A lecture on political irrelevance from the resident Libertarian? Boy, that stings, Lib. :rolleyes:
Are you available for 2008, Rubystreak?
It wasn’t a lecture on political irrelevance. It was a lecture on vigilance. You are like the old powder-wigged fop, sitting on his shaded porch in the noonday sun, sipping hot tea, barking orders at his servants, and complaining about the fly population while a battle for liberty rages in a nearby field.
I’m a deep believer in reducing the scope and cost of governemnet. So why doesn’t the DNC bow to the inevitable and declare a platform like this:
-Legalize drugs. All drug users to obtain opiates by prescription (cost of maintaining a heroin addict less than $5.00/week)NO MORE “war on Drugs”-savings: at least $56 billion/year
-REduce governemnt expenditures by 5%/year-pay off nation debt in 25 years!
-Withdraw US forces from Germany, Korea, Japan, and Spain. Savindgs ? $100 billion/year
-Scrap SSBN submarines, merge USMC with Army, merge Airforce with Army: save > $120 billion (one time)
-Reinstate “Bracero” mexican worker program in USA. Halt automatic citizenship for children of illegal aliens.
-Move UN headquarters to Basel, Switzerland (where it belongs).
-Tax credit of $1000 for purchase of cars getting > 30 MPG; tax increase of $10,000 for vehicles getting less than 20 MPG.
'TORT ReFORM: cap “pain and suffering” damage awards. US government to indemnify physicians.
-Tax on lawyers, equal to 80% of income over $120,000/year
-National campaign to replace fossil fuel power stations with new, fluidized bed nuclear plants.
I like your thinking Ralph, but one minor nitpick:
The different branches have uniquely different missions that separate branches aren’t such a bad idea. But there’s more than enough “duplication” of effort administratively to consolidate services and save money (does the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines really need separate pay centers? Record centers?).
Secretary of defense McNamara was onto something when he tried to get the military branches to wear the same type of uniforms, the same type of boots, have the same weapons, etc. It seems that the branches are once again splintering into separate basic equipment needs.
Congress needs to put the Smack Fu upside the heads of the various branches to get on the same sheet of music on some basic issues.
I also don’t know about scrapping the boomers; that’s one helluva punch to take out of the arsenal. Granted, the world strategic situation seems to mitigate their need (and basic human decency seems to mitigate against their use), but I would be uneasy about scrapping boomers (btw, I’m ex-Army, so I have no dog in that fight).
I think I would rather eliminate land-based strategic launch systems.
Lib, you schmuck, continuing the fight is exactly what I’m advocating here. Hysterical shrieking about the falling sky won’t get anyone anywhere.
We each make our choices. Every cause needs a Paul Revere.
You’re exactly wrong here. The Democrats love to think of themselves as the representatives of the working and middle classes, but somewhere they forgot that those classes are still overwhelmingly white. When Howard Dean said he wanted the votes of the working-class white Southerners with pickups and Confederate flag stickers, what did every single other Democratic candidate say? They couldn’t climb over each other fast enough to start beating him up. They might as well have just said: “If you’re a Southern white, give your filthy votes to Bush, because we don’t want them.”
No offense, but minty gave some fairly decent reasons for those losses, and while many people were optomistic, most analysts said from the start that all the races this year were going to be tough for Demcrats. You might disagree, but it’s hardly head in ass territory.
The extent to which the actual issues are emphasized as the reason for the outcome is, I believe, overblown. Republicans did a lot of things right, on the ground and otherwise, in this campaign, that had nothing to do with issues per se, but were just as important to their win.
Extank said:
Let me tell you about the Canadian experience with unification: It was a disaster. I don’t know if this is true in the American military, but in Canada, the source of much of the motivation in the military is inter-service rivalry. A good-natured rivalry to be sure, but it’s very important. I was of the opinion that this is universal among soldiers everywhere.
When we forced all our branches to unify and wear the same uniform, morale plummeted. Eventually, that policy was reversed.
I remember sitting in the ‘snakepit’ (enlisted man’s bar) at CFB Edmonton when the first guy walked in with his new aircrew blues. You should have heard the cheers in the place.
You have a remarkable talent for combining senetences into arguments that don’t mean much. It’s sort of like this:
I disagree that Thatcher liked Reagan. Britain has a long history of Prime Ministers with a wide range of political leanings. Even Winston Churchill could not convince his electorate that he was the best man for the job. The British government’s fiscal year goes from April 6 to April 5.
Sam:
I agree that total unification goes too far, but take the Air Force for instance. They have people who operate forward-deployed and tactically (Forward Air Controllers and ParaRescue come readily to mind). Why do those guys need totally camuflage fatigues and boots than their Army counterparts?
Why must the Air Force spend millions developing a unique camouflage pattern and combat boot, and then millions more equipping the Air Force with them, when proven and adequate clothing has already been developed and stocked by two other branches?
Leaving the dress uniforms different is fine; I agree that it is essential to building esprit de corps to have some distinctions and variations between the services. But not at the cost of an over-inflated defense budget.
The real sad matter is that the few tens of millions saved this way is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall military budget. But you know the saying: A hundred million here, a hundred million there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
minty green, the only person who’s shrill and hysterical here is you. I have practical criticism for the Dems that you feel the need to label as panic. It’s not. It’s just my opinion and I think I’m right. Feel free to disagree, but please stop mischaracterizing me.
No, I’m not. The environmentalists, the African-Americans, the gays, the urban poor (and most urbanites in general), they all vote Democrat. It’s nothing but the truth. Please cite a source to back up your assertion that I’m wrong.
Excuse me, when did I ever say the working and middle class? I said the urban poor. Just look at the precints, even in the red states, and you’ll see that the cities went blue. So before you have an argument with a straw man, check to see if you’re replying to what I actually said, or if you’re just arguing with yourself.
You titled this thread “Time for a change, Dems”. The constituencies you mentioned already vote Democratic, as you acknowledged. You recommend that the Democrats focus more of their attention and energy on these groups that already vote for them, even if it means alienating the working and middle class, who didn’t vote for them this time around. The only “change” would be that the Democrats would lose worse next time. If you don’t care about winning elections, start your own party. Then you won’t have to compromise, nor be bothered with the hassle of actually winning an election.
Also, how do you define “working class” so as not to include the “urban poor”? You don’t necessarily have to have a job in order to be working class.
That’s rather pessimistic. Don’t you think the Kerry campaign already tried their damnedest to appeal to those voters, to no avail? They’re not alienated by the Dems, they are convinced of the superiority of the Republicans right now. I think those voters will follow the strongest message with the most effective delivery, and the Dems could get those votes if they changed their strategy. I’ll point to Clinton’s two terms as proof-- those states CAN go blue with the right combo of message and candidate. The Dems’ mistake is turning away from the Clinton formula and letting the 'Pubs set the agenda, but they can’t defeat the 'Pubs on those terms.
Say what you want, but the “appeal to your base” strategy worked for the Republicans like gangbusters. They spoke to their loyal core, the righty fundamentalist Christian base, using the religion lever so strongly and skillfully that otherwise apathetic, middle of the road moderate Christian voters came out in droves. They also used fear, which works very well on uninformed voters (before you call me an elitist, read this, if you haven’t already). Notice the red states were all in the South and Midwest, which haven’t been threatened by serious terrorism, while the East and West Coasts, both of which actually have been attacked or have reason to fear an attack, went blue. Also, the more urban areas tend to have more exposure to minorities, which includes gays, against whom the Republican fear is also directed. These voting patterns are purely a function of urban economics and the fear factor’s effect on the uninformed, IMO.
I believe that the core constituents of the Democratic party have been alienated and demoralized by the Dems’ bland, ineffectual appeal to the center, which clearly is not working for them. As a result, the faithful Democratic demographics don’t vote in the numbers they should, while the 'Pubs can really get out the vote. I don’t think the Dems can beat the 'Pubs in swaying those moderate voters UNLESS they find someone who can do what George Bush & Co. do: come out with a strong message that would energize and motivate the neglected lefty voter base I’ve listed.
I’d like to see the Dems turn the ‘Pubs’ religious message around on them, using a truly Christian value system while also showing a healthy respect for individual rights and the Constitution (that’s what’s truly patriotic). Add compassion for the poor, for nature, for the hardships of paying for college, for oppressed minorities including gays, and for working your ass off for crappy wages in cities that are falling apart, to a truly charismatic, Everyman type candidate-- that combination would get out the loyal left vote in record numbers and would ripple outward to the elusive moderate undecided (who I think are easily swayed by effectively employed flash and rhetoric). IOW, use the highly successful game plan of the 'Pubs in the other direction.
Does the above sound like hysterical panicked whining to you? It sounds like a prescription for effective change to me. If it failed, it couldn’t fail worse than losing so many seats in Congress or 11 states passing anti-gay legislation. However, if executed with skill and passion, it would work, IMO.
The working class includes the urban poor, but the urban poor is not the sum of the working class. I am speaking specifically of urban, esp. poor, voters as the component of the working class which consistently tends to vote Democratic. I also did not say “the working poor” either, because in my little fantasy game plan, the Dems would target the urban poor specifically. Do you see what I’m getting at here? Appeal directly to your most loyal backers and the votes will follow.
You just identified the problem yourself. The Republicans can appeal to their base and get the votes of white moderates as a bonus. If the Democrats appeal to their base, as you define it, they cannot help but turn off white moderates. And the Democratic base doesn’t have the numbers to overcome it.
The Democratic Party already endorses affirmative action and hate crime legislation, which both discriminate against whites, and also is strongly identified with permitting late-term abortions, gay marriage and increased immigration, which are just plain unpopular. I’m not taking a position on whether these things are right or wrong, but the fact is that they are unpopular. And if the Dems go harder over on these issues than they already are, all their programs for preserving our middle class society are going to be for naught.
It’s as if the Democrats want to protect the working class, just not the particular working class that actually exists. They want to protect a fantasy working class that is mostly minority/immigrant, socially liberal and subscribes to the Atlantic Monthly.
I disagree. Bill Clinton was pretty liberal and he sure got the white moderate vote. He wasn’t all that big on “moral values” either, was he? But I bet he’d get elected again in a heartbeat, even against Dubya, and all that babbling about morality would go right out the window. Why? Because people are scared and misinformed, and Bush is a much more charismatic candidate than either Gore or Kerry. Add to that the fact that they could not meet the Republican rhetoric credibly and you have the two losses.
Oh, thank God this is the Pit so I can call BULLSHIT on the above. Please, really.
The Republicans are identified with a sluggish economy, the biggest net job loss since Herbert Hoover, and a massive budget deficit, after inheriting a surplus. Why do people care so much about other people’s abortions and sex lives? Because of the rhetoric, promulgated by Republicans pulling Bush’s strings and unchecked by Democrats. My reason for posting the OP is to muse about ways the Dems could combat that rhetoric.
I don’t think it matters how unpopular these things are, honestly. I think presentation is everything. The medium is the message. The Dems need to run someone with charisma and fire who can talk the talk as well as walk the walk. It’d also be good if that candidate presented a meaningful contrast to the Republicans by having a sensible economic plan and exit strategy for Iraq, as well as a history of opposing the President’s bad decisions in the past. The middle class would definitely react to a liberal message if it were couched in terms they could get behind. I hate to keep pointing to Bill Clinton, but he does stand in stark contrast to your claims about the middle class’ voting habits.
I disagree. I think the Dems should appeal to their base in order to lure out non-voters, since those undecideds cannot be won over by policy differences between candidates. The policy differences I call for from the Dems will bring out the members of their base who haven’t been voting, whereas the style and charisma of their candidate will be the sugar that makes the medicine go down for the moderates.
I think you’re mistaken in playing the “America is liberal like me” Michael Moore doctrine. It plainly isn’t. Bush won in part because voters who were afraid of gay marriage were motivated to ban it and also vote for him. States that cleanly went Democrat vote for Bush’s position (an amendment banning gay marriage). This should make it obvious that the public is just not that liberal. Some of the core Democratic constituencies that you mentioned are very opposed to gay marriage. The party can’t move further left on those circumstances, much as I wish it could. You talk about the fact that “liberal” has become a curse word- doesn’t that fact make it obvious what the situation is?
Perfect strategy, Ruby. “The other party succeeded by moving to the right, so moving to the left will work for you.”
It was not so long ago, or at least, it was liberal enough to elect Clinton twice. No, I highly doubt America is liberal like me, since I’m more liberal than average, but I think there are people of liberal inclination who don’t vote out of apathy and intimidation. Those people could be motivated to vote in the numbers that the apathetic righties in red states were during 2004. Impossible? I don’t think so.
[quote]
Bush won in part because voters who were afraid of gay marriage were motivated to ban it and also vote for him. States that cleanly went Democrat vote for Bush’s position (an amendment banning gay marriage). This should make it obvious that the public is just not that liberal.]/quote]
The public is that uninformed and easily scared, therefore easily swayed. I think a message of fear plus a lot of faux-Jesus talk thrown in is what’s worked. The best penicillin for this kind of thing is sunlight. Want to talk Jesus? Talk about the real Jesus and use the actual New Testament. I’d love to see a sincere Christian who can talk about these things with credibility and conviction go toe to toe with Bush about what Jesus would do about gay people getting married.
Like African Americans? Like the urban poor? I doubt they’d vote Republican out of fear of gay marriage, or because they thought states might allow civil unions. With Kerry’s ambivalent stance, he got 90% of the Washington DC vote. I don’t see that changing. As for the rest of the Democrats’ core constituents (environmentalists, old school lefties, and the young), no problem. This argument doesn’t hold water for me.
They succeeded by having a charismatic candidate and good spin doctors, whilst simultaneously motivating righties to vote in greater numbers. I think the Dems could do the same whilst motivating lefties. By saying “just move left,” you’re ignoring a very big part of my idea.
Considering Kerry-Edwards got 48% of the vote and 55% of the independents, I’m not convinced that a major overhaul of the message is needed.
A 2% lead is not a landslide, despite the efforts of conservatives to paint it as such…