Article

2004-12-12 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-12-12 02:21|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This article, demonstrating that at least one liberal (Beinart, TNR's Editor) isn't a moron, is receiving quite a bit of attention, and for good reason: he "gets it", to a large degree. If he's ignored, the intelligent Liberals will be homeless, yet again. It seems the true-believer looneys are attempting (MorOn.org, et al) to lay permanent claim to the Dhimmidonk party - and if that also happens, they are doomed to the fringe, IMHO.

Posted by .com 2004-12-12 2:37:03 AM|| 2004-12-12 2:37:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The Dems have a leadership problem, not an ideological or social problem. In many ways, the current national and international situation is tailor-made for a forward-looking, hawkishly-liberal Dem in the JFK-Truman mode.

A coherent message that merges national security and economic security for highly-vulnerable low-to-moderate income US families will bring back the NYFD types, soutehrn baptists, and active-duty military families that with halfway competent and articulate leadership would make up the Dems' natural base.

Two other themes that the Dems should graft onto an overall national security/economic security message are security of our borders, fiscal security (ie low interest rates and a stronger dollar, enabling home ownership for working class Americans) and finally, energy security via a massive increase in construction of nuclear power plants. Pro-American, progressive, pro-workign man.

And on all of these issues, the Dems would be far out front of the reactionary Republicans, who are terrified of cracking down on illegal immigration--for fear of angering the business elites who want cheap labor. Terrified of reducing the deficit-- for fear of angering the economic elitists who want pork and tax breaks for the Repubs' pet industries. Terrified of angering the oil and gas lobby-- who would rather see the nation continue its addiction to the crack that is imported oil.

This is no contest: Economic elitists/the special interests party vs. the party of national security, national independence, national border integrity, national economic security.

Posted by lex 2004-12-12 3:23:47 AM|| 2004-12-12 3:23:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Beinart's dead on: the Dems need to purge ASAP the party ranks of the internet idiotarians and bicoastal culture snobs and return their focus on the moderate- and low-income urban catholics and southern/western baptist and hispanic families that are their natural base. And if the battle's to be waged within the churches, then by all means, speak to church congregations. I seriously doubt that this party would not deliver a more compelling message around the gospels and Christ's ministry to the poor than Rove's minions can manage to do.

If this is not possible, then it's time for a third party. Split off the Arnie-Giuliani-McCain RINO wing of the Repub party and add to it any and all Dems who are hawkish, sensitive to religion, and above all focused squarely on the needs and perspectives of active-duty military families, NYFD-type northern blue-collar families, low- and moderate-income southern and western and hispanic famiiles. Biden, Lieberman, Gephardt for starters. Probably Obama as well. Recruit new leaders, especially among ex-military officers and rising hispanic stars.

Call it the NATIONAL party: again, the goal is national security, secure borders, fiscal and economic security and a fix for the health insurance mess that's going to bankrupt our Fortune 100 companies soon and the rest of us in due course.

A hawkish National Party focused on the needs of moderate-income families that can speak credibly to border issues as well as bread-and-butter economic issues and national security would be competitive in every state of the union. Which is fitting for the only party that can truly represent the national interest.

Posted by lex 2004-12-12 3:31:21 AM|| 2004-12-12 3:31:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 But there is little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda--even though totalitarian Islam has killed thousands of Americans and aims to kill millions; and even though, if it gained power, its efforts to force every aspect of life into conformity with a barbaric interpretation of Islam would reign terror upon women, religious minorities, and anyone in the Muslim world with a thirst for modernity or freedom.

And such lack of vision or passion constitutes a solid forfeiture of any right to lead.

At the Democratic convention, Biden said that the "overwhelming obligation of the next president is clear"--to exercise "the full measure of our power" to defeat Islamist totalitarianism.

Spot on.

And, by exploiting public antipathy toward foreign aid and nation-building, the natural building blocks of any liberal anti-totalitarian effort in the Muslim world, Kerry signaled that liberalism's moral energies should be unleashed primarily at home.

Which is why he's currently warming the bench.

But, whenever Kerry flirted with asking Americans to do more to meet America's new threat, he found himself limited by his prior emphasis on doing less. At times, he said his primary focus in Iraq would be bringing American troops home. He called for expanding the military but pledged that none of the new troops would go to Iraq, the new center of the terror war, where he had said American forces were undermanned.

Smells like waffles to me.

Bush has not increased the size of the U.S. military since September 11--despite repeated calls from hawks in his own party--in part because, given his massive tax cuts, he simply cannot afford to. An anti-totalitarian liberalism would attack those tax cuts not merely as unfair and fiscally reckless, but, above all, as long-term threats to America's ability to wage war against fanatical Islam.

Something that should damn Bush every bit as much as his inability to institute an economic boycott of China.

The peoples of the contemporary Muslim world are far more cynical than the peoples of cold war Eastern Europe about U.S. intentions, though they still yearn for the freedoms the United States embodies.

And it is this sort of baseline moral and ethical hypocrisy that a president of any stripe cannot fairly fight. Islamic fundamentalists want life exclusively on their own terms (i.e., Sharia law) with all the freedoms of a secular society. The two are utterly inimicable and yet, in the midst of straining on gnats and swallowing camels whole, Muslims refuse to comprehend the absurdity of this. Complete individual freedom implicitly demands tolerance for all cultures.

If Islam cannot digest this one simple fact it is doomed to history's scrap heap. Similarly, if liberals cannot see that a strong and vital nation must secure its interests through prudently administered military might, they too are nothing more than relics of a long past era of naive flower power.

Posted by Zenster 2004-12-12 4:08:56 AM|| 2004-12-12 4:08:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 lex - In many ways, the current national and international situation is tailor-made for a forward-looking, hawkishly-liberal Dem in the JFK-Truman mode.

And GW is? He's certainly not a raving right wing conservative the LLL make him out to be. Senior prescription drug plans, increased funding for education, real diversity among his cabinet. It wasn't Liberal Darling Bill that did that.

The fundamental problem for the Dems, is that pols like GW in the Republican Party have just as much claim to that 'traditional' spectrum of the Dems. Its just as Miller said "I didn't leave the party, the party left me." Once they have left, its unlikely they are going back. What are you going to offer? Rebates? Marked Up Trade-Ins? A Free Coffee Dispenser?

Posted by Don 2004-12-12 10:11:25 AM|| 2004-12-12 10:11:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 It could also be said that many Americans want two supplementary political parties. That is, they want a "new" republican party that keeps its expertise in foreign policy, while discarding *any* "moral" (religion-based ethics) issues, from an anti-federalist point of view (that is, not embracing immorality or amorality, like the democrats, but keeping their nose out of States' rights issues.) Conversely, they want a "new" democratic party that at least knows *something* about foreign policy, and returns to a strong base of anti-authoritarianism, discarding the last remnants of socialism and "big government". This "new" democratic party would unavoidably have both internationalist and isolationist factions, yet emphasize its strengths against abusive big business practices. It would also have to try and co-opt the "green" movement away from the Green party. In both cases, the "new" parties should steer towards federal deconstruction, reducing and eliminating broad sectors of the federal government not allowed by law, but currently permitted by statutory neglect.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-12-12 10:15:07 AM|| 2004-12-12 10:15:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 your invocation of State's rights is fine. The LLL however, uses the "full faith and credit" Article IV to cherry pick wacky courts/legislatures (like say...Massachusetts' Supremes) who'll find ..oh, say....Gay Marriage... legal, and force it upon all the other states. Why do you think all the gay couples travelled to NY, Mass, and San Fran to try and get their union legally blessed? So they could go home and sue to force their local states to recognize it. To believe otherwise is denial

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-12 10:25:10 AM|| 2004-12-12 10:25:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#8
If Islam cannot digest this one simple fact it is doomed to history's scrap heap.

Islam IS on history's scrapheap.

Similarly, if liberals cannot see that a strong and vital nation must secure its interests through prudently administered military might, they too are nothing more than relics of a long past era of naive flower power.

The left 'see' all that. They don't want to recognize it. They want to destroy the United States. And if they can passively ot actively use the armed enemies of the United States to kill or terrorize Americans then that is less killing they must themselves do to gain power.

Posted by badanov 2004-12-12 10:50:29 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif] 2004-12-12 10:50:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Don: W is not an old-fashioned conservative by any means, and certainly his democracy promotion abroad puts him in the best JFK-Truman-Scoop Jackson tradition. No wonder all these former Dems (Perle, Wolfowitz, Chris Hitchens) are part of his team.

But domestically W's not really the "compassionate conservative" he promised us. In the domestic sphere the Repubs' policies are little more than corporate pork, shoveled by the ton: a corrupt and ludicrously slanted energy bill, an FCC that's firmly in the pocket of the Baby Bells, and Orrin Hatch is the reactionary music industry's best friend. I don't see any substantial achievements in the health insurance legislation area from Dr. Frist, either. It's very hard to argue that Bush is a successful president domestically.

Which is why, again, the Republican flank is wide open on the domestic side and why a hawkish, creative, energetic liberal focused on the key attributes of security for moderate-income families and for the nation overall would IMHO win easily in 2008.

Posted by lex 2004-12-12 3:01:55 PM|| 2004-12-12 3:01:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 badanov> The left 'see' all that. They don't want to recognize it. They want to destroy the United States.

If 50% of your own society had wanted the United States destroyed then it would have been destroyed already.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-12-12 3:09:10 PM|| 2004-12-12 3:09:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Aris calls his postings wisdom. We call it leftist hubris.

Posted by badanov 2004-12-12 3:10:28 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif] 2004-12-12 3:10:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 As you know, Aris, the "left" do not constitute 50% of the American electorate. Only about 30-35% of registered Democrats are in any real sense "leftists", and registered Dems themselves are slightly less than one-third of the electorate overall. Add to this ~11% of the electorate that's leftist perhaps another 5% of the electorate that is leftist but not registered Dem, and you get ~16%, or 20% absolute maximum, of the electorate in this country that is leftist.

Whether they want to "destroy the US" or not, US leftists clearly believe that anything that hurts the Bush administration will further their bizarre notion os "progress." This includes supporting neck-sawing fascists across the muslim world.

Posted by lex 2004-12-12 3:14:57 PM|| 2004-12-12 3:14:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Note also that around 50% of US leftists are concentrated in New York City, Boston, the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, Portland, LA and DC, with the remainder clustered in the college towns that have a foreign policy like Ann Arbor, Boulder, Madison, Hyde Park etc.

American leftists are completely insignificant at the national level. Their only discernible impact on legislation or public policy is at the state and local level.

Posted by lex 2004-12-12 3:19:09 PM|| 2004-12-12 3:19:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 "Left" by definition represents about 50% of any given society, same as "right" represents about 50% of any given society. By definition.

If you want to argue about the *far* left, or the *far* right, I'd have no dispute with that.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-12-12 3:20:08 PM|| 2004-12-12 3:20:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 You give new meaning to the term "pedantry." Also to the adjectives "obtuse" and "inane."

The terms Left and Right are western ideological notations that derive from the seating arrangements in the National Assembly during the French Revolution and have nothing whatsoever to do with numerical or statistical apportionments.

Do not hijack this thread. Go piss on someone else's thread.

Posted by lex 2004-12-12 3:26:29 PM|| 2004-12-12 3:26:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Whatever, lex.

Once you start defining "Left" or "Right" through anything other than compared to the *center* of a society's ideological positions, (which inevitable puts about 50% of the society to the right of that center, and 50% of that society to the left of that center), you've completely removed all meaning of those words.

How many support the legality abortions in the USA? Is that the only 16% or 20% that you name to be leftist? How many support stricter gun control? Is that only 16% to 20%? How many favour civil unions for gay people?

How many voted for Kerry, lex? Is that only 16% or 20% of the voters?

Go on defining words however you wish them. But left and right are directions, and at each given moment there's about similar levels of population belonging to either the left or the right. If the percentages *weren't* about equal, then society would have already moved to that ideology as its "centrist position", and a new "right" and "left" would have emerged, forming around said centrist position.

All societal change is about moving the center, and then having "left" and "right" to be references to said new center.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-12-12 3:41:22 PM|| 2004-12-12 3:41:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Support for abortion rights is not a "leftist" position; it's mainstream and has been for a generation. SCOTUS's Roe v Wade compromise-- call it an abortion if you will, but there it is, and it's stood the test of time-- is strongly favored by reliable majorities of most major demographics in the US: men, women, catholics, married suburban women, married suburban catholics, etc. The Supreme Court will not touch Roe v Wade precisely because support for the R v W compromise is so widespread and dominant in the US. Bush won't touch it either.

There is no widespread support at this point for gay civil unions in this country. Rank and file Democratic voters across the country (with the narrow exceptions of Dems in the SF Bay Area, LA, NYC and Boston) overwhelmingly oppose them.

There is no meaningful "left" in the US, merely two parties that dance around a national consensus favoring more or less limited government, more or less pro-capitalist economic policies, and longstanding national legislative and judicial compromises concerning abortion, civil rights and affirmative action.

Posted by lex 2004-12-12 3:53:49 PM|| 2004-12-12 3:53:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 The terms 'left' and 'right' have never meant anything outside marxist/socialist circles where they designate believers and non-believers. There are only two political streams that matter. Let's call them the 'fixers' and the 'whiners'. The 'fixers' want to work on solving and improving problems. The 'whiners' want to figure out who to blame.

Posted by phil_b 2004-12-12 4:03:46 PM|| 2004-12-12 4:03:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#19
Re #18 (phil-b): There are only two political streams that matter. Let's call them the 'fixers' and the 'whiners'. The 'fixers' want to work on solving and improving problems. The 'whiners' want to figure out who to blame.

Kofi Annan and the UN are to blame for everything.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 4:13:22 PM|| 2004-12-12 4:13:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Do you believe the UN and Kofi are the best system to fix the worlds ills Mike? Why?

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-12 4:36:39 PM|| 2004-12-12 4:36:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 There is no meaningful "left" in the US, merely two parties that dance around a national consensus favoring more or less limited government, more or less pro-capitalist economic policies, and longstanding national legislative and judicial compromises concerning abortion, civil rights and affirmative action.

What you are talking about is that both major parties are centrist. I agree. But one of them is center-*right* and the other is center-*left*.

You are perhaps correct about abortion rights (it would have been a better example to give a few decades ago), but where civil unions for gay people are concerned, sorry but from Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103756,00.html: "Americans are more supportive on the issue of allowing gay and lesbian couples to form "civil unions that are not marriages." Today, 41 percent support and 48 percent oppose civil unions. "

It's only about the issue of calling said unions "marriage" that's there's still overwhelming opposition to. As one of the current issues, civil unions for gay people is where you can see the lines of left/right being approached. At some point it will tilt one way or another, the issue will no longer be discussed because vast consensus will have been reached, and then we won't be able to use it as an example.

Phil> The terms 'left' and 'right' have never meant anything outside marxist/socialist circles where they designate believers and non-believers

I'd be all in favour of discontinuing the confusing terminology but many more people use the terms than just Marxists or Socialists I'm afraid. As you could see in any day in Rantburg, when the word "right" is used to describe the intelligent Republican voters and the word "leftist" is used to insult everyone who would consider voting for Kerry.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-12-12 4:44:17 PM|| 2004-12-12 4:44:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 See David Horowitz's article, "Liberals, Leftists, and the War in Iraq" at www.frontpagemag.com, which explains the distinctions quite well. Horowitz describes who he thinks the anti-American American leftists are.

Posted by HV 2004-12-12 5:53:56 PM|| 2004-12-12 5:53:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Once you start defining "Left" or "Right" through anything other than compared to the *center* of a society's ideological positions, (which inevitable puts about 50% of the society to the right of that center, and 50% of that society to the left of that center), you've completely removed all meaning of those words.

One thing that differentiates the US political scene from Europe's is the presence of a large center of moderates. Your formulation, Aris, ignores that reality.

Not that there aren't some on either end of the spectrum who are in favor of radicalizing things. But by and large, the middle rejects that from both sides. There were a lot of Democrats who voted for Bush this time around and I know some moderate Republicans who voted for Clinton in his first term. If you ignore that sort of opinion, your numbers don't mean much even if they are in some limited literal sense true. The center in the US isn't a point, it's a broad band containing the majority of US voters.

Posted by rkb 2004-12-12 6:29:51 PM|| 2004-12-12 6:29:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Lex, think again on SCOTUS and abortion.

There are changes coming on that one. Wrong is wrong, murder is murder, no matter how many people think otherwise.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-12-12 6:53:49 PM|| 2004-12-12 6:53:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 rkb> Moderates exist in Europe also. That's why the designations of center-left and center-right exist, to indicate the moderates of each issue.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-12-12 7:03:38 PM|| 2004-12-12 7:03:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 MS, correct, Kofi Annan and the UN are to blame for everything. Aris, bedtime, want to be bright and fresh for orkomosia.

Posted by Tom 2004-12-12 7:16:45 PM|| 2004-12-12 7:16:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Lex,

It is exactly because there appears to be general consensus in favor of Roe v Wade that SCOTUS can overturn it for purely legal reasons and let it be established legislatively as it should have been originally. And I agree with OS that this will happen soon.

But when the legislatures come to legislate they will start to pay attention to what their constituents think. And the constituents will pay a lot of attention to what the legislators say. And a lot of them will want to know why Scott Peterson is up for two counts of murder and an abortionist isn't even up for manslaughter. Then we will all have to spend some time discussing the issue as they do in a democracy where the laws are made by the people'sÂ representative and not by fiat. And the conventional wisdom may become very unclear.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-12 8:23:32 PM|| 2004-12-12 8:23:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Lex, think again on SCOTUS and abortion.

There are changes coming on that one. Wrong is wrong, murder is murder, no matter how many people think otherwise.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-12-12 6:53:49 PM|| 2004-12-12 6:53:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by OldSpook 2004-12-12 6:53:49 PM|| 2004-12-12 6:53:49 PM|| Front Page Top

11:34 N Guard
11:34 N Guard
00:23 3dc
00:14 Mike Sylwester
00:10 3dc
00:05 Stephen
00:05 Zenster
23:51 Mike Sylwester
23:50 .com
23:49 Bomb-a-rama
23:41 Mike Sylwester
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:35 lex
23:34 lex
23:34 .com
23:30 Zenster
23:25 Zenster
23:24 Mike Sylwester
23:23 Rafael
23:18 .com
23:16 Mike Sylwester
23:12 .com
23:12 Zenster
23:04 JosephMendiola