Here Today... Gone To Hell!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601645_pf.html

Report Warns Democrats Not to Tilt Too Far Left

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 7, 2005; A07

The liberals' hope that Democrats can win back the presidency by drawing sharp ideological contrasts and energizing the partisan base is a fantasy that could cripple the party's efforts to return to power, according to a new study by two prominent Democratic analysts.

In the latest shot in a long-running war over the party's direction -- an argument turned more passionate after Democrat John F. Kerry's loss to President Bush last year -- two intellectuals who have been aligned with former president Bill Clinton warn that the only way back to victory is down the center.

Democrats must "admit that they cannot simply grow themselves out of their electoral dilemmas," wrote William A. Galston and Elaine C. Kamarck, in a report released yesterday. "The groups that were supposed to constitute the new Democratic majority in 2004 simply failed to materialize in sufficient number to overcome the right-center coalition of the Republican Party."

Since Kerry's defeat, some Democrats have urged that the party adopt a political strategy more like one pursued by Bush and his senior adviser, Karl Rove -- which emphasized robust turnout of the party base rather than relentless, Clinton-style tending to "swing voters."

But Galston and Kamarck, both of whom served in the Clinton White House, said there are simply not enough left-leaning voters to make this a workable strategy. In one of their more potentially controversial findings, the authors argue that the rising numbers and influence of well-educated, socially liberal voters in the Democratic Party are pulling the party further from most Americans.

On defense and social issues, "liberals espouse views diverging not only from those of other Democrats, but from Americans as a whole. To the extent that liberals now constitute both the largest bloc within the Democratic coalition and the public face of the party, Democratic candidates for national office will be running uphill."

Galston and Kamarck -- whose work was sponsored by Third Way, a group working with Senate Democrats on centrist policy ideas -- are critical of three other core liberal arguments:


? They warn against overreliance on a strategy of solving political problems by "reframing" the language by which they present their ideas, as advocated by linguist George Lakoff of the University of California at Berkeley: "The best rhetoric will fail if the public rejects the substance of a candidate's agenda or entertains doubts about his integrity."


? They say liberals who count on rising numbers of Hispanic voters fail to recognize the growing strength of the GOP among Hispanics, as well as the growing weakness of Democrats with white Catholics and married women.


? They contend that Democrats who hope the party's relative advantages on health care and education can vault them back to power "fail the test of political reality in the post-9/11 world." Security issues have become "threshold" questions for many voters, and cultural issues have become "a prism of candidates' individual character and family life," Galston and Kamarck argue.

Their basic thesis is that the number of solidly conservative Republican voters is substantially larger that the reliably Democratic liberal voter base. To win, the argument goes, Democrats must make much larger inroads among moderates than the GOP.

Galston, a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland, and Kamarck, a lecturer at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, in 1989 wrote the influential paper, "The Politics of Evasion," which helped set the stage for Clinton's presidential bid and the prominent role of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. In some ways, the report released yesterday showed how difficult the debate is to resolve.

Their recommendations are much less specific than their detailed analysis of the difficulties facing the Democratic Party.

They suggest that Democratic presidential candidates replicate Clinton's tactics in 1992, when he broke with the party's liberal base by approving the execution of a semi-retarded prisoner, by challenging liberal icon Jesse L. Jackson and by calling for an end to welfare "as we know it."

I think the average American is far more scared of the extreme left than the extreme right.  Clinton knew where to place his chips, that is why he won two elections.  Bush did the same, however, he had a lot of help by the democrats move to the left. 

Dems certainly need to change their message to have a chance in '08.  A practical clear concise vision is needed, not finger pointing & playing the blame game. Show me a democrat with that & I may vote for him.

 

there's no message from anyone on the left. dean was making some noise ealier in the year, as was hillary. but you never hear from them anymore.

the dems have had such a great opportunity to define themselves and connect with the public. they've fumbled it away big time.

I've heard that most of Europe actually views the American Democratic party as being slightly to the right of center, and not like a nearly-Socialist left-wing party as Republican sympathizers love to claim.  Can any of our European members either confirm or deny this?

It's true.  Scary huh. ;)

You have your right mixed up with your left.? I think the confusion coming from the Europeans is from having the steering wheel on the other side of the car :hihi:

They drive on the wrong side of the road, too!  :rofl:

That is actually just the UK.  Never been to mainland Europe I guess ???

I think I'm what you would call a middle of the road type.  I'm registered democrat primarily because I work in social services and we tend to suffer with republican administrations.  But I could be convinced to vote republican if I truly was impressed by a republican candidate.  I don't feel that the direction of the democratic party is making me concerned, or move more towards the republican party.  On the contrary, the direction of the republican party is far more scary to me.   The following article was from September 2004, prior to the last election.  But I think it has some incredibly good points about the current republican party.  I'd be interested to hear what republicans think.

---

John Eisenhower:
Why I will vote for John Kerry for President
By JOHN EISENHOWER
Guest Commentary


EDITORS NOTE: This commentary was originally published Sept. 9, 2004.

THE Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3? years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.

Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we ?always have.? We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.

 
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration?s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

The fact is that today?s ?Republican? Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word ?Republican? has always been synonymous with the word ?responsibility,? which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today?s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.

Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.

In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.

Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, ?If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.? I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.

The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation?s financial structure sound.

The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today?s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.

Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.

I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one?s parents or of our own ingrained habits.

John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, served on the White House staff between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his father in writing ?The White House Years,? his Presidential memoirs. He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.

Another self-proclaimed lifetime Republican who turned Democrat. I'm not even convinced he was a Republican in light of some his statements (e.g. "cutting taxes for the rich" and lies like implying the Bush administration views "other countries as practically devoid of significance").

But my question is, what has this person done, other than ride the coattails of his dad, that anyone should care what he says?

Does that mean you think he has no valid points?  Or you just choose to ignore them?

Well, I agree that the deficit is too big for example, but John Eisenhower says that fiscal responsibility means "limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today?s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion." But if you look at the deficit as part of the GDP, that's just not true. Either this guy is incompetent, or he's a propagandist. My guess is he's probably the second, that's why wouldn't put much stock in what he says. He reminds me a lot of Ron Reagan Jr.

Yeah right !? : ok: :rofl:


You're right Duffman !  ;)

Can you explain this to me?  The part about how the deficit as part of the GDP makes it ok.  I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just willing to learn.  I don't understand and I'd really like to know how the GDP makes the deficit acceptable.  I'm a very intelligent person, so I'm confident I can grasp it if someone explains it.

If found the statement odd at best....

Personally, I'm against deficits, so I'm not defending Bush on this. I just wanted to get this out of the way. Now onto why it's acceptable. The US current account last year was $666 billion, which sounds enormous mostly just because it's a big number. If you put it in the context of the US economy, which had a GDP of $11.75 trillion in 2004, it amounts to only 5.67% of that. That is something that we can afford and are currently able to sustain, without any terminal negative effects, like other countries deciding to dump their dollar holdings. Considering that the dollar is the world's main reserve currency, the US could get away with this for quite a while. Now, just because we can, doesn't mean we should.? But there's just no logic behind John Eisenhower's statement that we can't afford this deficit. From what I can make out of it, he's trying to scare people into seeing things his way.

Ahh, so he's using scare tactics to get others to follow him, he is a Republican!!

Good post.  Thanks for the explanation.  I, like most, don't like the idea of debt.  I don't own a credit card and have never bought anything that I could't pay for with cash (with the exception of an education, a house and a car).  Your posts puts the deficit into better context.  Some want to always scream that the sky is falling without getting all of the facts.

Thanks for the explanation.  The percentage you quoted, 5.67%, do you happen to know what that was during past administrations?  I'm just trying to put it in context.

Also, to Charity Case and Popmetal, both of you said you don't like the debt/deficit.  So do you think it was necessary and unavoidable  for the deficit to grow?  Or were mistakes made?

I think both.  It was necessary and mistakes were made.  I think Bush has been dealt a very bad hand as president.  Imagine you follow 8 years of nothing happening to the US with the 9/11 attacks and then Katrina.  I don't think any president has had to deal with so much since WWII.  So, yes there was no way to avoid the growing deficit IMO, and yes there have been many mistakes made...there is no question about it.

You're welcome y'all.

Sterling, here's a graph that shows the deficit per GDP since 1940

(http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/ReceiptsOutlaysPercentGDP.gif)
it's from this website
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html


I wouldn't say it was unavoidable for the deficit to grow, however, for that to happen either:
1) a lot of spending would have to been cut, which would be unpopular so few politician want to do it.
2) tax cuts would have had to been smaller, which would have made the recovery from the recession much slower, so Bush would be getting criticized for slow economic growth and high unemployment instead of the current "tax cuts for the rich" mantra

great stuff. thanks popmetal.

people are brainwashed into thinking debt is bad. debt very often is good. (most of us wouldn't have a house without it.)

The main problem is that it is increasing exponentially. It represents a 666 billion dollars in what could have been investment money for this country. Investment capital that creates jobs, and better technology. We take a double hit on this money as well, since a lot of it comes back as government debt. More than anything it represents energy (a truly consumed item). We give the money to a country, who then sell us something we set on fire, and then we go back to that foreigner and borrow the money back. His asset value is increasing, because the interest we owe is an asset on his books. We are carrying the debt all over the place, in the 666 billion account transfer and the money we will owe that country for the next 30 years. BOTH of these activities represent loss of investment capital for this country, and the human misery it may also create in the meantime (third hit= the people.)

At the center of all this is our insatiable appetite to burn oil, which is becoming more unproductive in relation to the economic value we derive from it.

Yes, because we bomb every country we do business with.

Not all the governments decisions are brilliant, but you make out the USA to be the worst, meanest heartless country on the planet.

What in the hell are you talking about?