doolittle]

RE: "I defy you to find a logical inconsistency in the "leftist platform" implied here and here and here."

I would agree that your arguments are consistent, but that they are illogical because they rely on a fixed and closed system, with no foreign competition, and no foreign suppliers. One does not get to choose one's prosperity, it is chosen by those neigbors around you. You simply get to choose your reaction to it. Your model assumes a constant universe. The entire purpose of the market is dynamic allocation of resources in pursuit of individual preferences. You can certainly eliminate the market if you eliminate scarcity. It's just that you can't eliminate scarcity.

You also confused the source of prosperity as predictability and labor shortage instead of dynamic allocation, production and innovation, and you have failed to connect the labor shortage with the consequences, which you narrowly restrict to price inflation. The world you posit is possible if and only if the scarcity of resources, and the preferences of the population, remain constant, and the invention of new goods and services is prohibited.

This is a Marxian problem. He could only come up with his solution by artificially eliminating scarcity and preference. You have simply dressed his methodology in sixties lace, with enough consistent references that it gives the illusion of supportability. This whas his tactic as well. But it is still physically impossible to achieve what you stipulate. And if you did, the consequences would be quite the opposite of what you envision, since anyone with capital and capability will flee the system, and if forced to stay, refuse to take risks.

Lastly, your assumption that Republicans are rich and Democrats are poor is not based in fact except at the margins. It is more likely that once you learn to manage people and resources judiciously you will become a conservative, and as a conservative you will most likely vote republican simply because of the limited choices.

Getting wealthy outside of the political economy is actually pretty difficult and requires a great deal of work and perserverence. Most importantly, it requires one to spend a great deal of time understanding the wants and needs of others and finding ways to manage scarce capital to fulfill them in exchange for a profit. To anticipate many people's needs so that one can generate a small profit from many people is even harder.

RE:"...the Republican Party will never be able to achieve while at the same time optimizing real economic investment in the economy."

Clearly you mistake me for a Republican. The republican party of today is simply the democratic party of the past, and the democratic party is an empty shell of leftist coalitions left with a party of their own making. Neither party is capable of accomplishing anything for just the reasons stated by others above. On the other hand, the left is capable of doing more damage than the right. I am also a bit awed by the confusion in the postings above over the difference between successfully attaining power, and an philosophical framework for governance.

It is an epistemological problem: an argument against a thing is only useful until you've vanquished that idea. But it should never be confused as an argument in favor of a thing, which gives one something to do post hoc.

The democrats, if they seek to win, need an argument for something. Right now, they have only an argument against something. If they DO come out with an argument FOR something, it will be for socialism, which will fail to find an audience in sufficient numbers in the population. Demographics are against it.

says...

RE: "The Democrats are simply inept at the emotional game."

This is a mistake. It implies that the republican game is an emotional one. It is simply a Sowellian conflict of visions. Those shorthand statements are just code words for a complex web of tradition, history, mythology, and morality, and they know perfectly well what they mean.

In the postings above, there are at least two quotes, that treat FDR and the constitution as scripture. They posit no arguments. To someone on the right they are ridiculous statements that show no understanding of the debates that framed the country, and certainly no knowledge of the philosophers whose words they merely copied. When a person on the left hears them though, they do not sound like scripture, they sound like reason.

When someone on the right hears republican code words they hear the long line of tradition, history, and values that the subscribe to. IT is completely logical.

I know the reason for this difference in perception but it is too complicated for this forum. Suffice to say that the left sees an immediate world, and the right sees a historical world. These are just temporal preferences.

But it is a mistake to attempt to win the agument if you do not understand that the other side's code words and symbolism are rooted in a longstanding and logical tradition. It is not emotive. It may be only familiar. But it is not necessarily emotive. And it is certainly logical.

I was at a conference last year where a leftist scholar was using an emotive argument to explain conservative values. But emotive arguments are paticular to the left, not the right.

A common example: if you make a set of cork, wood, metal, and plastic polyhedrons, mixing shapes and substance and give them to asians and to westerners, the asians tend to sort them by content, and europeans tend to sort them by shape. This is a fundamental difference in how one sees the nature of the universe. The same is true for right and left. All states on the right are taken in context of one's lifetime, or perhaps even eternity. On the left, all statemetns are experiential. On the right, truth must be judged against the wisdom of tradition, On the left, truth must be judged against one's own experience. If I said that the left and right use the same words but convey entirely different meanings, it is true. To some degree, the right thinks like Methusela, and the left thinks like a mayfly. The objects that one percieves in the world are very different in those two temporal dimensions, because the utility of any action implies radically different time scales, and often, radically different population assumptions.

The right uses the language of religion, tradition, mythology and history to describe a sound economic model. The left uses the langauge of science and experience to describe an unsound economic model that is a religion. THis causes the arguments to pass each other. There is simply no context for mutual understanding. But it is not an emotional argument that the right employs. It is a symbolic one.

[Curt Doolittle]

Blissex

RE:"It has nothing to do with creating a position that can survive scrutiny... Just to make a cheap point, the position of the right on the war etc. has not much survived scrutiny, yet this has had little impact on voting patterns yet."

Two different arguments. The first proposition is that the Democratic party requires a platform that is both logical and will sell. This is a philosophical position that states that the democratic philosophy can be stated, and that once stated it can be implemented, and once implemented it can succeed. The second proposition is that no platform is needed and that only emotive messages need accomplish a victory over an ignorant populace. This is a utilitarian position that is effectively only anti-republican and nothing else, since, once possessed of power, one must do something with it.

The right's position on the war is simply that we have tolerated muslim extremism long enough and need to punish them so that they stop. This is prototypical european militarisitic paternalism. The left's position is to communicate and compromise. The right sees this as foolish since there is no reconciliation possible short of ideacide. The left sees the right as inciting violence and antagonistic. This position is prototypical peasant maternalism.

It is not as if this left-right battle isn't a 3500 year old conflict. It's been going on in society since horse, chariot and farming of grain created the problem in the first place.

Expansionist, militaristic, patrilineal, sky worshipping, innovative, hierarchical versus sedentary, pacifist, matrilineal, earth worshiping, static, egalitarian. Competition versus Surrender.

There is one fundamental question: How do you extend the time preference of a population so that you make it competitive for resources in relation to neighboring populations? Answering this question is the only means of resolving the conflict between left and right.

[Winslow R.]

Curt, I enjoy reading your posts. Obviously you have thought about these issues for some time.

Given "there is no context for mutual understanding", it seems we are caught in an unstable disequilibrium currently kept intact within a disintegrating framework of mutual respect.

Perhaps the Democrats should rebuild the framework by acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of both political parties and help the electorate realize at which times it would be better to choose one over the other or perhaps 'split the ticket' between the President and Congress.

Since "The democrats, if they seek to win, need an argument for something....it will be for socialism....Demographics are against it." perhaps there is a way to use the advice from 'The Big Fat Greek Wedding' and let the wife rule the household even though she lets the husband be the 'boss'.

[Movie Guy]

Curt Doolittle - "The republican party of today is simply the democratic party of the past, and the democratic party is an empty shell of leftist coalitions left with a party of their own making."

The Republican Party is more than that. It absorbed Democrats successively by region, and is now based on at least three internal groupings of major interests. A rather odd alliance created by the Democratic leftists, who drove large portions of the moderate and conservative Democratic bases from the Democratic Party. The results are obvious.

Curt Doolittle - "The democrats, if they seek to win, need an argument for something. Right now, they have only an argument against something. If they DO come out with an argument FOR something, it will be for socialism, which will fail to find an audience in sufficient numbers in the population. Demographics are against it."

Agree.

Once the party platform embraces a full range of socialism initiatives, what becomes of the Democratic Party?

What will replace the Democratic Party as a viable general population alternative for the Republican Party if not a new political party?

[reason]

I not American so perhaps I have another perspective, but isn't this discussion degenerating into intellectualised nonsense.

It is not the case that the only alternative to the extreme anti-tax (but as it turns out not anti-government) policies of the GOP is socialism. Nor is it the case that the GOP policies have been shown to work. On Average the economy and the Dow-Jones perform worse under GOP administrations and the deficit is higher. And the growth in median income is lower (or the fall higher). So what on earth are you talking about? Nor is it the case the GOP sells detailed policies (and democrats can't), their policy presentation in trying to "reform" social security have been abismal when looked at in detail. In fact the whole of Curt's discussion just seems counter-factual to me.

The Democrats do have a problem in expressing their values clearly, but I think it is mainly a salesmanship problem and a problem with PC special interests distorting the message. Fairness and security (sustainability) are values everybody can understand and appreciate and are not part of what the GOP stands for (at least are demostrably not the way it acts).

[Robert]

Curt does turn a phrase nicely (and authoritatively). But I must agree with Reason that there is a disturbingly large gap between Curt's perception of conservatism (and social-democracy for that matter) and any sort of objective reality resulting from observation in the rest of the OECD. About the only thing hitting its mark in his diatribe is the observation that conflict between conservative forces (seeking comfort in tradition and stasis) and progressive forces (predisposed to embracing change) has a long history indeed. And it is likely that these differences are embedded in nature, just as the capacity to empathize varies markedly across the population.

But his leap from this innocuous observation to the sky-hooks purporting the superiority of conservative socio-economics, ideology, and both real & imagined policies of both sides - certainly as evidenced in post WWII USA - is far closer to the ecumenical accusations he tosses at the left, resulting in cariacatures that are pure, wishful thinking.

[Lee A. Arnold]

(1) RE:

[ if the Democratic party actually wrote down what they believed and why, it would mean the destruction of the party by a population that was horrified by the implication of it. ... If they DO come out with an argument FOR something, it will be for socialism, ... ]

Absolute nonsense. Democrats mainly believe that the market economy needs to be ameliorated at the margin by government policy, as in fact most Republicans do, and as is being done right now.

(2) RE:

[ RE: "The Democrats are simply inept at the emotional game." This is a mistake. It implies that the republican game is an emotional one. It is simply a Sowellian conflict of visions... The right uses the language of religion, tradition, mythology and history to describe a sound economic model. The left uses the langauge of science and experience to describe an unsound economic model that is a religion. ] etc.

Thank you for the apt illustration, a perfect example of what is really going on. It is yet another example of an values-coded argument posing as an argument about issues. (And incorrect about economics, in addition.)

Chait's commentary at the top (in Mark's original post) is correct, insofar as the current Republican direction IN POLICYMAKING had groundwork laid over two-and-a-half decades of thinktank strategizing, funded by rightwing money.

But is in incorrect to suppose that the Democrats' necessary solution is to come up with policy-based sloganeering. The voters will find that to be diversionary and flaccid.

This is because it is incorrect to suppose that Republican policy has made much difference in the last several elections. A majority of the people are not voting for Republican policies; in fact a majority consistently poll against almost all of them, on social, economic, and environmental concerns. Another example from yesterday: the Administration has decided to pull out of Iraq, as the vast majority of the public wants, but only after demonizing the Democrats in Congress with a misleading vote.

In fact, there isn't a dime's worth of difference among most voters in EITHER party on the issues. But there has been a policy-insider capture in the Republican party by the furthest-right elements, who have kept their hold by hiding their machinations, and then demonizing the Democrats come election-time.

What decides the elections have been the last-minute sweeps of the 10%-in-the-middle "independent" voters, almost entirely focusing on "values," i.e. personal comfort about a candidate's "soundness, honesty, reliability, non-flipflopiness," etc. etc. All of it is gibberish, considering who gets in anyway, but here we are.

[anne]

Lee Arnold:

"Another example from yesterday: the Administration has decided to pull out of Iraq, as the vast majority of the public wants, but only after demonizing the Democrats in Congress with a misleading vote."

Though Lee Arnold has been thoughtful and interesting as always, this section of the comment is sadly but completely wrong. The Administration noted, exactly as last summer, that there would be withdrawals of troops from Iraq. Then, the Administration noted only in quiet east of Iraq and not in the West. Then, the Administration noted only is conditions allowed at all. There is not the slightest reason to believe we are planning anything other than an indefinite presence in Iraq no matter how tragic our presence proves to be day on day.

[Blissex]

«Two different arguments. The first proposition is that the Democratic party requires a platform that is both logical and will sell. This is a philosophical position that states that the democratic philosophy can be stated, and that once stated it can be implemented, and once implemented it can succeed. The second proposition is that no platform is needed and that only emotive messages need accomplish a victory over an ignorant populace.»

«It is not as if this left-right battle isn't a 3500 year old conflict.»

But we are talking about completely different things here... You talk about Left and Right as ideas and cultures, I talk about the Democratic party and the Republican party here and now as very imperfect but observable entities.

The issue for the left is, I am afraid, not all all a choice between an articulated ideology or emotional propaganda.

The issue I see is that the Democrats as of today cannot do either because they cannot agree on neither the ideology nor the propaganda because they are a fragmented coalition of narrow interest groups that don't care much about each other.

The Republicans are better at both ideology and talking points because they have a lot fewer interest groups, because their coalition is made of two mostly compatible dominant ones.

It is not about the ideology of the left; it is about the infinitely smaller and harder problem of getting gays, trial lawyers, low wage earners, environmentalists, hipsters, poor blacks, and what not, to agree on some overarching message, and come out and vote for it.

For the Republicans it is easy: the corporate side talks conservative economics, the values side talks conservative culture, and they get along, they agree that if the values side delivers the votes for conservative economics the corporate side will deliver the contributions for conservative culture. They go wherever Rove leads, which is to the polling booth anyhow.

Once upon a time it was easy for the Democrats too: when their coalition was basically northern/lakes blue collar unions and southern racists, the former delivered the votes to maintain segregation, and the latter delivered the votes to maintain unionism, and they got along famously.

And to repeat myself, what matters tactically is not so much a coherent message or the lack of it, it is the numbers, and since the Democratic party lost (without regrets, via Johnson) the racist southerner vote to the Republicans, they simply don't have those numbers.

Trust Johnson: sooner or later the racist southern vote will matter less, and southern voters will in large part return to the Democrats. If Johnson was right, 60 years after 1965, so lets's say 2020-2030. :-(

When the Democrats become again a coalition dominated by one or two large groups they will be able again to articulate a message that is not a shopping list of the goals of disconnected interest groups...

[dryfly]

Movie Guy: "It's time for a sustainable third party which can replace the continuing weaknesses of the Democratic Party and extremists' seizure of the Republican Party."

Never happen. Not a chance in hell without major changes in election law and possibly constitutional changes that move the country away from two party to multi-party status. Until that happens the DEMs & GOP do 'fine' in their face off.

That is part of the trouble with so many disaffected 'independents' - they can't decide between what is usually a lessor of two evils choice.

Well the system we got is the system we got and its very stable and won't change unless a political earthquake hits - like a real depression.

So pick your poison given that its a vote for a 'strong but stupid' GOP or a 'weak but compassionate' Democratic party. You will never get all you want in one party unless we become like Israel where everyone starts their own personal party.

[Lee A. Arnold]

anne, I completely agree with you. It is just politics. They are diffusing, and confusing, the issue for the upcoming voters. Plus the added bonus of wrongfooting the Democrats again -- portraying them as "angry," and to look like "also-rans." People you just don't want to have leading the country! See for example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/25/AR2006062500764.html

[dryfly]

More interesting points from MG:

The majority of the nation's adult voters will never follow a party that fails to develop and support its own identity.

I VERY strongly agree with this. Notice how we are now 40 comments into this thread and NO ONE has given a short concise description of Dem identity? Some lamenting their isn't one, others suggesting ideas for adoption... but no one saying "This is what they believe"... amazing.

But here I disagree...

The Democrats are once again squandering an opportunity to adopt strong positions backed by details and proposed legislation, and, at a minimum, represent the majority of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

I agree with the squander part but screw the details - start with general principals first. If the Dems tell me what they believe (principals) - really believe, not just trying to pander to what I might believe - then I can pretty well guess what their practical policy will be like (the details).

But I have NO IDEA what Reid, Pelosi or the others really believe. On the contrary I have a pretty good idea what the GOP stands for & I disagree with most of that pretty strongly.

So about all I can hope for at this point is that the Dems oppose & attack the GOP... ie be an effective opposition party... and from what I can see they don't even do that well.

Damn.

[Lee A. Arnold]

In fact I think "Anger" is a continuing Rovian word-placement. Look at all the nonsense coming out of the propaganda networks over the last two weeks on how "shrill" and "angry" the lefty bloggers are, etc. etc. ( Just not "our sort" of people!!)

Think this is all orchestrated? Nah!

[dryfly]

In fact I think "Anger" is a continuing Rovian word-placement. Look at all the nonsense coming out of the propaganda networks over the last two weeks on how "shrill" and "angry" the lefty bloggers are, etc. etc. (Just not "our sort" of people!!)

Lee I agree their spin is orchestrated but disagree that the anger isn't out there en masse, it is.

I think a whole lot of the country IS angry. Far angrier than the media knows because they don't talk to 'us'. I think the Rovians understand this better than the Dems or the media and are hoping to diffuse this anger... blur it... so as not to have it solely focused on themselves.

That and ramp up the emotion of their own base (via a feeling of persecution - unjustly blamed for everything by those evil doers). It motivates their base (they are wronged) and demotivates the Dem base (so as to make us feel 'embarrassed' for being angry... after all we are all in this together, right, right?).

So far in every election since 2000 they've pulled it off. Dems deserve the ass kicking they are getting and very likely to get in 2006 mid-terms unless somebody over there wakes up.

[Lee A. Arnold]

dryfly, Agreed, but for one thing. The "ass-kicking" ain't what it seems. As a purely practical political matter, the commenters here who think the Dems have been taking huge numerical losses in the elections are incorrect. Most of it has been very close.

Al Gore, a special example, won the popular vote in 2000 and would have won the Electoral College, if the Supreme Court hadn't abrogated the Constitution. And now the congressional Republicans have gerrymandered districts to their election advantage, without increasing their numerical voting base.

On the issues, the country is basically split 45-45, with maybe a slight edge (maybe as much as a full point or two,) to the Democrats (in fact!) The fight in every election since Reagan has been over the 10% "swing" voters in the middle. As a generalization, the swing voters are with the Democrats on the issues, but have been going with the Republicans on the "personal acceptability" of the candidates.

That is exactly why we see this demonization, every time. Do you realize, just after 9/11, how many Republican operatives became elated on their prospects over the next several elections? They talked about it openly. The mechanics of it is child's play, compared to with what they were up against with Clinton, who was mesmeric, and finally untouchable.

[dryfly]

As a generalization, the swing voters are with the Democrats on the issues, but have been going with the Republicans on the "personal acceptability" of the candidates.

I agree with a lot of what you said except the above... I think that is wishful thinking the part of Democrats.

I think the public sees a two party system... Republicans and Not-Republicans. They know what the Republicans believe (nat'l security, low taxes, religion)... but they have no clue what the Not-Republicans think or feel or believe except it appears to not be what the Republicans think/feel/believe. And why should they, does anyone know what the Dems beleive? If so please tell me & the rest of the world (in bullet format or prose, 25 words or less).

I'll start believing the Dems aren't getting their ass kicked when they start winning some. Until then it is a lotta woulda-shoulda-coulda.

[Lee A. Arnold]

dryfly, no woulda-shoulda-coulda. The Dems can't win until they understand why they're losing. So what are the facts? The facts are, every issue poll for over twenty years has shown that the majority of the public is on the same side of almost every issue as the Democrats. So why are they losing elections?

[realpc]

"every issue poll for over twenty years has shown that the majority of the public is on the same side of almost every issue as the Democrats.'

That is not true, unless you carefully select the issues.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Name a major issue. There are some the Republicans poll better on. But it isn't even clear-cut on taxes, although everyone seems to think so. The public has polled almost consistently, since the early 1970's, on higher taxes when the object is to protect the environment or to help the poor. They still do today.

The public was 70-to-30 against invading Iraq, until they started banging on the WMD drum. Then the public switched 70-to-30 in favor.

In fact, part of the reason Rove took Bush hard to the right, further right than even most Republicans are, was because he knew that Bush couldn't win against the Democrats on the regular issues. So they waffled on the regular issues, even present themselves rather meaninglessly as environmentalists, and pushed "character" instead (mostly by attacking their opponent's character, e.g. Gore is tainted by Clinton, "swift-boating" Kerry etc.) -- while, on the other hand, picking-up the extreme fundamentalist religious vote, by using code words. This is a pretty standard political analysis of the Administration's strategy. In the end it worked well, although the White House was sweating bullets, even through the last election.

[James Kroeger]

…your arguments are consistent, but that they are illogical because they rely on a fixed and closed system, with no foreign competition, and no foreign suppliers.You are apparently not aware of the reasons why my proposal does not “rely on a fixed and closed system.” Contrary to what many have suggested to you, a country like the United States is free to set its own economic course, in part because international trade accounts for such a small percentage of our economy. In a floating exchange rate regime, the US can expand its output though increased domestic [government] spending and discover that there is no response arising out of ‘international capital flows’ that the Fed could not handle, if it was willing to accept the higher rates of inflation that I am talking about.

The number one consideration is that over time, a higher inflation rate will weaken America’s currency against other countries, (all else equal). Our goods & services would become more expensive to our international competitors and we’d have more dollars to throw at their exports. They’d buy less from us because our prices would be going up and theirs wouldn’t (a-e-e). Our imports would stimulate their economies. The dollar should weaken (a-e-e) for this reason alone.

But doesn’t this assume that our central bank is keeping domestic interest rates low enough that firms are not discouraged from borrowing? Yes it does. It assumes this because, floating exchange rates or not, international capital flows or not, our central bank’s policy will be to keep domestic interest rates low enough that firms will continue to borrow and invest. There are two scenarios to consider.

If China, let’s say, did not want the dollar to weaken vs. the Renminbi, it would continue to sell more and more to the Americans at the lower rate of exchange that it has heretofore chosen. It will continue to stimulate the Chinese economy. This is a prospect that they would probably welcome. So they would continue to use all the dollars they are receiving from American importers and spend them on US treasuries or other assets. That would keep the Renminbi from appreciating vs. the dollar. That would mean that the exchange rate is essentially fixed.

All this would mean for us is a that the Fed wouldn’t have to create as much money out of thin air in order to maintain its target interest rate. If, alternatively, the PBOC decided to let the Renminbi appreciate against the dollar, the Fed would maintain interest rates at the target level it chose by simply buying assets with new money. You see, if the central bank’s goal is to maintain full employment, it can do so no matter what central banks in other countries do.

What if the European Central Bank feared that our increased demand for European exports would ‘overheat’ their economies and so they decided to drive interest rates up to reduce inflationary pressures? How would that affect us? Some would voice concern that American investors would be attracted by the higher rates in Europe and the fact that the Euro was an appreciating currency. The only way this could hurt our growth is if it cause our interest rates to increase, but we’ve already said that the New Enlightened Fed would not let this happen. It would simply replace any of the ‘capital’ that private investors are moving overseas.

I know that you’ve been told that all nations are slaves to “international capital flows”, but that is not, in fact, the case.You also confused the source of prosperity as predictability and labor shortage instead of dynamic allocation, production and innovation, and you have failed to connect the labor shortage with the consequences, which you narrowly restrict to price inflation.Predictability? I’ve suggested no such thing, at least not in the context that you are suggesting. The source of prosperity is production, period. In the long run, production is optimized when investment is optimized. Investment is always optimized at cyclical peaks. That’s what I’m proposing, that we maintain our economy at its cyclical peak. There is nothing about a full-employment economy that restricts or inhibits dynamic allocation, production, and innovation.The world you posit is possible if and only if the scarcity of resources, and the preferences of the population, remain constant, and the invention of new goods and services is prohibited.This is not correct. Firms will experience an optimum of incentives to invest. Demand for their products would be high and virtually guaranteed against market cycle risk. They will still have to compete, even in an inflationary economy (we have both competition and inflation, today). If they fail to invest and their competitors do, they go out of business....the consequences would be quite the opposite of what you envision, since anyone with capital and capability will flee the system, and if forced to stay, refuse to take risks.This is a nice little bit of mythology that you have apparently invested yourself in, but it is simply not true. There is going to be money to be made by those who respond to abundant demand with common sense. There’s still going to be winners and losers in every market. Firm managers and owners do not ‘quit’ when they are making money and especially when they are making more money than their competitors. If rich-people-who-do-not-make-things want to flee with their ‘capital’, it means nothing, because the Fed can provide all the capital that any competitive firm might need.

I like your philosophical approach to the subject, Curt, but you have picked up a few faulty generalizations about financial markets that you really need to examine more closely.

[realpc]

"Name a major issue. [Republicans poll better on]"

The general world view of Republicans is much more in harmony with the average American.

Most Americans value organized religion and traditional Christian/American values. Most Americans believe military defense should be a priority. Most Amerians are opposed to excessive socialism, and don't like to give the central government too much financial power (although they definitely want benefits for anyone too old, too young, or too sick to work).

The average American is moderate -- not a pacifist, not a socialist, not an atheist.

Democrats, especially more progressive Democrats, are perceived as less concerned with military defense, more suspicious of religion, less concerned with traditional values, more interested in raising taxes.

Depending on how you word the survey, you could easily get pro-Republican results.

A great source of confusing is comparing moderates of one party with extremists of the other.

[dryfly]

The average American is moderate -- not a pacifist, not a socialist, not an atheist.

Those are pretty charged words. I could counter by saying:

The average American...

* Isn't a 'Militarist' - else we'd ALL be clamoring to go fight in Iraq & Afghanistan. In fact I'd say the average American is FAR closer to a pacifist in temperament than a militarist & the Democratic position reflects this far better than the GOP

* Isn't a 'Capitalist' - ie owns capital he/she controls (401Ks & mutual funds don't count - I DO own a small biz & there is a WORLD of difference). Most all American's are employees - union or nonunion, low white collar or labor, there isn't much difference from the grunt's eye level. Again Dem issues reflect average peoples position here better than the GOP.

* Isn't a 'Fundamentalist'. Most Americans have some faith but do not compelled themselves to STRICTLY live by it. People think the words are nice but few actually follow the doctrines & you don't need a social-antro study to see that. While Dems don't advocate non-fundie lifestyles they are certainly more tolerant & accepting of the alternative behaviors & lax adherence to doctrine. This matches most peoples real personal behavior as well - basic tolerance but non-approval of 'alternatives'.

So why do so many people vote GOP?

That's the big question haunting the Dems. I think the biggest reason is 'images' & 'myths'. While average folks AREN'T militarists, capitalists or fundamentalists anymore than they are pacifists, socialists or atheists... the GOP has been able to create images & identities that play to Americans 'aspirations' if not their actual realities.

I mean few Americans aspire to be easy going work-a-day stiffs who then do 'their own thing' (sorted or not) after hours... but that's what most of us are & do.

Regardless most aspire to be more... strong & rich & pious... or at least perceived that wa)... And if we can't be that way today, maybe someday.

The GOP image machine plays to these myths & aspirations FAR better than the Dems do. I'm not even sure the Dems understand there is an 'imagery' battle taking place & as a result have been getting their ass kicked ever since 'Morning In America'.

[realpc]

"average folks AREN'T militarists, capitalists or fundamentalists"

values strong military defense <> militarist

wants the right to own property <> capitalist

values traditional organized religion <> fundamentalist

You insist on comparing extreme right-wing lunacy with sane, moderate progressivism.

Why not compare moderate Democrat values with moderate Republican values? You probably won't find much if any difference.

[dryfly]

restrained & reserved application of military <> pacifism

limits on corporate power and influence <> socialism

adherence to separation of church & state <> atheism

See the similarity?

There is NOTHING moderate in the current GOP agenda... only better marketing of the images. In that they 'win'.

[realpc]

As I said, it's a matter of degree and almost everyone wants a sensible balance.

[dryfly]

As I said, it's a matter of degree and almost everyone wants a sensible balance.

And everyone's taste is in their own mouth.

None of that so called 'sensibility' wins the Dems a single election - not in the current environment.

Pelosi is sensible, Reid is sensible, most all of them are sensible... far more sensible than say Rove or Cheney... and they are still in the minority and likely to be there for a loooong time until they understand images & identities of issues & how they play in the culture (framing).

They need to have a deeply rooted identity then be able to communicate their beliefs based on this in images & concise concepts that average people can relate to without having to get a PhD first. If these ideas don't resonate then they are screwed no matter how 'moderate' & 'sensible' they might be.

But never fear Rove understands this concept of images & framing perfectly well. He also knows his base. In this respect Dems are clueless and so they continue to lose.

[realpc]

"be able to communicate their beliefs based on this in images & concise concepts that average people can relate to without having to get a PhD first"

Oh that's my favorite Democratic excuse -- their ideas are too sophisticated for the average voter to grasp.
That attitude alone sends millions to vote Republican.

We have no trouble understanding the Democrats' ideas -- we just might not agree with them. And we resent the condescension.

[Movie Guy]

There are basic observations that any visitor or observer learn about the general and political values of the United States of America. These observations include:

The USA is primarily a conservative nation. Anyone who has lived in Europe for a few years and returned to the USA recognizes this reality. It jumps out within the first few weeks upon one's return.

Capitalism is the underlying driving force in the USA. Money, money, money. Corporations, companies, and franchises rule. The recent votes on property rights in the Supreme Court by the supposed liberal justices makes this point abundantly clear.

Political correctness (code for 'be careful with what you say') swept across the USA a few decades ago, nearly wiping out the art of open and honest communication. Subsequently, sound bites have taken the place of many meaningful conversations.

American television programming (in general), including news presentations, is among the weakest in the Western World. The programming presentations are generally not targeted to mature, well educated or experienced audiences.

Political party affiliations are not at the top of important considerations that many individuals embrace on a daily basis. Except when they watch the evening news, of course.

The majority of couples attempt to raise their children in an reasonably well controlled environment that involves exposure to religions and the need for sound moral behaviors.

The constant political chorus of 'the left' and/or 'the right' fail to acknowledge that the majority of the USA population is not anchored in the narrow-minded thinking of 'the left' or 'the right', and certainly not in the 'far left' or 'far right' of political thought and proposed actions. The majority of the population thinks and exists in the middle ground, but few acknowledge that 'the middle' even exists. This approach represents political suicide.

[Movie Guy]

Is this how the Democratic Party intends to win future elections? This isn't going to cut it.

In S.F., Dean calls GOP 'a white Christian party'
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
San Francisco Chronicle
Tuesday, June 7, 2005

Excerpt:

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, unapologetic in the face of recent criticism that he has been too tough on his political opposition, said in San Francisco this week that Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

[dryfly]

We have no trouble understanding the Democrats' ideas -- we just might not agree with them. And we resent the condescension.

Anyone who associates modern democrats with 'socialism' doesn't understand either & deseves condescention.

[Movie Guy]

In S.F., Dean calls GOP 'a white Christian party'
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
San Francisco Chronicle
Tuesday, June 7, 2005

Excerpts:

But Dean's performance -- and his problems -- have become a concern to deep pocketed donors in California, particularly Silicon Valley, which is the No. 3 ATM for political fund-raising in the country, behind New York and Los Angeles, said Wade Randlett, a key party fund-raiser in the high tech center.

"He's got himself in trouble with social commentary, and that's not what the DNC chair does," Randlett said.

"For small donors, hearing 'George Bush is bad' is enough," Randlett said. "What I'm hearing very clearly from big donors is: tell me how we'll win."

Randlett said he hopes and expects party leaders will soon "have a sit-down" with Dean over his message "that we're smarter than they are, and we ought to be running the country."

It's an approach that appears "shrill, angry and dismissive of all things Republican," Randlett said.

Garry South, a leading Democratic strategist, said of Dean, "the only thing we can hope is that he understands the difference from being a shadow president to being the head of the party when we're out of office."

His job is to "get the Democratic Party ready for the next election," South said. But "if he views himself as the public face of the Democratic Party, then we have a problem."

[Movie Guy]

dryfly,

Would you define the term, modern Democrat?

MG

[dryfly]

This approach represents political suicide.

Not for the GOP it hasn't been... because they continue to win going harder & harder to the right every election. That was the genius of Carl Rove... every time the Dems move right, he moves even farther right & out spins them.

He realizes that when the Dems shift right they lose more of their own base on the left than the GOP loses in the middle. The right of center middle doesn't believe the 'New Dems' (nor should they) & the hard left who barely were on board to begin with abandon them entirely (as the should). Result is the Dems fracture.

The way you win the middle is by being who you are and making salient & compelling reasons why your identity better serves those in the middle. A whole lot of that communication is through images and not rhetoric. The GOP gets this & Dems don't.

In fact I think you can even back up farther - the Dems can't even decide on an identity let alone conceive of images that will help them 'sell it'.

These folks have a lot of work to do and it isn't going to happen fast. Write off 2006 & 2008 if you're looking for a competitive Democratic alternative.

[dryfly]

modern Democrat?

In a nutshell... pro-business. As corporatist as any GOPer anywhere. Different imagery, different rhetoric than GOP - same result... except they get out 'businessed' ie Wallace reference.

That is a big departure from when Dems backed workers interests to the wall like in the New Deal. No more.

The social issues are important but far more so to the GOP. Dems aren't 'pro abortion'... no Democrat is going to say you have to have one... they say its not gov'ts role to get involved either way - your choice. But that's not how is spun & viewed. Imagery & identitiy again.

Similar with civil rights... no Dem is going to say you have to love each other... just treat everyone equally under law. Again that's not how its spun.

How do 'Modern Dems' handle social issues? In effect 'shift to the middle'. Try to include everyone & pretend the issues aren't there... act like they aren't issues at all. Then if faced with questions waffle & try to finesse. Pisses off all sides and wins no votes.

Oh sure a few stand up and make some noise but damned few. Mostly they try and compromise & have their head handed to them by the GOP every time.

They need to know what they believe, present a well crafted message selling it & win or lose on that. Start by knowing what they believe.

Of course there always were the Southern Dems - they were more conservative than most Yankee GOPers & that hasn't changed much except now the Dixiecrats are Republican & increasingly those Yankee GOPers are going Dem (like most of my family did - New Englanders who moved to the Prairie and became T Roosevelt Republicans around time of the New Deal).

That's probably a good thing. Realignment had to happen sooner or later.

And don't get me wrong - I understand and accept that the Dems are currently a minority opposition party. I'm perfectly okay with that as long as they ARE an opposition party and don't just keep rolling over in more me-too moments. Find some spine people. Make the other bastards work for it.

It doesn't do them or the country any good to have two republican parties. We need real alternatives & those ideas & images need to be offered up with passion by people who believe them. I think the 'modern Dems' don't know what they believe. Until that changes the rest is meaningless banter.

[Blissex]

«modern Democrat?
In a nutshell... pro-business. As corporatist as any GOPer anywhere»

This is because of the cultural hegemony of the corporate class. The corporate class admittedly has not just outmaneuvered, but also outthinked, outPR'ed, outfoxed progressives. The homilies of the corporate world are now received wisdom.

«It doesn't do them or the country any good to have two republican parties. We need real alternatives & those ideas & images need to be offered up with passion by people who believe them. I think the 'modern Dems' don't know what they believe.»

A couple of delightfully apposite Doonesbury cartoons:

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/1996/db961123.gif
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/1996/db960309.gif

[dryfly]

Good cartoons Blissex.

I think you're right - we are a one party state, the corporate state.

BTW - I mucked up my rant above... should have read: "like most of my Mom's family did - New Englanders who moved to the prairie as T Roosevelt Republicans then became Dems around time of the New Deal"

Too much cut-n-paste... not enough wine. Or the reverse.

[realpc]

"Capitalism is the underlying driving force in the USA"

What an amazing insight! People came to the US to be free of old restrictions and create a successful life. Therefore, the US was capitalist from the beginning.

Maybe you would prefer feudalism? Or a state-controlled economy? What is your alternative fantasy?

[Lee A. Arnold]

In reality the U.S. is a "mixed" economy. That is right out of the introductory economics textbooks.

And from the beginning, the founding fathers saw it more or less that way -- read the Adams-Jefferson letters.

Meanwhile, current economics theory argues that Markets are tempered by Institutions, to make the whole thing work. This comes from Adam Smith, and more recently Ronald Coase, a Nobel prizewinner considered to be a "conservative" economist. "Recently" being "The Nature of the Firm," published in 1937.

[realpc]

Right, we have mixed economy. Capitalism is the driving force, and it's tempered by laws social programs.

[Movie Guy]

realpc,

It wasn't that many years ago that the U.S. had very few franchises.

The change in the manner in which the U.S. economy is run today compared to recent history is evident. While making money was always a primary goal, there were very strong relations with communities and what was best for the communities. That bond is broken, even in the cases where corporate lip service is applied as a matter of appeasement.

Companies and corporations have always been here, but the 'faceless' operation of such entities has taken on new meaning.

Similarly, the loyalty between employers and employees is finished. And that's quite a difference from the recent past.

If you don't grasp these points, then you missed the clear distinction that I was attempting to make between the USA of today and that of Europe today.

[dryfly]

Right, we have mixed economy. Capitalism is the driving force, and it's tempered by laws social programs.

You own & run a business realpc? You seem to be real gung ho on capitalism... or at least your personal take of what its about. Have any real world experience doing 'capitalism'... other than as just another wage slave?

[realpc]

"You seem to be real gung ho on capitalism"

What do you suggest instead?

[realpc]

"there were very strong relations with communities and what was best for the communities"

Corporations have gotten much bigger, communities have disintegrated (mostly because of increased prosperity, technology, feminism and eductation). We don't live in stable communities any more.

Giant corporations need to be controlled. We have no more reason to trust them than we have reason to trust the government.

But geting rid of capitalism, with no viable alternative, is like getting rid of life to eradicate disease.

[dryfly]

What do you suggest instead?

You never answered my question on 'You seem pretty gung ho on capitalism, have you ever owned & ran your own business?' So why should I answer yours? But I'll step up first - maybe you'll return the courtesy.

I posted above what I want... I want restraint of multi-national corporate power & influence and if this part of your post above...

Giant corporations need to be controlled. We have no more reason to trust them than we have reason to trust the government.

...is what you believe, then on this we agree.

The question is 'what is the only other institution powerful enough to do that?' It won't be the Girl Scouts I can tell you that.

The 'market' won't do it since the MNCs 'own' the markets. Individuals are powerless... ditto unions. Government, specifically the Feds, are the only ones strong enough to 'control giant corporations'.

So you have a Hobson's Choice between government or corporations being the more powerful... The more powerful corporations get then the more powerful governments have to grow to control them... else its Enron everywhere all the time.

The minute gov'ts blink, multi-nationals will own them too - figuratively through campaign contributions & such not literally through M&A - but the effect will be the same... more corporate power.

And ultimately more corporate power means less individual freedom for us - workers, consumers or just 'neighbors' to large corps. If you doubt me - start a small company and do business with them - you have no rights, believe me. Even if they sign a contract & they openly break it & lthey lose in court - try to force a settlement. They can starve you out through the appeal & force you to settle on their terms.

I DO NOT see 'our system' particularly capitalistic at this point. I see it becoming an 'aristocratic oligopoly' - almost feudal - with fewer but wealthier players on the economic side and with increasingly powerful 'aristocratic families' tied to that corporate wealth on the political side. Both parties are at least partially guilty but the Bush family particularly so.

How do I THINK we break the trend? More aggressive anti-trust enforcement to start. Bust up the oligopolies & make them compete. That alone would clean up a lot of the abuses. But gov't has to be 'strong' enough to force the issue - have the guts to enforce the existing A/T legislation then dog it through the courts. I don't see that happening any time soon under GOP 'leadership' - who knows about the Dems, they are currently irrelevant.

[realpc]

I agree, the government has to be strong, in one sense, to control corporations, and it can do that and still be within the constitution. The central government has the right to make and enforce laws to prevent unfairness in commerce.

One problem is that giant corporations are able to buy politicians, and I don't see a simple answer for that. If political campaigns were financed by the government, the situation would be even worse, since that would make it easy for any existing government to maintain its power indefinitely.

Getting rid of capitalism is a very bad idea, for several reasons. The rights to own property and money, and to be a business owner, are essential for individual freedom, the foundation of our society.

The question is how to promote fair competition and control giant corporations.