Agreed, however I don’t think it’s something the Democrats want to talk about publically. Being seen as ‘soft’ on defense means that talking about cutting even just fat and stupid programs in defense easily translates into voters’ minds as Democrats wanting to cut essential military programs; just as Republicans talking about cutting the fat or stupid programs out of anti-poverty measures translates into voters’ minds as Republicans hoping that the poor just starve to death and stop bothering us.
In The Nation, 10/24/05, Robert Borosage notes that Nancy Pelosi is already working on a Dem version of the CWA, and he suggests it should include the following – http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051024/borosage:
IMO the above would make an excellent platform on which to govern – but would it be one that could win an election?
This thing is wrong in every possible way.
First of all, look at the original Contract with America. It is remarkable for its lack of rancor. It makes no snide remarks about the Democratic Party or its politicians - indeed, it never mentions them at all. It alludes to some corruption in the control of Congress, but this corruption did in fact exist at the time, and was an issue. Most Democrats in this debate would concede that.
The Borosage document, by contrast, doesn’t go out of its way to win over people who may have voted Republican in the past, as the Contract with America did with Democrats. It insults Republican voters and their values, instead of reaching out to them. It thus fails as a party building document.
It fails, too, as a policy guide. The Contract with America was passed by the House, and much of it became law and House procedure. This thing reads, again, like a party platform. BrainGlutton noted this resemblance as well. And party platforms are good for only one thing - keeping your base satisfied every four years. They don’t win over voters, don’t win elections, and aren’t a guide to governing.
It is too general. Many of its promises are too far out for voters to care about, or to trust. And it proposes lots of new spending and taxes - which is an image the Democrats ought to be living down.
This thing is an unmitigated disaster. That it came from the pages of the Nation is, frankly, no surprise.
I have no idea exactly where it is that you set the bar for wealth sufficient to qualify as fair game for armed thugs to pillage, but I wager that it is somewhere above your own.
May we presume, then, that you invite all who are poorer than you to come take whatever they feel they are owed?
The law of the land says that people who smoke pot are criminals. It seems to me to be an exceedingly weak hook upon which to hang an ethic.
The difference between rent and extortion is that one is voluntary.
Well, a couple of things here. No offense, but the thing is I don’t give a shit what non-American’s think or don’t think of our responsibilities. If AMERICAN’S think we have global responsibilities (and that we have vital national interests outside our borders), then we do…simple as that. If some guy in France disagree’s, well, thats his right. I’m sure he doesn’t give two shits as far as my opinion goes as to whether or not France has global responsibilities either…non?
Secondly, I’d say by proxy a hell of a lot of folks have by default decided America has global responsibilities…mainly in your vaunted Europe. What? Well, see, if they DIDN’T think so then they wouldn’t have neglected their own defence since the Russians folded their hand and left it to the US to tote that bail for so long (yeah, I know…then how could they have all those wonderful social programs if they had to put money in defense, right? Tough cookies). There are a LOT of countries that neglect their defense, or make only a token effort to maintain thats effective as more than a local defense force because they know the US is doing the heavy lifting for them on that score. Now that they don’t like what the US is doing maybe they will get off their ass and spend some of their own money. In the meantime I’d say its pretty much that they pretty much defaulted ‘global responsibility’ to the US…probably through sheer apathy.
Lastly, there are still a lot of folks out there in the wide world that, despite Iraq, look to the US for everything from aid relief in the event of disasters (what? You figured ‘global responsibility’ only meant guns and tanks?) to protection from agression (take our love/hate relationship with South Korea for instance).
So to answer your question…yeah, I think there are plenty of folks out there in The World™ who would agree that the US has ‘global responsibilities’. There are a lot of folks who MADE the US have ‘global responsibilities’ out there in the wide world who are probably not happy with that fact now (or more likely who never really thought through the implications, thinking they would always have the US on a leash). And in the end, it makes no difference if there is NO one out there who thinks the US has or doesn’t have global responsibilities…because WE know we do BG.
-XT
So, Lib, is there any sort of middle ground between a libertarian paradise where everything is voluntary and everybody helps each other just because they’re decent and an oppressive uberstate where armed thugs extort innocent people and the masses loot and pillage the property of the rich?
Because, you know, in all the time I’ve lived in the US, with all the taxes I’ve paid, I’ve never felt like some helpless victim of a tyrannical goverment
The large majority. If we confine the discussion to people of influence around the world, 100%.
They may differ on what those responsibilities are (they might say, for instance, that as the world’s leading economy we have to embrace Kyoto), but no serious person can say that the US doesn’t bear special responsibilities.
Can you imagine the outcry if we said we wanted to cut our UN budget contribution down to whatever the average is? If the next time there was an earthquake or tsunami we declined to get involved? Don’t be absurd.
This would be the second wager you’d lose in this thread. Frankly, if someone who was starving stole my CD player from my car because there was no other plausible way for them to feed themselves, I’d shrug my shoulders and move on with life.
I agree: I said they may be successful. I thought of bolding the word “may” the first time around; I’m not sure why I decided against it. That word was meant to be shorthand for what you said above.
I know this is not a popular position, and so one of my compromises as a pinko is not saying this should be something the Democrats should run on, but I don’t think we have any unilateral global responsibilities. We should defend our borders, and we should offer to contribute a proportional military force to those UN ventures that we find acceptable, but no, we don’t have any global “responsibilities.” (I put it in quotes because “responsbilities” really seems to be linked to “rights,” and it’s the “rights” to which I really object). I’d like to cut our military down so that the Department of Defense is a Department of Defense.
I think that with some retooling, the Nation’s suggestions could work. Take out the references to the current Administration, add in some specific programs, and you’ve got a good start. Remember, I’m of the opinion that a boldly stated vision will win a lot of votes that are otherwise going to the Republicans. When folks say, “At least the Republicans stand for something,” I take them at their word. Democrats who don’t stand for their principles are not going to win.
Daniel
Hey, I agree with that. Does that make me a pinko too? 
Brain Glutton, I have a question for you, and I really, really don’t mean this in a “love America or get out” way at all. Given your desire for a socialist government, and accepting the fact that you will never, ever, ever get the electorate of the United States to elect a president and congress who embrace your philosophy of turning the U.S. into France (you do accept this, don’t you?), have you ever considered emigrating to a country that’s run more along the lines you like? You do have the freedom to leave, wouldn’t you be happier where the type of government you espouse is the norm, rather than staying here and getting frustrated as the majority of the population rejects out of hand what you honestly believe is the best way? I’m just asking because if it was me, I think I’d leave, and one of the great things about living in a free country is that I could.
Who gets to define “better”? :dubious:
Well, you’d probably be surprised, but I actually wish we could cut our miltary too so that it was essentially just a defense force…and I’d like the US to pull back from being the police/military force for the world. But you know, in order for us to do so our ‘allies’ would need to pick up some of the frickin slack. And to be honest, or great European allies haven’t been holding up their end of the deal. SOMEONE has to have an effective military that can actually be used beyond its own borders. I would love it if that ‘someone’ was the EU (the UN will never be in a position militarily to do basically anything…give up on that idea). This country could REALLY be something with half or less of its current anual military budget.
Until that time though the US is stuck with it. Maybe this Iraq adventure will have a silver lining though and the Euro’s will finally get their head out and start taking some responsibility of their own instead of bitching about the US while basically relying on us to carry most of the water.
At any rate, I don’t think cutting the military budget at this time and with the current international situation would be a winning play for the Dems (which is what this thread is about). For one thing, what would you cut? There really isn’t all that much fat…and even if there were a LOT of fat I don’t think the Dems should be seens as ‘weak on defense’…not anymore that they are already perceived to be (note the use of perceived).
You could probably score some major points for team play to say you will work with Europe and our allies to ensure tighter coordination and cooperation (and put that in your new deal contract) in the future (etc etc) though…but I would avoid any language that says the US is ready to put the leash back on for Europe or the UN. That won’t play too well except with the faithful.
-XT
No, since what I declare ownership of after taxation does not effectively make them my slaves. Feudal Britain was different.
Then we disagree on the particular law under discussion, ie. whether witholding taxes should be illegal.
Lucky we both live in countries where witholding taxes is theft, since otherwise we could extort the poor into becoming our slaves if we declared monopolistic use of that which they depended upon for their very survival.
Yes, I think so. How about a libertarian land of struggle and opportunity where bullying is put down by force and fraud is undermined by deception, and where people don’t know whether they’ll get help from others or not nor the specific outcomes of ethical praxes. That’d be my pick.
Actually, I do win this wager. I don’t know how you could have set the bar any lower. I believe you trivialize the plight of starving people (nevermind how you knew that your missing gadget was taken by a starving man) and inflate your own importance when you imagine that shrugging off your CD player constitutes some act of charity that has improved the lot of the thief and caused nary a ripple in your daily routine. Put the bar up higher, where the thief is not starving, but is well fed. And put in his hand a gun that he aims at your wife’s head as he demands her purse. Hell, even let him announce that he is going to use the loot to help the poor. Having been mugged twice myself, I am confident that once he is gone, no matter what his alleged motive, you will be dizzy from adreneline, your heart will be racing, your life will be seriously disrupted, and you will be extremely pissed — given your survival, that is. There are an awful lot of people more poor than you. And though you might be proud to part with a trinket here and there to help them out, you will draw the line at what you yourself need to survive. And you will insist on defining what that is.
For me, that is the second reason that taxes are an abomination. Nevermind whether they are theft, what’s far more insidious is that they relieve for social welfarists the burden of helping the poor. The leaders, after all, are benevolent, and will use the funds wisely, implementing mysteriously wise plans. And so the poor are out of sight and mind, benefiting from a portion of what they’ve paid their governers. I can go about their business guilt free, knowing that they owe the poor nothing.
We do indeed. But why this is becoming yet another multi-poster red herring assault on my personal philosophy is unclear. I stipulated early on that I am willing to concede certain premises in order to participate in the discussion. One such is that taxes are a given. From my first post in the thread:
“Don’t worry, I’m not going to go all libertarian on you — I’m not going to recommend eliminating taxes or anything like that.”
All I’m saying here, pertinent to this topic, is that Democrats in America would profit from dialing it back a notch or two with the social welfare crap. Like I said before, this ain’t France. Bill Clinton, with his welfare reforms, understood this. Hillary Clinton, with her call to take things from people, does not.
Well then, we must all rigorously examine those plans, and disagree if we think them unwise, such as the abominable plan of abolishing taxes.
Or, put another way, with her call to limit plutocratic tyranny.
My whole point is that she needs to learn to put it another way. A merchant with her comprehension would put up a sign saying, “50% off, but I’m still making a killing!”
Given that this constitutes one massive ad hominem, I shouldn’t have responded to it in the first place, and I’ll let this stand as my last word on the subject, tempting though it may be to refute your post.
Daniel
No problem. I didn’t take it as an ad hominem. A distraction, certainly. But I wasn’t personally insulted.