The Political Wilderness

What, they couldn't get Howard Beale?

2005-01-20T10:08:00.000-08:00

From the Post:

"But CBS News staffers are puzzled, if not furious, over Moonves's rumored plans to remodel the "Evening News" completely when Rather leaves and turn it into a nighttime version of the morning shows -- replete, perhaps, with comedy capers, jokes and satire, maybe some showbiz gossip and someone like Couric as a very "viewer-friendly" host who appeals to the young-adult demographic that generally doesn't watch the news.

Moonves reportedly would like to not only lure Couric but also add alleged satirist Jon Stewart to the "Evening News" as a commentator; Stewart hosts "The Daily Show" on cable's Comedy Central. Speaking to TV columnists and reporters in Los Angeles, Moonves would not confirm the rumors but did say that he wants "a revolution and not an evolution" and that "I think we have to do something really different to get people's attention" to raise the "Evening News" broadcast's ratings."

Remember, it's all about entertainment. If you want facts, look for yourself.

O'Reilly

2004-12-17T14:32:00.000-08:00

This could really shape up.

This one's for you,

2004-12-10T16:46:00.000-08:00

Jon Cowperthwait:

Don't talk. Just click.

Happy weekend!

Dave

To Rebut:

2004-12-09T16:08:00.000-08:00

Josh Marshall, in Talking Points Memo:

Placing context or limits on the danger posed by Islamic terrorism is a hazardous business these days. But unlike communism in 1947, militant Islam simply does not pose an existential threat to our civilization. It just doesn’t. It puts us all physically at risk. And especially for those of us who live in DC, New York or other major urban areas, it could kill us tomorrow.

Marshall is exhibiting just the sort sleepy priorities here from which Beinart is trying to wake the left. He fails to recognize that if and when the Islamic-fascist-terrorist network (supported by Iran) acquire and use a nuclear weapon in a major American urban center, modern liberalism, defined in the broadest sense of the word, will be dead. Sure, my or his physical safety is in danger, firstly, but then what? One can imagine a suspension of the writ of Habeus Corpus, for one. Followed by mass forced detentions of Middle Easterners, ghettoization, national ID cards, concentration camps, forced exile, martial law...one could go on for days with the illiberal possibilities. And such an attitude would, a-spread to every open western society, and b-would probably be made into the sort of "government under emergency mandate" that currently dominates such liberal beacons as Egypt.

And then? And then we have a full-scale civilizational conflict, with entire regions, and huge populations of Muslim co-religionists (and the states of which they are even marginally constituents) pitted against us. And then we have something that mirrors the type of conflict that Marshall envisions as being a parallel to the cold-war. But, I suspect, our adversaries may, in that instance, have an even less enlightened view of self-preservation than the one held by our previous opponents. And I also suspect that no one even wants us to get there.

The truth is that, as Beinart has pointed out in subsequent posts, the terrorists need not acquire a nuclear weapon to accomplish a full-scale assault on liberalism. Even by destabilizing, controlling or sabotaging an oil-exporting country's exports, they can largely drive a civilizational wedge that could have devastating effects on western style liberalism.

Iraq was a totalitarian state. It was not an Islamist totalitarian state. There is a big difference. Saddam and other gangster-style fascists wield power in order to preserve their, and their faction's, wealth and self-interest. Islamist fascists wield power to animate a large-scale historical movement that would result in a dominant Islamic world, unified and governed by a caliphate. They know the chinks in the armor of western civilization. They see the big picture. The only question is: Do we?

Dave

Gentle cousins

2004-12-09T06:49:00.000-08:00

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/12/08/gorilla.wake.ap/index.html

I'd like to point out that none of the gorillas fired assault rifles into the air. Also, that she wasn't killed by a crazy gorilla who thought the best thing to do today would be to attack a bunch of unarmed metalheads with a semiautomatic.

About six years ago, a good friend of mine abandoned his experimentations with sex and drugs for the ultra-religious life. Donning a black hat, a long-sleeved white shirt, and refraining from trimming the corners of his beard, he set out for the West Bank to study Jewish arcana. Four years later, he comes back and in a long conversation with myself and another friend, informs us that he doesn't believe evolution took place. Of course, he has decided that the words of the Old Testament are the literal truth written by Hashem. But in addition to this, he tells us that "I can't accept the idea that human beings descended from apes." Why is that? "It's degrading."

He was right, it is degrading - to the apes. I don't think it's arguable that gorillas have behaved themselves much better than we have, and for a much longer time.

Un peu apropos, and sorry if this is turning into a ramble - I'm listening to the new U2 album right now and heard the following lyrics:

You speak of signs and wonders, but I need something other.
I would believe if I was able, but I'm waiting on the crumbs from your table.

I don't have any partisan political points right now, but my brain is functioning at about two percent. Republicans stink.

Nate

Beinart, again.

2004-12-08T15:24:00.000-08:00

The biggest splash in the "where do we go from here?" discussion has been made again by Peter Beinart, who is one of the brightest luminaries in the future of American liberalism.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041213&s=beinart121304

You have to subscribe in some way to read the article, but, believe me, it's worth it. Beinart starts his argument by pointing to a key meeting of Democrats at the Willard Hotel in DC in 1948. At that meeting it was settled that the Democratic party had to navigate away from any allies who were "soft" on communism. Being "soft" was defined as being

-sympathetic to the goals of the international communist party (or associated with those who were)

or

-acquiscient to the threat of the spread of communism by deprioritizing the comprehensive struggle against it (military, economic, social, diplomatic, etc.)

Beinart points out that in '48 a large portion of the Democratic party fell into either of these two camps, and that at the Willard, a key group of liberal intellectuals seized on anti-communism and anti-totalitarianism as the keystone for their political philosophy. They saw what had happened in Nazi Germany and what was happening in the USSR as the gravest threat to liberal democratic values in the world.

A good deal has happened since then. Korea, Vietnam, the Iranian revolution, Reaganism and the US intervention in the central America, the fall of the Berlin wall, and of course 9/11. Now, Beinart finds, for a number of reasons closely related to those historical factors, that American liberalism is "soft" on totalitarian Islam. That's to say: they're against it, but the deprioritize the comprehensive struggle against it. Either because they're pacifists, moral relativists, or just more focused on universal healthcare, they are not fully committed to the fight against militant totalitarian Islam.

Kerry merely papered over the problem, rather than campaign to convince people that the struggle against this newer form of totalitarianism was worth the highest priority of government. Wesley Clark, for all his faults as a candidate, made the centerpiece of his campaign the idea that Afghanistan was our priority because Afghanistan represented the most realistic threat from the new totalitarian Islam. That view is harmonious with what it appears that Beinart is calling for: a new liberal ideology of anti-Islamic totalitarianism.

Under that ideological framework, women's rights in foreign policy would be a centerpiece of liberal policy. As would a policy toward Afghanistan that favors non-anarchy in the countryside. Opposition to regime change in Iraq would be couched in the following terms: to invade Iraq is to make it more likely, not less, that we will be attacked by a Islamist totalitarians.

Under that ideological framework, a good case could be made for a more secular philosophy toward goverment, both here and abroad. And in order for liberals to win future elections, they have to offer an honest alternative to the government by religious values mentality that has taken hold in Washington recently.

If there's a tournament for "name the future ideological center of the Democratic party", then we may have a finalist.

Dave

I missed you.

2004-12-06T18:34:00.000-08:00

A week in Deutchland, a week of jet-lag and catching up on work. Also, actually enjoying life for a change makes you somewhat less pissed about politics. No wonder there are so many terminally unhappy political psychos out lately.

Anywho, on to bigger and better like

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html

Dude, did you hear that you can totally catch HIV from sweat? That's like, so queer.

As with so much else, a bunch of right-wing ideologues have cobbled together a pseudo-scientific account (of sexual behavior) that holds an absolute ton of untruths, in order to bolster their religious views about the world.

I have no problem with these people teaching their children that gay people are monkeys or whatever else. But obviously with tax money...

Two things: one, if there were a left-wing sex ed course that taught about the joys of promiscuity, don't you think that perhaps this course would receive a little airplay from our friends over a fox? They seem to love salacious wedge issues. Where's the outrage in the "liberal media"?

Two, this should be a left-leaning wedge issue. For some reason, the left in this country has stopped making arguements about the necessity of a secular public sphere. Until a vast majority of Americans reflexively see the absurdity of this type of religious indoctrination, there's a problem.

In order to make a particular philosophical issue the topic "A" in a media world, the GOP has relied on a top-down approach to public relations. Their attack-dogs repeat the same talking points ad nauseum for a week straight on a given issue. Maybe it's time for the Dems to start singing from the same songbook on religious issues. That is unless they're sill waiting to peel off that 5% of voters by pandering on yet another issue.

24 hours in America

2004-11-29T16:28:00.000-08:00

...and I'm already spouting mindless platitudes about cultural differences. I was in rural Germany last week, blissfully ignoring the details of Ukraine, the budget, and cabinet posts. No blogs, no virtual community. No discussion of the Democrats, but a good amount of Bush bashing. Although I was impressed by much of what I saw there, what struck me politically about this part of rural Germany was how family and community-oriented life in the countryside was. Towns are geographically smaller and people live closer to one another. Entire family networks live side-by-side. Most services are located in small shops in town.

Generally, people are devoted to their towns and to their town institutions. They tend to live at home until they're married. They belong to town choirs and bands. They resolve to stay in town and raise their families there. It would seem that the primary commitment for a German is to live their lives in their town. What does it mean to live one's life in the small town of Oberderdingen? Remarkably, our German hosts were not obsessed with their jobs. They work a limited number of hours and make time for lots of hobbies--liquor making, raising rabbits, keeping bees, playing and listening to music, amongst other things. Family and community celbrations are high priorities. Talking and visiting with friends is important.

As Americans, it seems like our occupations, possessions, and mass-marketed personal interests compose our identities. In the small town of Oberderdingen, I am who I am simply by birth. I was born in my town. There is a certain way of life, and the purpose of life is live in that way. The purpose of life is not to discover which occupation brings you the most happiness. It is not to move to the city that best affords you the opportunity to live your life in a certain way--it is to stay and build your life right where you were born. In America we believe in the pursuit of our own individual definition of happiness. In Oberderdingen, happiness is somewhat pre-defined, culturally, by the community. And Germans tend to be more comfortable with the government expressing a common communal will–festivals, schools, music, etc.

In America, in the red-states, in the places where many of those same small-town cultural values of identity and culture thrive, a multi-pronged Republican outlook is flourishing. It is an outlook that seems to express cultural identity in policy through an amalgam of cultural issues that cut across geographical lines, from state to state (gay-marriage, abortion, etc). Then it speaks to Americans' fundamentally individualistic nature by insisting that government not interfere with peoples' economic freedom through taxation.

This is a smart strategy, because it speaks to cultural common denominators that run from state to state. Civic culture varies from Kansas to Wyoming, but a few social issues resonate in both places. Americans tend to be very individualistic, and the Republican ideology speaks to this in economic terms, if nothing else.

Honestly, I don't know where this line of thought is leading...through the jeg-lag 7 day party hangover haze. I saw so many beautiful, interesting things on my trip--and learned so much. So while I catch up on work, email, personal business, and a chronicle of the trip, I'll be thinking about how politics reflects peoples' fundamental assumptions about life--and how that manifestation is different in Oberderdingen and here in the states. And I'll get back to the blogo-chatter tomorrow, if my brain wakes up.

Dave

A man, a plan, a canal... an abortion?

2004-11-29T11:32:00.000-08:00

Some faaaaaking schmaaaak at my otherwise great University of Maryland took it upon himself to berate a girl who had been raped and miscarried before she had to make the decision to have an abortion. So I sent in this response, maybe they'll print it, woo hoo!

http://www.inform.umd.edu/News/Diamondback/archives/2004/11/29/commentary4.html

Mr. Hare, you must be very proud of yourself. You exercised your right to free speech by publicly excoriating a victim of rape, a woman who bravely shared her intense personal story of tragedy and moral anguish, and then you congratulated yourself on your graciousness and lucidity. I hope you saved some of your wrath and contempt for the person who raped her; but if so, you were too busy heaping scorn on her “grammatical and stylistic perils” – which eluded this reader – to let us know about it.

Instead of offering your own cogent argument, you treated us to the ridiculous spectacle of a man pompously lecturing a woman on how she is supposed to feel about her own pregnancy. Pointing out weaknesses in another’s argument doesn’t give merit to your own, especially if those weaknesses are imaginary. Despite whatever “lack of experience” you think Ms. Bulger had, she gave us a poignant example of the moral ambiguities present in the issue of abortion. And since you purport to have perfect moral clarity on this issue, and if you’re going to attack Ms. Bulger on her lack of qualifications, I would like to know yours – how many times have you been raped, how many times have you been pregnant and faced the decision to have an abortion, along with whatever emotional implications one may bring?

The morality of legal abortion and the humanity of a fetus are subjects that are debated, and it’s unlikely that this debate will ever come to an end. All you’ve done with your column is add another mundane contribution to the endless back-and-forth in which one side claims eternal righteousness and heaps scorn on the other. On the other hand, the morality of murder and genocide are not debated, at least not on any perceptible scale. About half the country sees abortion and murder as the same thing, and the other half does not. This disparity will never be resolved by printing the same arguments over and over in newspapers. You, Mr. Hare, will never convince me that a fetus has a soul (or indeed that any living being has a soul). And I will most likely not be able to convince you of the opposite. Most people in our society, especially those who are taught to think critically, recognize that an issue such as abortion carries irreconcilable moral ambiguity, and therefore it’s rarely helpful to spout and reiterate catch-all arguments that condemn one point of view and elevate another to the status of pure truth.

I may see some instances of abortion as immoral, but I don’t see myself as someone qualified to tell every woman what she should do with her own body. Furthermore, the job of the government is not to legislate morality, but to uphold the constitutional rights of all its citizens. Constitutional rights are guaranteed so that the minority does not live at the whim of the majority. Plenty of immoral acts – such as calling someone names or cheating on one’s wife – are legal and should stay that way.

Women in this country do have the right to a peaceful abortion, and your closing paragraph tinges with threatening language. On a few occasions, I’ve volunteered as an escort at abortion clinics around the area. Most of the protestors at these places are peaceful, repeating the Hail Mary or silently holding posters or photos. But a few take it upon themselves to rant maniacally at anyone who walks near the building. As an escort, it was my job to be a sponge and absorb that verbal diarrhea, and to deter passions from becoming dangerous. I can tell you that the “lawful rebukes” of such protestors accomplished nothing other than the raising of their own blood pressure.

You gallantly assert your right to verbally harass women who struggle with a moral dilemma. Do you think this is the best way you can work to reduce suffering in the world? Although I haven’t been schooled in the dogma of absolute morality, it seems to me that the dissemination of such loathing, contempt, condemnation, and smug self-righteousness as can be found in your column is morally destructive, not constructive.

Finally, anyone who misspells the final word of their column, “publicly” as “publically”, shouldn’t be gloating over someone else’s grammatical errors.

Nate

TK's running out of ideas for "no bandwagon" columns

2004-11-28T20:16:00.000-08:00

Dave, since you're on vacation, I thought I would go the extra mile and let everyone know that the Redskins lost again and are now 3-8. This time the lucky team was the Steelers, who won at home and thus were spared the bother of traveling to another city to accomplish the unimpressive task of defeating the immortal Joe Gibbs' mortal squad. Fortunately, they still have a chance to win one more game this season, against San Francisco. Friends, I'd like to be moved to another city, away from this football team. Frankly, they're offensive. They smell, and I mean they smell bad.

Mama loves her babe, and Daddy loves you too...

2004-11-28T08:03:00.000-08:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15606-2004Nov26.html

For someone whose party ideology is primarily voiced by people who regularly decry liberal whining, this column by George Will stands out as childish nanny-nanny-boo-boo-ism, particularly since he turned in a touching and vivid piece on Thanksgiving about the ravages of prairie life endured by early American homesteaders. It reeks of a cheap and common vintage made from sour grapes. So there are only a handful of conservative professors in the academic world? Mr. Will, don't you sincerely believe that conservatives could reach their proportionate representation in academics with applied hard work and dedication? Your piece reinforces the idea that conservatives only believe in the idea of minority oppression when applying it to themselves.

According to this point of view, in any institution where conservatives are absent, it's because liberal elitists have shut them out. The immediate implication of this idea is that "liberal" and "conservative" worldviews are equally ideological, and in order to achieve true "diversity" there must be an equal representation of both. "Liberals", of course, are hypocrites because they preach diversity while refusing to admit conservative viewpoints in their midst. Mr. Will never questions any of these truisms, nor does he question the idea that academics is ruled by liberal ideology. Nothing can be true or false; everything is ideological. It's this approach by which creationists attempt to put themselves on a level playing field with the scientific community. They invented the term "evolutionist" to portray the theory of evolution as an ideology deserving of no more acceptance than any other competing theory of the origin of life. The evident truth of evolution becomes a matter of one's point of view. "It's just a theory", they repeat over and over, not bothering to attack the atomic theory of matter or Einstein's theory of relativity. I can assure you that, if God had declared in Genesis that the speed of light varies according to one's frame of reference, we would now be inundated with "scholarly" books claiming Einstein, Planck, and Maxwell were demagogic frauds and with lawsuits demanding disclaimers be put in all physics textbooks to remind us that relativity is "just a theory".

So isn't it possible, Mr. Will, that during their ongoing search for truth, many academic scholars have discovered things that aren't in line with the ideology of the American Republican Party? Is the GOP such an ingeniously brillant institution that in a hundred and fifty years, that they have discovered the true way to approach all academic subjects that have been studied for three thousand? The greatest sin one can commit as a scholar or researcher is to allow one's work to be corrupted by a priori conceptions or misconceptions that are brought to the table. Cyril Burt "knew" that non-Caucasoid people were stupid, so he measured skulls in a way that would support what he already believed. To use the example you quote: "If you think that the nuclear family proves the best unit of social well-being, stay away from women's studies." God forbid that you should learn something that contradicts your a priori belief. A good social scientist does not begin a study convinced that the nuclear family is, or is not, the "best unit of social well-being", whatever that means. An invitation to conservative ideologues to academia is an invitation to research findings that parrot points of the conservative agenda. (And I DON'T need to have it pointed out to me that a left-wing bias can also affect results. That's why studies are published in peer-reviewed publications, which are shockingly lacking in articles about creation "science.")

Oh, I see Mr. Will, you're saying that all of academics are in fact dominated and monopolized by just such a liberal bias? The same left-wing conspiracy that controls all of the media except for the part of it that's not liberal, correct? The problem is that the predomination of left-wing ideology can only be identified by the absence of right-wing ideology. Fox News is fair and balanced; anything else, that mysteriously doesn't sound like a Republican talking points pamphlet, must be under the stranglehold of arrogant liberal elitism.

After whining about how there are no conservative professors, Mr. Will proceeds to pooh-pooh the academic world by taking a big fat dump all over it. He quotes a "dazzling" (dazzling!) essay by Mark Bauerlein saying that academia is a "sheltered habitat" suffering from the "false consensus effect" (a term which, by the way Mr. Will, was not invented by Bauerlein). The elaboration: "When like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs." Golly, does that sound like anyone we know?

I spent four years at one of the self-marginalized, parochial, politically shrill, silly, smelly little orthodoxies upon which Mr. Will nonchalantly defecates, but I wasn't prostrate to a higher mind. Despite its location in Massachusetts and its constituency of overprivileged guilty liberals, it in fact offered an amazing diversity of thought and incredibly didn't force me to go to seminars promoting homosexuality or abortion. Neither did it censor conservative viewpoints. The campus chapter of the Republican Party was led at the time by a conceited prick who saw it as his solemn duty to provoke the rest of the community into controversy and complain long and loud about his dire oppression, existing only in his own mind. He gallantly broke the rules by funding his magazine with outside right-wing sources. His group was the only one engaging in self-marginalization.

Academics is the search for truth. Its purpose is the search for truth and not the promotion of a political agenda. Simply because professors don't allow their curricula to be dictated by Focus on the Family doesn't mean that they are all members of some cloistered liberal cabal. So Mr. Will, although the sea may look warm to you and the sky may look blue, don't cry when someone who's actually studied them says differently.

Nate

The revolution continues

2004-11-19T13:15:00.000-08:00

http://www.intheagora.com/

In their eulogy of Reed Irvine, the impenetrable critic of the DC/New York media monolith, the folks at Agora thank their lucky stars for his exposure and trashing of the liberal media elite. Without said exposure, there'd never have been a chance for "alternative" media like Fox news to emerge.

Their treatment assumes that liberal power needed to be smashed and that an alternative view needed to emerge. At what point has the original liberal irritant been vanquished? The answer is never. Like Stalin purging his political opponents in the name of combating the ongoing "reactionary threat", Fox will continue to peddle the GOP storylines in the name of combating the ongoing "liberal threat"--in perpetuity.

Not to equate Fox News with a murderous tyrant like Stalin. They don't murder people (unless you count innocents in countries we've ill-advisedly made war against, which I don't). They murder journalism.

And what's particularly galling is to hear right-wingers sing of their perpetual victimhood. At the height of their power.

Dave

Making my point

2004-11-19T12:07:00.000-08:00

This guy http://www.punchthebag.com/archives/000535.html

makes my point for me. After 50 years he's still holding a grudge about the FDR coalition!

He's right, though.

Dave

Fox Hunt, anyone?

2004-11-19T11:56:00.000-08:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60920-2004Nov18.html

How does this make sense? A meaningless cultural issue, legislated inappropriately, with no concern for the individual liberty of the hunters. Sounds like the defense of marriage act in reverse.

Over here, the red states do things like this to blue state prerogatives. In Britain, it's the reverse.

Dave

Are we really divided?

2004-11-18T14:07:00.000-08:00

To many of my fellow Dems, the 2004 election results confirmed what we feared most: a culture war bitterly dividing fundamental Christians and secularists. When we take the time to analyze that statistics, we see the exit polling data for the Presidential election showing no evidence of such a divide. On the issue of gay marriage, for example, 52% of Bush voters and 47% of Kerry voters supported civil unions for same-sex couples. A truly divided electorate would not take such a moderate stance on such a supposedly bitterly divisive "moral" issue such as this.

According to exit polling, 22% of Americans categorized "Moral Values" as being the most important issue in the election. What the hell are "Moral Values" anyway? Let's go back to the dictionary for this one. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "moral" as "concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character". It also defines "value" as "a principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable". Ultimately, moral values became an issue related to one's religious beliefs as they relate to public policies.

My assignment for my very first political science project was to choose any topic related to Election Day 2004. As a proud student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a fine progressive institution and city, my goal on Election Day was to understand which issue was most important to people, but most especially students voting. Through my research I gathered that "Leadership" was the most important issue to young voters. Leadership qualities count "principles" and "human action", no? So why don’t young people in Madison define their voting criteria on the basis of "Moral Values" like some of the electorate? The issue of "Moral Values" has been confiscated and abused by religious conservatives in our country. As a result, I propose that young area voters do not frame their views in strongly religious terms of "Moral Values" because we have a largely secular outlook on politics. Furthermore, young people in Madison tend to frame a broad range of issues under the guise of "Leadership" rather than framing those same issues under the more religious "Moral Values."

A quick look at the 2004 national exit poll. Young people made up 17% of the electorate and voted for Kerry by a five to four margin. Every other age group voted for Bush by approximately the same margin. More than half of the respondents were Protestants. Six in ten Protestants voted for Bush, while Catholics were almost split between Kerry and the President. Twenty-three percent of respondents considered themselves "White Evangelical/Born-Again", and four in five of them voted for Bush. Those who attended church more often were likely to vote for the President. Those not likely to attend favored Kerry. Monthly churchgoers were split between the candidates. As mentioned, 22% felt "Moral Values" was the single most important issue in this election. Of that margin, 80% voted for Bush. In general, more religious people voted for the President and less religious people voted for Kerry. Those who were neither more nor less religious were split between the candidates.

On the morning of the election, I conducted a survey of voters at the voting precinct at MATC. Of the respondents I interviewed, I asked their gender, age, vote for president, the most important issue in the election and which issue was more important to them between "Economy and Jobs" and "Moral Values". Fifty-seven people participated in the survey, 32 males and 25 females. The average age of participants was 24 years; most voters were between the age of 21 and 23. Fifty of those respondents voted for Senator Kerry and seven voted for the President. The most important issue to Kerry voters was "Leadership" (28%) while the most important issue to Bush voters was "The War in Iraq" (42%). Unfortunately, I did not have a large enough sample to make many accurate inferences about Bush voters, only that Madison and Dane County didn't for Bush by about two to one. As for the Kerry voters, I sensed that voters were concerned with many different issues but not "Moral Values". Not a single respondent, Kerry or Bush voter alike, said "Moral Values" was the most important issue. Between the issues "Economy and Jobs" and "Moral Values", respondents chose the economy by more than three to one.

So we still don't have a clear understanding of "Moral Values", but we've got a good idea about whose valuing them most. Based on the exit poll data, one can infer that the more religious a person is, the more likely he would vote for President Bush. Those who are most concerned with moral values were also more likely to vote for the President. How do self-defined religious voters define "Moral Values" then? They'll consider gay marriage a moral issue since the prohibition of homosexuality is stated in the Bible. To them, public policies are defined in terms of morality. "Moral Values" to religious voters is an aggregation of individual issues that are highly influenced by religious beliefs. And since young Madison voters don't subscribe to the agenda of the religious right, we generally do not frame our views in terms of "Moral Values". Instead, "Leadership" was the most important issue to these voters. A vote for a candidate was seeded in a judgment of character and the ability to make responsible decisions. Like "values voters" they did not have a specific issue with which they were most concerned, but said "Leadership" because it represents an aggregation of individual issues influenced by their beliefs in good character in leaders. Based on the basic definitions of "moral" and "value", one could clearly classify the issues of leadership and character as moral values. However, in this country the issue of "Moral Values" is intended to describe one’s views in terms of religion. For this reason alone, secular voters did not respond "Moral Values" though they were likely concerned with the character and principles of President Bush and Senator Kerry.

This is the most important point I would like to make. Much of this analysis is based upon the exit polling which is flawed and deceptive. When the national exit poll inquired about a voter’s most important issue, they did not allow for an open-ended answer. According to the Associated Press and the Pew Research Center, the issue one named "depended on whether that subject was included in a list of choices provided by pollsters". Closed-ended questions set an agenda. It is possible, based on this fact, that pollsters expected the public to answer "Moral Values" since there has been much hype about religious values influencing voters in this election. For this reason, public opinion may have not been accurately articulated. My survey allowed for respondents to answer openly. Open-ended questions are helpful because they do not frame the responses of the individuals. With 57 samples this technique was feasible, but not for the national survey of over 13,000. Open-ended questions are time-consuming and hard to quantify on a large scale. Had I known which issues the national exit poll used, I may have been better able to compare the Madison results with the national results, though I do not believe they would have been much different. If the "most important issue" question were open-ended, there would not have been such a high proportion of voters choosing "Moral Values" as their top issue.

What's the take-home message? To me it is that we must be very critical when we consider if the culture war really does exist in light of the national exit poll survey results. The "Closed-ended question" problem potentially distorts public opinion as a whole. If this one aspect is reformed, we might begin to believe that we're not so greatly divided after all.

ARS

Delay and Spector

2004-11-18T12:17:00.000-08:00

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

It strikes me that no one on our side is staging a "pray-in" on the steps of the capitol over the Tom Delay rule-change hypocrisy. And until opposition on our side gets as fierce (in opposition to such utter bullshit as the Tom Delay thing) as the opposition on the other side (to Arlen Spector showing signs of vetebrate life-formhood, then there's not much effect we can have on the legislative process.

Meanwhile, I'm looking for a GOP officeholder I can harass.

D

The daily slam on dems

2004-11-18T12:11:00.000-08:00

Uno:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh111504.shtml

Dos:
http://www.personaldemocracy.com/node/view/152

Not so much slams as "constructive criticism". Time to upgrade the offense.

The undecided, apolitical voter

2004-11-18T12:03:00.000-08:00

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2004_11_14_digbysblog_archive.html#110072695816314559

They're not reading policy briefs. Find something that connects to their lives in a meaningful way and you've got 'em. Bush was the only one playing the real game.

Yeah,

2004-11-18T11:46:00.000-08:00

You have to take him seriously sometimes.

http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000897020769/

Another link to the Maroon

2004-11-18T11:30:00.000-08:00

How can I make this stuff up?

http://maroon.uchicago.edu/viewpoints/articles/2004/11/15/saskia_sassen_reveal.php

A campus conservative at the U of C once told me: "The liberal on campus are dominant. And it's KILLING them." Now what meant Richard Kraus by this paradox? That a lack of diverse political idea exchanges prevented campus liberals from sharpening their skills of argumentation. That they assumed their positions to be correct instead of testing them by defending them. Campus conservatives never have it so easy. As a result their ideas are tested by liberal fire. And their skills of argumentation? Two words: Tucker Carlson. Has anyone seen a better emblem of campus conservatism except, maybe, PJ O'Rourke?

Globalism Guru Professor Sassen broke out when the forum she was invited to allowed speakers who supported the idea that Israel could exist as a Jewish Liberal Democracy. Now, were those students who shared her emnity toward this idea helped or hurt by her example?

Dave

As a mid-20's, white, blond, liberal, agnostic Jewish straight male college student who ate a bagel for breakfast this morning...

2004-11-18T07:19:00.000-08:00

One thing that gets on my nerves...

Why is it that people, when expressing their opinions, feel it's necessary to qualify their statements by classifying themselves with aspects of their "identity"? You know what I mean - "As a conservative, I believe such-and-such," or "As a Muslim woman, I am offended by this or that"? If you want to express yourself then do so without trying to legitimize your opinion by proclaiming your membership in some arbitrarily-defined group. If what you say has merit, it will stand on its own.

For the last four years we've been able to read letters to the editor in every newspaper on the subject of Israel/Palestine, and there have been so many examples of people thinking that their status as a Jew or Muslim gives them some kind of uniquely legitimate perspective on the situation. They just repeat the same arguments over and over. "Arafat turned down a state on 97% of the land and launched a terrorist war", "illegal settlements and occupation of Palestinian land" ad nauseam. Furthermore, people tend to dismiss others' opinions on the basis of their belonging to the wrong group. So if something comes from Fox News or the "liberal" media (what a joke) it can be summarily put aside and never considered seriously.

We do harm to ourselves by constantly referring to the components of our "identity", which may not really exist at all. We limit ourselves by setting up these imaginary boundaries and relating to each other on their basis. Andrew Sullivan (my man) doesn't begin each of his blog entries by saying "I'm a big gay economic conservative with a polished accent and so this is what I think". Andrew Sullivan is not defined by his gayness, his nation of origin, his self-classification as a conservative, or the amount of hair on his head. None of those things *is* Andrew Sullivan. His statements stand or fall on the basis of what's said.

So uh, my point is that, to elevate the level of discourse, we should move away from divisiveness and identity politics. I'm not going to let my life or my opinions by determined by my status as a liberal or a science student or by anything else. We should stop our incessant labeling of ourselves and other people.

Nate

An individualist philosophy, please.

2004-11-17T20:11:00.000-08:00

(The internet was down at work, so this is the only post of the day. Like you were missing it...)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55689-2004Nov16.html

Meyerson agrees with me, and, according to mom, this is a good thing. But let's not forget: the GOP philosophy is resonant because it speaks to people as individuals. Opportunity. Responsibility. Liberty. Individualist concepts. Democrats offered, in the past four cycles:

1) A Man From Hope
2) A Bridge to the 21st Century
3) We're for the People Against the Powerful
4) Stronger at Home, Respected in the World

Wtf, mate? How does any of that speak to me as a person, trying to make my life work? They're too conceptual. They assume everyone believes themselves to be members of a group rather than little individuals struggling to accomplish something. Also, the incosistency of these philosophical values might lead a certain presidential candidate whose last name begins with a "B" to imply that all Democrats are disingenuous.

The first two themes were attached to the second most telegenic politician in the last century. Other factors, that I won't bother with now, led to his victory. Not the resonance of his philosophical ideals, but I think, because he had a resonant personality. Gore lost a coin flip. Kerry lost embarrasingly. But what's really happening is we're seeing a country that doesn't have a real opposition party--that's to say a propositionist party. There are plenty of people who will vote against the GOP, consistently. But Dems have utterly lost control of the goverment. And not because the last few congressional/presidential elections were lost coin flips. We don't have ideas that capture people's imaginations. When the other team screws up badly enough, we'll win here and there (and have). But long-term, our support is eroding, because no one believes in our ideas, in their hearts.

Meyerson discusses the "Square Deal". Let's hope the Democrats come up with something similar and stop treating the electorate like they're plugged into the matrix. People in this country don't identify themselves according to their economic status (where they are). They define themselves in terms of their beliefs (where they want to take themselves). That's why socialism has no traction in this country--class based government. And it's why we have unchallenged GOP rule. They're the only team playing the real game--for peoples' hearts.

Dave

to clarify

2004-11-16T16:34:00.000-08:00

When I discuss first sexual partners in my David Brooks/Tom Wolfe post, what I mean to say (through uneditied Blog gobbledygook) is this:

Should we be trapped, without choice, into marrying our first sexual partners? What effect does this have on our liberty to pursue other self-actualizing interests?

And that leads me to ask another question: What of the pressure to NOT marry your first sexual partner (ala "notches on the belt")? The peer pressure to engage in sex too early and too promiscuously at that is another new and bizarre side effect of the sexual revolution. That is something ethicists and moralists have to deal with smartly and not dogmatically. The dogmatic response is turning people away from the notion of morality, period, and is backfiring.

Hat tip to RMS for her trenchant and private commentary.

the Spector of controversy

2004-11-16T14:19:00.000-08:00

Spector's against pro-life judges. Then for them. Then against. Then for. Phew, abortion, one issue on which there is some ideological clarity in the Democratic party.

Except Harry Reid, the "Tom Hagen*" of the Democratic party, the Senatorial Minority leader, is in favor of restricting abortions.

http://maroon.uchicago.edu/viewpoints/articles/2004/11/15/is_harry_reid_the_le.php
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aXiDt5pOx6QE&refer=top_world_news

When Republicans have pro-choicers in their midst they engage in warfare about giving them certain committee chairmanships. The Dems hand over to an ideological opposite their chairmanship in the Senate. Wonder why we lose? We don't stand up for anything. Gay rights, I assume can expect future champions of the same stripe as Mr. Reid. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52900-2004Nov15.html

*"Not a war-time consigliere"

Perhaps Hagen is what we need. That way, when the Republicans get everything they want, we can point to the utter failure and ruin of the Federal government and hold someone accountable. Alas, we'll probably find a way to botch that up too. After all, we're TMIVPPITHOWP*.

*The Most Ideologically Vague Political Party In The History of World Politics

Dave

Eliot Spitzer

2004-11-16T14:14:00.000-08:00

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--schumerdecisions-1115nov15,0,780948.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

Quarterfinal match between Spitzer and Giuliani? Spitzer and Pataki?

It suddenly occurs to me that in 08 we'll have two wide open primary fights.

Say it with me now:

"Oh thank you, Lord"

Dave

David Brooks and Tom Wolfe

2004-11-16T12:10:00.000-08:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/16/opinion/16brooks.html?oref=login

Brooks writes a funny paragraph about how to write a bad review for a Tom Wolfe book. Then he raises many of the questions of moral indecency that Wolfe raises in his book (I saw him on the Daily Show last night).

I'll be reading the book soon. But for now I'm struck by how utterly out-of-touch Wolfe and our parents are about the new ethics of sexuality. They put their outrage in terms of our "moral vacousness". I'll admit that some of use live in moral vacuousness, but not for the reasons Wolfe thinks. We're not suddenly deeply evil and hedonistic. We suddenly have options, thanks to technology.

1) The communities in which Americans live emotionally are much, much larger. This sounds strange, but think about it: we maintain relationships with our televisions and the characters thereupon. We maintain contact with our self-selected group of friends and associates through email. Without writing a sociological study on it, I'll just say this: the small communities in which aberrant sexual behavior would result in major instability are no longer as prevalent or apparent to the consciousness of the average American young person as they were 50 years ago. We live in much more virtual communities. If my friend randomly hooks up with my cousin, we have a problem. If he randomly hooks up with some girl that I don't know, I don't care. Our community maintains balance. The social consequences are gone.

2) The physical consequences are also gone. If you're smart about it, you can engage in lots of morally vacuous sexual behavior without a) contracting an STD, b) getting yourself or your partner pregnant, and consequently c) without getting married. Why, if you want be sure that you're spending your life with the right person and want to maintain the freedom to advance your career, would you be married to the first person you had sex with? The truth is that technology has given us new moral options. Theodore Horkheimer, are you in the building? Adorno?

Now, are there downsides? You bet. Emotionally, the new moral landscape can be harrowing. But I think that the responses to the new landscape are very, very important:

What's happened is that in response, traditional moralists have either called the new moral landscape "vacuous" or they've adjusted by forming new ethics for sexual behavior. In response to this response, young people have either adopted a "morally vacuous" outlook on relationships, or they've adhered to an evolved and evolving ethical system for protecting themselves against the many real negative consequences of living this way. Another response to these responses, and to the instability of the new landscape, has been a redevotion to strict, old-time moral views to help make the world make sense. I can sympathize with all of this.

Politically, I think that this has contributed a) to the view amongst liberals that values are morally relative, and that therefore we cannot have a party with any real principles, and b) to the view amongst red-staters that those in the opposition have no values. Sex is directly tied to culture and the cultural conflict going on is heartfelt.

Technology has expanded liberty further in the past 200 years than at any other time in history. It takes time for ethics and morality to catch up. But let's hope they catch up sooner rather than later. We should try to understand, rather than demonize each other. In the words of Jerry Springer ('08?!!) "Take care of yourselves. And each other."

Dave

60 Minutes

2004-11-16T11:25:00.000-08:00

Okay, http://instapundit.com and the others I've seen around the blogosphere who keep harping on the 60 Minutes/Bush National Guard Memos Flub...and this new Emmit Till thing: ENOUGH.

We've got it. We know that 60 Minutes is nothing but a shill for the Kerry campaign. That Dan Rather is a red. That Morley Safer wears women's clothes. Ed Bradley's a black panther. That journalism is dead. That we should turn on Fox for our every bit of news.

Ok, I'm only half-kidding. What really galls me is the lack of outrage about how drastically uninformed voters were during the election. During the debates everyone was astonished that the candidates were speaking in clear sentences about policy, making arguments and such. The reason for their astonishment is simple: our media is primarily interested in ratings and readership, aka "people's attention". And contrary to conservative ideology, that is not coincidental with the best information of the electorate. The debates were a clash in tone from our steady diet of editorial malfeasance. A diet that has become so mundane that it shocks no one anymore.

What it means is that on cable news we were awash in Scott Peterson-esque stories that generate attention but were of no news value. We listened to pundits blabber on and on about Swift Boats and other meaningless details that drowned out inexorable facts with which the electorate should have been armed.

That's the real media scandal. Now shut the hell up about 60 minutes already.

DS

Dr. Rice is in.

2004-11-16T10:47:00.000-08:00

Condi is in at State. First let's deal with the elephant in the room. She's a black female who now holds the same office originally held by Jefferson, a slave owner. This is a great thing.

But all of the conservative commentators who screeched about Clinton's 1992 quest to find a female Attorney General should now eat crow all day. I for one believe that Condi was promoted because of her fealty to Bush's neo-con international agenda. But she was put in position to display her strengths in this administration for political reasons, during Bush's Summer-long quest to be seen on stage with women and minorities, aka the 2000 presidential campaign. Her advise and friendship with him may be valuable, but the core prinicples of affirmative action (and I am no great supporter of it) are validated by her ascension. Make extra effort to find a qualified minority candidate for a job, give them the opportunity to showcase their talents, and they'll have the opportunity to outperform other applicants. Bush's hypocrisy is mind-blowing.

Now onto the most substantive questions: what type of diplomat will she be? The answer is unclear. She does have a fabulous knowledge of Russian culture and government and should be in a unique position to challenge Putin's good-hearted totalitarian consolidation, now underway. But we have bigger fish to fry. And since Condi was the biggest apologist for Bush's original and now eviscerated Iraq policy, we should see no backing down in the neo-con idealistic MiddleEastern democracy initiative. Hopefully this will be a good thing in the long-term. It is a gamble, and Bush is most certainly gambling with OUR future. Imagine an Islamic theocracy in 15 years in the heart of oil-country. Do the words world-wide recession mean anything to you?

And with Alberto Gonzalez's appointment it becomes clear: Bush is surrounding himself with insiders, making the most insular, top-down, close minded administration in history even more so.

This is the move of an extremist ideologue. But hey, what have we come to expect from this guy?

I say the above sentence in conversation so often that I'm inventing a term for it. From now on, whenever I'm outraged at something that Bush does, but I shouldn't be because his record is so reliably foolish, I'll use the word "Bushtastic". That way we won't waste our breath.

Dave

Qureia and Abbas must lead toward peace

2004-11-15T14:30:00.000-08:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50172-2004Nov14.html

Charles Krauthammer is at his best when he leaves off lashing America's liberals and turns his attention to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, at these moments he is almost indistinguishable from Thomas Friedman, who is laughably and incredibly pigeonholed as part of the Liberal Elite Triumvirate of the New York Times along with Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman. Here, Krauthammer points out about Arafat what should be obvious to anyone: that he was never a statesman but a career terrorist devoted to nothing else but the destruction of Israel. Arafat was never for one moment interested in peace, compromise, or the welfare of the people who adored him. He was singularly interested in his own status as the "sole legitimate voice of the Palestinian people", his monopoly on the wealth and adulation of his people, and being the center of attention. Arafat was most in his element when surrounded by Israeli tanks, protected only by flashlights and a cell phone and the idiotic "human shields" of Adam Shapiro's International Solidarity Movement, proclaiming long and loud to the world how he was oppressed by the evil IsraEElis and unable to do anything except flash the victory sign. In America, we have professional celebrities like Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson whose job is to appear in front of cameras and produce nothing but tabloid headlines. Arafat's job was that of a professional resister who demonized the enemy, produced nothing but violence and suffering, and in turn blamed it all on the enemy again.
It is now the job of the new Palestinian leadership to lead their people toward peace and reconciliation. If their desire for peace is greater than their desire for self-aggrandizement, they can accomplish this. Arafat was able to create legitimacy for himself by taking advantage of the world's sympathy for the Palestinian plight; he then cynically used this sympathy as a green light for terrorism and to put money in his own pocket. Qureia and Abbas must now claim this sympathy and legitimacy by clearly renouncing violence and the demonization of Israel. They must marginalize Hamas and anyone else who uses terrorism. They must become the "partner" that Arafat was never willing to be, and in so doing they will prove themselves braver and greater leaders than anyone the Palestinians have ever known.

Nate

Rumor mill

2004-11-15T14:23:00.000-08:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/15/politics/15cnd-cabi.html?ei=5094&en=e6d4c24b00751519&hp=&ex=1100581200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage?hp&adxnnlx=1100549959-7SyOfmCODjQrJqVaj097Jg

Now that the Secretary of State has resigned, word on the street has it that he will succeed James Wolfensohn at IMF sometime in the next year.

Is there some other international diplomatic post that we can assign Rumsfeld to so they can keep the odd couple thing going (just for laughs)?

Does Bush go with Condi (a shot across the good-hearted Vladimir Putin's bow)? Or with Danforth (another moderate Rummy can beat up on)? Or Wolfy (the neo-con golden boy)? Or Lugar?

Health of the pposition check: Do the Dems have a coherent foreign policy vision with which to test whoever is nominated?

The answer is no. Maybe the acquiescient Harry Reid can enlighten his new caucus with some coherent thinking on the matter.

The old Roosevelt Republican saying

2004-11-15T14:10:00.000-08:00

"Speak softly and carry a big stick"

Ever notice how Dick Cheney speaks very, very softly?

Do yourself a favor and find out why:

http://waste-bin.blogspot.com/2004/11/packing-meat.html

Uh, kind of clears things up, yeah?

A stand on religion

2004-11-15T11:39:00.000-08:00

From Wieseltier in The New Republic, http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041122&s=wieseltier112204 (subscription required):

This is a great dissection of the religious question in US politics. Its basis is not a short-term winning electoral strategy, but an argument for a center of reason in American politics. He argues that the cultural warriors on the right invoke religion to justify their arguments without making any concession to an impartial judgement of reason. Further, he argues that the tradition of the left, a triadition he believes to be traditionally American, holds that in public discourse, arguments must be made to appeal to a center of secular rational judgement.

One good quote:

"Obviously I do not expect Congress to act on the sanctity of Judaism when it makes laws about stem-cell research or abortion. This is not only because Judaism has too few adherents to carry the day. It is not the politics of a democracy, but the philosophy of a democracy, that requires me to accept these limitations upon the reach of my faith. For my faith is my faith, even if I believe it to be universally true. The reasons of my religion cannot compel the assent of people who do not share my religion. They have the reasons of their religion, which cannot compel my assent. That the Pope, or some distinguished evangelical divine, holds a certain view is a matter of indifference to me. The Pope may be right and he may be wrong. I may be persuaded of his view, but not because of his authority. I need to be given arguments that I may rationally consider. (I harbor the same skepticism--the same liberalism--about authority in my own tradition. Reason is not an instrument for criticizing other people's religion.)"

It is fundamentally exclusionary and intolerant to base policy discussions on religious belief. If the Democrats want, they can continue to cave on this and win the battle but lose the war. Or they can stand up and make the above case, first to each other, and then to the country.

Another great quote:

"Why, then, are so many conservatives insensitive to my religion? The question answers itself. They have no choice. They believe what they believe. They do not mean to wound me; but all the ecumenical talk about respect, and all the political talk about healing, cannot dissuade them from their consciences. I understand this. I expect them to think as they think. But they had better understand this, too. I think as I think. Like them, I cannot be dissuaded from my conscience. I intend no disrespect, but I also intend no phony respect: Like them, I believe that on certain fundamental issues facing American society, those who think as I think are right and those who think as they think are wrong. The liberal conscience is not a human failing. It is another kind of conscience. It has reasons. It is a thing of principle, not a thing of taste. The religious right complains of liberal condescension, and often properly; but then it condescends to liberalism by reducing it to class or to culture, and by regarding it not as a moral creed but as a moral corruption. The offense that religious conservatives regularly take from secular liberals is a little ridiculous. Why do they care so much about our disapproval? They are also in the business of disapproval. The truth is that this kind of conservatism is sustained by its feeling of victimization. Grievance makes it glad. It allows the right to combine the power of a majority with the pity of a minority."

What a great sentence at the end. But it points up an important point: Americans tend to conflate the reliance upon a center of reason (and not faith) with moral relativism. I honestly believe that those on the left are uncomfortable with speaking as concretely about policy and belief as Wieseltier, because it smacks of absolutism, which fundamentally, we abhor. The answer I think, is for the left to really contemplate a) what they fundamentally believe (in philosophical terms) that is worth losing over and b) that there must be a fundamental, rational, secular center to political discussions in this country. And we must not confuse the assuredness implicit in "a" with the inflexible political outlook of those who cannot believe in "b".

Wieseltier also has a great passage about how Americans define themselves in terms of what they believe, not what they own or do not own. He points out that Democrats need to understand how to craft a campaign based on appealing those values, which are secular and which can be supported by rational reasoning, rather than religiousity, which is inherently beyond discussion.

DS

To foment the stereotype

2004-11-15T10:06:00.000-08:00

that we're elitist bastards.

http://www.howardstern.com/04/11/08/IQavg.html

Hat tip, JDM.

DS

Since I'm reading The New Republic...

2004-11-15T00:22:00.000-08:00

So should you!

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041122&s=cherny112204

Cherny seizes on the language of philosophical values. Carville of late has been calling this talk "narrative", which he contrasts with the "litanies" of the past Democratic campaign. Both men make a great point: most Americans think about political campaigns in terms of stories and abstract beliefs and concepts. They don't look for the candidate who says he agrees with them on the most issues.

The Dems, say Cherny, have avoided universal-sounding, absolutist-sounding rhetoric because of their base's 70s, "I'm okay, you're okay" relativism. There is virtue in noticing this and vanquishing it.

Also, in my opinion, Democrats have so many interest groups that a candidate has to, during a campaign, mention a litany of priorities in order to mobilize them. During the years intervening between elections Democrats should be working with the leaders of our diverse interest groups, to get them speaking in the same values-based, philosophical vernacular as the candidate, so that our candidates can offer compelling national campaigns that speak to Americans' ideas, not their (presumed) self-interest.

Republicans make speeches about the narrative that guides their party; values and philosophical principles. They use instances of policy ideas as examples of those values.

Democrats have been uniting laundry lists of interest group policy positions with limp stabs at unifying philosophical ideals ("Stronger at Home, Respected in the World"). We have to develop the over arching value and philosophy statement that will be at the heart of our campaigns for generations, and out of which interest-group appeals will spring. Not the other way around.

DS

The weekend is coming.

2004-11-12T16:47:00.000-08:00

and you're looking for fun things to do.

a future friday tradtion

check back every Friday for fun tips.

http://www.ohmygoditburns.com

Hat tip, Jon.

A Great Canadian Blogger

2004-11-12T15:05:00.000-08:00

http://www.cultureby.com/trilogy/archives/000222.html

He makes the point that Blue State America doesn't concede that Red State America has any real positions. Apparently they're either evil or rubes or rubes being manipulated by evil people or people who just don't know how to run their own lives (for whatever reason), and therefore we need to run their lives for them. Because we marginalize their philosophical perspective on the world, they will not enter into a governing coalition with us. He uses a straw-man quote from the paternalistic sounding Nicholas Kristof to buttress this point.

First, we should recognize that it is simply a fact that a large portion of the Bush electorate got their facts wrong. This isn't cultural elitism--I'm not claiming that MY facts are better than YOUR facts, although I find this perception of the left-wing position to be the central justification for the existence of Fox News. I'm claiming that objectively speaking, there are certain facts which every voter should have been forced to deal with in the decision on the last election. Osama wasn't involved with Iraq. Iraq had no WMD, and the president asserted that it was 100% a fact that they did. We had decent but not black and white evidence suggesting that they did--nowhere near the intelligence that would support the ferocity of the president's assertions. Our coalition was nowhere near as broad as the president suggested. The world was turning against us because of our unilateralism. These are basic facts on which a high percentage of Red Staters were woefully underinformed. The commercial media and Fox blew it, big time.

We can't paper over that fact because it would seem to support an abhorrent notion of cultural elitism. An objectively informed electorate is essential to democracy, and I would assert that there IS such a thing as facts--irrespective of the view of the right-wing relativists.

And I'll admit, the narrative that states that the Red Staters are being manipulated and are too stupid to make their own decisions is particularly appealing to people who a) are typically well-educated, b) perpetually on the losing end of elections (and therefore looking for a way to rationally explain that fact), and c) already have a certain amount of weltschmerz to begin with.
But, while I do think that his critique has a grain of truth, I have to believe that cultural elitism is NOT the exclusive province of the big-city lefties. There is an elitist view that underpins the right-wing worldview too, and this is all the more apparent when the criterion you apply to electoral questions is detemined by cable news. Aren't Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, William Kristol, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh part of an alternate cultural elite that pretends that they alone are the guardians of REAL Americanism, of worthwhile social values? Aren't there legions of their followers and consumers of their media that have deeply internalized this elitist view? The answer is yes, every bit as surely as big-city liberals think they know what's best to do with that waitress' paycheck.

Let me put it this way: it is elitist to say that because I'm a member of an educated class that I should be in posession of the government, and that the government should tax "the little people" heavily in order to pay for my well-educated view of how the world should work. And while that is a straw man that has been established and reinforced time and again by the media, there is a grain of truth to it.

It is EQUALLY ELITIST to say that because you've found salvation throught Jesus that my views on policy are evil and hypocritical because I haven't found salvation. But this moral elitism is highly pervasive in much of Red State America.

Another elitism that pervades Red State America exists as an inversion of the big-city intelligensia elitism. People perceive that the liberal intelligensia marginalizes them. Therefore they marginalize the views espoused by anyone they associate with the liberal intelligensia. They think that we on the left are so deeply ideologically indoctrinated or so high off the fumes of our own genius that we don't "get it". Only "Real Americans" have the simple, God given wisdom to see things clearly. This is Toby Keith elitism.

Of course, this Toby Keith elitism and moral elitism haven't really entered the national consciousness. Why? They don't play into the traditional archetypes. Big city know-it-all, who really doesn't know it all. Country boy with a heart of gold, who may not know much, but who has common sense.

To a certain extent we buy into these archetypes ourselves. But the big-city liberal elite, who thinks everyone outside of the cities is an ignoramus exists more in perception than in reality.

Now there is a grain of truth to the accusation that those who live in cities tend to view right wing ideas with some scorn. In the cities we tend to rely on government to do a great deal more to make our lives bearable. Public transportation, police, maintenance of the streets, funding of the arts, civic festivals, public housing to keep people off the streets, public health clinics to keep the poorest from experiencing a public health crisis. We have a slightly more generous view of government.

When there is a big problem that affects everyone, it is generally accepted as ok that the governement step in and do something. And when the problem is oppressive and it drains money from our local coffers for no good reason, people start to get angry. And if you stand in the way of meaningful healthcare reform, some of those angry people are going to accuse you of being selfish, or at least "not getting it". This scenario plays itself out time and again, sometimes more justifiably than others--with regard to policy. Don't get me started on the cities and our view of the Red States' terrorism policy (hint: we're the targets, and we're agitated).

There's another notion that plays into so-called "elitism". In the cities we are forced to deal with a heterogeneous culture as regards sexuality, nationality, race, and class. And we deal with it tolerantly. If you don't harm me, I don't have a problem with you. I might ask you to turn your music down...

The only thing that is beyond tolerance is intolerance. That's where issues like gay marriage provoke such scorn in the cities. Gay people are generally good citizens. They're not harming anyone, much less so by being married, or at the least having equal status under the law. So those of us in the cities who lack imagination call it intolerance. If that's elitism, I'm sorry. What are we supposed to call it? What should we have called Jim Crow, in order to appear less elitist?
On a litany of social issues, the cities appear elitist. Perhaps we would do well to understand the religious views of those who seek to deny us the right to determine our own sex lives. Perhaps they would do well to understand us.

Ok. We're elitists. They're elitists. But we appear to be greater elitists. So this is a problem of appearances. Why does it exist?

I would argue that Blue State cultural values are pervasive in the worldview of entertainment. When we turn on the TV, we see Friends, where everyone has sex with everyone. We see Will and Grace. We see Janet Jackson. And by and large we see an attitude of scorn for anyone who objects.

It's cultural resentment, and I don't know how we can cure it, beyond asking the Susan Sorandons of the world not to do us any favors. So at the end of a day-long post, I'm only left with the question: how do we make them stop resenting us for the values espoused in our entertainment?

DS

Because the weekend is coming

2004-11-12T14:43:00.000-08:00

And you're consulting our blog for ideas on what to do.

http://www.ohmygoditburns.com/

Hat tip to Jon.

America Isn't About Being Fair Anymore

2004-11-11T15:14:00.000-08:00

http://www.freewilliamsburg.com/archives/2004/11/tips_for_gettin.html
Be merry.

Frank Rich

2004-11-11T11:43:00.001-08:00

Yeah, read him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/arts/14rich.html?pagewanted=1&8hpib&oref=login

Our culture is sprinting toward utter crassness. But the GOP has a stake in this. Why?

They're doing what they did with middle class taxes. They're constantly not solving the problem that they decry as an irritant. Why? To maintain power. Krugman had a great piece in the NYTimes Magazine last year on this. The tax burden on the middle class stays high (especially considering payroll taxes). People know the GOP is identified as the "anti-tax" party. They blame the irritation on the Democrat. Then they find a way to do nothing about it. And they continue to blame it on the Democrat and ride to victory.

The same thing is happening with "cultural values". At bottom, what on earth can a politician do about these problems besides apply the bully pulpit? To the extent that the GOP's power base is full of people who are alarmed about American culture, and to the extent that those people trust the GOP as the party of "cultural values", the GOP can maintain the irritation and continue to do nothing about it. And ride it to victory. Shrewd. Now what do we do about it?

Well, partly, total power is the worst thing that could happen to the GOP on this stuff. They have their chance, in the next two years, to actually relieve peoples' tax burden. But we have to be ready, and ready right now, with proposals and priorities to be carried through in the legislative process, so we can actually hold these guys accountable if they don't get something done. Perhaps there should be a uniform Democratic vision for a tax code overhaul. Spike the payroll tax? Eliminate the income tax for those making under 100K? I'm not sure. But we have to get there together.

As for the cultural values irritant, perhaps someone should call them out on this cynical strategy. And point to the deterioration of our long-term economic health. Had a look at the bond and currency markets lately?

While I'm busy at work.

2004-11-11T10:26:00.000-08:00

Read these, courtesy of the lovely and talented RHF.

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/about/best/nyc/47694053.html
http://www.fuckthesouth.com

and, my courtesy to all you conspiracy theorists out there

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41106-2004Nov10.html

That's right. A blog going to a major media outlet to report on what other blogs are saying. It's a meta-blog universe here. And I've been too busy to stay on top.

--DS

Gonzales is in.

2004-11-10T17:00:00.000-08:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40219-2004Nov10.html

Just so long as there's no preferential treatment in hiring for political reasons. That's affirmative action. And that would be wrong.

The "R" word

2004-11-10T16:14:00.000-08:00

It's what we should be talking about.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38001-2004Nov9.html?nav=hcmodule

Liberal Christians, whose main thrust is economic justice and reducing the number of abortions (which have risen under the Bush administration), are trying to battle the notion that the "values vote" swept Bush to power. They argue that Dems should engage this issue from the broader perspective of the moral values (virtues if you wish) that underpin economic policy.

First off, wherever the opposition goes with this, we have to get there (pretty much) together.

Secondly, we have to ask the fundamental choice: do we admit that religion has a role to play in informing political life?

a) Candidates blather about how religious they are: "I was an altar boy!" -- John Kerry, "I accepted Jesus as my personal savior!" --GW.

As I've said before, I think this allows candidates to tell people that because they're relgious, they're more likely to really believe what they say. No small matter in the age of triangulation. But it doesn't really mean anything. One look at either Bush or Kerry's record would show plenty of political calculation and conniving.

Also, this line of rhetoric allows candidates to identify personally with voters. If we both receive the same sacrament/salvation through accepting Jesus, then having Kerry/GWB in office means having my kind of guy in power! Right? This is about as sensible as arguing about Al Gore's earth tones. But apparently in American politics, this sort of thing is just a given. I liked Howard Dean's "next question" approach, personally.

b)Candidates campaign for their positions by invoking scripture: "If you love Jesus, vote for my culture of life!", "If you love Jesus, you'll vote for a more just distribution of wealth!"

Religiously justifying public policy arguments is a great way to end arguments. It means that I can't really argue with you about whether abortion should be legal. So in essence, we freeze debate on lots of valid questions, because who am I to question your faith? I think the Democrats have to figure out the main value that will serve as a criteria for public policy questions.

Further, if you base your arguments on religious questions, you are using a highly abstract concept. If this sort of thinking becomes standard political procedure, how long until we hear people argue that Buddha favors the value-added tax? My religion says I should favor things that help people. A rise in the minimum wage helps people. Therefore I favor a rise in the minimum wage. Not good reasoning--either as a reading of Judaism or as a political point. But a decent enough soundbite, I suppose. And beyond argument. And couldn't I use Judaism to underpin the alternate argument, too?

The biggest problem with the use of religion as an underpinning for policy discussions is that, at the end of the day, a real possiblility exists for a majority with a common religious view to compel a minority with that view to adhere to it. If there is significant enough disagreement on a social question that a widespread minority disagree on even the fundamental assumptions involved, we should draw as wide a berth for liberty as possible. And I'll send a half-pound of delicious Metropolis Coffee to the reader who can debunk in advance the old "what about slavery?" cabal, so I don't have to waste time on it.

The use of religion as a basis for policy also places a disproportionate amount of power in the hands of those who are in the business of interpreting religion for ordn'ry folk like me. And the last time I checked neither Soloveichik nor Falwell were elected officials. And here I thought I was in the party of the elites!

One more thing. Shouldn't an atheist with a rock-solid record and good credentials be allowed a place in public life? If we continue to concede the validity of relgion in public discussion, we will soon reach a point where there is a religious test for who gets to run for office. Shouldn't I be free to believe what I want so long as I serve the public good?

Like I said, I think the Democrats need to develop a solid criteria by which we judge policy questions. Is that core value liberty? Equality? Justice? How do we define it? Ostensibly the conservatives have a core value--restraint over the power of government and conservation of traditional views on social issues. What's ours?

Anyway, thank goodness for those activst liberal judges, protecting us from the oppressive majority...Like Roy Moore. Love that guy.

--Dave

Right.

2004-11-10T11:28:00.000-08:00

This guy says of a suit brought by families of POWs against Saddam's Iraq: "they won a judgment in federal district court that is the most important deterrent to date against torture of American POWs."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38242-2004Nov9.html

So let me get this straight: a lawsuit brought by US citizens, in US Federal court, against another country, is the most powerful deterrent we have against torture? And here I thought that it was our respect for the Geneva conventions and the humane treatment of prisoners under our watch that deterred our enemies from torturing our guys. But that was before Abu Ghraib.

Now we rely on our "culture of litigation". Nice work, Rummy.

Mawwiage for All

2004-11-09T23:00:00.000-08:00

Homosexuality is cool and everyone knows it. In fact, gay people are probably the coolest people on earth, next only to the now-defunct Deadly Viper Assassination Squad. Why is this the case? Because gay people are forced to think critically about their own identities, the messages they receive from society and popular culture, the natures of morality, sexuality, etc. Gay people generally don't live their whole lives sheltered in a cultural enclave that reiterates and reinforces a monopolistic world view. Where I come from, self-awareness, critical thinking, and cultural literacy are the kinds of values worth having.

The New Democratic Party should insist on civil marriage with all its legal protections as a right for all gay couples in the nation. They should insist on this for two reasons: 1) we're rejecting hypocrisy, bullshit, and preferential treatment when it comes to human rights; and 2) we assert that the government should never legislate religious dogma, but instead promote and uphold the rights of all its citizens.

Our country is a constitutional democracy. The rights of the minority should never be subject to the whim of the majority. That's why the Supreme Court has decided issues of civil rights; the judges' job is to interpret the Constitution, they aren't elected, and their decisions can't be overturned by elected legislators who promise to carry out the view of the popular majority. If this weren't the case, we might still be looking at segregated public schools and the outlawing of anything else straight, white, Christian Americans felt threatened by.

I shouldn't have to refute the "arguments" against gay marriage, but just for fun I'll do it anyway. Since I don't have the time or inclination to do any research, you'll just have to put up with my anecdotal evidence and straw man positions.

1. Homosexuality is unnatural.

If it occurs naturally, it's natural. Homosexual behavior can be observed in many animal species other than our own, including dolphins, penguins, and other primates. Penguins can't tell each other apart anyway (Larson, 1987). About 10% of human beings are left-handed, approximately the same percentage of people who are gay. But we don't say that being left-handed is unnatural, at least, not anymore. Neither do we say it about having blue eyes, being deaf, or speaking Farsi. And if you think that homosexuality is a "choice" (Republicans just love that word), then you know who to ask - Mary Cheney!
If homosexuality isn't "natural", then what is it - artificial? I suppose they're manufactured in the homosexual factory somewhere. Perhaps some fringe right-wingers believe that young children are recruited by the evil homosexual agenda. But the only unnatural sexual re-engineering going on is taking place in the "de-gayification" camps depicted in the films "Saved!" and "But I'm A Cheerleader". The best answer to all of this garbage was given by Sacha Baron Cohen as Austrian fashion reporter Bruno, who began his interview with a Baptist minister specialzing in gay "cures" thusly: "So vhy is being gay so out zis season?"
It's silly to talk about what is "natural" anyway. Who gets to decide what is natural or unnatural? There's no Stone of Truth hidden out in the jungle on which is written what nature is supposed to be like. All of these ideas are invented by humans and tell us nothing at the end of the day.

2. The sanctity of marriage as a union between one man and one woman must be protected for the good of society. The ideal of the family as mother, father, and children must be upheld.

In that case, I await the introduction of constitutional amendments outlawing divorce, adultery, premarital sex, prenuptial agreements, marriage of infertile couples, single parenthood, etc. Insert Britney Spears joke here. Oh wait, that's redundant.

3. Homosexuality is MORALLY WRONG according to the Bible.

The government is constitutionally forbidden from legislating religion. It wouldn't matter if the religious argument weren't full of hypocrisy and bullshit - which it is - we don't live in a theocracy. That's called Saudi Arabia, where they execute homosexuals by beheading them.
So what if the Bible does condemn homosexuality? No one gives a shit about anything else the Bible says. I don't remember hearing about any state referendums on the legality of eating shrimp. Why do these authoritarian social conservatives think they can cherry-pick the parts of the Bible they think should count? Let's look at some other things the Bible says:

On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumsised. (Lev. 12:3)

You shall not consume the blood of any creature; for the life of any creature is its blood, whoever consumes it will be cut off. (Lev 17.14)

You shall not approach a woman in her time of unclean separation, to uncover her nakedness. (Lev. 18:19)

You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22)

You shall not plant your field with mixed seed; and a garment that is a mixture of combined fibers shall not come upon you. (Lev 19:19).

You shall distinguish between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the clean bird and the unclean; and you shall not render your souls abominable through such animals and birds. (Lev. 20:25).

The use of religion as an argument against acceptance of homosexuality is an empty justifcation, just as it is in so many other cases.

There's more to say about this, but that's all for now. I hope I've made my point. I await the inevitable "Nate, you ignorant slut."

Peter Beinart, you magnificent bastard!

2004-11-09T15:15:00.000-08:00

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041115&s=trb111504

Hey, I agree, mostly. Except Kerry couldn't offer a competing "Democratic" vision on any of this, because a)his record doesn't bear anything out consistently, and b)the Democrats themselves don't have a unified vision. Maybe, as an opposition party, we can get back into "the vision thing".

Beinart's particularly good in discussing the temptation to either pander to cultural conservatism or convulse with elitist anger. Let's not do either. Let's get on the same page and bring the pendulum back.

Carville et al seem ready to see the light.

2004-11-09T14:33:00.000-08:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35224-2004Nov8.html

Kerry can get as fired up as he wants.

Howard Dean as DNC chair: it makes sense as a counterpoint to the mushy moneyman Terry McAullife, whose brief, ineffective reign is mercifully over.

Yo, EJ.

2004-11-09T13:02:00.000-08:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35437-2004Nov8.html

EJ Dionne says:

"Democrats have an unlimited capacity to declare that their party suffers from some deep intellectual dysfunction. The insistence that Democrats need "new ideas" is especially popular among think-tankers and columnists, a band I have a personal interest in keeping employed.

But Rove and Bush won this election on decidedly old strategies that had nothing to do with ideas. These included the attacks on John Kerry for being weak and the claim that Bush would be tougher on the bad guys. That's familiar, Cold War-era stuff. Gay marriage was a new issue, but opposing gay marriage is an old idea. Social Security privatization and tax cuts are old ideas, too. "

Dude, the intellectual vacuum of the Democratic party (1st paragraph) leaves their national candidates wide open to the type of personal demagoguery Rove loves (2nd paragraph).

Connect the dots.

Newt Gingrich, Polyanna.

2004-11-09T11:49:00.000-08:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35438-2004Nov8.html

Newt says that the government has a role in an "ownership society" in improving peoples' health, espcially minorities. Right Newt. This past four year orgy of over spending and underfunding our budget, what was that? Do you think that's going to stop with the emergence of your "stable governing coalition"?

The number one thing that the government can do, long-term, to preserve the general well-being, is to make sure that that the debt is low and that government spending doesn't crowd out private spending. Instead of using his space in the Post to bash a governing coalition that has fundamentally erased the budgetary priorities he rose to power on, he finds it better to cosy up to the most profligate spenders in modern American history.

The congressional GOP record: you can run, but you can't hide. They're not conservative, and they're seriously endangering our future.

Hooray for Newt's discovery that health care is a fundamental expectation that people have of their government. Down with his outright ignorance and hypocrisy.

They Still Don't Get It.

2004-11-09T11:23:00.000-08:00

Sue me, the New York times is loaded with goodies today.

"Kerry Advisers Point Fingers at Iraq and Social Issues"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/politics/campaign/09kerry.html

"Recircling the Democrats' Wagons"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/opinion/09tue2.html

The first is an article about how, according to Kerry's advisers, the dems could have won if they'd refocused the discussion on the economy. Bullshit. People voted against Kerry and the Dems, because they have only abstract understandings of what the dems stand for. They find that dems are generally more to be trusted with the economy and less so on national defense. People voted for Kerry if they thought Bush was harmful. That was Kerry's unifying national message. Generally, people made this a character referendum. And with Kerry's mixed record, guess who looked like he had a better character?

As for the second, an op-ed piece, the stalwartly liberal NYTimes Editorial Board advises the dems to use Harry Reid's term as Minority Leader as an opportunity to peel off moderate GOP votes in the Senate for key filibusters. Okay. If the dems' leader in the Senate is more moderate than the rest of the caucus, how on earth, long-term, are they supposed to sell a unified focused idea for the governance of the country? Of are they just a coalition of those who object to the right-wing ascendancy?

Harry Reid is like Tom Hagen: not a war-time consigliere. He's like a band-aid for a party with a gaping shotgun wound. Of course, we've seen the dems shoot themselves in the foot time and again. Why should this be different?

Kristallnacht

2004-11-09T10:39:00.000-08:00

Today is Kristallnacht, the anniversary of Hitler's state-sponsored regional pogrom in 1933. Jewish books were burned in the streets, synagogues were burned, Jewish shops were vandalized and Jews themselves were lynched and abused.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/international/europe/09dutch.html

From an article on the anti-Muslim response to Theo Van Gogh's killing:

"The bombing was the most serious incident of anti-Muslim violence in recent days, but not the only one. Extra police officers have been put on the streets of some cities, and politicians have appealed for calm before Mr. van Gogh's funeral on Tuesday, which is also the anniversary of Kristallnacht, the wave of anti-Semitic attacks pushed by Hitler in 1938. The anniversary has inspired anti-immigration acts in Europe in the past."

I'm not sure who are Hitler's true descendants: the Euro ultra-rightists, who demand anti-immigration laws, or the coalition of spineless leftists and Islamo-fascists. When allied with equivocation and moral relativism, fascism has already proven quite adept at destroying liberal societies.

--DS

The Character Issue

2004-11-08T16:47:00.000-08:00

We're so caught up on this values thing that we're forgetting what might have been the key to the election. From CNN's awesome exit poll site:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/epolls/

Bush won by at least 70% the 45% of the electorate most interested in a candidate having either a clear stand on the issues, strong leadership qualities, and honesty and trustworthiness. This is a huge piece of data. Forty-five percent of the electorate was primiarily interested in the character of the person they sent to the White House. Not surprising, since he's our head of state. If you include the 8% of the electorate most interested in religious faith, you have more than a majority of the electorate whose criteria for voting was whether the person they were voting for was reliable, honest, and of good character.

I don't concede any ground on these issues to Bush. But as a candidate playing the P/R game, Bush has a persona that is custom-tailored to the prime weakness of the Democrats--their seeming inability to stand for any one thing for longer than it's politically expedient. Kerry gives conflicting statements regarding gay marriage and civil unions. Then the $87 Billion comment. Then all those years in the Senate, and all those votes--for deficit reduction, for new spending on all kinds of things, for investigating Republican malfeasance, against particular defense packages.

Now look, a lot of this stuff any good spinmeister can do with anyone with a long record of public service. Bush is partcularly well innoculated from this because he has an incredibly short term of public service and a well-media-managed one at that. But to be honest, Kerry, and every national Democrat is going to have a problem with this. They have LOTS of constituencies to appeal to, all of which disagree on lots of things besides their disdain for one-party GOP rule. And they can't just repeat the same talking points over and over. And they have to fudge their positions on lots of things. Taxes, public spending, deficit control, war & peace, death penalty, it seems like every national Dem has been on a "journey" with regard to their positions and congressional votes.

Kerry, by focusing the campaign on his Vietnam-era character in the convention defined the terms of the election. And any time you get into a "who has the better character for leadership" contest with George W. Bush, you lose. Why? Bush's positions are rock-solid, you know where he stands and what he'll do, much has been written of the religious nature of his beliefs and his consequential commitment to them, and because he has no record for you to attack for its inconsistencies (equivalent to Kerry's).

This year, we got a) a bunch of people who think character, and those character issues listed in the survey are the most important criteria regarding their vote and b) a whole bunch of them voting for GWB.

How do we solve the dilemma? Short-term, we nominate political neophytes ala Wes Clark and John Edwards, who, like Bush, have relatively short, indistinguished political careers in common. You get them to stay on the "middle America" message and you squeak by if your base holds.

Long-term, we have to develop a rock-solid ideology equivalent to conservatism, to which we hold every Democratic politician in the country. We sell our ideas in the media, and take the argument to middle America.

Then, in 20 years, when we nominate Senator Harold Ford of Tennessee, he'll be able to say "The only thing consistent about George P. Bush's record is its inconsistencies..." and "I've been a consistent progressive and pragmatic voice in the Senate for 15 years. You know where I stand, because my record bears it out all the way. You know my character. You know my judgement. Make me your president."

And, in the long-term, we will.

DS

Fallujah

2004-11-08T13:12:00.000-08:00

The brawl for Fallujah is on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33546-2004Nov8.html

We deeply hope our guys get in, get the job done safely, and get out. But we also hope that we don't kill too many innocents along the way. US Military tactics minimize the exposure to our troops, but don't commensurately minimize the exposure of civilian populations. Hence, as we've been bombarding insurgent installations over the past few days, we've probably been inadvertently killing or injuring thousands of civilians.

Fighting war this way is good politically at home. It minimizes the number of bodybags coming home. And the innocents killed abroad don't vote here. And they're killed inadvertently.

It seems to me that fighting a war this way is the equivalent to driving an SUV through a crowded park. The objective is to get to the other side of the park without hurting anyone inside the SUV. But it's in our national interest not to drive the SUV into the crowd unless it's absolutely necessary. Why? Because, although we're killing the people in the park inadvertently, we know that we WILL kill a good number of them. And since we're engaged in a God-sanctioned campaign to convince the world of the inherent superiority and humanity of liberal democracy, we might want to lead by example.

The new opposition party has to decide whether it's hawkish or dovish or what. And, since we're in for a dime on Iraq, there's no use quibbling about going in for a dollar in Fallujah. We're committed, and now we have to just win, no matter what.

But let's not forget, the next time we decide to go to war, that there are a hell of a lot of people that will be run over in the process.

DS

The Uninformed Voter

2004-11-08T13:07:00.000-08:00

From Bob Herbert's column:

"I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion."

Look, it's an old-fashioned liberal excuse that the people are just too stupid to realize what's best for them. But in this case there's a real problem. Most of Bush's voters based their votes on information that was factually incorrect, beyond spin.

Let's put it plainly.: The commercial media generally and Fox News specifically are to blame. In the words of Moynihan, we're entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts.

--DGS

A Metaphor for Bush's Misadventures

2004-11-08T10:25:00.000-08:00

I couldn't resist.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6396422/

The "Values" Fight

2004-11-08T09:30:00.000-08:00

It seems like the question of the opposition's response to the "values" debate has been addressed by smart people today. Bob Herbert gets it started: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/opinion/08herbert.html?oref=login&hp

"You have to be careful when you toss the word values around. All values are not created equal. Some Democrats are casting covetous eyes on voters whose values, in many cases, are frankly repellent. Does it make sense for the progressive elements in our society to undermine their own deeply held beliefs in tolerance, fairness and justice in an effort to embrace those who deliberately seek to divide?"

Nice use of the word progressive (you can expect to hear that one alot, real soon). It will soon replace "liberal" as the ideological buzz-word of the Dems. Herbert's making a great point here: do we really want to caucus with just anybody we can convince to vote for us? Isn't there any philosophical standard that the Dems hold themselves to?

Then Andrew Sullivan warns the GOP about overplaying its hand:
http://www.andrewsullivan.com

"The percentage of people who said in 2004 that their vote was determined by the issue of "moral values" was 22 percent. In 1992, if you add the issues of abortion and family values together, that percentage was 27 percent. In 1996, it was 49 percent. In 2000, it was 49 percent. So the domestic moral focus halved in 2004. Obviously, the war took precedence, especially if you combine the categories of the Iraq war and the war on terrorism more generally. Again: the Republicans should be wary of over-playing their hand. If they believe the entire country is the religious right, the backlash could begin very soon."

Exactly. And if someone started making the case about a secularist approach to so-called "values" questions, you might have seen those suburban voters tip the other way (if and when they realized that they were in bed with religious absolutists, with different ideas on the separation of church and state). Instead, what did Kerry do? He tried to fudge the issue instead of engaging it. He did alot of talking about how religious he is and his Altar boy upbringing. But at the end of the day he believes that religious absolutism on personal moral questions is harmful. So why didn't he bring it up? Here's my guess: he treated the electorate's proclivities (as evidenced by his crack-research staff) as static. He would not take a stand as a secularist, to convince people that a secular approach to abortion and gay marriage is the right one. Instead he tried to dress up as a moralist who applies his moralism differently. Wrong answer John. You're a secularist. Be thou not ashamed. Fudging the issue didn't win the dems the 5 percent of voters they needed in even ONE red state this time around or in 2000. Time for a new approach?

Which Gary Hart provides:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/opinion/08hart.html?oref=login&hp

Hart bloviates for a while on his Christian motivations for a progressive outlook on caring for the unfortunate. He notices that professions of religious faith are a prerequisite for public service, because they are an abstraction on which people can project their own beliefs. I'd take that a step further: people don't believe that a politician will do what he says. So if it's a matter of religious belief, (and the voter is religious) they're more likely to believe that the guy does what he says he'll do. A fantasy, as we know from Bush's multiple and underreported flip-flops.

The Dems, in a spineless play for votes, have played along with this fantasy, rather than challenging it, for the past two election cycles. And so you have John Kerry going on about being an altar boy, and Al Gore playing Ezekiel. Memo to the Senator: you can't "out-religion" Bush. In fact you can't come close. And by conceding that the issue is important at all (instead of fighting to keep your religious beliefs private, like Howard Dean), you allowed Bush to use his religiousness to prove that he's of greater character.

And you did the political scene a disservice. Instead of fighting to keep our religious beliefs private, you set the stage for a bizarre future, in which candidates will have to pass a religious test in order to serve. And guess whose clergy will draw up that test?

It deosn't matter WHY a politician believes something. That plays to the inclination to make campaigns sappy musicked softly lit campaign ads. A politician says he believes something. If he has a long and consistent record of doing it, you can assume that he'll continue believing it in his next term as president or senator or dog-catcher. Of course this requires a media that's willing to comprehensively report the truth of someone's record, rather that each side's mutual distortions. But it's easier and gets better ratings to write about someone's religious beliefs.

Hart outlines a strongly American view of secularism. We have to adopt it, or risk that exclusionary religious views dominate public discourse.

--DS

The Open Question

2004-11-05T13:21:00.000-08:00

Yeah, so this is it.

See, we got our ass whupped. Bad. The ass got its ass whupped.

The ass we're talking about the is political organization known as "The Democratic Party". This site is meant for those interested in a) the possibility of divided government, b)the possibility of a legitimate opposition party, and c)the long-term good governance of the US.

How are we going to get there? Well, mainly, the way that the other guys did it. We'll discuss what we think went wrong, where we are, and what to do about it further. But for now we'll just say this: we must develop another viable philosophical center in American politics. We have to sell this basic idea to voters and decision makers. And the new opposition party, whatever it is, must be purely committed to this basic idea, with every bit of the devotion held by the other guys for "conservatism". If we lose, we must go down swinging. That's the way the other guys laid the foundation for their success. And it's how we're going to do it.

What will be the philosophy of the opposition party? That's the open question, and we're going to try to answer it, so that when we emerge from the wilderness, we can do things right.

And let's not forget to make fun of some stuff too.

--Dave