Looks like I should’ve taken the bet :). There are a lot of people out there who vote Democrat not because they like them, but because the Democrats are less awful than the Republicans. I’m a member of that group; and while I might occasionally slip and say “We” when referring to the Democrats, I’m not a member of the party either in fact or in spirit.
Nonetheless, politics is the art of the possible, and I see the Democratic party inflicting less harm than the Republican party in the short term; so I vote for them, for now, and I try to figure out how they can win.
On a local level, there are Democrats who I support. My favorite local Democrat has made a virtue of his twin support for environmental matters and locally-owned small businesses. I don’t think that he’d support OSHA relaxation for small businesses, but he would support preferential treatment for them from local government.
I’m part of that group too, so I guess that’s why I’m here in this thread. I voted for Kerry, not because I liked him, but because I like Bush less. Anyway, I’ll follow the rest of the discussion, but I’ve pretty much said what I wanted to. Anything more would just be repetition. Thanks for listening, and I hope the Democrats will at least consider looking to its roots for inspiration. I must admit that wandering into this sort of discussion had me quite nervous. Everyone has been very patient and accomodating.
OK. You did start your post talking about “safety nets”, so I assume that was at least part of the equation. Perhaps you had completely changed the subject by the time you got to Enron.
I suppose I must admit that I agree that the (unfortunate) perception exists.
I don’t at all think such Democrats are gone. I don’t even think such Democrats are marginalized within the party.
I assume the “you” in the following isn’t me per se, but rather some archetypal Democrat. Anyway, I have nothing to dispute what you say in the following:
Well, again, I won’t dispute the perception exists, and is even deserved in some cases. I myself perceive the Republicans (well, the Bush administration and its supporters) as being the major threat to liberty, and don’t see why anyone presently thinks the Democrats are. Perhaps more people are starting to realize this.
So as per the OP, what concrete steps can the Democrats take to fight to perception, without coming across as Pseudo-Republican toadies, or abandoning core philosophy as the Republicans have done? Some fairly decent suggestions have been made here. Let’s hope other people in a position to direct policy in the Democratic party come to similar conclusions. This is a great opportunity for the Democracts. If the party can’t take advantage and present a strong alternative beyond mere opposition to Bush, well, they (we) deserve to lose, but the country will be worse for it.
Frankly, any political body achieving hegemony is bound to start interfering with individual rights. I don’t want the Democrats to be a dominant national power any more than Republicans. A de facto one party state leads a country nowhere good. The phrase “Permanent Republican Majority” runs chills up my spine, but replacing Republican with Democrat doesn’t make me feel better.
I wonder whether the Democratic Party can really pull itself away from those heinously polarizing issues like abortion, taxes, and TWAT. I know too many people whose opinions are very much in line with Democratic Party platform, and who oppose the Iraq war, but who will never, ever vote for pro-choice candidates. I would hardly advocate leaving pro-choice off the platform, but if it is to succeed the party must appeal to moderates for whom such issues are non-trivial. How can this be done?
Let’s just say that I’d prefer to have the laws be adequately enforced, but when they’re not–and large numbers of people are suddenly in line to have their lives ruined–I’m glad that there are some programs which can prevent those people from truly hitting rock bottom.
Maybe that constitues “bailing” them out.
But, in the Enron case, there was a huge amount of deception going on, and the Enron board aggressively deceived even its own workers. I can’t stomach saying to those workers, “sorry, you should have been stock-market experts. You bought the lies of the company you worked for, and now you’re screwed. Tough luck.”
Where have you been since 1992? The Democratic Party has been under the effective domination of the Democratic Leadership Council’s POV at least since then, and that’s exactly what’s wrong with it. Are you suggesting we should nominate another Republican-Lite candidate like Clinton or Kerry? Such a president’s administration would be better than what we’ve got now, but it’s really not what America needs.
And will you please stop using the word “liberal” when you mean “libertarian”? It just don’t apply. Your historical arguments are inapposite. That’s not how the word is used, nowadays, especially in a forum where most members are from the U.S., where the word “liberal” has never meant that.
Lincoln, by the way, espoused high protective tariffs, government giveaways of land to homesteaders, the country’s first income tax, the suspension of habeas corpus rights (which led to some suspected Confederate sympathizers being tried by military tribunals, without counsel, and executed), and the most dramatic expansion America had yet seen in the federal government’s size, authority and functions – all very, very anti-libertarian. As for Voltaire, he’s generally accounted as an intellectual ancestor of Karl Marx, not of John Stuart Mill.
QUOTE=Mr. Moto]Certainly the company has had its fair share of technological achievements, especially in their new airplane. But that’s like calling NASA an entrepreneurial body
[/QUOTE]
So what? furt complained that modern Europe lacks “innovation,” and it doesn’t. So long as the innovation happens, what difference does it make whether it’s entirely a private-sector achievement?
Oh lordy no. There’ve been enough Tweedle Dee versus Tweedle Dum presidential campaigns. You really have nothing to lose. Why not put forward an impassioned lover of freedom, someone like Martin Luther King, Jr, who will stand up proudly with eyes sparkling and shout, “Let freedom ring!”
Right back atcha. Will you please stop using the word “liberal” when you mean “socialist”? The Latin word “liber” means freedom. Libertarian is a very modern term, made prominent in the 1970s because socialists appropriated the term liberal — which was one reason Ayn Rand hated libertarians. (She called them “hippies of the right”.)
He also emancipated slaves. As I said in my very first post, I am not here arguing for libertarianism.
The hell? Marx despised Voltaire and Locke and other early liberals like Smith and Say. Marx was in fact among the founders of what you keep calling liberalism.
“Liberty is, therefore, the right to do everything which does not harm others… It is a question of the liberty of man regarded as an isolated monad, withdrawn into himself… The right of property, is, therefore, the right to enjoy one’s fortunes and dispose of it as he will; without regard for other men and independently of society… It leads every man to see in other men, not the realization, but rather the limitation of his own liberty.” — Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question
But, I gotta say I totally agree. No pseudo-Republicans, please. The proudly sparkingly eyes and shouting would be terrific, but not too many can really, sincerely pull that off. Barack Obama is one, as is post-2000 election Al Gore.
When Dean tried to do it, he came across to many–though not especially so to me–as a crazed wacko.
I’d hate to think, though, that the only hope for the Democratic Party is for some once-in-a-generation charismatic idealist to emerge and lead. I do think Barack Obama could do, but I doubt 2008 would be the right time for him.
You are aware, I hope, that not only did King collaborate with Communists as the segregationists accused him of doing, but by the end of his life he was trying to start a trans-racial “poor people’s movement” that, had it gotten off the ground, would have demanded the Johnson Administration really live up to the promises of its “War on Poverty.” None of which has anything to do with “freedom” as you seem to be using the term.
Nevertheless, Bertrand Russell places both Voltaire and Marx in the “rationalist” current of modern European social philosophy, the one that led to the 20th Century Communists; while he places Rousseau and Nietzsche in the “romantic” current that led to the Fascists and Nazis. (Mill belonging to a British current largely separate from both.) See A History of Western Philosophy,http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671201581/103-1039685-4103060?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance.
Certainly King was never a Communist, and Hoover made entirely too much of his supposed Communist associations – but there was something there. At least two of his top SCLC staffers (Stanley Levison and Jack O’Dell) were former Communist Party members. See http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/mlking.asp
The point is, King might of spoken of “freedom” but his public career was really about equality. Thus, not a good inspiration of the kind Liberal seems to be touting for the Democratic Party. No more than Lincoln was. (Lincoln emancipated the slaves, true – but to the end of his life he remained to committed to “colonization,” i.e., the deportation of all blacks from the U.S., to some new homeland in Africa, Latin America or the Caribbean, as soon as emancipation had been achieved. See What Lincoln Believed: The Values and Convictions of America’s Greatest President, by Michael Lind – http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385507399/qid=1129504566/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-3443962-3996703?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.)
Sure. I did not say that Europe’s model completely ruled out enteprenuerism and/or innovation; I only said there was “markedly less” of both in the EU, and I would stand by that.
For the fact that “many people” are unsure if Europe’s economic system is sustainable? How about Xtisme, a few posts after mine?
I’ve no wish to hijack this thread; the EU’s economic policies been discussed many times on the boards; I’ll wager you’ve taken part in those discussions. Are you asking for cites just to be obstinate?
No. Many Dopers consider Europe’s economic and social systems suboptimal, but I’ve never known anyone, before, to suggest they’re “not sustainable” – in this forum or anywhere else. That’s new to me and I’d like cites.
Are you asking for cites from ‘experts’ who believe that some nations in Europe may not have economies that are sustainable in the long run due to their heavy socialist programs (as well as other factors such as an aging population)? Or are you asking Furt to cite other dopers who believe that some European nations may not have sustainable economies?
Either way you are going to be getting an opinion so I’m unsure what the point would be since obviously this isn’t an opinion you share…correct? No one has a magic time machine after all, so no one knows the future…predictions are just that. People tend to make predictions based on their own world view on this kind of thing.
Myself, I’m unsure (putting me in Furts ‘many people’ category) about nations like France and how sustainable their economies are in the long term without radical changes. I base that on looking at France’s potental economic capabilities, current economic growth, coupled with France’s social programs and aging populaion (and low population growth rate)…especially its various work programs (i.e. 35 hr work week, 3+ weeks of paid vacation, etc) retirement and health care. For the life of me I don’t see how they CAN continue down that path indefinitely BG…eventually something has to give (according to my own world view).
To get back from the highjack - did you read the Third Way document that was cited? It makes the point that simply rousing Democrats will never work. Kerry won a higher percentage of Democrats and liberals than ever before recorded, and he still lost. As long as liberals are outnumbered 3-2 by self-defined conservatives, pushing the Democratic platform to the left is only going to bring more Republican voters to the polls than it does Democratic ones.
Any sort of “Contract With America” that the Democrats put forward is going to have to focus on mainstream and moderate programs. Simply re-wording liberal ideals is not going to suddenly turn moderates into liberals.
I’m glad someone took the time to read or at least peruse that cite! The Repulicans have dominated the WH for quite some time now, with two notable exceptions: Carter after Nixon/Ford (shocker!) and Clinton, due to a large extent to the kind of thinking that went into that report. Bush’s blunders may offer another Nixon-like chance for the Dems, but that’s not a lock. Better to go the Clinton route, if you ask me.
I’ve read bits of it, but I’ve not read the full thing yet. I’ll try to get to it; it definitely looks interesting.
(And for what it’s worth, I’m reading this thread avidly, although not participating as much; I feel I’ve got a good amount to learn from folks’ posts, and appreciate the discussion)
