A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
July 28, 2004DLCI attended the morning sessions put on by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the leading centrist organization affiliated with the Democratic Party.  I chatted briefly to the DLC's Al From and Bruce Reed, and at greater length with Will Marshall of the associated Progressive Policy Institute. Will knew about the Centrist Coalition, and I will be following up on this contact in the future. A major theme of the event is that the Bush Administration is not conservative when it comes to fiscal matters. Also, that a Democrat could not get away with turning a surplus into a deficit the way the Bush Administration has. We need a "rising tide" that does "lift all boats." The Republicans only focus on growth, but not on whether everyone shares in the growth. There were many speakers, and no question and answer, which was unfortunately. Some of the speakers were snoozers, but Gene Sperling was dynamic. He talked about finding a middle ground on globalization, between the "sky is falling" and the no-worries points of view. He called for humility--that globalization is good, but we have to pay attention to the details, and be prepared for surprises. An amusing moment came when one of the speakers said, "I guess we don't have any liberals in this room--well, maybe Bob Menendez." Rep. Bob Menendez was the next speaker. He admitted to being a liberal, which he said was not incompatible with wanting to create a new, knowledge based economy. Virginia Gov. Mark Warner was an engaging speaker. When a cellphone rang in the audience, he said it was okay. "Where you hear an annoying interruption, I hear ka-ching ka-ching" Warner made his fortune in the cellular industry. He also talked about a program to make the senior year in high school a more effective transition to college, or the working world. He said, "Senior year is wasted in most high schools--at least it was for me." Posted by rickheller at July 28, 2004 09:24 PMComments
I don't think the liberals and the DLCers are necessarily incompatible (well, some are). It's really a matter of emphasis. I think the DLCers would agree that the conservatives have moved the political spectrum too far to the right and that there is a role for government in resolving some of the problems we face. The difference, I suppose, is the degree of government versus market that we want. The problem seems to me is that a lot of the liberals have a dogmatic approach to problems and are unwilling to consider other approaches, ie, we have inequality and the only way to cure the inequality is through social programs. At the same time, the DLCers at times seem to ignore certain social problems, such as homelessness, that may well require direct government action. Posted by: MWS at July 29, 2004 10:09 AMI think one thing the DLC is trying to do is coax the Democratic party away from this popular false dilemma: 'we must favor EITHER labor OR business'. In doing that, it has my complete support. Of course, the GOP has the same problem. Posted by: erasmus at July 29, 2004 10:41 AMIt's incoherent to say both: AND In fact, fiscal conservatives are NOT happy with Bush, because he spends too much (NO vetos, unlike Reagan). And no, Reps in Congress would NOT let a Dem president spend as wildly; get ready for huge budget battles if Kerry wins but doesn't carry the House. Though at least Kerry will have an excuse for not doing anything he promises. This whole Leftist idea that Bush is far to right is objectively false. On gay marriage, Kerry says he objects to it (but doesn't mean it), Bush both objects to it (like the majority of voters), AND is willing to push an Amendment to stop it. Otherwise everybody expects the courts to "Amend" the Constitution to force states to allow it. On partial birth abortions, Kerry says his personal belief is against abortions (but doesn't mean it), Bush objects and forbids them (like the majority of voters) -- and the Leftist courts overule it. On Iraq, the Reps were generally the conservative/ isolationist types, with a strong Defense. CATO, the Lib./Cons. think tank, is constantly against Bush--because Bush is interventionist. Where is this "too far to the right"? except in fantasy movies like F911. Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at July 29, 2004 11:45 AMTom, What you point out says more about the limitations of using the left-right axis without qualifiers than making a case that Bush is not extreme (e.g. ideologically purist: not open to another interpretation) in a number of areas. Both right and left demagogue issues. What trouble's me is that Bush seems to believe his own rhetoric encompasses the entire reality of an issue. Posted by: erasmus at July 29, 2004 02:09 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
