I disagree that this needs to be part of the Contract. The Contract ought to portray Democratic strengths, not open up the thorniest issues. Those issues can be dealt with in question-and-answer sessions, to ameliorate the fears of those who fear high tax rates; but I honestly think you’re overestimating the political memory of most folks in this country. A strong message of what we want is necessary; a defensive message of what we’re not anymore is starting off on the wrong foot.
Daniel
As long as you keep thing of tax policy as one of your weeknesses, it will continue to be such.
thinking
That’s a catchy phrase, and it sounds very scary, but it is, like most catchy phrases, simply not true. No one will deny that money helps a candidate, but if you have a problem with free speech, that’s a bitch. Are you saying that we have to destroy our freedom in order to save it?
I definitely agree. Its historically been an area of uncertainty for me with respect to the Democrat party…especially the liberal wing. I seriously doubt that I’m alone in this, or that its only ‘conservatives’ who are leery of Liberal Democrats with access to the governments checkbook.
When I start seeing programs being lined up such as those discussed by Pochacco and others I start thinking ‘whats all this stuff going to cost us…and how exactly are the liberals going to pay for them?’. Its my first thought in fact. I didn’t used to have the same knee jerk reaction to Republicans (at least not from a fiscal perspective)…before Bush. Now whenever Bush starts talking about this program or that one I have exactly the same reaction (in fact I think, Iraq aside, Bush has been practically the role model for a liberal democrat 
). The problem is, this doesn’t make me automatically want to turn to the liberals/Democrats because of their past track record…it makes me simply not trust either side from a fiscal perspective.
If you REALLY want to make inroads into the center you need to address this issue, Left Hand of Dorkness (again, think Clinton second term). It might not be fair but past perception certainly is a factor when judging this kind of thing. You need to lay out (realistically and convincingly) exactly what budgetary changes are going to take place, exactly what new taxes you are proposing…and then stick to them (i.e. don’t come back and ask for more because you weren’t realistic in your original expectations). If you are going to have to increase taxes you need to be up front about it and not try and beat around the bush (which is kind of what the Dems have been doing now for years…without much success obviously). If you are planning on cutting some programs (like defense I assume) to give more money to the new programs you are proposing then you need to be up front about that. The bottom line is you need to be honest with the voters on how you guys are going to make all these programs actually work. Give us details, not pie in the sky sound bites. Sure, not every American is going to actually look over those details…but you’d be surprised at how many folks actually DO take an interest in this kind of thing, especially when it effects their taxes.
-XT
Hey now, don’t you be dumping your trash in my yard!
Again, I think that answers to these questions belong in a FAQ, not in the primary document. Bush got elected and re-elected on a very expensive platform, not on a platform of “here’s how we’re going to pay for it.” When he was talking about massive tax cuts in 2000, he didn’t emphasize details of what programs he was going to cut in order to achieve those tax cuts. We Democrats would have loved for him to do so. But he didn’t.
I understand that you think it’s important, but Democrats simply aren’t going to emphasize the revenue they’ll have to raise in order to enact necessary programs like improving education. I think that information should be available, but it’s not going to be emphasized.
As an aside, I am fascinated that a thread on what Democrats should do to be most successful is being dominated by economic libertarians and Republicans. Why is that, do you think?
Daniel
William Galston and Elaine Kamarck (of Bill Clinton fame) just released a report called The Politics of Polarization (Wanring: PDF) which describes the current political climate in this country, points out some myths that have undermined the Democratic strategy of late, and outlines their vision of how the Democrats can regain power. You can read a summary here. This is DLC stuff, so if you want the party to move left, you will probably be disapointed.
Because economic libertarians are sick of Bush and his policies and would nothing more for the Democrats to be a counterbalance. But a leftist economic program will not work in this country. The Republicans simply cannot be considered the party of fiscal responsibility, but the Democrats aren’t cashing in on that. Partly beacuse they seem to be too beholden to their leftwing base.
As a moderate who votes for both parties, here are a few ideas/issues I haven’t seen here or ones I have a different take on:
Immigration - we want to be the land of opportunity, and a refuge for as many as we can, but illegal immigration is a big problem for the Deomcrats IMHO. I hear talk among the watercoolers I frequent about outrage over IA getting driver’s licences, swamping medical clinics, etc. But people recognize that the Immigrants fill a vital need and are people trying to make a better life for themselves and their families.
The Democratic party will, within 6 months, institute a guest worker program which will allow up to 3 million immigrants to enter into this country up to 6 months at a time, renewable as long as the workers do not get significant criminal records while they are here and as long as they remain gainfully employed full time at least 5 of the previous 6 months. These workers will be allowed to apply for US citizenship after 5 years. At the same time the party will increase/adequately fund border patrols and actively prosecute (with increased penalties, including triple damages for any economic gain) any employer who knowingly or reasonably should know they are employing undocumented workers. Undocumented immigrants are prohibited from receiving aide (state or federal) for anything other than medical and educational (but not post secondary) education. The asylum program will be expanded or amended to allow asylum for individuals who can show cultural persecution in their homeland (such as female circumcision).
Drug use Drugs are a problem that drive poverty and social problems, but the current system is a failure. Marijuana should be allowed to be perscribed by a physician if the proponderance of peer reviewed research shows it is effective to assist the ill, but must be administered under a doctors care in a clinical setting. The penalties for drug trafficing or manufacturing should be maintained (or increased in a few cases), but for use or possession, the Gov’t should fund behavior-based clinical treatment programs, in-patient for up to a year, with up to 3 yearts of outpatient treatment. I don’t care if this causes a deficit, the reward is too great, and the risk is too high.
Religion I know that some on this board see religion as the opiate of the masses, but that view seems to be the minority in this country. I think the Dems should embrace faith based assistance so long as there is oversight to make sure that programs funded or partnered are client based and not recrutement based, and are open to all equally. A democratic president’s advisors should include a faith laison to see how these powerful organizations can be used with the government for the common good and to lessen religious discrimination.
College The Gov’t needs to give big tax credits to parents and their kids entering college. Also, a task force should be created to impliment ways to stop tuition from rising 3-4 times the rate of inflation - maybe penalizing schools that increase faster than Cost of Living by cutting government sponsored research grants or tax breaks. Create a stronger GI bill program for high school kids who volunteer their time to approved programs.
Just a few ideas - workable?
hehe…well, you know I’m mostly kidding there. Although you have to understand that from my perspective the difference between Bush and, say, Kerry are pretty small…policy wise they may be different but in actual dollars spent I think they are very similar. Anyway, sorry for the wise crack…just trying to be funny. 
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree then. I think its not only important but vital to emphasize this point…to clear the air of past experiences. It wouldn’t be as important if you ran a moderate like Clinton was in his second term…but if you run another Kerry it will be crucial. IMO of course.
Well, I could think of several reasons. The biggest one is that I think most of the hard core Dems are tired of this subject atm. The other one is that most of the ‘libertarians and Republicans’ in this thread are mainly unaligned with either political party and are indulging in some wishful thinking. I WISH the Dems would come more into line with my fiscal ideals because I’d much rather vote for them than for the Republicans atm. This has to do with the disturbing direction the Republicans seem to be taking (and have been for some time) with their quasi-religious agenda. Its really why I dropped the Republicans around Bush I’s term. I would love to vote Democrat…if they ever run on a platform that I could live with, if they were up front and honest with showing real world solutions to their pie in the sky programs. After all, I DID vote for Clinton in his second term, so its not like I’m opposed to voting Democrat. I haven’t voted Republican since Reagan and most likely won’t vote for them again unless they completely marginalize their religious wing and get back to some fiscal responsibility.
-XT
Rereading I see I had major grammatical issues - please be kind.
A line which makes me realize this discussion may be pointless. *The people who are already reliable Democrats are exactly the ones you should NOT be listening to; you need to reach people who vote for the other guys. *Listening to familair voices is what causes the probklem. So long as you see potential customers as the enemy, you’re not getting anywhere.
Some of us are less-than-thrilled with the current GOP, and would like to have a viable alternative. If you’d nominated Lieberman in 2004, I’d have pulled that lever. If you nominate a Bill Richardson or a Harold Ford in the future, I might do it then.
If you nominate the Reeder-approved candidate your base wants, you will never, ever get it. Although, frankly, I don’t think your party wants my vote; which should tell you something right there.
One more -
Elections We will legislate all the proposals from the recent Carter-Baker report - even the ID requirement. We will create an independant, non-partisan board to create election districts based on nuetral, objective criteria without regard to party, race, religion, etc. - end Gerrymandering now.
Elections and districting are handled at the state level. I think you may be treading on constitutional amendment territory here. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but just be aware of what it takes.
True, I thought of that, but I would hope the “new contract” might embrace or be adopted by the state parties. You’re right, though, an Amendment might be better.
I think this issue would play well with the center and certainly would be well received by the left. I don’t know how crucial people would find this issue so I wouldn’t overly emphasize it, but as part of a new contract I don’t think it would hurt the Dems to do something like this.
Hm. I’m not sure how this would play to be honest. Being a libertarian myself (at least partially) I’m of course in favor of relaxing restrictions on drug use, especially for medical use of marijuana. I certainly think that our law enforcement would be better focused on other things. But I also realize that my stance on this isn’t the majority stance in this country so I’m thinking that the Dems might want to back off of this subject for the time being.
Well, I’m not communist (‘opiate of the masses’ indeed ), but I disagree with this…this really is attempting to be Republican Lite. I think that many Dems make the mistake of being perceived as hostile to religion, but I also think that there should be a clearly defined separation between religion and the state. ‘Faith laison’ sounds scary to me…like something the Republicans would undertake.
I think like all of your suggestions that this one may have merrit, but that its just not a core issue to people. Oh, I think that you could include several of these ideas into a new contract…but I wouldn’t make any of these my central theme. I also would stay away from attempting to regulate tuition from a federal level…or regulate it at all.
-XT
Because, as most of them have said, they’re sick of the way the Bush cabal is running the Repub party, so they hope the Dems will pick up their ideas so they’ll have someone they can vote for.
Just some brainstorming:
I think the idea upthread about enforcing a standard of ethics on congressional members is a winner. Indictment puts you off the committees or leadership until the case is settled. Conviction bars you entirely forever. Taking bribes? Take a hike!
A balanced budget amendment is also a winner, I think. ** Trim the Fat, Vote Democrat!**
Some form of health care. We need to inspire the competitive spirit of Americans versus other countries. What’s Wealth Without Health?
An emphasis on guns being legal in the hands of responsible, mature Americans with harsher penalties for using them in a crime is also a winner. Guns are for Grownups!
Maybe something to appeal to younger, hipper, more high-tech voters. Putting Spammers in the Slammer
An overhaul of the way disaster management happens. No More Katrinas
Increases in sex eduction, access to birth control, plus pushing vaccination, pre-natal care, programs for stopping drug use in pregnant women, etc. Every Child a Treasure
Education and encouragement of discussion about end of life issues. Death With Dignity
$.50 increase in the minimum wage. No Job Left Behind
John and I disagree on quite much and have butted heads quite often, but I heartily agree with this observation of his. Heck, this is my only foray in my whole history here into formulating thoughts and engaging a discussion on mainstream practical application statist politics, rather than examining political ethics theories. Despite that my attempt could hardly be a more resounding dud, I have reached the point of near desperation, and wanted to contribute here. But sometimes it feels like a game of dodgeball between the two duopoly parties, with people like me in the middle. I wish Democrats would drop the welfare mantra (higher minimum wages and all that) and seize the opportunity to take over what the Republicans have abandoned — the innate desire of Americans to enjoy freedom. I think that half the party is stuck in the 1930s, and the rest in the 1960s. There’s no more Great Depression. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society died in a helicopter in Saigon. Giving some dumbass slacker working at McDonalds an extra 50 cents an hour at the expense of higher prices for everyone and higher burdens on small businesses is not how to reach the hearts of middle America, in my opinion.
I thought your ideas were interesting and I enjoyed reading them.
But this? Someone’s a dumbass slacker if the work at McDonalds? If that sentiment reaches the hearts of middle America, it just means that middle America has shriveled little prunes in there.
You know, if everyone becomes brilliant and non-slacking, prices at McDonalds will rise, too, so that they could find people to work there.