A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
November 20, 2006More Excited About the Democrats?When I started blogging here before the 2004 election I did so as a moderate Republican who believed my party, although too conservative, was the best place for centrists who stood for a strong national defense, free trade, and fiscal responsibility. Almost three years later we are losing a war under a Republican President, we have created record deficits, and I am not so sure that the GOP is the place for those of us in the middle any longer. Furthermore, Democrats are giving moderate Republicans some good reasons to switch sides: 1. The influx of moderate Democrats in the 110th Congress, including Senator elect Jim Webb and Senator-elect Jon Tester who were outstanding on Meet the Press this week. 2. Steny Hoyer's victory over Jack Murtha and the likelihood that the new Majority Whip's legislation to ban earmarks as well as all gifts from lobbyists will be put on the agenda after the new Congress convenes. 3. The Blue Dog's passionate campaign on behalf of Congresswoman Jane Harman to chair the Intelligence Committee. 4. Howard Dean's 50 state strategy which has forced Democrats to move toward the center to win races in the redder states. 5. The likelihood that the Democratic nominee in 2008 will be one of three prominent members of the Democratic Leadership Council, or if not, an extremely exciting junior Senator from Illinois that continuously preaches bipartisanship, respect for religion, and cooperation between the two main ideologies in American politics. There are some concerns that centrists should have with the party of FDR. The base of the party, those that we see at the Daily Kos, are eager to set the agenda and I fear that populist isolationism may rear it's ugly head; however, Markos and his netroots regularly claim that it isn't about liberalism versus moderation, but rather Democrat versus Republican. The last time Democrats had this sort of attitude, Bill Clinton won the Presidency and his party controlled both houses of Congress under a middle-of-the-road mandate. I have to admit it also bothers me that it appears Republicans, even the centrist ones, have abandoned any recognition that there are those that are not living in the same America that most of the rest of us live in. These are the single mom's working $8-10 an hour jobs, the families whose jobs have been outsourced, the homeless on the streets of our major cities, the illegal immigrants farmers looking for a better life, the handicapped, the mentally ill, etc. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the Democrats are much better on the issue of protecting our most vulnerable citizens, mostly paying them lip service, proposing band aid solutions like raising the minimum wage, or going out of their way to point fingers at big corporations who are major part of our economy, but in my view there is better comprehension of these problems on the more liberal side of the aisle. Senator McCain did make an attempt to bring up these issues in his appearances on This Week and his speeches at GOPAC and the Federalist Society, which he should be commended for, but I am hoping to see more discussion and substantive proposals from both parties in this area leading up to 2008. That been said, I have to admit that for the first time I may be more optimistic about the Democrats. Comments
Matthew; it appears Republicans, even the centrist ones, have abandoned any recognition that there are those that are not living in the same America that most of the rest of us live in. Even the centrists ones?!? And that's based on what? This might sway you to feel otherwise (at least concerning the conservative Republicans) Posted by: c3 at November 20, 2006 03:55 PM Yes, I have read that c3, and although it may be true that rich conservatives are more giving than rich liberals, that says nothing to me about the party's elected leadership. Maybe what is needed within the GOP is for the party to listen to its supporters better. With the election of McConnell, Lott, Boehner, Blunt, and Putnam, I am not sure we are moving in that direction. Again, another reason I am more optimistic about the Democrats. Posted by: Mathew at November 20, 2006 04:02 PMAnd it's based on the fact that the National GOP and our elected establishment has not even a platform plank to address the issue, no talking points, no debate, nothing... It's like they would rather pretend it doesn't exist, and for a party that wants to tie itself to religous values, I find that shameful. Posted by: Mathew at November 20, 2006 04:04 PMRecord deficits by what measure, Mathew? In terms of real percentage of GDP, they're not records or even close. In real terms they're smaller than deficits we saw in each of the last five decades, and are completely dwarfed by the deficits of WW2. They're not little, either, but the "record deficits" hyperbole is quite annoying. Posted by: Tully at November 20, 2006 04:49 PMDeficits, big or small (and 8.6 Trillion isn't small) still constrains our future spending choices.
I think he's a fry cook.
If you think having Democratic Hegemony is a good thing for poor people, I suggest that you look at the District of Columbia. The first thing you should do is try to find the white blue collar neighbhorhood. You will not find them because they do not exist. Second, you should try to find the public schools that the middle class are willilling to send their chilcdren. They do not exist. Third, you should look at the crime rate and how it affects the poor. Fourth, you should look at the cost of housing and look at how it affects the poor. Maybe you can find the best example of how total Democratic control beneifts a metropolitan area. It should be interesting to see what Democratic Party Nirvana look like. Posted by: superdestroyer at November 21, 2006 05:02 AMMathew, Good post, but (not surprisingly) I'm going to have to disagree with: we are losing a war under a Republican President Objectively-speaking, that's just not the case. At worst, we're mired in something of a stalemate-- and a stalemate that might require a long-term American presence just to maintain that status quo. Now I'll agree that most Americans believe that we're losing a war, but perception and reality are not necessarily the same thing-- I would note that most Americans don't know any more about what's going on in Iraq than what they see on television-- itself a very inaccurate (though understandably so) measuring stick. If all Americans knew about public schools was what they saw on television, they would think there was nothing but school-shootings and students getting their teachers pregnant, and they would be absolutely convinced that public school system was completely in shambles... Their thinking such would not necessarily make it so. Posted by: Bobby at November 21, 2006 06:26 AMDeficits, big or small (and 8.6 Trillion isn't small) still constrains our future spending choices Not strictly true, Marcus, and your error above shows once agin that you have problems with the basics. That's total federal debt you cite, not the deficit, and muost of it the government owes to itself. You really should learn the difference. Deficits and debt alter our future spending choices--as do surpluses. And for reasons I've explained copiously to you in the past, some level of government deficit is almost inevitable in a healthy economy. You're aware that the US government has not had either a deficit-free decade nor a debt-free year since the 1830's? That in real terms the debt held by the public is in the low-to-medium historical range? Uh huh. I didn't think so. Objectively-speaking, that's just not the case. At worst, we're mired in something of a stalemate-- and a stalemate that might require a long-term American presence just to maintain that status quo. Even more strictly speaking, we won the war quite a while ago. It's the reconstruction and stabilization of post-war Iraq into a democracy (the "nation building") that's a bear. A different kind of battle, fought not just on the ground in Iraq but also against a demonstrably hostile press. Posted by: Tully at November 21, 2006 10:28 AMObjectively-speaking, that's just not the case. Possibly, but the mood of the public and the vibe from anybody with a microphone in front of them is that we are losing. I understand your argument, but if we are not losing, I am not seeing enough to say that we are winning either. Furthermore, again, when we are talking about winning or losing a war, doesn't the mood of the American people matter? He voted for the earmarks, the bloated government spending, the deficit spending, etc. that he now criticizes. Voted for spending, earmarks as part of voting for another piece of legislation or voting for them outright? I am not one to argue McCain is perfect, but on these issues, he is by far and away one of the best in Congress, and his record shows it IMO. Even more strictly speaking, we won the war quite a while ago. It's the reconstruction and stabilization of post-war Iraq into a democracy (the "nation building") that's a bear. Oh, come on! Posted by: Mathew at November 21, 2006 11:52 AMMathew, Possibly, but the mood of the public and the vibe from anybody with a microphone in front of them is that we are losing. I understand your argument, but if we are not losing, I am not seeing enough to say that we are winning either. Furthermore, again, when we are talking about winning or losing a war, doesn't the mood of the American people matter? I don't believe I said that we were "winning." I think I said that we're mired in a stalemate, and one that would require a continued presence just to maintain. I don't think the data is out there that would suggest a "winning" or a "losing," at least not beyond any margin of error. And the mood of the electorate absolutely determines whether or not we'll win, because the American people ultimately determine whether or not we'll have the patience to see this through to victory. But, again, insofar as public opinion has not yet forced a premature withdrawal, their misperception that we're losing badly doesn't necessarily mean that it's actually happening-- it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy, to be sure, but the relation does not yet exist. Posted by: Bobby at November 21, 2006 01:08 PMJust when do you think a war is "over," Mathew? Was WW2 over when Japan and Germany surrendered, or when they established new independent elected governments, or when the US quit supporting them militarily? Because, you know, that last has yet to happen. So is WW2 still going on in your estimation? We're still in Korea, too. Does that mean the Korean War is ongoing? When did the Spanish-American War end? In August 1898, when the Spanish ceased hostilities, ceding the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico, and granting independence to Cuba? In December 1898, with the treaty of Paris? In 1899 when the treaty took legal effect? When the US captured Aguinaldo in the Phillipines in 1902, ending the "First Republic?" When all the First Republic Filipino rebels ceased hostilities in 1913? When the Phillipines became a commonwealth in 1935? When they became an independent republic in 1946? Or when we quit providing military aid and support? Oh, wait, we still do that...over a century after the initial hostilities ended. And there are violent rebel movements in the Phillipines to this day. The original Iraq war is over. Saddam is not in power. He lost. We won. Simple enough for you? Now we're into a "war" of nation-building within Iraq, and a proxy war with Syria and Iran (and also to some extent between Syria and Iran) on Iraqi territory. Overlaid on that is a centuries-old feud playing out between Sunni and Shia and between various tribes, and those guys hold grudges for a long time--some are still frothing over the Crusades and Genghis Khan. All of which is part of a much broader "cold war" in the Middle East that stretches from Afghanistan to Lebanon. In that broader context quitting in Iraq is not much of an option, and looks a lot worse than a stalemate. Posted by: Tully at November 21, 2006 02:20 PMIf I'm not mistaken the budget of Washington D.C. has been under the control of teh REpublican Congress since 1994. It is a strange situation where the tax dollars contributed by the city's residents are under the control of a legislative body in which they have no representation. Thus they've been left with deficits until recently despite having to spend lots more money on DHS items and they have a GOP Congress that tried to legislte its social and political agendas in a city that has no representation. Posted by: Marcus at November 22, 2006 02:07 AMTully, uhhhhhh......how about drunken sailors versus the kitchen budget. In the real world our spending choices are not unlimited.
Marcus, you don't get it. You can't make ANY decision without tradeoffs. But I already know how much you don't know about national income economics. Posted by: Tully at November 22, 2006 12:01 PM |
Archives
February 2008
January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 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 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Three Quotes
The Choice, Based on Iraq Policy Even More Of A Surprise Castro Bows Out Kosovo Declares Independence Will Obama Take McCain's Funding Dare? Global Poverty Act Preservation Friday Band Taking on Obama Electoral Results Came Out As Expected?!?
|
