Robert Kuttner writes in Saturday's Boston Globe:
"The right has managed to savage the institutions that produced increasing opportunity and a broader middle class in the decades after World War II – minimum wages, trade unionism, job-security, decent health and retirement plans, affordable college and housing, Social Security that rose with inflation, and economic regulation to keep Wall Street from grabbing most of the winnings."
How can the right (who, in the worldview of the Globe Op Ed writers, through their horrid nasty policies seek only to plunder and pillage the poor and middle classes in society on behalf of the wealthy) keep winning elections? Is it that the many voting folks who aren’t wealthy, yet vote Republican, are so profoundly stupid that they can’t recognize their own interests? Or do they believe that beyond all else it is in their interest to have leaders they actually trust?
Is the degree of trust a property that differentiates the two political parties most in the minds of swing voters? I believe it is. Recall how post-election polls reported that even voters who were less confident in Bush felt more certain that they knew where Bush stood – and therefore were more certain of what Bush would actually do in office. It would follow that they weighed Bush’s campaign rhetoric as more genuine and less calculated than Kerry’s.
If the Democrats' credibility doesn’t measure up to their opponents, it stems from the fact that they can’t agree to disagree the way the Republicans have done. The Republican coalition consists of a number of ideological strains stretching from Christianist to Libertarian. Not all of us are pleased with Bush. Certainly the fiscal conservatives are not reaping great rewards from their help in electing the current administration. Yet Republicans seem united in the realization that despite flaws, they far prefer Bush to acting as opposition to what they believe would have been a national disaster under Kerry.
By contrast, the Democrats are unable even to converge on a single wording of a non-binding Senate resolution on the single issue of the Iraq war. Instead they offered two separate resolutions, and six Democratic Senators voted for neither of these and instead with the Republicans. Furthermore, Senator Clinton even celebrates this disunity (at least in comments for public consumption) as indicating a more open, honest party. After the votes in the Senate this week she said, "Although unity is important it is not the most important value. It is, I think, a tribute to the Democratic Party at this moment in time that we are honestly and openly struggling with a lot of the difficult issues facing our country."
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RogerMDillon
"Is it that the many voting folks who aren't wealthy, yet vote Republican, are so profoundly stupid that they can't recognize their own interests?"
Yes.
“Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!”
George Carlin
2 - Dave Nalle
I believe Roger has just expressed the basic campaign strategy of the left - assume people are stupid and pander, pander, pander.
Dave
3 - Harry Forbes
I don't mind high or low assumptions about the intelligence of the average voter. I do mind when someone believes that due to their lack of intelligence they should be disenfranchised through anti-democratic processes.
It's easy for elected officals (and especially for unelected judges) to conflate a lack of intelligence with a holding of particular viewpoints.
4 - JP
And I have to give him points for this article, at least in the sense of message delivery - which the Republicans excel at. I wrote recently about core values, and my opinion that the Democrats need to identify their core values in simple terms, and market their ideas with a sense of purpose.
Where I part ways with this discussion is whether Democratic economic strategy has "failed." It seems to me that by suggesting that people are voting against their economic interests because the other party is more unified and appears "stronger," that if the Democrats were to make a unified run at the "FDR/JFK model" and genuniely respond to all the Republican divisive-issue slime, they'd be winning elections.
Republicans have twisted terms like "freedom" and "security" to fit their isolationist and individualist agenda, and through their media machine, their interpretation has become the language of America. This recent article summed this idea up well:
5 - Harry Forbes
Thanks for the compliment, JP.
I read your post and agree completely that the Dems have to "identify their core values in simple terms".
I disagree that Repubs have twisted the language (more than other type of politicians have). BTW I hope you will expand on how Repubs (especially Bush) are "isolationist". That word applied to Bush is a new charge that you will have trouble proving, especially to the soldiers in Iraq.
One difference that is a sustaining advantage for Repubs IHMO is that they can better mobilize people who feel effectively disenfranchised by actions of government (most often, I believe, of left-of-center government). Judical decisons resulting from leftist activism in the courts form the classic cases. The formation and rise to power of 'the Religious Right' is a the #1 case in point. I see it as a direct result of Roe v. Wade and the Dems dogged service to feminist extremism for the last 30+ years. So also is the mileage that Repubs in the other 49 states are making out of the Massachusetts Goodrich decision which ruled that our marriage laws needed to be indifferent to the gender of marriage licensees.
Our Massachusetts state legislators are 7/8 Democrats, and they don't want to touch this issue with a 10-foot pole. Many on the left say that the issue 'will go away when people get used to it'. That is exactly what they said about the abortion issue in the mid-1970s, and yet they are still losing elections on account of it.
6 - Dave Nalle
BTW I hope you will expand on how Repubs (especially Bush) are "isolationist". That word applied to Bush is a new charge that you will have trouble proving, especially to the soldiers in Iraq.
I was wondering about this one too. A lot of us wish Bush WAS somewhat isolationist. So far he's been anything but, and I'm not really even talking about the war in Iraq.
Dave
7 - RogerMDillon
Sounds just like the right campaign strategy.
8 - Joe R.
Why Impeachment? see thiscantbehappening.net
9 - Dave Nalle
Wait wait, let me guess...because they're handing out free peyote at DNC headquarters?
Dave
10 - Dave Nalle
economic regulation to keep Wall Street from grabbing most of the winnings
When Kuttner says something like this I wonder if he has any clue how utterly ridiculous he sounds. If Wall Street is 'grabbing' the winnings, then those winnings are going to investors around the country and companies which employ people. That's who Wall Street is composed of. So what he's against is people making money from saving and investing, or having good stable jobs. What a nut.
Dave
11 - JP
I wrote "isolationist" referring to our tendency to "go it alone" in the war with Iraq, as in with or without international support--which isolates us from the international community. You may recall that before 9/11, Bush campaigned on an isolationist view of foreign policy; that changed drastically once America was attacked. Some of us would argue it changed too much--at least Afghanistan could be viewed as a response to a threat, whereas Iraq was a war of choice.
Maybe unilateralism would've been a better word.
12 - Harry Forbes
Understood, JP.
Unilaterism would be a better choice of word, because it points up a difference between the 2 parties.
Just the mention of "UN" causes extensive eye-rolling on the political right. We believe its corruption has entirely compromised its mission, and that this level of corruption remains inevitable until it is reformed from the outside to create some measure of outside accountability for its behavior.
That view is quite different from the Democratic Party platform, I believe.
13 - Arch Conservative
You hit the nail on the head Nalle.......
the guardians of the left are so much smarter, more informed, and insightful than everyone who disagrees with them
We're not allowed to question the "progressive" wisdom the pervades the left.
Bigot, racist, homphobe, xenophobe............yes the left can make some pretty convincing one word arguments to support their positions when someone actually has the "unmitigated gall" to question thier superior all knowing sensibilities........
The left wants to blame the right for ruining the middle class and hurting minorities? Well maybe the left needs to look in the mirror. If the left wasn't in the habit of creating a perpetual "victim class" maybe the people they're speaking of would be better off now. If the left didn't always tell poor people and minorities that their only avenue to better themselves is with governement programs maybe they'd be better off. If the left didn't invoke racism and classism into every issue where it never existed to begin with maybe we'd all be better off.
The right is destroying social security? Yeah so I guess the left's solution of ignoring the fiscal solvency problem of SS while attacking any idea such as private investment in low yield but low risk mutual funds is the way to go huh?
The left has lost election after election in recent years and they can't figure out why. Is it perthaps because the voting public is not as feeble minded and gullible as the left believes? Is it perhaps because many of them can see through the bullshit leftist propaganda?
14 - gonzo marx
Harry sez...
*We believe its corruption has entirely compromised its mission, and that this level of corruption remains inevitable until it is reformed from the outside to create some measure of outside accountability for its behavior.*
unfortunately, many of the American public (including this Independant) perceive the GOP and the K street Project EXACTLY the same way
and thus, completely distrust the current political Leadership who places political goals far ahead of their committment to the American people
Excelsior?
15 - mschannon
Dave, sorry, but you're wrong. I went over to DNC headquarters and they vehemently deny that they're handing out peyote.
Great dope, though.
In Jameson Veritas
16 - mike
The problem with the left theses days is its dominated by radicals and not by centrists, the left will continue to fall prey when environmentalists, social demagogue set the agenda. What happened to the old democrats which were able to get votes from average people. They have totally lost the blue-collars except in federal government workers. As a libertarian who sees eye to eye with democrats on certain social issues, I am terrified by their redistributionis demagoguery, their pandering to groups set on destroying financial foundations of these country. Democrats can only win if they concentrate on economy, like the lovable character Clinton did.
17 - Arch Conservative
Mcshannon don't froget Wednesday is ladies night at the DNC. Every woman that stops by gets a "$29.95 on your next abortion" coupon.
18 - gonzo marx
mike sez...
*The problem with the left theses days is its dominated by radicals and not by centrists,*
can you point out these "radicals" for me please?
i've been looking for them, but i fail to find more than one or two on the Left side of the aisle
now on the GOP side, there are PLENTY of radicals , from Santorum to Rove...take your pick...and they are giving the handful of moderate GOP types as well as REAL Conservatives (Goldwater,George Will, William Buckley types) a BAD name, with thei rtax cut and spedn, grow the government to it's largest side, K street project, deficit spending , nation building practices...to name a few
Excelsior?
Excelsior?
19 - Dave Nalle
can you point out these "radicals" for me please?
i've been looking for them, but i fail to find more than one or two on the Left side of the aisle
I'll be glad to help you out, Gonzo.
How about Rahm Emanuel, head of the DCCC who torpedoed a number of moderates running in primaries in favor of more radical contenders? How about John Conyers who is directly responsible for at least 60% of the craziness that comes from Capitol Hill? How about Charles Rangel who supports reparations and has taken illegal graft from Fidel Castro. How about Cynthia McKinney who also supports reparations and believes that she's the victim of some sort of weird racist conspiracy, not to mention having spoken out in support of terrorism in Israel. And let's not forget Dick Durbin - you remember his equating of GITMO and Nazi deathcamps, right? And then there's Jim McDermott and his junkets to Baghdad for photo ops with Saddam the week before the war, and Maxine Waters who's on the executive board of the DSA.
And speaking of the DSA - That's the Democratic Socialists of America, a group directly affiliated with the Socialist International and claiming as its members a number of elected representatives on Capitol Hill, including:
John Conyers (Mich.)
Sam Farr (Calif.)
Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.)
Stephanie Tubbs Jones (Ohio)
Carolyn Kilpatrick (Mich.)
Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)
Barbara Lee (Calif.)
Jim McDermott (Wash.)
Cynthia McKinney (Ga.)
Gregory Meeks (N.Y.)
George Miller (Ga.)
John Olver (Mass.)
Donald Payne (N.J.)
Charlie Rangel (N.Y.)
José Serrano (N.Y.)
Pete Stark (Calif.)
Edolphus Towns (N.Y.)
Tom Udall (N.M.)
Nydia Velázquez (N.Y.)
Maxine Waters (Calif.)
Lynn Woolsey (Calif.)
That's 20 people who are IN the DSA. That means they've signed on for the repeal of the US Constitution, the destruction of capitalism, the nationalization of industry, wages imposed by government fiat, open borders, world government, open support of both Hamas and Al Qaeda, and the list goes on and on.
If the Democrats are at least moderately successful in the 2006 elections you can expect their ranks on the hill to grow by at least 10 more loony extremists.
So is that enough examples of radical democrats on Capitol Hill?
Now spare me your ongoing apologetics, gonzo.
Dave
20 - gonzo marx
lol..my ongoing apologeics?
please cite for me where i have made ANY excuses for any of the individuals you have listed?
shall we compare that to your defense of the Administration and the neocon foreign policies that fly in the face of your avowed "libertarian" Ideals?
nice try at the Rove torpedo...he doesn't pay you enough
i'l take a look at this organization you are speaking of, i am a bit doubtful that those you list have any intention of "repealing the Constitution" and if unsubstantiated, is slander and libel..if substantiated then it is grounds for removing those folks from Office with extreme prejudice
now...can we do he same for those advocating abandoning the Constitution for a Theocracy?
Excelsior?
Excelsior?
21 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, do you have stock in a Straw Man manufacturing operation or something?
Are you seriously saying that I've EVER been a supporter of the theocrats. If that's your contention I'd like to see it backed up by even a single example. And I can cite endless examples where I've been outspokenly critical of the religious right.
As for your 'ongoing apologetics', I'm just giving you back a bit of your own. When you constantly harass me for supposedly defending Bush and Rove with little merit, I think I can take some slack for giving you back the same when you make the ridiculous claim that there are few if any radical democrats on the Hill. Polyanna much?
When I do defend the administration the reasons ought to be obvious to you - sure they don't live up to my libertarian ideals, but at the same time I can still see how much better they are than the alternative. Half a loaf is better than none and if you hold out for the full loaf you're likely to starve before you get it.
And do read up on the Socialist International. Even if they don't have the elimination of our Constitution as a stated principle, I doubt you can argue that imposing their agenda in the US would be possible without the shredding of that precious document, and the DSA members know that full well.
Dave
22 - Nancy
Somehow I can't think that the Democratic Socialists of America, or whatever they call themselves, are as demonstrably dangerous and extreme as the group of neocons headed by Smilin' Dick Cheney who signed their names to that Amerika Uber Alles document, and have proceeded to initiate wars, ignore the bill of rights, and sell congressional & administration favors more blatantly & corruptly than any other group thus far in history. The DSA's just aren't cohesive enough to pose a threat, and getting Dems in general to agree on anything reminds me of that commercial about herding cats. They're SO "individualistic" they're a disgrace, they really are.
I do think a good part of the solution/answer was given early on, that the average idiot voter not only is stupid in the extreme, and gullible, but also prefers that which can be depended on, even if it works against him. Remember, most of the voters that Rove & Co. try to rouse & get out on election day are the same aging, quiescent idiots that can be depended on to send their money to Oral Roberts lest a 900-foot-Jesus call him home; or they are white males longing for the days when women knew their places in the kitchen, etc. and a high school diploma was sufficient for a good lifetime job at the local factory. As a whole, these groups tend to vote, since they tend to be more biddable than the average Dem adherent, a self-centered yuppie pinhead so oblivious to anything not directly impinging on their own silly concerns they can't be bothered to vote, and tend to be very un-biddable. The Dems also can't be trusted to say the same thing twice in the same hour, and Hillary aside, they can't seem to learn that NO ONE likes mavericks or those whose minds/opinions are so waffley they can't take a position & stick to it - one reason I have washed my hands of them in disgust.
23 - gonzo marx
for #21...
rest assured i will do the Reading..i like learning about this kind of shit, if any part fo your allegation about these folks are correct, you KNOW i will be all over them as well as my usual targets...
correction here, if i was unclear..i do NOT think you have had any kind words fo rthe Theocrats in the GOP...as you well know, it is only when i perceive a dichotomy between Libertairan principles that are in direct conflict with whatever particular Policy from the Administration you are defending...our discussion about FISA is one clear example of me being astounded any kind of libertarian could or would offend
it's things like that which make no sense to me coming from you, Dave, who i perceive as intelligent, relatively rational, and normally on the side of DEFENDING constitutional rights, rather than ceding them to a power grabbing Executive backed by the one Party rule in House and Senate...so if i get harsh at times, it is due to this sheer schism of Thought...and i may be more snarky to you..who i have always Thought shoudl grok in more fullness than that
hope that explains a bit better...
now..i still DEFY you to find a SINGL instance where i have performed any modicum of Apologetics for ANY of the folks you listed...
i will indeed read up, because i find it incredulous that such elected officials would be for "dismantling the Constitution" as you put it...i woudl be willing to bet that is some over the top hyperbole...but i will find out after the reading...
now, why don't YOU take a second and total up the combination of neocons and Religious Right radicals amongst the GOP...start with Cheney and Rumsfeld and then work your way down...Bush counts as a "fundamentalist" by his rhetoric and parts of the Agenda he has put forward (from "faith based initiatives" to "the jury is still out on evolution" to the totally bullshit statement when asked who was his favorite political philosopher and he said "Jesus" without missing a beat....the last one is really Funny when you consider the few Political lessons Jesus taught.... "render unto Ceasar"- pay your taxes, and the Ends never justifies the means, but the means are the end unto themselves - being crucified for you Belief and Ideology, sacrificing yourself rather than starting a War)
whew....ok...
i do hope that helps a bit more to explain myself...difficult in this medium...i do so much better in Conversation...but ah well...
Quixote rides in Maine
Excelsior?
24 - gonzo marx
ok Dave...i got the DSA webpage up...th elist of directors is...
Bogdan Denitch
Barbara Ehrenreich
Dolores Huerta
Eliseo Medina
Eugene "Gus" Newport
Frances Fox Piven
Gloria Steinem
Cornel West
and the Vice chairs are...
Ed Clark
Dorothy Healey
Jose LaLuz
Hilda Mason
Steve Max
Harold Meyerson
Maxine Phillips
Christine Riddiough
Rosemary Ruether
Motl Zelmanowicz
nowhere do i see the elected officials on your listings...
do you have any link with these folks listed as such by their own offices...or reliable public release? i just want the substantiation and to look as who else is on this list....
but i am perusing the website...and so far, it is quite mild compared to pnac.org
but i can easily see hwo BOTH those sites represent radicals form their Ideologies
the difference is that one Faction runs the Government and has been setting the Agenda for 5 years...
the other organisation seem pretty impotent
i'll read on...
Excelsior?
25 - Dave Nalle
correction here, if i was unclear..i do NOT think you have had any kind words fo rthe Theocrats in the GOP...as you well know, it is only when i perceive a dichotomy between Libertairan principles that are in direct conflict with whatever particular Policy from the Administration you are defending...our discussion about FISA is one clear example of me being astounded any kind of libertarian could or would offend
And I'm astounded that you can buy in to the progagandistic misrepresenting of these actions as something which genuinely threatens the constitution, and that you think that the existing protections won't deal with any real constitutional threats. It's a common paranoia from the extreme left which I would have hoped you were perceptive enough to see past.
it's things like that which make no sense to me coming from you, Dave, who i perceive as intelligent, relatively rational, and normally on the side of DEFENDING constitutional rights, rather than ceding them to a power grabbing Executive backed by the one Party rule in House and Senate...so if i get harsh at times, it is due to this sheer schism of Thought...and i may be more snarky to you..who i have always Thought shoudl grok in more fullness than that
I grok Constitution, but I also grok how trivial these supposed offenses are, and I don't buy into the big conspiracy theory that you seem to have swallowed hook line and sinker. I don't think each of these little excesses adds up to something greater. I am fully convinced that they are primarily pragmatic efforts to accomplish specific goals and don't pose a long-term threat to the constitution. Questionable actions may have been taken, but they are not the assault on the constitution or the attempt to make the constitution obsolete which some have claimed. That kind of threat I see coming from an entirely different quarter.
now..i still DEFY you to find a SINGL instance where i have performed any modicum of Apologetics for ANY of the folks you listed...
I don't think that you have been apologizing for them on the whole, but when you buy into their claptrap and strawman conspiracies you're just advancing their agenda, even if only as a dupe.
i will indeed read up, because i find it incredulous that such elected officials would be for "dismantling the Constitution" as you put it...i woudl be willing to bet that is some over the top hyperbole...but i will find out after the reading...
Make sure to read the linked Socialist International site. I doubt that any of these people would come right out and say they want to do away with the Constitution, but there's no way to achieve the goals they've signed on for without disposing of that inconvenient bit of paper.
now, why don't YOU take a second and total up the combination of neocons and Religious Right radicals amongst the GOP...start with Cheney and Rumsfeld and then work your way down...Bush counts as a "fundamentalist" by his rhetoric and parts of the Agenda he has put forward (from "faith based initiatives" to "the jury is still out on evolution" to the totally bullshit statement when asked who was his favorite political philosopher and he said "Jesus" without missing a beat....the last one is really Funny when you consider the few Political lessons Jesus taught.... "render unto Ceasar"- pay your taxes, and the Ends never justifies the means, but the means are the end unto themselves - being crucified for you Belief and Ideology, sacrificing yourself rather than starting a War)
You're conflating two or maybe even three different groups here and they are in many cases diametrically opposed. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush are not primarily religiously motivated, though others may be and they may pander to them. Neocons are generally atheist or agnostic and have almost nothing in common philosophically with the religious right. Rumsfeld isn't even a Neocon, he's an old-fashioned hardline conservative imperialist, though that group has some things in common with the Neocons. Plus, the Neocons have completely repudiated and rejected Bush and Cheney for not following their philosophy. If we're lucky they'll go back to being Democrats. The point being that the GOP is diverse - way more so than their opposition. Groups like Neocons and Theocons have little common ground, except that they both know the Democrats aren't going to do what they want.
i do hope that helps a bit more to explain myself...difficult in this medium...i do so much better in Conversation...but ah well...
You got through it intact, anyway.
Quixote rides in Maine
Well, for about a week more anyway - and he's about 120 miles north of you...
Dave