# David Horowitz' theory: A "Shadow Party" is trying to pull the Democrats leftward **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2005, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355 "2005-03-19T21:45:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/41 "2005-03-22T14:38:19Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I was wondering if anyone esle noticed that. It’s kind of hard to believe that it’s only movement away from the center that counts, and not the DIRECTION that the party moves. Let’s put it this way: the Dems aren’t ever going to re-emerge as the dominant party unless they represent a clear **alternative** to the GOP, in some way that a majority prefers. On national security, the best the Dems can hope for, near-term, is a draw: not enough people will think they’re _more_ capable of handling those sorts of issues until they actually get into power and show they can do a better job with that. So that’s off the table. So the Dems have to distinguish themselves from the GOP on domestic issues. Since enough Dems have caved on a series of Bush tax cuts, bankruptcy legislation, ANWR, and a bunch of other stuff, the line’s rather blurry these days. If the Dems move further towards the GOP, there will be even less distinction between the two parties domestically, and no reason to choose the Dems. “Vote for us - we’re the same as the guys who are running things, except in some tiny ways that you’ll never notice” isn’t going to win any elections. Neither is “We’re just like them, except we’ll say ‘no’ to a few of their worst excesses.” Wherever you think the Dems **are** , where the Dems need to **be** is consistently enough to the left of the GOP on enough issues of importance so that it’s clear (a) that there IS a difference, and (b) WHAT that difference is. Unless the Democratic ‘brand’, if you will, is distinct from that of the GOP, and unless it’s clear just what the Dems have to offer that’s different, they’re not going to get over the top. I can’t see that there can be any controversy on this last paragraph. I think the controversy may be a matter of where different people perceive the Dems to be, _now_. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/42 "2005-03-22T14:58:15Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It’s kind of hard to believe that it’s only movement away from the center that counts, and not the DIRECTION that the party moves. Yet that is the position of those decrying the Democrats’ “lack of ideas”, applauding the Republicans for being “the party of new ideas”. That concept of the meaning of “ideas” is indistinguishable from “major changes”, which refers only to the scalar and not the direction of a movement. Note for yourself the number of people attracted to simply the air of “strong leadership”, who have little idea about or concern for the things that candidate or party is actually doing. The number of people who prefer seeing bad things done well to good things done strugglingly is scary - and they’re enough to tip elections. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/43 "2005-03-22T15:18:13Z")
In truth, though, what some forget is that Gingrich and his “Contract With America” only got traction because of some high-profile scandals among the House Democratic majority which gave the impression (not entirely without justification) that the Democratic Congress was more interested in personal perks than in any sense of accountability toward the people. Most of the CoA involved congressional accountability and responsibility rather than actual conservative-movement government policy. The Democrats could conceivably capitalize on such similar shenanigans by the congressional Republicans, if only they weren’t so focused on Bush. The recent ethics rule tinkering that the GOP tried to do for DeLay was a hole in Republican armor that the Democrats could have and should have been able to drive a semi through. But they hardly took advantage at all. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/44 "2005-03-22T15:27:28Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Let’s put it this way: the Dems aren’t ever going to re-emerge as the dominant party unless they represent a clear **alternative** to the GOP, in some way that a majority prefers. > > \ > > Wherever you think the Dems **are** , where the Dems need to **be** is consistently enough to the left of the GOP on enough issues of importance so that it’s clear (a) that there IS a difference, and (b) WHAT that difference is. Unless the Democratic ‘brand’, if you will, is distinct from that of the GOP, and unless it’s clear just what the Dems have to offer that’s different, they’re not going to get over the top. > > I can’t see that there can be any controversy on this last paragraph. I think the controversy may be a matter of where different people perceive the Dems to be, _now_. Those are all good points. And of course it’s overly simplistic to talk about a party moving left or right, since it’s certainly possible to move one direction on some issues and another direction on other issues. Given the screw-ups that the Republicans have made in Iraq and on the deficit, it sure seems like that gives the Democrats a golden opportunity to work those issues as a key part of their message. Balancing the budget is neither a left issue nor a right issue-- it’s just good governance. And few people really want to be at war, no matter how much rah-rah hype you hear. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/45 "2005-03-22T15:43:55Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Let’s put it this way: the Dems aren’t ever going to re-emerge as the dominant party unless they represent a clear **alternative** to the GOP, in some way that a majority prefers. The key phrase being, “that a majority prefers”. So far, the majority shows no sign of preferring a leftist solution to the country’s problems, and so the idea that a sharp shift left will bring in the voters is, in my view, misguided. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > On national security, the best the Dems can hope for, near-term, is a draw: not enough people will think they’re _more_ capable of handling those sorts of issues until they actually get into power and show they can do a better job with that. So that’s off the table. Probably true. And one of the reasons Kerry ran into problems. He was a decorated veteran, but his record once he got home from Viet Nam and in the lead up to the Iraq war was not one that presented a credible alternative to Bush. And, of course, Clinton was in power during the planning stage of 9/11, and the embassy bombings, first attacks on the WTC, and the Cole incident, so as you say, the record of the Democrats while they _were_ power is not reassuring. But if, as you say, the Democrats need to present an alternative view to succeed, they will have to jettison many of their current leaders. They all voted for the invasion, and so it is hard for them to present themselves as credibly anti-war. Which makes the election of Dean as chair interesting. Does this mean the next generation of Dem leaders is going to be peaceniks and protestors? A difficult line to walk, to appear anti-war enough to present a credible alternative, while still not leaving yourself open to charges of being weak on terror. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > “Vote for us - we’re the same as the guys who are running things, except in some tiny ways that you’ll never notice” isn’t going to win any elections. Neither is “We’re just like them, except we’ll say ‘no’ to a few of their worst excesses.” Possibly. You mentioned the Contract with America earlier, the foundation of the Republican takeover of Congress. What would you think of a Democratic version of the same? Some clear statement of their priorities, **with a way to verify that it has been carried out**. Not vague platform statements - clear, unambiguous statements of what you will do, with a timetable and most of the weasel room taken out. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > I can’t see that there can be any controversy on this last paragraph. I think the controversy may be a matter of where different people perceive the Dems to be, _now_. I think this last is important. So a Democratic CwA might make sense, as a way to start establishing your own presence in the political landscape, instead of letting someone else do it for you. But I don’t mean “The Democrats are united behind the idea of affordable health care for all”, or suchlike. Political boilerplate doesn’t mean anything. Something more like “Democrats will submit a balanced budget plan within a hundred days of taking control of the House”. Something real. Or you can go on screaming “Bush lied!” for the next four years, and let someone else run the country. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/46 "2005-03-22T16:53:39Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > While I can’t say for certain that this is how Horowitz means it, “Shadow” does not necessarily mean a secretive organization. It’s also used in the sense of a “copy” - a shadow that does everything the body does. In this context, a “Shadow party” would have (whether officially declared or merely tacitly acknowledged) its own party structure and hierarchy while remaining under the umbrella of the Democratic party which has said structures of its own. The term “Shadow government” has been used sometime to refer to governments-in-exile such as those of Tibet, or a set of government positions that non-governmental organizations might assign to members in anticipation for eventually assuming governmental responsibilities, e.g., the PLO, the ANC pre-1993. I’ve more often heard the phrase “shadow government” applied to the opposition leadership in a parliamentary system like Britain’s, who are expected to have a complete cabinet picked out, an MP for every ministry and portfolio, at all times so they can be ready to move into power immediately if a political crisis should put the opposition party in power. But that, obviously, is not what Horowitz means by “Shadow Party” in this case. He (rather disengenuously) means something much more sinister. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/47 "2005-03-22T16:58:57Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > And of course it’s overly simplistic to talk about a party moving left or right, since it’s certainly possible to move one direction on some issues and another direction on other issues. Agreed. IMO, the Dems should jettison cultural-liberal issues like gay marriage – or at least relegate them to clearly secondary priority – and focus on economic-populist issues like more progressive income tax, more progressive Social Security payroll tax, universal health care, etc. That’s the only way to win the red states. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/48 "2005-03-22T18:29:59Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Agreed. IMO, the Dems should jettison cultural-liberal issues like gay marriage – or at least relegate them to clearly secondary priority – and focus on economic-populist issues like more progressive income tax, more progressive Social Security payroll tax, universal health care, etc. That’s the only way to win the red states. Right - Democrats running on a promise to raise taxes and soak the rich. _That_’ll play in Peoria. :dubious: I think the major issue for Dems is going to be the deficit. They have already blown a chance on Social Security, and I doubt if they will be able to shut the shrilly stupid part of their party on national defense. And the trouble with health care as an issue is that Bush has already done what they want to do with prescription drug coverage, and it is [list=A][li]hugely expensive, [_]unfunded, and [_]not as expensive and unfunded as the Dems want it to be.[/list] So the Dems have the choice of saying, “Bush’s bill is stupid, let’s do a lot more of it”, or “what we have been pressuring for over the last decade or so was really stupid. Instead, we can…” and then come up with some reasonable plan. [/li] IMO, the only realistic choice is the second. But it will need to include some kind of rationing. And again, it is going to be plenty hard for Democrats to present themselves are pragmatic on health care, given what they did on Social Security. I keep wondering if the Dems learned anything in 2004. You can’t beat something with nothing. Coming up with some reasonable alternative to Republican plans is fine. Simply saying “Nyet!” to everything is not. So you don’t lilke the Bush plan for Social Security? What’s your alternative? Just to deny that there is any problem until the demographics clobber you? You don’t like the Bush plan in Iraq? What’s your alternative? Pull out and let the thing go to hell just when it is showing some encouraging signs? You don’t like the deficit? (I don’t like it myself.) What’s your alternative? Tax increases that are swamped by huge increases in spending on everything under the sun? I have said it before - we need a credible alternative voice in American politics, if for no other reason than to keep the Republicans honest. But you aren’t credible if you have nothing to offer. So far, a lot of what you have to offer looks suspiciously warmed over. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/49 "2005-03-22T20:37:59Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And the Pubs didn’t become politically relevant again until they dragged the party hard right. Mmm… my timeline would go: 30s - 60s: true conservatives nearly irrelvant. Only centrists like Ike elected. '64: conservatives reemerge. Seen as extremists. Trounced. 64-80: conservatives make a slow slog back to respectability, finally taking power when they find a champion that is unabashedly committed to his principles, but full of creative new ideas and optimistic in tone. Probably what the dems need to do is nominate Howard Dean so they can have their 1964. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/50 "2005-03-22T20:56:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Agreed. IMO, the Dems should jettison cultural-liberal issues like gay marriage – or at least relegate them to clearly secondary priority – and focus on economic-populist issues like more progressive income tax, more progressive Social Security payroll tax, universal health care, etc. That’s the only way to win the red states. I’m a lifelong Democratic voter, but lately I have come to believe that the people in charge of the Democratic Party actually don’t give a frog’s fat ass about the middle and working classes. Their MO is to build their platforms around promoting behavior that, if it actually occurred in the house next door to the DNC, the DNC would move to another neighborhood. Then, when they lose elections, to blame it on the electorate’s unhealthy obsession with “values”. As far as Horowitz, what a nut. His argument seems to be the Democrats have interest groups and rich supporters. As far as I can tell, that is still legal. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/51 "2005-03-22T22:15:30Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The key phrase being, “that a majority prefers”. So far, the majority shows no sign of preferring a leftist solution to the country’s problems, and so the idea that a sharp shift left will bring in the voters is, in my view, misguided. From [here](http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2034/): > [@](#): > > Rick Perlstein, in his marvelous _Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus_, writes of a young, ambitious Brent Bozell, today a prominent conservative activist, surveying the prospects for conservatism in 1959. As opposed to fellow Republicans, “who simply assumed a bedrock majority of Americans thought just like them,” Bozell argued there was no conservative majority in America. “A conservative electorate,” he wrote after Democratic victories in the 1958 mid-term elections, “has to be created.” > > Since Bozell wrote those words, he and his allies have succeeded in building that electorate largely by making more people into conservatives. Right now, there really is a right-of-center majority in the U.S. The question for the Dems is: do we want to eke out the occasional win without changing people’s minds on anything, or do we take a stand for the sort of America we believe in, and let victory come when we’ve changed enough minds? The former route seems kinda pointless: we win, but what have we won - a mandate to carry out a kinder, gentler Republicanism? As the same article says, “In other words, when someone proves initially unreceptive to an evangelizer’s pitch, the young missionary doesn’t then say, “Well, would you be interested in converting if you didn’t _have_ to believe in Jesus?”” > [@Shodan](#): > > But if, as you say, the Democrats need to present an alternative view to succeed, they will have to jettison many of their current leaders. They all voted for the invasion, and so it is hard for them to present themselves as credibly anti-war. ??? I said that national security **wasn’t** an area where Democrats could profit from distinguishing themselves from the GOP; the best they could hope for was a draw. “So the Dems have to distinguish themselves from the GOP on domestic issues.” > [@](#): > > You mentioned the Contract with America earlier, the foundation of the Republican takeover of Congress. What would you think of a Democratic version of the same? Some clear statement of their priorities, **with a way to verify that it has been carried out**. Not vague platform statements - clear, unambiguous statements of what you will do, with a timetable and most of the weasel room taken out. Hell, I wanted this all the way back in 1998. I think it’s good for winning elections - the voters have a clear list of what you stand for - and good afterwards: should you win, there’s no question that you’ve got a mandate to do the things you ran for office in order to do. > [@](#): > > I think this last is important. So a Democratic CwA might make sense, as a way to start establishing your own presence in the political landscape, instead of letting someone else do it for you. While I didn’t say anything about this in my post, that’s definitely part of my motivation. I’m sick and tired of the Dems letting the GOP be the ones to define the Democrats. That fact alone, IMHO, explains why the Dems keep losing. > [@](#): > > But I don’t mean “The Democrats are united behind the idea of affordable health care for all”, or suchlike. Political boilerplate doesn’t mean anything. Something more like “Democrats will submit a balanced budget plan within a hundred days of taking control of the House”. Something real. I agree: it has to consist of clear policy proposals (e.g. raise the minimum wage to $6.50/hr.) that the Dems will do their damnedest to pass, and not airy-fairy principles that may or may not mean anything when it comes time to pass a bill. If the Dems give a short list of what proposals they’re willing to fight for, people will be able to figure out the Dems’ principles on their own. > [@](#): > > Or you can go on screaming “Bush lied!” for the next four years, and let someone else run the country. I personally think we should do both. Bush has lied about a host of things, big and small, and lies matter. Character counts, y’know? Pointing out that the GOP is the party of lies and influence-peddling isn’t a bad thing to do; if one can tarnish the other side’s rep, it makes it easier for people on the fence to give your side a second look. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/52 "2005-03-22T22:34:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Right - Democrats running on a promise to raise taxes and soak the rich. > > _That_’ll play in Peoria. :dubious: Sure it will - but you simply [sell it as tax reform](http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=310260), and leave budget-balancing out of it. Cut taxes on labor, raise them on earnings from capital. Any working person will understand that dividends shouldn’t be taxed at 15% when a larger fraction is being withheld from his paycheck. > [@](#): > > I think the major issue for Dems is going to be the deficit. I think tax _reform_ has to come first; once they can rearrange and simplify the tax code to ease the burden on Joe and Jane Sixpack, only then will they trust the Dems to deal with the budget deficit. > [@](#): > > They have already blown a chance on Social Security, Sez you! They’re doing just fine on Social Security - keeping the focus on GWB’s plan. (Or lack thereof - which is it, this week? :D) [quote] And the trouble with health care as an issue is that Bush has already done what they want to do with prescription drug coverage, and it is [list=A][li]hugely expensive, [_]unfunded, and [_]not as expensive and unfunded as the Dems want it to be.[/list] So the Dems have the choice of saying, “Bush’s bill is stupid, let’s do a lot more of it”, or “what we have been pressuring for over the last decade or so was really stupid. Instead, we can…” and then come up with some reasonable plan. [/li][/quote] Or they can say (which seniors already largely believe) that the prescription drug bill is a hugely expensive giveaway to the drug companies, the insurance companies, and so forth, that will do very little to help actual Medicare recipients. The Dems can run on repealing the whole mess, starting over and passing something a bit smaller where the benefits would actually go to seniors. > [@](#): > > I keep wondering if the Dems learned anything in 2004. You can’t beat something with nothing. Hell, I started a thread with that title after the 2002 midterms. > [@](#): > > Coming up with some reasonable alternative to Republican plans is fine. Simply saying “Nyet!” to everything is not. Social Security is everything?? What else have they simply said “Nyet” to? (Besides, by your standard, George W. Bush has said “Nyet!” to Social Security. Where’s _his_ proposed legislation?) And just a few months ago, y’all were deriding John Kerry for having a plan for just about everything. Seems we can’t please everyone, so we ought to please ourselves. > [@](#): > > You don’t like the Bush plan in Iraq? What’s your alternative? Pull out and let the thing go to hell just when it is showing some encouraging signs? To freely admit that GWB fucked things up so badly that nobody can fix it. Or do an even better job than the GOP of pretending that the Iraqi security forces actually can defend Iraq, so that we can pull out. > [@](#): > > You don’t like the deficit? (I don’t like it myself.) What’s your alternative? Tax increases that are swamped by huge increases in spending on everything under the sun? Why, what sorts of spending increases are you proposing? And why don’t you cut it out - it’s making it damned hard to cut the deficit! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/53 "2005-03-22T22:35:03Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Mmm… my timeline would go: > > 30s - 60s: true conservatives nearly irrelvant. Only centrists like Ike elected. > '64: conservatives reemerge. Seen as extremists. Trounced. > 64-80: conservatives make a slow slog back to respectability, finally taking power when they find a champion that is unabashedly committed to his principles, but full of creative new ideas and optimistic in tone. > > Probably what the dems need to do is nominate Howard Dean so they can have their 1964. Well, it’s not exactly parallel – but actually, the Dems already had their 1964 in 1972. And believe it or not, the kinds of Americans who voted for McGovern that year are actually likely to become a numerical majority in this decade. See _The Emerging Democratic Majority,_ by John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira (Scribner 2002) – there’s very detailed and persuasive demographic analysis in it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/54 "2005-03-23T14:03:21Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Right - Democrats running on a promise to raise taxes and soak the rich. > > > > That’ll play in Peoria. > > Sure it will - but you simply [sell it as tax reform](http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=310260), and leave budget-balancing out of it. I doubt it. Calling it something different but doing the same old doesn’t count as a bold new direction for the Dems. And I doubt very much if you can sell the same thing as always, rename it, and admit that you aren’t gonna do anything about the deficit - just increase taxes on investment, discourage savings, drive more jobs overseas, and call it “tax reform”. Because if we are going to have a deficit, I would rather have a deficit with low taxes than the same deficit (or larger) with higher taxes and more government spending. Given my druthers I would rather have no deficit at all, and Bush’s failure to address this is the greatest failure of his administration, but the Democrats have no alternative. Except to continue with tax and spend, but try to sell it under the name “tax reform”. This is what I meant by the country needing a credible alternative. The alternative as presented here is neither new, nor does it address the problem of the deficit. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Sez you! They’re doing just fine on Social Security - keeping the focus on GWB’s plan. (Or lack thereof - which is it, this week? :D) Again, this is what I mean. Democrats have no alternative plan. What they are chiefly doing is denying that there is a crisis in Social Security. So do nothing - until the whole Ponzi scheme starts to collapse - then raise taxes to the tune of eleven trillion dollars or so. Denial hardly constitutes “keeping the focus on Bush’s plan”. IMO. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Or they can say (which seniors already largely believe) that the prescription drug bill is a hugely expensive giveaway to the drug companies, the insurance companies, and so forth, that will do very little to help actual Medicare recipients. The Dems can run on repealing the whole mess, starting over and passing something a bit smaller where the benefits would actually go to seniors. I agree about repealing it. Unfortunately, the Dems have zero credibility in proposing that _anything_ they do will be smaller, or cost less. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > To freely admit that GWB fucked things up so badly that nobody can fix it. Or do an even better job than the GOP of pretending that the Iraqi security forces actually can defend Iraq, so that we can pull out. Pretending that everything is terrible in Iraq, and pulling out on a pretense, is no way even to get a draw on national security. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > And just a few months ago, y’all were deriding John Kerry for having a plan for just about everything. Seems we can’t please everyone, so we ought to please ourselves. No, we, or at least I, was deriding him for having extremely vague and rapidly oscillating plans. If you want a Democratic Contract with America, you need to be clear and specific. So far, we have had suggestions to raise the minimum wage, increase taxes on investment without affecting the deficit, and not do anything about Social Security. Anything else you want to put in your DCwA? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/55 "2005-03-23T14:58:51Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Anything else you want to put in your DCwA? I’d start with these two from the [previous contract](http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html), and hope they actually happen this time: > [@Republican Contract With America](#): > > 1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. > > 2. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators. What was that you were saying about credibility? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/56 "2005-03-23T16:18:17Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > I’d start with these two from the [previous contract](http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html), and hope they actually happen this time: > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by Republican Contract With America > > > > 1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. > > > > 2. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators. Excellent idea. Keeping in mind that the CwA promised to: > [@](#): > > Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny. Which is exactly what they did. > [@squeegee](#): > > What was that you were saying about credibility? Another excellent point. The Democrats could explain why they voted against both the articles above, which you and I agree would be good ideas for the country, how they changed their minds and came to agree with Gingrich, and make a reasonable start at establishing some kind of credibility. How about this: > [@A proposed Democratic Contract with America](#): > > 1. Look, we were idiots back in 1994. Obviously, a balanced budget/tax limitation amendment makes even more sense now than it did back in the 90s, and it was stupid and short-sighted for us to oppose it. We may not even be in the deficit mess we are now if we had not been so partisan and short-sighted. We were wrong, we are sorry, and this time we will join with Republicans to do what we should have done a decade ago. > > 2. See above. But we aren’t as stupid as we were then. Really. This time, we really mean it about the deficit, and term limits, and so forth, and we are going to cooperate with the Republicans when they have good and useful ideas. > > 3. However, we disagree with Republicans on the following… > > _Actual proposals and new ideas from the Dems_ I was hoping you all could fill in the blanks in the above. OK, so far the DCwA contains a minimum-wage hike, soak-the-rich repackaged as “tax reform”, and a couple of proposals from the Republican CwA that the Dems blocked in 1994 and support now. Anything else? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/57 "2005-03-23T17:07:39Z")
**Shodan** , some of your points are well taken. I’m googling, and not coming up with what the subsequent votes were for those two bills in '95. I suspect that it wasn’t only the Democrats that sidelined these measures, but haven’t found the vote counts yet. Cite appreciated, if you have one. For the Dems, aside from whatever would be in a DCwA, it would also be useful to point out, and try to get some explanation of, how the GOP abandoned these two measures. But that’s probably a different thread. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/58 "2005-03-23T17:45:04Z")
Sqeegee, what happened was that the House passed the Balanced Budget amendment but the Senate rejected it. The line-item veto was passed by both houses and signed into law but was ruled unconsitutional by the Supreme Court. The Congressional Term Limits amendment was rejected by the House, it got a majority (which would have been suffucuent for an ordinary bill), but not a large enough one for a Constitutional Amendment (requires 2/3). ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/59 "2005-03-23T18:40:31Z")
I was also curious why both of those measures were no longer important to the GOP. The latter would still be a tough sell, but the former would pass with simple majorities. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355/60 "2005-03-23T19:02:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I doubt it. Calling it something different but doing the same old doesn’t count as a bold new direction for the Dems. > > And I doubt very much if you can sell the same thing as always, rename it, and admit that you aren’t gonna do anything about the deficit - just increase taxes on investment, discourage savings, drive more jobs overseas, and call it “tax reform”. > > Because if we are going to have a deficit, I would rather have a deficit with low taxes than the same deficit (or larger) with higher taxes and more government spending. Given my druthers I would rather have no deficit at all, and Bush’s failure to address this is the greatest failure of his administration, but the Democrats have no alternative. Except to continue with tax and spend, but try to sell it under the name “tax reform”. Oh, I’m sorry - I thought you wanted an honest discussion for once, rather than simply painting a proposal you don’t seem to have read in a completely dishonest light. But if you want a discussion about the particulars of the tax reform proposal in question, it really ought to have a thread of its own. If you want to start one, I’ll jump in. But here’s the deal about tax reform v. tax hikes: next year, the GOP is surely going to introduce its own tax ‘reform’ plan. It will either be revenue-neutral, or it will reduce taxes still further. If the Dems introduce a plan that (regardless of whether it simplifies the existing tax structure) significantly raises taxes - the only realistic way to cut the deficit - then the GOP will say, “we want to reform taxes, they want to raise them.” You and I both know who wins that one, regardless of who’s being irresponsible and who isn’t. > [@](#): > > Again, this is what I mean. Democrats have no alternative plan. Well, you can’t have an ‘alternative’ plan unless there’s an initial plan for it to be an alternative to. GWB is trying to buffalo the Dems into proposing the initial plan. Why should they fall for that? The Dems have _plenty_ of plans out there to save Social Security. I’ve even proposed my own, here on this board. It’s just that none of them have been introduced as legislation yet, nor should they, until private accounts are definitively out of the picture. That’s the debate, as it stands right now: should we borrow trillions of dollars over the next few decades, making our deficit chasm yawn ever wider, in order to gut Social Security as we know it? Or not? Bush wants to do it, the Dems don’t. Once that debate has been settled in the negative, the Dems look like they’re plenty willing to consider legislation to solidify the finances of Social Security as it presently exists. > [@](#): > > What they are chiefly doing is denying that there is a crisis in Social Security. So do nothing - until the whole Ponzi scheme starts to collapse - then raise taxes to the tune of eleven trillion dollars or so. Speaking of credibility, eleven trillion dollars is bullshit. And there isn’t a crisis in Social Security - so says GWB. There’s the _potential_ of a long-term problem. Given that we have far more immediate problems in terms of the annual deficit/national debt situation, plus a funding problem for Medicare that makes Social Security look trivial, it makes sense to me to wait to deal with the Social Security situation until trust-fund exhaustion is roughly 25 years off. (Since that’s a moving target, that might or might not mean 2016.) > [@](#): > > I agree about repealing it. Unfortunately, the Dems have zero credibility in proposing that _anything_ they do will be smaller, or cost less. The thing is, by your biased standards, there’s no point in the Dems’ doing anything besides saying, “We’re awful - don’t vote for us,” because it wouldn’t be believed. I don’t think you’re shooting for a serious conversation here. > [@](#): > > Pretending that everything is terrible in Iraq, and pulling out on a pretense, is no way even to get a draw on national security. Actually, you’re blurring a couple of comments I made, which were proposing opposing choices. I was _seriously_ suggesting that the Dems should act as if the kids have been put to bed, and it’s time for the grown-ups to talk grown-up talk: it’s a mess over there, and if we wait to pull out until things are as calm as they were in, say, September-October 2003, then we’ll be there for a very long time, assuming we’re not forced out. Right now, we’re effectively making war on the Sunni Arab minority on behalf of the rest of the Iraqi population. We can win, sure, but only by blowing up Sunni combatants and noncombatants alike, thereby ensuring that we’re making war on the Sunni minority as a whole, and not on some fraction of it. I was also _jokingly_ suggesting that the Dems claim the Iraqi security forces are doing great, and as a result, we can reduce our presence in Iraq, and eventually leave. > [@](#): > > No, we, or at least I, was deriding him for having extremely vague and rapidly oscillating plans. The specifics were on his website, and feel free to point out the oscillations sometime. We’ve been over that ground much on this board. We can do it again some more. To quote Arlo Guthrie, “I’m not proud. Or tired.” > [@](#): > > If you want a Democratic Contract with America, you need to be clear and specific. Duuuuuuuuuh. > [@](#): > > So far, we have had suggestions to raise the minimum wage, increase taxes on investment without affecting the deficit, and not do anything about Social Security. > > Anything else you want to put in your DCwA? I can write a DCwA, and I’m sure you can slant it. And I could write a contemporary RCwA filled with stuff like “Widen the deficit, cause the dollar to crash, gut Social Security, promote homophobia, undermine the teaching of evolution, ruin our army, and torture captives to death.” And what, exactly, would that prove? We were discussing the potential of a DCwA, and the need for specificity; I was giving a couple of for-instances, just so we could come to some concord that we both meant the same thing when we were talking about being specific. What your response tells me is that you have no desire to debate in good faith. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/david-horowitz-theory-a-shadow-party-is-trying-to-pull-the-democrats-leftward/295355.md?page=4)