Centerfield

I agree tha it probably wouldn't work internally because social liberalism is essentially the party's identity today. The activists wouldn't stand for not putting social liberalism up front. But as an electoral strategy it has a lot of appeal. As someone that believes the country has moved too far to the right economically, I think it is time for Democrats to start propounding a more liberal theme. That doesn't mean pure populism or eschewing free trade (though in practice that might be what happens), but advocating more government involvement. I think the Democrats need to take advantage of the fact that there are a lot of people struggling out there, that Bush's policies have exacerbated (although not created)a trend of increasing economic insecurity and income inequality among the middle class.

My advice would be, not to abandon social liberalism, but to emphasize economics. During the fifties and sixties, Northern liberal Democrats had to appease their southern base on civil rights. They didn't abandon civil rights, but they emphasized economics.

As it is, the Democrats have become little different than the Republicans albeit more socially liberal. They have not really identified a different program for the country. Maybe it's time to try something different than pure neoliberalism.

Posted by: MWS at August 5, 2005 09:40 AM

Rick, when you say "almost all Democrats are liberal on social issues", do you really mean all Democrats, or do you mean all current Democratic office holders? I might agree with you on the latter, but not on the former. My own state of Louisiana has a whole lot of very economically liberal and socially conservative people who continue to be registered in the Democratic Party and who actually do vote Democratic in local and state-wide races. But they don't vote Democrat on national races very much any more, beacuse they despise social liberalism (and their doveishness, which is far deeper than any residual hawkishness).

Moreover, I think Lind's point is also valid vis a vis keeping certain mainline traditional Democratic mainstay groups in the fold. Take unions, for example. Your average factory worker doesn't have a lot in common with your average NARAL supporter in San Francisco, and the difference is largely on social issues. Not to mention African Americans, among whom George Bush was able to increase his support in 2004. Why? In part because of social issues like gay marriage.

In fact, I think Lind's advice goes to the core problem of the modern Democratic Party, that it is little more than a coalition of interest groups which have little in common with each other. Of late, it has been led by the most out-there of those groups, and that's why they've been losing the middle. Some of the groups they've lost are in fact more socially conservative and fiscally liberal.

P.S. On a personal note, I used to work for Michael Lind. Back before law school, I spent a year as a secretary for a group of writers at The Heritage Foundation (yeah, yeah, you guys already know I lean conservative), and Lind was in that group. I remember him as being a nice guy; the only thing I remember particularly was regularly transferring calls to him from "Bill"... William F. Buckley, Jr., that is. Impressed me at the time. Lind's father is a historian of some note, with the same name.

Posted by: PatHMV at August 5, 2005 10:53 AM

Well, I for one would be very sad to see such a change in the Democratic party. I agree with some of the commenters that that would help them pick up some of the socially conservative regions- but I think you'd lose a lot of the urban areas- who are very socially liberal. Goes back tot he question, are there more voters living in small towns or big ones? I know in my state, the Detroit Area carries the rest of the state in all national elections- The rest of Michigan is conservative, but doesn't have the population to out vote us.
I like MWS' strategy about focusing on economic liberalism rather than social. I think we'd find we have a lot more in common than some think, if you focus on economics.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 5, 2005 11:10 AM

Pat,

I'm impressed.

Lind used to be a conservative, but he's moved to the center, and is now associated with the New American Foundation.

When I say that almost all Democrats are socially liberal, I mean all Democrats visible on the national level, including politicians and activists. Even the Democratic Leadership Council is socially liberal, though slightly less so than the rest of the party.

Posted by: rickheller at August 5, 2005 11:43 AM

I think Lind's details are a bit fuzzy and arguable and overly subjective in spots, but he's got a solid point about winning elections, one I've stated often enough myself. To win national elections, you must get the votes of a significant portion of those who call themselves "moderates." There's a catch though.

Andrew Sullivan had some thoughts on the "socially conservative/economically liberal" faction a couple o' years ago. He called them "Republicans," noting that the current crop in office dropped fiscal conservatism as soon as they controlled the pork barrels. All sailors are soberly responsible--until you give them the keys to the spirits room and tell them to stand guard. Sullivan also had something to say on rejection of moderates and centrists by the Left.

I'm forgetting who coined this phrase but I think it's largely true that today's right looks for converts whereas today's left looks for heretics.

Sullivan said that before the 2004 election season, and there's a good bit of truth to it. We're back to the core observation that followed in the wake of November 2004. The Democrats cannot win national elections if they define themselves as only the Liberal Left. If they agressively reject their own centrists and moderates, they will lose. The Republicans have managed to keep dragging enough of the liberatarian and populist factions under "the Big Tent" to keep winning. As long as the Democrats keep pushing the moderates and centrists OUT from under their tent, they'll keep losing.

Posted by: Tully at August 5, 2005 11:47 AM

As long as the Democrats keep pushing the moderates and centrists OUT from under their tent, they'll keep losing.

I couldn't disagree more. (Surprise!)

The Democrats have put up moderate candidates for President in the last two election cycles. Both have sprinted for the middle, running as GOP-lite.

It's the fact that they've wobbled on their principles and sprinted away from core Democratic values that they lost.

Bush isn't a centrist. He's won in part because he articulates a strong vision of beliefs that are very conservative. People react to an articulation of a clear vision.

I don't think Libertarians vote for Bush because he's a social conservative. That's antithetical to the beliefs of most Libertarians.

Posted by: carla at August 5, 2005 12:50 PM

Wasn't this essentially the theory behind the recent "Cosby Republicans" post - the idea that many in the black community are fiscally liberal but socially conservative?

Posted by: Simon at August 5, 2005 12:54 PM

Carla,

Kerry and Gore lost because they weren't moderate, however they may have tried to position themselves. Kerry, of course, tried to have it both ways, and it didn't work. He came across as a mealy-mouthed politician saying things solely out of political calculation rather than true conviction.

I remember a moment with Bob Dole during his race for President. A reporter asked him a question, on trade I think. After he answered, the reporter said, "Senator Dole, I've covered you for several years now, and I happen to know that your answer is 180 degrees opposite from what you really think on that topic." Dole's response was, "well, that's what they told me to say." I knew in that moment to douse whatever hope I had left for his victory.

For all our chattering about policies, I think we elect president first and foremost to be in charge. The winner, regardless of policies, is the one who comes across as more "presidential", less politically motivated. Kerry and, to a lesser extent, Gore, were seen as politically calculating and willing to shift their beliefs and rhetoric solely to suit the wind du jour.

The problem the Democratic Party faces is that they haven't had any good politicians available in awhile. President Bush, whether anybody here believes it or not, is not himself all that socially conservative. But he, with the help of Karl Rove and Karen Hughes, knew precisely how to appeal to the conservative base without alienating the moderates. And he did it without looking like he was being politically calculating.

Posted by: PatHMV at August 5, 2005 01:44 PM

Kerry and Gore lost because they weren't moderate, however they may have tried to position themselves. Kerry, of course, tried to have it both ways, and it didn't work. He came across as a mealy-mouthed politician saying things solely out of political calculation rather than true conviction.

They absolutely WERE moderate. They were mushy on social issues (Kerry's position on abortion was so nuanced that it was practically impossible to know where he stood) and the slashing of government to the bone was the mantle that Gore ran on.

For all our chattering about policies, I think we elect president first and foremost to be in charge. The winner, regardless of policies, is the one who comes across as more "presidential", less politically motivated. Kerry and, to a lesser extent, Gore, were seen as politically calculating and willing to shift their beliefs and rhetoric solely to suit the wind du jour.

No. The person that wins is the one that can push forth a clear vision. Does anyone seriously think that Bush looked less politically motivated than Gore or Kerry? Please. The way Bush eviscerated his opponents in an effort to transport himself politically was as transparent as Saran Wrap.

Posted by: carla at August 5, 2005 02:22 PM

Carla, I think we're more in agreement than disagreement. I think a clear vision, which I agree Bush showed, comes across as less politically motivated. Certainly far less politically calculating than "I voted for the war before I voted against it."

I still think that Kerry is in fact quite liberal but tried to position himself as a moderate just for the campaign.

Posted by: PatHMV at August 5, 2005 02:32 PM

With Kerry, his positions only became "nuanced" and "moderate" when he ran for higher office. His track record in the Senate was fairly unambiguous. He's an old-school New England liberal. That may seem "moderate" to the Left, especially the West Coast Left, but it doesn't to the rest of the country.

Gore was an actual near-moderate in the Senate who morphed into a liberal in the VP-ship. He came out the gate making noises like a liberal. He also was carrying significant baggage from the Clintons, which didn't help him.

All of which is point-dodging. And if I had a point, it's that the Democrats aren't going to boost their electability on the national level by running farther left.

Posted by: Tully at August 5, 2005 03:18 PM

I don't think either Gore or Kerry's problems were that they were either too moderate or too liberal. I think the main problem was that were not seen as likeable by many people. As a Massachusetts resident, I was constantly surprised by the number of Mass. Democrats who disliked Kerry personally. I don't know why it is that Democrats don't nominate genial candidates. I think it may be because Democrats focus on the issues, not the person, in choosing a candidate.

Now, I've never found George W. Bush to be likeable, but I'm apparently in the minority on that. At least until his sophomore term slump, he registered pretty high on likeability.

Posted by: rickheller at August 5, 2005 03:46 PM

Each of these are very valid points in my opinion. The more I think about it, the more I have to agree, however, that when Election Day rolls around, the majority of Americans are looking for a leader. In many cases, that candidate is the person they can relate to the most. I don't know how many times people have told me that they voted for Bush in '04 because they think he genuinely believes he is doing the right thing. It may sound silly, but people really relate to him in ways they never could with either Gore or Kerry. To be honest, I think both Gore and Kerry were basing their campaigns on too much assumed intelligence by the American people. A president has to have likeable qualities, he can not sound like he is speaking down to Americans (as Gore seemed to do).

I personally hope that the Dems can put up a likeable moderate in '08..but if they don't and the Republican opponent is more moderate..then I will vote Republican.

Posted by: todd at August 5, 2005 04:24 PM

I think both Gore and Kerry were basing their campaigns on too much assumed intelligence by the American people.

Or too little. Hubris. "Why can't they see how superior we are?"

Posted by: Tully at August 5, 2005 04:30 PM

Simon: Wasn't this essentially the theory behind the recent "Cosby Republicans" post - the idea that many in the black community are fiscally liberal but socially conservative?

Yes, that is what I argued a couple weeks ago in my "Cosby Republicans" piece. I'm noticing the trend not only in my own family - which used to be staunchly Democratic - but in various communities as I do my work. If the Democratic Party doesn't go the socially conservative / fiscally liberal route soon, there will be black (and Hispanic) flight to join the white flight from its party. Give it two or three election cycles for decent mass. Folks are tired of social liberals telling them how to educate their children, and Democratic elite's views on issues like abortion and gay marriage upset them. They are tired of social liberals sniveling at religion, which they view as a bedrock of black (or Hispanic or white, whatever) culture.

(I'm personally a social moderate, but I'm telling it as I see it).

Posted by: shay at August 5, 2005 05:57 PM

When I think of elections and the "reverse centrist" (i.e. socially conservative economically liberal) I think of one block of voters: Catholics. It funny that the Republicans have felt they can get a big chunk of the Catholic voters because of the socially conservative bits. Didn't this split in the Democratic Party start in the 60's? Would folks like Mario Cuomo be less inclined to reflexly say "I'm personally against abortion but..." if it didn't violate an invisible line in the Democratic Party.

Sidelight, the Christian media darling right now, Jim Wallis, sure fits this description.

Posted by: c3 at August 5, 2005 07:14 PM

What Shay said. I'm seeing more and more of that in the black community. It's not that the GOP is trusted--it's that the far left is becoming even less trusted, and seems to have the DNC in their grip.

Posted by: Tully at August 5, 2005 10:50 PM

Truly a horrible ideal.

The Democrats are in serious need of reform of their political ideology, but lurching towards the right on social issues is definitely not the way to go.

I think there is a very good reason why "centrists" tend to lean more socially liberal/fiscally conservative rather than socially conservative. Centrists, by their very nature, are distrustful of the Democratic and Republican parties, and a natural consequence of this distrust of the two major parties is a healthy cynicism towards politicians and government in general.

Lind proposes that the Democrats become, more or less, a socially conservative/fiscally liberal (progressive) party. As I have argued on the Centrist Coalition Forum, those who promote the fiscal views of the Democrats and the social views of the Republicans are offering us the worst of both parties.

Lind correctly points out that people who are socially liberal/fiscally conservative tend to be libertarian-leaning while people who are socially conservative/fiscally liberal (progressive) tend to be populist leaning. But let us just consider this "populism" that Lind is proposing. Libertarians and "populists" are every bit the polar opposites that modern-day liberals and conservatives are. Thus, liberatarians tend to promote policies that focus on increasing individal liberty and decreasing the size and scope of the government, wouldn't that mean that "populists" (the libertarian's polar opposites) tend to promote policies that focus on decreasing individual liberty and increasing the size and scope of the government?

We already have a Democratic Party that is bent upon regulating our pocketbooks, and we already have a Republican Party that is bent upon regulating our bedrooms. Do we really need a political party that is bent upon regulating both our pocketbooks AND our bedrooms? Of course, you're never going to get a fiscally liberal (progressive) politician or a socially conservative politician to admit that they are advocating less individual freedom, but that is EXACTLY what they are doing when they agitate for yet more laws. The most prominent of the fiscal liberals (progressives) and social conservatives in congress are nothing more than a bunch of left-wing and right-wing moralists. They have very strong (and sometimes very bizarre)views of what constitutes right/wrong or fairness/injustice, and rather than using the power of persuasion to convince individuals to adopt their point of view, they simply legislate their utopian vision on all of us.

Lind is correct when he points out that the Democratic Party at its peak of power was made up of disparate coalition consisting of fiscal liberals (progressives) and social conservatives. And perhaps the Democratic Party would gain more voters in the short term by offering up a fiscally liberal (progressive)/socially conservative platform. But is this what Lind REALLY wants? Does he truly want a political party that agitates for increased government control in both the fiscal/economic and personal/social spheres of our lives, or is he simply proposing this platform because he thinks it will garner the Democrats more votes? Given his past conservative leanings, I tend to suspect the former, but I could be wrong.

I hate to advocate the marginalization of certain types of centrists, but it warrants pointing out that while libertarian-leaning centrists and populist-leaning centrists may be allies in their struggle against the two-party system, they are anything but allies when it comes to their philosophies regarding the proper role of government. It would be counterproductive for a socially liberal/fiscally conservative centrist to defend the views of a fiscally liberal (progressive)/socially conservative centrist (and vice-versa).

For this post, I know I will earn the wrath of the fiscal liberals (progressives) and social conservatives who frequent this site. So be it. The next time your favorite Democrat or Republican appeals to class warfare, religious warfare, race baiting, fear-mongering, or appeals to nationalism in order to garner support for some ridiculous new law that will further restrict our freedoms, you can continue to praise yourselves for your independent, freedom-loving instincts and then go on to defend said statist policy.

fool yourselves into believing that you're part of the solution instead of the problem.

Posted by: nicrivera at August 5, 2005 11:08 PM

The Democrats are in serious need of reform of their political ideology, but lurching towards the right on social issues is definitely not the way to go.

I agree with lots of nic's analysis here, especially the bit about left-wing and right-wing moralists, BUT...I hear this "lurching towards the right" mantra every time anyone notes that the far Left has pulled the Democratic Party away from mainstream America, and that it's a (the) prime reason they're losing national elections. News flash: if you're on the left and you persist in viewing the political spectrum as a left-right line, there aren't too many other directions to move. If the mainstream is in the middle, and you have to acquire a majority of the mainstream ("center") to win national elections, and you keep losing national elections, you only have three options to reach "winning ground."

[1] Drag the body politic over to your side, thereby shifting the entire spectrum your direction. So far, NOT working. [2] Push the other side farther out the spectrum, thereby placing your side relatively closer to the center by spectrum expansion. Seems to have worked to only a slight extent, and is self-limiting. [3] Move towards the center, which if you are on the Left will require moving "to the Right" on a line spectrum. Since moving farther left puts you farther out the line, and farther away from "winning ground."

The Democrats seem insistent of late of either staying put, or moving farther Left, and Option #1 keeps not working.

I hate to advocate the marginalization of certain types of centrists...

To win national elections, the Democrats must de-marginalize a majority of moderates/centrists. That's not a value judgement, it's a reality. The electorate self-identifies as 21% liberal, 34% conservative, and 45% moderate/centrist. "We're Number 3!" ain't much of a rallying cry, and it's pretty obvious which side of the spectrum needs a Bigger Tent to get more of the middle.

Posted by: Tully at August 6, 2005 10:52 AM

With Kerry, his positions only became "nuanced" and "moderate" when he ran for higher office. His track record in the Senate was fairly unambiguous. He's an old-school New England liberal. That may seem "moderate" to the Left, especially the West Coast Left, but it doesn't to the rest of the country.

He has a long Senate record to be sure. But it's actually quite moderate when taken as a whole.

What's ludicrous to me is the idea that the Democrats are fully held by the left of the party. The left hasn't run a candidate for President since Clinton..who moderated after he took office. The Republicans haven't run a winning moderate for three decades.

There's a CW on this blog that the Dems have to run a moderate in order to win. "Bullshit"..to quote Novak. They have to run someone who will articulate a strong vision and not veer from that.

That's what people want and that's what they'll trust.

Posted by: carla at August 6, 2005 12:38 PM

Carla,

It is possible to be a moderate AND articulate a strong vision. As Evan Bayh recently remarked, the most important thing for Democrats to do is to gain America's trust on national security issues. It would also be beneficial to be perceived as more moderate on social issues; left-leaning to be sure, but not hard left.

In general, a winning combination consists in a strong likeable candidate who holds views that a majority can support. I think the right has been able to pull of it because there are significantly more conservatives than liberals. When they run a solidly conservative candidate, they can win because there are more of them. And depending on national circumstances, enough moderates will hold their nose and vote for them to win. However, just looking at the numbers, if the Dems could pick up the moderates while the left had to hold its nose, it could win.

Your strategy would probably work in Europe where there are more liberals than conservatives, but here I don't think the numbers will allow you. A solidly liberal candidate will lose to a solidly conservative candidate purely on the numbers, all else being equal. For God's sake Carla, there is a whole 13% more conservatives than liberals and a huge population of moderates. Hey look, I love Canada and even France, but don't delude yourself.

To see the power of "centrism" just observe the wild support of McCain who is centrist in the sense that he is willing to consistently buck the party line for what he perceives is right. If McCain wins the primaries, you guys are screwed, unless he picks a democrat as a VP, which I would just love.

Posted by: Adam at August 6, 2005 01:10 PM

Kerry lost because he did not stand up for what he believed in. He was a liberal but he ran from his past voting record, and tried to moderate his voting record before he ran for President.

The perfect example is his vote for the Iraq war. Everyone knows that in Kerry's heart he wanted to vote against the war, but he felt he had to. He should have voted against the war and then voted for funding the troops afterward. He could have used the "I served in an unpopular war" cover and suppported the troops now that they are their.

Another expample is when he was asked if he was a liberal, by Brokaw two nights before the election. Kerry's answer was horrible, he ran from the question and never gave any specific examples of popular liberal stances or popular conservative stances he has taken since he was in office.

The democrats are a big tent party, it is time that individual dems start standing up for what they believe in based on principle not polls.

I am a liberal but I have given money to and will support Casey in PA. I am also pissed that liberals activists torpeded Jim Lanevin for the Senate, in RI. He is a prinipled man and we happen to disagree on a few issues but we agree more than we disagree.

I have come up with a new Democratic slogan, "Principle, not Politics"

Posted by: WI Liberal at August 7, 2005 10:44 AM

If McCain wins the primaries, you guys are screwed, unless he picks a democrat as a VP, which I would just love.

If McCain wins the primaries, I wouldn't hold out any hope for a democrat of a moderate Republican - he will have to pick someone solidly conservative like Sam Brownback, Bill Owens or Mark Sanford, otherwise the base will simply walk. As the fracas around Schaivo and the Gang of 14 compromise shows, I think they really might be principled/fratricidal enough (take your pick which) to hand the election to Hillary Clinton on a plate, rather than let a moderate GOP ticket into the White House.

So I really don't see the nomination of a McCain heralding a centrist ticket; it will be, by necessity, a balanced ticket, and a fortiori if, ahem, Sen. Snowe was to win the primary (end of occaisional plug).

Posted by: Simon at August 7, 2005 06:14 PM

Even though Senator Snowe may be closer to me politically than McCain, she doesn't have an ass-kicking record of continually lacerating her colleagues for being pork-lovin, greenhouse gasin', ideologues--does she? McCain seems to have the energy, the guts, and the popularity to make it work. On the other hand, maybe Snowe could get more done as she wouldn't always being making rude but true comments.

But Simon, if he actually wins the primaries, can't he choose whoever the hell he wants? I mean why not pick a Democratic VP, he's already got the nomination; that way he could get even more massive support and completely flush the crappy loser two-party politics down the toilet.

I still don't understand your loyalty to the GOP; they screw you completely over fiscally and you disagree with all their crazy tactics, even calling them unconstitutional. I mean sure you may prefer them to the Democrats, but why not demand for more rather than settling with the current embarrassment?

A true centrist party would probably be better for you than the GOP. The way it is now, we're always placating either Moveon or Focus on the Family? We're placating unions or big business.
When you cast a vote today, you have to ask yourself the question which half of the country is it less harmful to screw over? Because at least one side will be. And actually, no matter who you pick it's usually the middle half who's screwed over the most. So perhaps you have to choose which 3/4's of the country is it less harmful to damage.

Posted by: Adam at August 7, 2005 09:05 PM

It is possible to be a moderate AND articulate a strong vision. As Evan Bayh recently remarked, the most important thing for Democrats to do is to gain America's trust on national security issues. It would also be beneficial to be perceived as more moderate on social issues; left-leaning to be sure, but not hard left.

I disagree. I don't think it would be beneficial to be more moderate on social issues. I think it would be beneficial to have a passionate, articulate and consistent vision of social issues. And why they're had as they are.

In general, a winning combination consists in a strong likeable candidate who holds views that a majority can support. I think the right has been able to pull of it because there are significantly more conservatives than liberals. When they run a solidly conservative candidate, they can win because there are more of them. And depending on national circumstances, enough moderates will hold their nose and vote for them to win. However, just looking at the numbers, if the Dems could pick up the moderates while the left had to hold its nose, it could win.

If that were really the case Bush would have lost, twice. The majority in this nation favor abortion (even so-called partial birth abortion when they know all of the factual data), they favor an estate tax (when they know the factual data), they favor strict enviornmental regulations. They dislike Bush's handling of the Iraq War and think he is dishonest. His handling of terrorism in general is eroding as well.

Your strategy would probably work in Europe where there are more liberals than conservatives, but here I don't think the numbers will allow you. A solidly liberal candidate will lose to a solidly conservative candidate purely on the numbers, all else being equal. For God's sake Carla, there is a whole 13% more conservatives than liberals and a huge population of moderates. Hey look, I love Canada and even France, but don't delude yourself.

I think conservatives are very disillusioned with the current crop of Republicans holding office. If they were given a viable alternative..they'd splinter off. But even without that, I don't especially buy into the notion that conservatives hold a huge margin. Kerry didn't lose to Bush by 13 points. Some believe he may not have lost at all...but that's a discussion for a different day. I think the hubris of conservatism is eroding it even further.

To see the power of "centrism" just observe the wild support of McCain who is centrist in the sense that he is willing to consistently buck the party line for what he perceives is right. If McCain wins the primaries, you guys are screwed, unless he picks a democrat as a VP, which I would just love.

McCain pretty much shot himself when he supported Bush last cycle. Mark my words.

Posted by: carla at August 8, 2005 12:13 AM

Here was my response to Shay's "Cosby Republicans" post. I agree with Michael Lind to some extent. "Anything-goes" social liberalism alarms people. Those who strongly advocate it fall into two opposite groups: 1) those with a lot of inner-directed self-control who don't need external rules to live good lives, and 2) addicts and good-time charlies who don't want anyone stopping or even disapproving of their party. Group 1 doesn't understand the fear some people feel of unbridled human impulses and their reliance on rules, norms, and values to keep families and society from tearing themselves apart. Group 2 is just looking for "principled" cover so that they don't have to feel bad or guilty about their behavior. They are strange bedfellows, bound together by the liberal belief (moral relativism) that it's wrong to judge anyone else's actions when it comes to "victimless crimes" like consenting promiscuity and drug abuse.

I am in favor of gay marriage, or if that's too radical to be widely accepted, solid civil unions. I believe first-trimester abortion must stay legal but I favor every means of protection and persuasion to make abortions unnecessary and seriously repugnant. I'm against the society-wide turning of sexuality into a superficial form of entertainment and an engine of commerce. I'm very much against middle-schoolers having to feel social pressure to (expletive alert) give blowjobs. I'd love to see us return to a modest social norm of expected virginity till at least age 18. By that time you've got your head on a little straighter.

This is a vision of social moderation. It would encourage us to judge people's conduct, not their category. There are very few truly victimless sins or crimes. Addicts, for example, devastate their families. I don't think we can or should legislate morality, but I think we should declare that we know what kind of behavior is good and what is not.

Posted by: amba at August 8, 2005 12:41 AM

nicrivera,

Based on your comment, I am assuming that you lean libertarian--at least I associate fiscal conservatism/social liberalism with more of a liberatarian stance. That's fine, but I would like to suggest that your argument that socal conservatism/fiscal liberalism equates to less individual freedom is pretty simplistic. We live in society with laws, so our individual freedom has to be limited to some extent--it's called ordered liberty--our freedom is substantial but not absolute. Obviously, libertarians see virtually any restriction on individual freedom as invidious, but I don't agree and I don't think the vast majority of voters agree.

More importantly, to pretend that all a party has to do is stand on principle and they will win is ridiculous. The CPSU always stood on principle and I don't remember Gus Hall being president. The fact is parties obviously do need principles (and I think the Dems have gotten too far away from that), but they also have to recognize the political implications of those principles. The Republicans win, in part, as Carla said, because they have definite positions on issues that are popular with the public. But they have also presented those issues in a way that is palatable to the majority of people--ie, they have played down certain things that would cause trouble. The Democrats can't simply go out and advocate gay marriage when most of the country opposes it. That's not standing on principle--that's political suicide. That doesn't mean you have to take the opposite position, but there has to be a recognition that there is a time and place for everything. The Republicans do that--they do not come out and openly advocate repeal of Roe v. Wade for the most part but they work at the edges against it by advocating regulation rather than abolition.

I agree a lot with Amba. Social moderation doesn't necessarily mean advocating the end of abortion or the defense of traditional marriage. But it does mean recognizing that people are troubled about the "anything-goes" culture as Amba puts it. You don't have to be a Victorian to recognize that people have legitimate concerns about how Hollywood, for example, uses sex and violence and how that coarsens the culture.

As I said before, I think the Democrats need to stand up more for the core issues--protecting the economic interests of the middle class. There are a lot more votes here. But the fact is, which Carla and most liberals refuse to accept--that much of the so-called Democratic base is not socially liberal and they will reject a party that advocates social policies that they consider beyond the pale. When I read Carla's comments--as articulate as they are--I get a sense that, like a lot of liberals, she wants to deal with the world as she thinks it should be rather than as it is. Political parties cannot afford to do that. IMO, social liberals need to cut Democrats some slack with the understanding that they are better off with Democrats in office than with Republicans.

And, Carla, one more point. You say that a lot of conservatives are upset with the current Republicans and are ready to splinter. That may be true. But they are upset because they don't consider Republicans to be true conservatives. I don't see how advocating a liberal program is going to attract those people. They might prefer a different kind of conservatism but that doesn't make them liberals.

Posted by: MWS at August 8, 2005 11:44 AM

I have to disagree Carla. Ambda seems to be able to be a principled moderate. Buddha made it his trademark. In a way, so did Aristotle. That is what the whole centrist, especially, the radical centrist movement is about. That's why we choose the term centrist and not moderate.

It is unreasonable to think that you must choose between two unbalanced options. I think you're confusing weak-kneed fence straddlers with true centrists. Centrists may be hard to come by; but when they do, they are loved.

Carla, but Bush was likable. Although most voters did not agree with Bush, they agreed more with him than with Kerry. There is a conservative lean to this country. The reason he was able to win despite his many screw-ups, was not only because they trusted him to be tough and unwavering but because of this lean. If you took away the lean Kerry would have won. The polling data in other countries show which guy was preferred globally.

The fact that you have to use the caveat (when they know the factual data), means you have some serious problems because voters are uninformed. Also, there's a principle in persuasion that says not to advocate a view that is too far away from the position currently held by the persuadee. A leftist lean could grab the 45% of the moderates, but a full-tilt move-on style program would alienate a fair number.

The country may be ready for a solid liberal but one who is tough and does not seek to push through a wildly activist agenda. A solid liberal in private, but who respects that the nation is not. What is unprincipled about saying that one believes something strongly but not so strongly that they would trump the will of the people on the issue. It reflects a degree of humility and respect for other's beliefs, something that ought to be a hallmark of liberalism.

I, for one, am for McCain-style environmental regulations. However, I'm not sure people want to give up their SUVs or risk jobs for the environment's sake. As for partial-birth abortions, I can see making an exception for the life of the mother, but your statement seems a bit outlandish. I think people rightly expect that if a woman wants an abortion she better have it sooner rather than later. And late-term abortions are pretty ghoulish.

And just because they disapprove of Bush now, doesn't mean they want a leftist for president. Losing approval for Bush doesn't mean that all of sudden people become hippies; it just means their slightly more disposed to the moderate left.

(Hey look, I've had a fair number of hippie friends and am a Buddhist-friendly organic food buying vegetarian, but again let's not delude ourselves.)

And what!? You think McCain is dead because he supported Bush. All the polls and pundits seems to indicate that the only dude/dudette who could beat Hillary is McCain. Maybe the people who worship at the Bush is Satan cathedral will, but others won't :).

I'm sorry Carla, I must be an embarrassment to liberals everywhere because although I love the environment and support gay marriage, I'm a foreign policy hawk. I really am just not convinced that Bush did the wrong thing, execution is one thing, but on principle I am glad that we removed Saddam Hussein.

My deep concern is that we may lose an opportunity to do right by Iraq because the left causes a pull-out mentality among the American people. I feel as long the Iraqis are making a good faith effort and that their government wants us to stay, we owe it to them to do so. If the Iraqi government were demanding withdrawal that's one thing, but they're not. I am also concerned that some on the left would rather see this policy fail utterly than to make the best of the situation. I distrust their motivations. Not that I trust the right's either. But I think we have to put what's best for the Iraqis first and forget completely about our political leanings. A clean pure slate free of our own emotions.

For instance, I have heard it said that the insurgency is maintaining its levels, not growing, but that we are slowly making progress. It stands to reason that time is on our side. Furthermore, I am also concerned that this pressure by the left may have influenced the push to get the constitution done at all costs on time.
However, this may be because of self-interested Republicans caring more about polls than principle, than the left. In which case they ought to be ashamed.

Posted by: Adam at August 8, 2005 11:54 AM

Lakoff rides again.

The majority in this nation favor abortion (even so-called partial birth abortion when they know all of the factual data), they favor an estate tax (when they know the factual data), they favor strict enviornmental regulations.

Polling Report disagrees substantially on abortion, and consistently. While a slim majority of the public calls itself "pro choice," they also consistently favor more restrictions on abortions. Very few people actually "favor" abortion--they view it as a necessary evil, and want to see it remain available but restricted.

With the estate tax, polls have consistently showed 60%+ in favor of repeal over better than two decades of polling. Even when SIG's that want to retain the tax frame their own push polling and target their "respondents," support for the tax in its year 2000 form remains in single digits, and the best "pro" estate tax result they can manage sightly favors reform with massive expansion of exemptions to repeal, and not retention of the old tax.

Amusingly, the support for total repeal of estate taxes among the "super rich" falls dramatically (to levels lower than the general public!) when they realize that it would also result in the repeal of the capital gains step-up provisions in current law. If the estate tax is simply repealed, ALL estate investment property would become completely subject to capital gains taxes based on original purchase values. Given that estates between $2 and $10 million actually pay the estate tax at higher effective rates ($2 to $10M, 19%) than larger estates (>$20M, 11%), the wealthiest estates could actually receive NO effective reduction in tax rates. Current compromise discussions center on increasing the exemption to the $5 to $10 million range, keyed to inflation, with a taxation rate equal to the capital gains rate of 15% rather than the old rate of 50%+. Total repeal could actually result in tax increases for larger estates, especially if the increased cap gains taxation doesn't honor the "charity" deduction for estates. Unsurprisingly, the fiercest opponent of total repeal are the "non profit" foundations that rely on the estate tax charitable deduction for roughly 20% of their income.

(Side note: The Centrist Coalition has discussed the estate tax at length in private, and done extensive research. The best conclusion we could reach was that both the pro and anti forces were consistently abusing the available data as to the actual revenue effect on federal tax receipts. The pro-repeal faction claims that secondry ecnomic effects will result in an increase in revenues. The anti-repeal faction claims not only a total dead revenue loss, but a larger loss than the actual tax. Beware the revenue arguments of either side. The truth is that no one is really sure, and the econ modeling available is inadequate. The very best work indicates a less-than-total receipt loss in the short term, moderating to break-even in the medium term, with long-term effects somewhat indeterminate but certainly NOT a "dead-weight" loss.)

Polling on environmental issues consistently shows that people are much more in favor of environmental policies being local and specific. People don't trust the feds for some reason. In addition, Bush's enviromental policy approval numbers have closely tracked with Bill Clinton's, and cross-analysis of both indicates that EP "approval" ratings are closely tied to presidential popularity, and not to actual environmental policies. Once again, the statement relies on the acceptance of SIG push-polling as a valid survey method--and it isn't. Reponses change when you go from general questions to the associated specific results--such as giving up the SUV's....

Posted by: Tully at August 8, 2005 12:04 PM

Polling Report disagrees substantially on abortion, and consistently. While a slim majority of the public calls itself "pro choice," they also consistently favor more restrictions on abortions. Very few people actually "favor" abortion--they view it as a necessary evil, and want to see it remain available but restricted.

Polling report didn't disagree at all with what I said. A majority favor abortion being legal. And when people understand the factual information behind so-called "partial birth abortion", a majority believe it should be legal as well.

With the estate tax, polls have consistently showed 60%+ in favor of repeal over better than two decades of polling. Even when SIG's that want to retain the tax frame their own push polling and target their "respondents," support for the tax in its year 2000 form remains in single digits, and the best "pro" estate tax result they can manage sightly favors reform with massive expansion of exemptions to repeal, and not retention of the old tax.

But when Americans learn that the factual data about the Estate Tax, they favor it. For example when they learn that the number of farms to which the Estate Tax is owed has dropped dramatically. And that just .

Opinions on this issue change dramatically once individuals start hearing the factual information on these issues.

In terms of enviornmental policy, people favor tighter regulation, not less. I agree that people aren't anxious to give up SUVs, but they are anxious about corporate pollution, for example.

Posted by: carla at August 8, 2005 12:46 PM

Simon, IMO If McCain can somehow secure the GOP nomination, he could nominate Washoe the Chimp as his VP candidate and still beat any of the known democratic candidates by a wide margin.

Which Red States do YOU think could turn blue if McCain failed to nominate a token so-con? I just don't see it.

Posted by: bk at August 8, 2005 12:52 PM

Lakoffian framing and propaganda, Carla. By "factual information" you mean selected propaganda and isolated out-of-context information, not an impartial assessment of comrehensive information. Slant and spin. Why I prominently mentioned push-polling.

For example, you use the phrase "favor abortion." As I pointed out (and as Polling Report confirms in survey after survey, going back years) very few people actually "favor" abortion--what they favor is abortion remaining legal under certain conditions and circumstances. Which is not at all the same thing as advocating abortion on demand for any reason from conception to birth, or "favoring" abortion for abortion's sake. The abortion debate in particular is notable for the extremes framing the debate, and ignroing that the bulk of the public falls somewhere in the middle. Both sides manipulate those statistics to claim a majority in their favor.

Similarly with the estate tax--the "facts" of the anti-repeal faction are extremely selected and confined to only that information that supports their positions, while all other info is discounted. The pro-repeal people do the same thing, taking one side of the economic debate and promoting the extreme interpretation.

For how that process works, anyone who's seen a developer offering a tax-financed "economic impact study" (or someone opposing one) knows the drill. Offer all of one side, and none of the other. Show the effect of spending the money, but not that of taxing it. Or vice versa.

Posted by: Tully at August 8, 2005 01:06 PM

Unfortunately, Lind's advice is logical, but not practical. A century ago, Britain's premier champion of economic liberalism, the Fabians, came to the conclusion that their economic system would have to be accompanied by what today we call social liberalism.

If the state bears most of the cost of parenthood, then the poor will be under no pressure the restrict the size of their families, while the more educated classes would be under a heavy tax burden that, coupled with their aspirations for a 'finer' life, would lead them to restrict their families to one or two children. That isn't a theory; it's a demonstrable fact.

The Fabian response was first implemented in Glasgow. The city provide marvelous public housing for poor families with one or two children. Those with three or more children were thrown out into dreadful slums. That created an enormous pressure on the working poor to have a below-replacement birth rate.

When Margaret Sanger visited Glasgow just before WWI, she found that difference upsetting to her radical leftist views until the Fabians explained to her the why (detailed above). Sanger took their agenda to heart and returned to the U.S. to found what became today's Planned Parenthood. Its goal was to make economic liberalism viable by coercing the poor into below replacement birthrates via freely available birth control. That's why her first clinic was in Brownsville, a neighorhood of poor NYC immigrants.

Eventually that evolved into a two-fold agenda. Sex had to be separated from reproduction and linked to personal pleasure so the poor would have fewer children. Do that and of course homosexuality becomes the equivalent of hetrosexuality, teens ought to be promiscious etc.

That "self-realization" rhetoric is now the Supreme Court's justification for legalized abortion. But note that the Court has been careful NOT to give men the same option to opt out of parenthood during pregnancy, as logical as that would be. Unlike dead babies, male abandoment (even, under the Court's logic, by a husband) would increase the cost of economic liberalism. If you want to understand abortion legalization, you must "follow the money." Liberalism's social and economic agendas are linked.

Second, having children had to be made as difficult and unrewarding as possible for the poor. That's why liberals are so notriously indifferent to crime in poor neighborhoods or giving the poor the same choices in education for their children as the rich assume as a matter of course. Anything that makes parenting more rewarding for poor parents means more children from the poor. Anything that makes it less rewarding, means fewer children. That's simply the Fabian housing scheme in a different context.

For those who're interested, I edited an entire book of original source documents on the topic. It expands on Margaret Sanger's own 1922 bestseller, But you need not buy it. You can download the entire text for free as part of the tutorials on birth control and eugenics at:

http://www.inklingbooks.com/inklinguniversity/

In short, a blend of economic liberalism and social conservativism simply won't work in the long run. An underclass develops to exploit the "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." What H. G. Wells and Jack London called the "people of the abyss" grows in number. Characterized by rootless, promiscuious males, it contributes nothing to society but large numbers of fatherless children who repeat the process when they grow up.

That's what legalized abortion was intended to correct and that's why no liberal with any sense wants abortion to become rare. In fact, from the perspective of economic liberalism, our abortion rate is far too low. Abortions not only need to be tax-funded, they need to be coerced even more than they are. As with the Fabians, the underclass must be made to have a below replacement birthrate or economic liberalism will self-destruct.

And in the end, that blend of economic and social liberalism is itself not viable. Social conservatives have not yet developed the power to end legalized abortion, but they have been successful at keeping it from being used to reduce the birthrates of the underclass to the below-replacement levels that would make liberals happy.

I might add that there's an additional factor you might call the "Roe Defect." Because being a liberal now requires supporting the legalized killing of 1 million plus babies a year, the sorts of leaders that liberalism now attracts and retains are far less appealing than those of a generation ago. They are typically amoral (both Clintons), weird (Gore) or downright nutty (Dean). LIberalism's leadership has become defective and unappealing to millions of Americans.

--Mike Perry, Seattle, The Pivot of Civilization in Historical Perspective

Posted by: Mike Perry at August 8, 2005 01:35 PM

When Margaret Sanger visited Glasgow just before WWI, she found that difference upsetting to her radical leftist views until the Fabians explained to her the why (detailed above). Sanger took their agenda to heart and returned to the U.S. to found what became today's Planned Parenthood. Its goal was to make economic liberalism viable by coercing the poor into below replacement birthrates via freely available birth control. That's why her first clinic was in Brownsville, a neighorhood of poor NYC immigrants.

Mike, I'm curious about what your personal view is concerning the merits of a planned pregnancy versus an unplanned pregnancy. How do you feel about birth control?

And do you think PP's goal is still to make economic liberalism viable by coercing the poor into below replacement birthrates via freely available birth control.

If yes, what's your opinion as to how well this is working out?

Posted by: bk at August 8, 2005 01:52 PM

Lakoffian framing and propaganda, Carla. By "factual information" you mean selected propaganda and isolated out-of-context information, not an impartial assessment of comrehensive information. Slant and spin. Why I prominently mentioned push-polling.

Naw Tully, just the facts. I didn't push poll a thing. I don't have to.

For example, you use the phrase "favor abortion." As I pointed out (and as Polling Report confirms in survey after survey, going back years) very few people actually "favor" abortion--what they favor is abortion remaining legal under certain conditions and circumstances. Which is not at all the same thing as advocating abortion on demand for any reason from conception to birth, or "favoring" abortion for abortion's sake. The abortion debate in particular is notable for the extremes framing the debate, and ignroing that the bulk of the public falls somewhere in the middle. Both sides manipulate those statistics to claim a majority in their favor.

Favoring abortion and favoring it remaining legal is hair splitting, frankly. That's in essence the same argument, to varying degrees. Pretty much any issue that is discussed has varying degrees of support. Choosing one issue to chop up into little pieces because it's convenient diminishes your argument..because you pick and choose which issues you'll do that with.

Similarly with the estate tax--the "facts" of the anti-repeal faction are extremely selected and confined to only that information that supports their positions, while all other info is discounted. The pro-repeal people do the same thing, taking one side of the economic debate and promoting the extreme interpretation.

The facts pounded to the public on the estate tax repeal have generally been heavily tilted to the pro-repeal side. And some of it has been heavily misleading. The farmer who testified before Congress for example...opining the estate tax woes...never actually paid estate tax himself. Nor was he going to have to.

This is of course completely off the point..which is to say that the Democratic Party shouldn't "go moderate" to try and win. Just as the GOP hasn't.

Posted by: carla at August 8, 2005 02:15 PM

Carla,

I would really recommend carefully considering MWS's post. It was well-articulated and comes from one of our more left-sympathetic centrists. Someone who feels we here are too conservative on fiscal matters and who opposed the invasion.

You haven't responded to his ideas that the left should focus on economic issues and not push the soical ones. And you haven't responded to his point that "standing on principle" can be very ineffectual.

To me it seems that you have a choice between whether you will emphasize the Deaniac faction or the DLC faction. Since I believe the Deaniacs will rally behind whomever is eventually nominated, it seems foolish to emphasize the Deaniac side because to win you need to get a good chunk of the moderates. You possibly could still win with a Deaniac candidate, but that seems to me an unneccessary gamble.

Simon laments the "ideologically purity" of Republicans. If they had chosen McCain in 2000 they could have won more readily. And if they don't choose McCain, or another moderate, in 2008, they'll be taking a gamble as well. The only reason they have been able to pull it off despite all the craziness is because of the conservative lean to this country. Do you deny that there is any conservative lean to this country whatsoever? Do you truly believe that everyone who is educated will magically become liberal? While spin and a lack of knowledge do distort people's opinions, there are still at base distinct philosophies that remain. Some people just are conservative, and some liberal.

To make it more concrete, my willingness to vote Clinton increases the more she moves toward the center and my willingness to vote Republican declines as they go further out.

Of course, people want a strong person who knows what they believe--a leader. But such a person need not be an ideological "purist."

Please think carefully about MWS's post, and if you truly believe that if everyone knew the "facts" they would be a Deaniac; I'm really sorry to say, but I think you are letting your ideology blind your vision. It also reveals an unbecoming amount of hubris. There are some things that I'm pretty confident on, but a lot where I just don't know. If there aren't a fair number of issues where you don't feel some ambivalence, I think you're denying yourself a richer and more balanced intellectual life.

Posted by: Adam at August 8, 2005 03:11 PM

Favoring abortion and favoring it remaining legal is hair splitting, frankly.

But Carla, what about those "certain conditions and circumstances." In the case of abortion, isn't most of the devil in these particular details? If the people's views vary on THESE particulars, and we want to know how the people feel, then aren't these details of the utmost relevance?

The point that Tully is making (and that, to my mind, you seem to be dismissing) is that saying that a majority of the American people favor abortion" obscures some of the most relevant details about what the people think.

Do you or do you not think that these details are relevant to a discussion of abortion policy? I dare you to give us a straight answer here, and not to demur.

Posted by: bk at August 8, 2005 03:14 PM

Here's an idea for being more moderate: How about not supporting in knee jerk fashion 'artists' who create portraits of the virgin Mary, and create imagase of Christ submerged in a vat of urine?

You don't actually have to be religious (I'm not) to see that these kind of things are offensive to a lot of people, some of whom you need to vote for you, do you?

It seems to me that liberals would rather taunt social conservatives than win elections. Which is fine with me, a socially moderate (if liberal includes supporting Maplethorpe, then I guess i am a moderate) fiscally conservative, who would rather see taxes cut, and the budget unbalanced, then taxes raised and new programs created that will never go away, and the budget still unbalanced.

Posted by: moptop at August 8, 2005 03:53 PM

Sorry, I meant portraits of the virgin Mary splattered with feces.

Posted by: moptop at August 8, 2005 03:55 PM

What the hell does Mapplethorpe have to do with any of this? Frankly, for every liberal I have met who is a Mapplethorpe fan (or even a defender), I must run into dozens or even hundreds of complaints from conservatives about what the whole (and long- past, I might add) Mapplethorpe imbroglio "just goes to show" about liberals and government funding.

LOL! Surely most people acknowledge that Mapplethorpe owes more of his celebrity to right-wing griping about federal funding than he does to the funding itself. Is there no statute of limitations on such griping? Aren't there any objectionable and morally questionable artists who have received federal funding in, oh let's say, THIS century?

Posted by: bk at August 8, 2005 04:07 PM

This is only to point out that supporting funding for 'artists' like Maplethorpe gains liberals nothing, and costs a lot. The Democrat party defended the NEA at the cost of handing the right a bludgeon.

I am not 'right-wing' by any sane measure. I do believe in freedom, individual freedom, and free markets. But of course, because, as was pointed out in this thread earlier,"the right looks for converts, and the left looks for heretics." I find myself much more welcomed by the Republicans than the Democrats.

Incidentally, I have no problem with Maplethorp's art either, just funding it at public expense. There is no "right to be an artist who makes money from his work", yet the Democratic party, through its defense of the NEA, seemed to assert one.If you think the Democrat's decline has happened solely because of the events of "this century", you are deluded.

My whole point is that this is an issue on which Democrats could have come down with the Republicans easily, and more was lost than gained in standing up for "social liberalism", if defending the right subgroup A to insult subgroup B (free speech), while passing laws restricting subgroup B from criticising subgroup A (hate speech) is really social liberalism. I think it is more along the lines cheering for a sports team.

I used to vote reliably Democratic, I just don't recognize my old party anymore.

Posted by: moptop at August 8, 2005 04:32 PM

The problem with the idea that "social liberalism" is not popular is that social liberalism is no longer libertarian.

Social liberalism used to mean owning guns, legalizing drugs, and not worrying too much about the music your kids listen to.

Today social liberalism is about creepy social engineering schemes and Orwellian campus speech codes.

I think of myself as a social libertarian, but "social liberalism" in its current incarnation gives me the willies.

Posted by: Libertarian Isn't Liberal at August 8, 2005 06:41 PM

Freinds and neighbors.

It is going to be very hard selling socialism.

One need only remember the USSR and then look at France.

Economic growth has done more for the poor than any 10 government programs. When the economy is really booming the minimum wage rises due to market conditions. No intervention required.

OTOH if you want to remain a minority party for ever - go for it. Economic illiteracy is declining in America. So yeah, stake your turf on a sea level island with sea levels rising. Brilliant.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 8, 2005 11:39 PM

Favoring abortion - every woman should have at least one.

Favoring abortion remaining legal - we do not need another black market. We do not need pregnancy police police. We do not need a pregnancy enforcement administration. We need better birth control so there are fewer abortions.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 8, 2005 11:53 PM

Favoring abortion and favoring it remaining legal is hair splitting, frankly.

Absolutely untrue. If all women who favor abortion remaining a legal option were to actually favor abortion, they wouldn't have any children at all. Saying "I favor abortion" without any qualifications or comparitives is to say that one prefers it to ALL alternatives--including having children. The American public "favors abortion" compared to what? Pregnancy? Those details are not hair-splitting, they ARE the issue.

What the poll roundup consistently shows is that a majority of Americans do not want to see abortion totally banned as a legal option under all circumstances for pregnant women. But it also shows that a majority of Americans don't want utterly unrestricted conception-to-birth-for-any-reason-including-convenience abortion either. That a majority of Americans think there can and should be some restrictions on abortion, including (most specifically) parental notification in cases of minors seeking abortions and restrictions on the elective abortion of healthy late-term babies when the health of the mother is not endangered.

And obviously that's one large bit different than both the current left position of conception-to-birth-for-any-reason-including-convenience of the pros, and the every-little-sperm-is-sacred stance of the antis.

Posted by: Tully at August 9, 2005 12:03 AM

Mike Perry,

I'm against outlawing abortion because I do not favor black markets. We do know from history that such black markets in abortion services arise as legal abortion becomes more difficult.

So let me put it to my social conservative friends: why do you favor so many policies that are in effect price support systems for criminals. Or as I some times like to call it Republican Socialism.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 9, 2005 12:04 AM

estate tax,

A tax on people too poor to hire lawyers and accountants to protect their estates whose estates produce small amounts of income but have large capital value.

i.e. the estate tax is another support system for lawyyers and accountants.

Some one above said fewer family farms are subject to the estate tax. I have a novel position: how about none.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 9, 2005 12:14 AM

Tully, Carla, et. al.

Don't you know there is a war on?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 9, 2005 12:21 AM

Stephanie -- Detroit for over a hundred years was USA's fifth largest city. IIRC it was displaced from that spot this year by San Antonio or some other Sunbelt City.

Population growth and shifts are taking place in the Exurbs, where land is cheap and people can buy their own homes and avoid crime-laden meltdowns such as Detroit (essentially the city predicted in Robocop). ALL the major rustbelt cities have been losing population, and with them political influence, to the new exurbs which tend to vote Republican.

If you charted the Republican and Dem parties, they'd look like mirror images. Imagine income as the x axis and # of registered voters for the Party as the Y axis. The Dems would like U, and the Reps look like an inverse u. Middle Class voters left the Democratic Party. This is due partly to the Dem's hostility to basic values for middle class voters, home ownership and private autos, as well as roads, freeways, etc, and a not-to-well disguised hostility to white males. Dems have done as much as they could to drive out middle class voters, issues of crime/personal security and national security being two big examples.

I don't see this changing; the Party simply has the money coming from the very poor (various interest groups) and the very rich (social liberals such as Soros, Hollywood, trial lawyers etc). The Party has not wanted middle class voters since 1968, and to a large extent it doesn't have them. It's only going to get worse, the buzz on places like NYC or SF (massively expensive childless terrorist targets) is that they are losing population at an accelerated rate.

Look at Kerry. A product of the very liberal Kennedy machine, had faced zero effective Republican opposition in a state dominated by very poor people and very wealthy people. Soft on crime (opposed the Death Penalty except for calculated pandering positions), unable to formulate an aggressive national security policy "We'll talk issues to death at the UN!" and unable to stand up against out-sourcing.

This isn't a "cultural" issue as one of interests. Middle class people have stuff to lose (like their relatively secure lives) and don't like them threatened by criminals, terrorists, or out-sourcing corporations. Wealthy liberals are insulated from those concerns and poor people have little to lose.

Populism means looking out for the interests of the average guy/gal. Dems just can't do that since it means rejecting their Upper Class orthodoxy (epitomized by middle class Kerry pretending to be a blue blood Snob; while blue blood Bush pretends to be average joe).

Posted by: Jim Rockford at August 9, 2005 12:32 AM

What is with all this "progressive" schtick?

"Socialist" not good enough for you?

In times of great opportunity there will be large disparities in income.

So do we want to take advantage of the opportunities or equalize every one's income within a narrow range?

The human condition in my opinion is better advantaged by the opportunities. The USSR vs the USA were polar opposites on that question (relatively). I think history answers the question. 50% of the lowest quintile in America are home owners. 70 to 90% of the lowest quintile are car owneers. 50% of the lowest quintile families own two or more cars.

Capitalism is the solution - not the problem.

Government is the problem - not the solution.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 9, 2005 12:34 AM

One observation about moving left/right on social issues is that many posters seem to view social issues as a 1-dimensional spectrum. In actuality, social issues contain several issues for there are people who are rightish on some and leftish on others. To start with the G's, there are G-d, gays and guns. What is probably more significant though, in terms of the number of people who are personally affected, is pop culture as amba and MWS pointed out.

Posted by: Scott Smith at August 9, 2005 10:03 AM

Hey look everybody, a CAPITAL L Libertarian! He has ALL the answers.

Give us some more answers, oh mighty paragon of clarity.

I've always thought that to a very large extent, in a democracym the government IS the people. So does this mean that in a democracy, people are the problem and capitalism is the solution?

LOL

Posted by: bk at August 9, 2005 11:08 AM

I agree with m.simon about the "progressive schtick." It remind me of the coporations whose product is no longer selling. They repackage it and call it new and improved. Progressive is just another package - same failed junk inside. They can't be honest, but must deceive.
Progress is their new lie. They will never tell you,however,from what are they leaving, and toward what are they progressing. I remind them that Hitler's troops progressed. Cancer certainly progresses in its destructive course.
They love to make progress they claim - but will avoid telling you their real goal. The destruction of a Judeo-Christian country to be replaced with a Godless state with them ,of course, in charge.

Posted by: DL at August 10, 2005 07:26 AM

Hey rickheller. As a Connecticut conservative, I can assure you that Lieberman is nothing but a liberal, or worse, and opportunist. He plays his cards well- always positioning himself to be the last handwringing holdout on issues (abortion)only to vote liberal everytime. The only area he has appeared to be conservative or moderate on was Iraq. I believe, because he's an orthodox Jew, he supports the war (over Israel). Don't forget how quickly this supposedly principled man backtracted on all his stong beliefs and morphed into instant liberal when Al Gore and he ran for Pres/VP. His flip-flop was nauseating.

Posted by: DL at August 10, 2005 07:34 AM

The destruction of a Judeo-Christian country to be replaced with a Godless state with them ,of course, in charge.

DL, what's your estimate of the percent of Americans who'd recognize this as their ultimate goal, in their heart of hearts?

Posted by: bk at August 10, 2005 01:31 PM

I agree that Democrats need to move to the center on social issues and return their emphasis to economic populism. For too long, social liberal elitists have dominated the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party is ever become the majority party again, it will have to abandon the appearance of supporting gay marriage, late term abortion and gun control. There are a lot of voters who are socially conservative and economically populist. It's about time we find some Democratic candidates who will give a voice to these long overlooked voters.

Posted by: Right Democrat at August 10, 2005 11:23 PM

As long as people like the guy at the link I provided represent democrats, they won't ever win.

Posted by: New Guy Here at August 14, 2005 01:36 AM

Good info on facility
management
and http://www.facilitymanagementinfo.com

Posted by: Facility management at August 17, 2005 02:56 AM