WHY THE AMERICAN LEFT WILL LOSE....

[ulTRAX]

Why will the American Left lose? Because they seem incapable of thinking seriously about what it takes to win.

The Right has long term goals... call it their vision. They want to turn the clock back to either the Hoover era or back further to the 1890s.. before the Progressive reforms of the early 1900s. Some on the Right want to erase the line of church and state.

To accomplish this the Right has some well thought out strategic thrusts.

One is to sabotage the finances of the federal government with irresponsible tax cuts. Why not? It's the perfect payback to their wealthy constituency and it undermines the Democrat's ability to fund the social safety net. The Right would prefer to see us piss away 400 billion on interest than see that money be put to any use the Dems want.

The Right, with the help of many misguided Dems, push for free trade to force American companies to compete with nations that don't have worker safety/environmental overhead. This also serves to undercut the American labor movement.

Another major thrust is to hijack the federal judiciary to undermine the legality of New Deal safety-net government.

The above are supported with philosophical fig leaves about free markets, original intent, and Orwellian lies about how tax cuts for the rich benefit us all.

In contrast, the American Left... by that I mostly mean the Democratic Party, is predictably in retreat. The Democrats seem not to understand the Right's game plan. Without that understanding, it can't blunt their strategic thrusts.

For example when Kerry had the ear of the nation during the last election he refused to be honest about the deficit/debt and he refused to go after the doctrine of Originalism. In doing so he worked within the Right's framework and lost a golden opportunity to develop a educated constituency that could see though Washington's fiscal shell game and against the Right's attempt to highjack the judiciary. But even that would merely be a defensive strategy.

The American Left's REAL failure is it's a ship without a rudder. It has no vision of where it wants to take this nation in 50 years. Without that vision it won't think strategically about implementing a POSITIVE vision. Without that long-term vision, we are continually dragged back into the dynamics of our dysfunctional two party political system which makes us lose focus.

While the Democrats are FINALLY trying to build up their political infrastructure, the BEST strategy the Democrats seem to have come up with is to repackage their message using Lakoff's reframing game plan.

If that's the BEST the Democrats can do... then perhaps they deserve to lose.

[rucky]

1. It's easier to destroy than it is to create. n/t

[Mairead]

41. And that is a key concept that too many people forget

Any idiot can destroy, but it takes real intelligence, energy, and caring to build.

[Imagevision]

107. Look, big business founded this country and big business will run it

Bush screws up too much? -- they'll simply buy a Dem Prez if that's what it takes. Hillary for example, we can always count on Hillary & Bill for leadership? --

[MisterLiberal]

2. Never

Sounds like you're pumping the Repukes just a bit too much for this board.

How about we actually farm a TRULY LIBERAL candidate for once instead of Repuke lite and see if we lose.

I bet if we act like an opposition party, we will win!

Between Repuke and Repuke lite, we are disenfranchising our base!!!

[ulTRAX]

8. I agree.....

And in my defense may I direct you to some old articles I wrote: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1495788

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1562116

However... my opinions of the Dems is not that favorable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1430548

[brainshrub]

3. Nah Dems will win big in 2006.

Dean is showing the way. YYYyyyeeeaaarrrggg!

The key is to not surrender in the face of a fight.

[IndyOp]

7. Dems will win big in 2006 -

only if the votes are counted fairly. And, that, right now, is a BIG 'if'.

Election reform must happen at all levels NOW!
Election reform must happen at all levels NOW!
Election reform must happen at all levels NOW!
Election reform must happen at all levels NOW!

[brainshrub]

10. You are right.

I suppose if electoral fraud happens again, I'll have to switch to the Green Party. At least they are proven fighters about the BBV issue.

[phillinweird247]

36. If election fraud happens again

we should burn the whole thing down.

[brainshrub]

39. I think banning the BBV will be enough.

Revolutions have a nasty habit of eating their young.

[phillinweird247]

40. agreed and well put.

I'm just so mad and want my country back

[IndyOp]

43. Welcome to DU phillinweird247

:hi:

It is very hard, sometimes, to keep my rhetoric 'understated.' After the election theft last November I wound up telling someone at my workplace that if the stolen election wasn't taken from Bush and awarded to Kerry I would get a gun and go to DC - didn't specify what I would do there 'cause I had no idea. I have never owned a gun. I hate guns! A ridiculous, overblown statement.

:blush:

[Imagevision]

106. and why won't election-fraud happen again?? it's a tool they know that

works - this whole country could have voted for Kerry and Bush still would have won with the software program Finney had made especiaally for 04 election to control Fla. Ohio was insurance.

[ulTRAX]

17. in an anti-democratic system election reform means little

In our system we could have

* 100% voting age participation
* 100% vote count accuracy
* 100% public financing

and the vote loser for president can STILL be imposed on this nation by an unaccountable star chamber called the EC.

Dems have to take a stand... so they care about democracy enough to REFORM our dysfunctional and anti-democratic federal system? Or do the Dems just wrap themselves in "democracy" for window dressing?

I think it's clear the Democratic Party cares so little about democracy it refuses to even define it.

[lvx35]

22. star chamber called the EC??

Electoral college? This just means votes are tallied by states, not individual votes cast. Its not an organization.

[ulTRAX]

63. the EC is a vote weighing scheme

With the 100 wildcard votes representing Senate seats being distributed most heavily to small population states... the EC is nothing but a vote weighing scheme. It gives a Wyoming's citizen presidential vote 3.5X the weight of a citizen from California.

Such vote weighing schemes are ILLEGAL on all other levels of government. See USSC Sims v Reynolds.

[flaminbats]

69. so why even vote in a red state?

Gore beat Bush by more than half a million votes nationwide, but still lost in the Electoral College..maybe I wasted my time voting in 2000, especially if all my state's Electoral College votes go to Bush!

[ulTRAX]

87. why vote in a red state?

There's always a chance that a blue candidate might win and if not at least a strong showing can diminish the opponent's claims to a mandate. Then there's voting for other seats.

But you're correct that the EC makes voting almost irrelevant.... as does our political system generally. If we vote for a losing candidate for a house or senate seat we get no representation for our beliefs.

The problem goes back to the primitive 17th century model used for voting... having all seats based in set geographical units... districts or states. This mean while a sizable percentage of the total population may be Green or Libertarian, they can never muster a win in any district or state. That's why most industrialized democracies have proportional representation.

As for the presidency... I believe the EC has to be abolished. Better to move to a popular vote with a provision for a run-off should no one get a clear majority/

[flaminbats]

97. and the Senate represents nobody except state millionaires..

if the House represented regional populations and the Senate represented national voters proportionally, perhaps our government could be democratic. But voters in America have never been trusted to even elect the President.

Too many Democrats in power have forgotten our party's name, too many leaders of this dying party are committed to playing it safe. Jerry Brown, Martin Luther King, and Bobby Kennedy..today they would only be troublemakers in a powerless institution. :dem:

[ulTRAX]

99. we could not elect senators until 1913

I agree that the Senate should become a national parliament based on national party elections. But reforming the Senate and abolishing the EC may require a 50 year campaign. What COULD help is if the American Left... by that I mostly mean the Democrats, actually started a national discussion on just what democracy is.

This will take a long campaign in and of itself since the Dems seem determined to THWART true democratic reforms. It's one of the American Left's Big Lies that they support democracy.

Some thoughts on the campaign here:

[OrwellwasRight]

72. Also, why no voting rights for DC in all the years that we controlled

Congress?

Inexcusable.

[Nightjock]

20. AMEN!

Even if the polls show repugs with a 1% approval rating they will win. Kerry won by 3 million votes.

WE NO LOnGER LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY!

I am not a conspiracy theorist. Just look at the facts.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. Where do you get the Kerry won by 3 million votes figure from?

[Nightjock]

82. Too many facts and discrepencies

to list.

Click almost anywhere in here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

[ulTRAX]

9. Dean is great... but no substitute for VISION

So if the best Dean can do is embrace reframing, then it's like hoping the Right will just implode.

[brainshrub]

12. Framing is all about having a vision.

Read Lakeoff's book and get back to me.

[ulTRAX]

14. I have read Lakoff's book n/m

[Emendator]

26. Forget him

Lakoff's strategy is not the answer. Here's something by Jude Wanniski, the economist who helped Reagan. Don't discount him over that. Because he opposed the Iraq war, he voted for Kerry last time around. Before the war, he was one of the few to accurately predict that no WMD would be found. He does give advice to Democrats. That's why he is persona non grata among the Republicans.

http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=4508

[jmowreader]

55. Screw Wanniski

Wanniski's a dangerous man.

Jude Wanniski is the man who introduced Arthur Laffer's "Laffer Curve" to Reagan. He is, in my view, largely responsible for the condition of the modern-day Republican Party.

Tomorrow I shall conduct my periodic ridiculing of the Laffer Curve.

[Emendator]

71. You shouldn't

just discount the advice of someone giving it in good faith, even if he's from the other side of the aisle. As far as the Laffer curve's truthfulness, it resulted in three consecutive Republican landslides, more than the Democrats could claim. If the Democrats would borrow it, they would become the pro-growth party and would dominate. But go ahead and mock. You'd rather lose and complain. After all, you know more than him, even though he runs his own investment firm and puts his money where his mouth is.

[jmowreader]

79. I know the Laffer Curve doesn't fucking work

I also know private investment is different from public investment.

Wanniski is a good private investor.

But ya know what? If a private investor doesn't want to put money into commodities or any other investment this year, he doesn't have to. No one will be hurt by Jude Wanniski looking at the lumber market, deciding he'll lose his ass if he plays in it this year, and staying on the sidelines for a year.

OTOH, if a government body decides ambulances are too expensive this year and doesn't buy any even though they need three, people are going to die.

Also, Wanniski can shift money from place to place very easily. If the RCA stock he's long in decides to go to shit, he can go short on RCA within hours. He can move from stocks to commodities without going to Congress and begging permission. (Wanniski really likes gold, though, so that's what he'd shift into.) Try shifting public money around. It probably CAN be done, but as far as I remember it never HAS been done.

Let me tell you a little Army story. When I reenlisted in Berlin, the Berlin Community wanted to provide incentives for reenlisting "current station stabilization" which is a fancy army word for staying where you are. They got all this money and were able to offer either two weeks leave added to your leave account, or one week of leave added to your account PLUS a free round-trip ticket to the United States for your whole family. Oh, and you got to stay in Berlin, which is why I signed up for it. The advantage to the Army was that giving a troop a week's pay (which is what the leave account thing basically added up to) and a free plane ticket cost them about a quarter of what moving them did. Well, so many OTHER people signed up for it that they ran out of the money before they could buy very many plane tickets. So they came to us and said they were out of money in the incentives account so they couldn't give us the plane tickets or the free leave...but they COULD send us to another assignment if we wanted to leave Berlin because there was plenty of money in the PCS account to move everyone who signed up for the incentive program. (No one took them up on the free PCS--we all liked Berlin.) When they said this, our sergeant major stood up and asked, "if there's so much money in the PCS account, why can't they just shift some of it to the incentive account?" Well, they would have had to go to Congress and get the whole military budget revamped...and there would be hearings...and hard questions asked...so nope, we can't do it, so sorry. Wanniski doesn't have to go to Congress to ask permission to move his money from stocks to bonds. He just picks up the phone and does it.

Okay, as a tool for putting Republicans in office the Laffer Curve has no equal. It is understandable that chocolate cake (tax cuts and spending on huge, flashy things) sells better than spinach (responsible taxation and responsible spending). And the Laffer Curve enables this kind of reprehensible, chocolate-cake behavior.

If I had a million dollars to invest, I might put it with Jude Wanniski. He'd make me a lot of money. (Actually, I think I'd put it with Theodore Forstmann of Forstmann Little, the only major LBO firm during the Reagan Eighties to eschew junk bonds. Big money is safer in Ted Forstmann's hands than it is in your bank's.) But he REALLY needs to stay the hell out of the public sector; his ideas bankrupted America once and they'll probably do it again.

[Emendator]

89. disagree

But JW doesn't have the power to change taxes or inflate the money supply that the government does.

The only thing that I'm saying is that the Laffer Curve works. There are two rates with which the government will get zero revenues - rates of 0% and also 100%. There is an optimum rate, what it is depends on the circumstances. Sometimes it is better to lower takes, sometimes it is better to raise them.

It seems pretty common sense. If JW and Reagan had been Democrats, you'd all be loving it. The point is that there hasn't been a Democrat landslide since 1968, and that was a fluke because Goldwater was such a hawk. There is nothing wrong with stealing good ideas, it's done all the time. The Democrats are not perceived as being the pro-growth party. If they would do so, they would wipe the Republicans out.

[jmowreader]

100. You have read the specs on the Laffer Curve, right?

According to Laffer, there are always two tax rates which will generate exactly the same tax revenue--one low, one high. There is also a sweet spot, a rate which generates the maximum tax revenue.

Also according to Laffer, the people will work like little beavers when the rates are low, but just slack off and do nothing when they're high.

That MIGHT work as an academic exercise. In the real world, the shit don't work because...

1) when high income tax rates are lowered, the investing class has more money to put into tax shelters.

2) when low income tax rates are raised, the investing class readjusts its investment profiles to favor tax shelters--hence screwing the people who issue the kind of investment vehicle that can't serve as a shelter.

3) the non-investing class gets screwed either way.

The only way to really test the Laffer Curve is to eliminate all tax shelters, and can you just hear the screams if you tried it?

[ulTRAX]

93. The Laffer curve is a joke.

The Laffer curve is a joke. The Right constantly looks for some way to prove tax cuts create economic growth because that's the only way they can sell irresponsible policies.

Their problem is that they are engaged in an Orwellian attempt to rewrite history and claim a false causal relationship. The vast majority of economic recoveries occurred WITHOUT tax cuts... so if recoveries occur naturally, how can they claim their tax cuts are responsible?

They also claim growth from, say the so-called JFK tax cuts, then later claim essentially those rates are oppressive and stifle growth. This disproves the Laffer Curve which was to graph how productive activity was related to tax cuts. Obviously there's no clear relation. That was FURTHER proven when we had an economic boom AFTER the Clinton tax HIKES.

I'd much rather see productivity raised by promoting industry cooperation as happened in developing the DV video format, and the original DVD format... than in sabotaging federal revenues.

[rman]

77. Why is Lakoff's strategy not the answer?

What's wrong with framing a vision so that it can be communicated effectively?

[ulTRAX]

85. there's nothing wrong with reframing....

But reframing is at best a useful TACTIC. My fear is that an emphasis on reframing will be used to repackage tired old ideas.

I believe the Democratic Party has to get back to core values. Reframing can provide the excuse NOT to engage in any serious introspection to restate those values or to uncover their internal contradictions.

That process is essential for a clear vision of where we want to take America in 50 years. That vision makes us focus on LONG-TERM strategies.

[Emendator]

88. Nothing's wrong

with reframing the issue. I hope you read the article. There comes a point where you have to accept that the message has been rejected. That's what has happened. There hasn't been a Democrat landslide since 1968. As JW has said, once the Republicans went from being the party of "fiscal responsibility" to that of the pro-growth party, they've been winning.

The Democrats need to focus on economic growth as the #1 priority. The social programs can still be there, but they must flow after growth. People don't care about deficits and fiscal responsibility - which is DC wonk talk.

[ulTRAX]

91. if fiscal responsibility isn't working, then FIND a way to make it work

First of all there's a moral issue here... and integral to a Party's credibility is its ability to talk straight and stand up for what's right... not just what's popular.

Second... why throw away an issue that the right has handed to you on a sliver platter? The key is to MAKE it work.

One way is to make the debt/deficits less abstract. I think this approach is brilliant: http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion I spent 6 months at the Kerry forum suggesting this approach... even doing the math for the entire national debt comparing it to the size of the World Trade Towers. Kerry obviously felt there was more political advantage in NOT even using Bush's true deficit numbers.

[Emendator]

92. That's nothing new

There's more than enough electoral evidence to suggest that voters do not care about the national debt. Why should they? Their own situation is more immediate and real. It's not a matter of repackaging an issue. The people get it. When they hear fiscal responsibility, they think tax increase.

I would forget about talking about the debt entirely. If you grow the economy properly, the deficit will take care of itself. That's where the wonks come in, managing and prioritizing spending.

In order to survive you need to evolve and adapt. You don't have to change your ideals or your principles. But you can change how to get there and the tools to use. That's all.

[ulTRAX]

94. I DON'T believe people get it

I could not disagree more. I have some family members that are Bush voters. They are CLUELESS about the size and nature of the deficit/debt. They just think that it's caused because we give away too much foreign aid and nations aren't paying back money they owe us.

They have no numbers. It's all mental mush.

I don't understand your resistance to even TRYING to make this issue work... after all WE CAN'T GO ON THIS WAY. The massive deficits/debt threaten SS and the chance we might ever join the rest of the industrialized world and offer universal health care.

[Emendator]

96. You just answered your own question!

That's right! Their brains go to mush when you talk about the deficit. Therefore, don't talk about it during the campaign. You only have so much time to make your point during a campaign.

[ulTRAX]

98. No.... YOU MAKE THE ISSUE WORK FOR YOU

What is the point of NOT educating people on a vital issue? Just what did Kerry accomplish by NOT using the correct Bush deficit numbers? What did Kerry accomplish by NOT associating the debt and SS? He had the ear of the nation and he followed YOUR approach.

How can you EVER hope to build a constituency for sane fiscal policies and inoculate the public against the Right's Big Lies if you sabotage issues you KNOW you have to deal with? This is all the more important given that sabotaging the government's finances is one of the Right's strategic thrusts.

This ISN'T rocket science. The key is to relate it to family fiscal discipline. Make the numbers less abstract. Going visual is the key. Relate the deficit to what people understand. Run ads during Monday Night Football showing the Bush deficit would equal a pile of cash some 450' tall above the field. Do the same with other sports. That's a start. I believe any semi-rational person would be sickened seeing the images. Here's a taste: http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion

[ulTRAX]

95. PATHOLOGY OF TAX CUT PSYCHOS

I don't believe you fully understand the pathology of the Tax Cut Psychos. A balanced budget is a THREAT to their plans to undermine the finances of the federal government.
That's why they rushed to sabotage the Clinton surplus before there was any real debt paydown. 20 years of work to reverse Reagan's disastrous Voodoo Economics shot down the tubes.

If we EVER get to a surplus again you can be certain the Tax Cut Psychos will AGAIN claim it's proof we're taxed too much and will AGAIN sabotage debt paydown.

[rman]

76. Dean is framing his vision....

(re)framing and vision are not mutually exclusive.

[autorank]

52. Dems win big and lose elections...Dean has head in sand.

I like Dean but the DNC report on Ohio was a pathetic joke. Dean was rolled by the Donna Brazile faction of the party. They spent literally 1/2 of the report denying that serious election fraud took place!!! "Morans"

We'll win but lose unless people start screaming about election fraud.

Do you know that in 2006, 80% of the votes will be counted by outsourced firms owned by Republicans? Sleep better at night with that info?

I want us to win but our leaders need to get their heads out of their asses and tell the truth, there are serious fraud problems in the past and serious potential fraud in the future.

A comprehensive explanation of election fraud--text and key links

[sam sarrha]

4. when they crash the economy, we'll have to bury our dead in the back yard

if we still have a yard, we wont have the money to buy gas to take them to a cemetery.

[TheFarseer]

5. We'll have to hire the amish to take them

If you want to blow your mind - picture the next war looking like the civil war, you know, no tanks, no planes, no trucks, steam ships and nuclear powered subs!

[andyhappy]

6. you bring up some good points

Vision schmission...I dont think people put that much thought into it really!

bottom line...barring massive election fraud...is that kerry was about the stiffest human on the planet.

It would take Kerry 20 minutes to tell you the sky was blue.

He woulda been a great president, but the american public is too shallow to vote for someone like him.

[iconoclastNYC]

11. Why the LEFT looses.

Entrenched power favors right-wing politics.

The people have been lulled into complacency.

[ulTRAX]

13. nice theory.....but it ignores history

The problem with the Democrats is not systemic. After all, they were pretty successful for years. The problem started about 25 years ago when the Right began to employ a new strategy of sabotaging government finances, going after free trade agreements, and trying to hijack the courts.

[Talismom]

16. . . . and taking over the counting of the votes and the MSM! n/t

[ulTRAX]

46. election reform is important.... but don't delude yourself

But if you delude yourself that ALL the the Democrats problems are because of stolen election you'll miss the fact that the Right IS winning... and generally have been since Reagan. Clinton, an exception, only won with about 42% of the vote in 92.

[Hippo_Tron]

65. Clinton won 43% in a 3 way election

Perot was a moderate, socially liberal, pro-choice Republican. The exit polls shows that he took votes away evenly from Bush and Clinton. When a third party candidate has popular appeal and more importantly, millions of dollars to spend on his own campaign, nobody is going to get above 50%. Clinton legitimately beat Bush by about 5 points, Perot or no Perot.

[ulTRAX]

90. it's EASY to get over 50% in a three-way race

Just have a provision for a run-off election between the top two vote getters to insure it.

I believe Clinton probably would have won a majority if there was a run-off... but until that time he only received the consent to govern from a MINORITY of voters. It's even worst than that. According to http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?CountryCode=US in 1992 55% of the Voting Age Population votes. If Clinton only got 43% of that... then his actual approval was only 26.5% of the voting age population.

If we believe the intent of having elections in the first place is for government to get the consent of the governed... then our current system should upset us all.

[OrwellwasRight]

73. I actually think it is a combination of both.

If you look at the history of this country (not which party was nominally in control but who the policies favored), there is a LOT of truth to the fact that political power favors those with social and economic power, and that periods of reforms, revolts, and shake-ups were the result of major upheavals that woke people up (the Great Depression, Vietnam, railroad and stock market crashes, etc.).

However, the reason that we cannot take advantage of all the craziness that is going on now is exactly what you said, we have no vision. And so long as we are looking for a bipartisan, compromise, middle of the road solution, we will have no vision. Wishy-washy is not a vision.

A future in which no child is hungry, in which we all have health care and living wages, and in which our future is not determined by the needs of corporations to raise their stock prices is a beautiful future and one we could win on, if we just weren't so afriad of being called a communist for advocating universal health care.

What are we men or mice?

[bvar22]

15. I disagree with some parts.

"The Right, with the help of many misguided Dems, push for free trade..."

I don't think the assistance from the Corporate backed Dems (DLC) is "misguided". I think it is deliberate (bought and paid for).

The reason that the Democratic Party seems to lack a coherent message is that the Party has been polluted with undercover Republicans and truckloads of Corporate money.

The Democratic Party can no longer claim to be for the Working American when Democrats are voting for Credit Card Co, Tort Reform, Permanent Corporate Wars, and Free Trade.

The BEST they can now do is claim to sota be for Freedom and a Strong America, and Tax Credits to fix HealthCare and Outsourcing.

The 2004 Platform & Campaign was an ambiguous Disaster.


There is a Wing of the Party that DOES have a concrete positive progressive VISION for America. They don't get much air time on the CorpoMedia because they want to break up the CorpoMedia stranglehold.

http://www.pdamerica.org/

They are my last hope for the Democratic Party. They will be fighting against the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party (DLC) who are well financed by their Corporate Owners and friendly Media outlets. Gonna be a tough fight.

[ulTRAX]

23. PDA is still limited by mushy party politics

For example... they claim:

"We are committed in word and action, both personally and politically, to justice and democracy at all levels, and to the preservation and restoration of natural ecosystems in America and worldwide."

But as is case with most of American Progressives... they don't really have any clue what democracy is nor do they try to define the democratic principles that should underlie government. For example...
so they want to abolish all the anti-democratic aspects of US federalism? By that I mean abolish the EC? That's the easy one.

What about make the US Senate into, say a national parliament based up proportional representation so third parties can be represented?

When a group says it will work within that Democratic Party and has nothing but a mushy philosophy... it will go the way of all the other groups that did the same. They will develop a short term goals that focuses on electing the lesser of the evils.

I don't say mushy philosophy to be insulting. Compare their approach to democracy with this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1316860

[bvar22]

38. I must agree that some of their stuff

...can get a little mushy. OTOH, some of their positions are as Precise and Direct as a LASER , like their stand on the Iraq War and Free Trade.

I am still looking at the linked thread. At first glance it looked very direct, and if the Democrats are going to stand a chance, their Platform MUST be CLEAR and DIRECT (like the Gingrich Contract with America..brilliant).

The Democratic Platform (all 43 pages) for 2004 was a mushy, muddy, ambiguous embarrassment filled with warm platitudes but seriously lacking ANY direct, specific plan for implementation.

[pberq]

53. I second this post - PDA is our last hope - n/t

[lvx35]

18. Its the republicans who don't have a vision

They have a bullshit memory of how it used to be. Its us who understand the need to move forward. alternative energy, sustainable technologies.

[ulTRAX]

24. vision need not be Progressive

I don't believe ANYONE likes to think what they believe is evil or wrong headed.

To the Right they ARE doing something positive... restoring America thier ideal.. or bringing a God they want to believe exists into government.

[fooj]

19. I don't see it as the "American Left"...I see it as the American People.

The American people are the ones who will lose. I beg to differ. The American People DO NOT deserve to lose.

[sweetheart]

35. That said, aggressive war is a heinous crime

And america has been about this crime an awful lot with democratic
support. Then, that makes "the american people" something entirely
divorced, like the german people under hitler. They are not really the
issue at hand. The collapse of the american republic is, on a global
level, the reaping of the karma of gross criminality, that every single
american taxpayer has paid for and not done enough to reign in.

[frankly_fedup2]

21. Is this you Falwell? I mean, you said something almost exactly

like this on your little weekly news letter.

Such a pessimistic attitude (tsk, tsk, tsk).

Falwell called the Democratic Party the Party of no ideas, morals, values. I disagree! I have a few ideas for our party.

1. I have an idea how the Democrats can win. Get rid of the Diebold voting booths. Then the Dems may have a better chance of winning. We need a voting system that, also, leaves a paper trail. As a matter of fact, our Constitution demands it.

2. Do not allow majority-ruled redistricting. Make it 70% of the votes or no redistricting. Remember the Senators in Texas that ran and hid from the Department of Homeland Security that Tom DeLay had sicked on them, because of the Republicans wanted to redistrict areas that would completely kill any chance of any Democrat from being voted into office again. That's how Katherine Harris got elected. Jeb did a little "redistricting" and Harris ran for representative in that highly Republican area. Of course, she won but if a horse had ran on the Republican ticket in that district, the horse would have won as well.

3. Fight fire with fire. Don't stand back when some one from the right is throwing dirt in your face (or having their operatives do it), and not do the same back. This "Turn the other cheek" is the right thing to do; however, it won't get a person's reputation back. The party of dirty tricks needs to get it right back in their face. Everybody has skeletons in their closets . . . especially Republicans.

4. Start talking about how this new "Christian" movement, where they are wanting to set up their own government as well as Union (seems like this has happened before and is what caused the Civil War, huh?) in the State of South Carolina is as extreme as some of these other wacko groups. The Democratic party does not stand behind one religion and neither should the Republican Party. This "creating their own state" and then getting it through a revolution (no, they didn't go that far, but that is what they are leading up to), is a little beyond freedom of religion or freedom not to have any religion.

5. The Republican Party has created more Government Bureaucracies during the eight hate-filled years of Bush then ever before. The government is more in our private business and still wants more, they claim, due to 9/11, and our own good. The Democratic Party should stand for a more thorough investigation of 9/11. There should be an answer for the American People . . . not a book with more questions unanswered. I think our party needs to really bring out PNAC, the members, and their ultra-conservative, ultimate World domination beliefs. I honestly do not believe a lot of the population is aware of this group and the Republican membership.

6. The Democratic Party really needs to point out the unbelievable, "we are above the law," stand of those in the Republican Party. No government employee should be above the law. Cheney refused a subpoena. When Clinton and Gore were subpoenaed, they walked right out and took them like any other citizen would.

7. There should be some sort of Constitutional Amendment stating that no American Leader is to hold hands with any Saudi Prince's or other men from Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have not helped their own fellow Arabs in their part of the world. They appear to only care about themselves and what their needs are . . . just like the Republican Party is here. People forget that back in the 1930's, the U.S. had the technology to drill the oil out of the ground. Saudi Arabia did not have a clue. We not only gave them that technology, but there was some type of agreement made between our country and theirs as we were drilling their oil out of the ground with our machines, our man power, and at our cost, yet we were then buying the oil from them. I think this is a perfect example of how stupid our government was then and continues to be.

7. There should be a national day of celebration for chocolate. Everyone should be given the day off with pay and encouraged to eat chocolate. That way, everyone's endorphins and other brain chemicals will make them feel comforted and loved. This should be done on election day.

Okay, so I started out seriously and then got a little silly. I'm just trying to be optimistic. I'm frustrated as well. They are slowly destroying our party, but why are we letting them? What amazes me the people that believe in everything they do. So are we the ones that are stupid . . . or are they?

[ulTRAX]

27. you confuse diagnosing the problem with defeatism

The FIRST step to countering the Right is to understand what they are doing well and what we are doing wrong.

We really haven't gotten to discussing the prescription yet though I certainly have posted some ideas in the past:

DEVELOPING a 50 YEAR PLAN to BRING DEMOCRACY to AMERICA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1316860

I propose a DU THINK TANK to write a COMMON SENSE for the 21 Century
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2744460

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

28. Diagnosing is not the same as predicting

a disastrous outcome.

Nobody should ever tell a patient they face certain death, they are too likely to live "up" to the prediction.

[ulTRAX]

30. if we don't get our act together....

If we don't get our act together the best we can hope for is to win elections because the Right over reaches and implodes.

We need to be running elections in a way that is constantly building towards that 50 year vision... not just sticking fingers in the air for short term political gain. We MUST build a constituency for that long-term vision... all the while inoculating the public against the Right's Big Lies.

Currently the Democrats are so pathetic they could not even effectively use Bush's criminal sabotaging of the federal government's finances against him.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

25. This sounds like immediate post election doubt etc

regurgitated to me.

The wringing of the hands, the self doubt.

Again, we WON. It was stolen.

The real enemy: corrupt elections, ie voting systems.

[ulTRAX]

29. I don't believe Kerry Won......SUE ME

And even if Kerry DID win Ohio I certainly would NOT want him to win in the same way Bush did in 2000.

I DETEST the Electoral College and will not dispense of my principles whenever it's politically convenient.

THIS is why we can't get rid of this anti-democratic abomination... because BOTH parties know SOMEDAY it will work to their advantage.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

31. I disagree of course

What assets do you have that I might sue for?

[frankly_fedup2]

34. Well, if there is no hope . . . don't bother to vote . . . like the

majority of the country does. Except they also do not seem to give a hoot about either party.

[frankly_fedup2]

33. The one that controls the counting of the votes is the one that wins.

Who in their right mind would have control over the voting machines and have their candidate lose.

I suppose we are going to have to get third-world country representatives to come in and watch our elections. It's ashame Mother Teresa is gone.

[mattclearing]

32. I know where I want the Democratic Party to go.

But you're right, no one in the Party leadership seems to get it.

I would like the Democratic Party to continue with safety-net programs and gradually shift the majority of the Defense Dept. budget into renewable energy research and space exploration outside the confines of NASA via contracting.

A rational foreign policy that seeks common ground, not zero-sum hard bargaining tactics, would be integral to a lessened focus on military domination.

Cooperation with fellow nation-states would enable the U.S. to bargain for more fair labor standards with which to improve globalization for the international community's poorest and most vulnerable nations.

[ulTRAX]

62. promising to maintain our safety net isn't enough to counter the Right

The Right doesn't just seek to undermine the safety net though legislation. It seeks to undermine it by bankrupting the treasury, installing radical judges who believe the safety net is unconstitutional... and by letting market forces further undermine environmental and worker protections. Then there's the philosophical fig leafs that conceal the Right's true intent.... AND the emotional appeals racism, class warfare etc.

Merely promising to maintain our safety net isn't enough to counter the Right's strategy.

[mattclearing]

81. That's not what I said.

I'm speaking in broad strokes. Obviously, if we are to continue expanding the safety net and reduce the defense budget, that will require a total sea change in the current political mindset.

It would require work on several fronts to turn the focus from greed and consumerism to sustainability and harmony.

I'm not talking strategy. I'm just telling you what my personal vision for the Party is down the line. I thought that's what you asked for.

[Gay Green]

70. Plus we need to prepare the people for the aftereffects of Peak Oil

[McCamy Taylor]

37. Actually, the Dems are getting their act together in a big way...

...and big business is jumping ship from the SS. Titanic Bush, so there will be lots of funding for the Democratic Party.

[noonwitch]

42. I disagree. We won the culture war a long time ago, and we will prevail

We won the opening battle of the culture war when HUAC was shut down. The 60s empowered the left into leading a movement to end a war that was killing thousands. The music and art of the 60s lives on. Roe v Wade has not yet been overturned and it may not be. Nor has Brown v the Board of Education, Miranda v Arizona, and numerous other rulings that solidified liberal values. We can read books by Henry Miller, DH Lawrence and (if you really want to) by the Marquis de Sade, which couldn't happen 70 years ago. We can listen to whatever music we want to, watch whatever movies we want to, and appreciate whatever we consider to be art. This wasn't true before the 50s and 60s.


The american public shares our liberal values, they've just been temporarily sidelined out of fear of terrorism. We have more to do, but we have not lost yet.

[ulTRAX]

47. I don't believe we MUST lose

Only that we will if the American Left doesn't get its act together. By that I hope they will begin to question our political system that gave rise to the 2 party system. There is something grossly dysfunctional about our system that turns about 50% of the electorate off. I believe it's easy to understand. The idea that we're a 50-50 nation is ridiculous. We're a 25-25% nation with 50% sitting out elections. We have a system where if many vote their conscience they neither get representation and risk splitting the majority allowing the minority to govern. That choice gets sickening pretty quick. I had to hold my nose when I voted for Kerry. I don't even vote for him as Senator. With so many sitting out elections it's easy to do as Rove did... get a few percent of non voters to sway the election.

We need to move to a TRUE multi-party system and that will NEVER happen unless we move to proportional representation... something the most Dems will fight tooth and nail. Yet since I believe that Progressive ideal have more appeal... and that Progressive parties would ally with the Democrats... there's nothing to fear except losing power.

[ernstbass]

44. We need to stay on message

The repugs are masters at this - they develope their talking oints and everyone is out there crowing - on Sunday am TV, hate radio, etc. We need to keep our message simple and hammer it in over and over again.

[ulTRAX]

56. being "on message" is no substitute for true VISION

We don't just need discpline for this weeks talking points... we need political leaders to embrace a coherent Progressive vision. THEN we need their discipline to show Americans how their everyday concerns connect to that vision.

[Lexingtonian]

45. I think you're missing the forest for all the trees

Why not step back from the zero sum dualisms isolated from the historical situation and look at it from the Hegelian p.o.v., as leading to a 'synthesis' of change of social reality?

It's truly much easier to construct a coherent politics if you come to a sense of the historical task that each side is engaged in, and that the electorate blindly or knowingly sets them to fulfilling. Sure, that ultimately gives you a sympathetic interpretation of what your opposition is doing, that despite (or, via) all their lying they do stuff that is necessary to do that your side cannot. Nonetheless, it explains what The People have given our/yours side the charge to actually do. You'll find that all the particular factions and labels and ideologies are just components, crutches, tools of limited but particular utility.

Let me suggest some ideas to you-

-Historically, financial/economic policy is only a secondary reflection of what society considers socially important. Money is merely a means supplied to ends considered most important. Consequently, increase in economic justice always follows, never truly precedes, increase in social justice- though a certain amount of economic appeasement/bribery/charity is usually offered to the compliant and valuable portion of the second class citizens for a stretch as they gain political standing to a certain level. This economic appeasement is withdrawn once the political power has built up and second class citizen status comes into question. This economic appeasement/abrupt withdrawal of it phenomenon happened to slaves prior to the Civil War, to women prior to achievement of sufferage, and very recently to gay people prior to the gay marriage issue becoming a contest. It happened to blue collar/union workers around 1980. But a lot of the people once appeased in this way can't admit that this economic favor they enjoyed was politically unsecured, in a sense unmerited by their actions and politics; they tend to go into denial and pretend that the manipulation involved was a merited entitlement and in fact not some mix of charity and bribe on the part of the people extending it in the conditions of the time.

-The historical pattern to removing an obsolete plutocratic or colonial overlord class is, paradoxically, to give them nearly complete power and full control of the wealth. They, having no ability to provide important service to their society, engage in extreme vanities. These invariably end in military and ethics disasters that lead to their removal from power.

-You may be all upset about the doctrine of Originalism, but the true center of our present argument about the Constitution and doctrines around it has been the 14th Amendment civil rights guarantees due us as members of biologically defined groups, i.e. castes. Every advance in public life of the past ~50 years, indeed since Pearl Harbor, has revolved around extension or enforcement of governmental fairness and due treatment/toleration, i.e. 14th Amendment rights, to different groups legally lesser than their competitors- blacks/nonwhites, women, gay people, people convicted of crimes, the young, the aged, manual laborers, non-Christians, the fertile, the physically weak and disabled, those with mental disorders.

It was 1990 before polling found 50% of Americans willing to tolerate interracial marriages. Exactly why are you surprised that Democrats cannot, and will not, try to imagine even to themselve or portray to The People what the country will be like when the society lives fully in accord with the 14th Amendment ideals, rather than trying to keep them suppressed to the minimum that can be lived with?

There's nothing as scary to the American People as every person having fully enforced rights of citizenship, getting due process and due fair treatment ('equal protection') from government. There's no greater hell to the American Conservative than being equal to everyone else in public life, in having the measure of his life be his private and professional accomplishments (in which he is usually a failure).

[ulTRAX]

59. how is a rush to abstract theory more useful than dealing with specifics?

Lexingtonian wrote "Why not step back from the zero sum dualisms isolated from the historical situation and look at it from the Hegelian p.o.v., as leading to a 'synthesis' of change of social reality?"

I have highlighted the major strategic thrusts of the Right has used for the past 25 years and is using today.

That's neither a zero-sum dualism or is it isolated from the historical situation.

I fail to see where your rush to abstract theory is more useful than dealing with those specifics.

[Lexingtonian]

68. Again, do you even understand the phrase

"not seeing the forest for all the trees (in the way)"?

Let me say it in language you can understand:

In a lot of stuff the opposition party simply has to wait until voters see reality as contrary to the illusion the dominating party is peddling. For example, it's silly fight a Republican who runs on a platform of cutting taxes by running a Democrat who runs on a platform of raising taxes.

Your search to fit American politics into rigid modellings and outdated paradigms just plain doesn't work. It's amusing to follow, in some respects, but you're always playing checkers when the game is in fact chess.

[ulTRAX]

84. your approach is not useful

LEX wrote: Again, do you even understand the phrase "not seeing the forest for all the trees (in the way)"? Let me say it in language you can understand:"

It's pretty sad that your first impulse is to be condescending. You're coming off as an obnoxious undergrad. Why not pull the Marxian dialectic out of your hat and pass that off as inspired wisdom?

I then, and now, continue to see your approach as irrelevant to this discussion. In your rush to go abstract it's you who is missing even the trees.

LEX wrote: "In a lot of stuff the opposition party simply has to wait until voters see reality as contrary to the illusion the dominating party is peddling. For example, it's silly fight a Republican who runs on a platform of cutting taxes by running a Democrat who runs on a platform of raising taxes."

First of all, I NEVER said dealing with issues would be as simple as your silly straw man tax example implies. In fact I never got to the second part of my post which would have dealt with strategies for combating the Right, though I've discussed elements of this in other posts.

I'm really not interested in your attempts to apply old philosophical models to bare on this problem. There are a myriad ways to slice though the conceptual pie. I have my own which I believe brings some common sense and clarity to this issue.... especially in light of your approach. Let me make it simple for you.

My analytical approach is to ignore words to deduce implicate values though observing actions. No I don't consider this a form of behaviorism because I DO believe in individual's inner state.

Though this process a values hierarchy can be deduced. The tests are simple... do people value X enough to go out of their way to define X, and do they seek to identify and remove obstacles to implementing X. For example, most liberal Democrats/Progressives wrap themselves in "democracy" as some on the Right pretend they are pro-life. While we see the obvious internal contradictions if not hypocrisy of the Right, we refuse to see it on the part of Dems/Progressives. What we see is NO effort on the part of most Dems/Progressives to even define what democratic principles are let alone how to implement them. Some thoughts on that here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1316860

What we see is implicit support of our ANTI-democrat political system. Without a desire to define or implement X then we can safely assume X is only valued as window dressing. So in this case what IS valued? It's probably a mix but no doubt includes respect for the Framers, Party loyalty, a belief things can be no different than what we have, etc.

I believe this approach cuts though much of the bullshit we're surrounded by and engage in ourselves.

Consequently my approach for change is helping individuals though a values clarification process. That's not to say it can't be coordinated in a top down manner. This is the basis for my old Think Thank proposal http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2744460

As for your tax cut example. There is no easy fix. To counter the Right's attempts at sabotaging government revenues there has to be a multi-faceted approach to counter entrenched lies and distortions and to inoculate the public against their future use. Feel free to start a thread on this if you want.

[formernaderite]

48. Very true....probably effecting the demise of the AFL-cio

too. I was pretty surprised that the teamster and service union employees left. From what I hear....more may leave. They want to throw their money at repubs.

In some ways I can't blame them...they've supported the dems who take the money and ignore the constituency's needs by acting like repubs lite.

[maxsolomon]

49. there IS NO LEFT left. its the american CENTER you're referring to

the left left got killed or jailed before ww1, then neutered by roosebelt

[aspberger]

50. Just like Greece and Rome

The Greeks squabbled among themselves and were taken over by the barbarian Romans.

[Bridget Burke]

105. Actually, the Greeks were conquered by Philip of Macedon.

The Romans came later. And they were not considered barbarians. The word had a specific meaning at the time beyond "not nice."

[autorank]

51. Why the Left will WIN

The left will win because history is on our side. I don't mean long term history, I mean right now.

The tepid CM (corporate media) release of negative information about * and his failures combined with the intensity of the internet news services has pushed * down to 42% Can't wait until the next few polls.

I don't care how good the right wing packaging is or how good consistent their long term goals are, if your produce doesn't work, costs too much, or has a foul odor that repulses people, you WILL NOT SELL IT.

Here's a non political analogy. Imagine you (Republi.com) had a terrific email service along with databases (as easy to use as Google) on a variety of great topics. It's 1991. You're charging $10-$30 an hour, which is low for these types of services. Now imagine that the internet rolls out right in the middle of glorious ascendancy and similar services are free or available at low fixed monthly rates. You have a great marketing operation and unbelievable strategic plan. The competitors just have what they have. Who wins? Well, that requires another question, who buys the $10-40 an hour service and who buys the free or flat rate services? The answer is everybody buys the free or flat rate services. Republi.com is finished.

That's what's happening now. The Republican, right wing version of the world is too damn expensive, returns too little, and looks like it's run by a bunch of crooks. It's a free market (presuming free and fair elections) and very few people are buying their bull shit anymore!

Rejoice! Our time has come, no thanks to our leaders. But it doesn't matter, as long as we get a fair vote.


A comprehensive explanation of election fraud--text and key links

[ulTRAX]

54. history is not certainty... it's a tug of war

I'd like to believe that the historical trend is towards a more progressive society. But history is also a tug of war. Historical trends don't mean much if we're not winning elections.

The US is unique among the advanced democracies in that we have an anti-democratic federal system that's essentially reform proof. This system of vote weighing schemes now works to the advantage of conservative red states.

In the long term History may be on our side, but at this point in time the American Left... notably the Democrats... are on the retreat and seem clueless about what to do except hope the Right implodes. If the Dems continue to move to the right it gives more credibility to the Right's framework while undermining their own.

I believe the key is to go on the offensive with a bold, internally consistent vision. But to do so requires some political psychoanalysis to better understand the illusions and bullshit we have created for ourselves. The Dems claims that they support democracy when it supports our anti-democratic system is as Orwellian as anything that comes from the Right.

[autorank]

75. We agree

We do need a consistent statement on our beliefs and values. We also need people who are hungry. The congress is one of those "reform proof" institutions, particularly the US Senate. What a bunch of blow dried prima donas. We need someone with McGovern's integrity and Huey Long's rhetorical skills.

Who knows which way long term history is headed (probably extinction for our species absent some genetic mutation of consciousness. Short term, though, I think it's important to factor in "new" developments like the emergence of a real leader of leaders to fill the vacuum in left-progressive leadership. IMHO, there is nobody currently who can "fill the bill" in this regard -- seriously, Hillary as a populist leader, Kerry, etc. It will be someone on the margins who will seem like he/she's come from nowhere to national prominence, precisely because there is an overwhelming need and potential for a broad reception. Ugh, now I'm into the "great man" theory of history but it's really a "great man/woman" plus the conditions necessary for success.

So ultimately, I agree with you, the potential is there, we're just "not ready for prime time." We will be soon, I suspect. I'd watch for someone like Schewitzer, a real bright populist with built in political savvy.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

57. hey Lakoff's strategy re: "framing the debate" is brilliant ....

have you been to any of the workshops or read his book?

[ulTRAX]

60. have I read Lakoff?

Yes. In fact I occasionally post at the Rockridge Institute site until their forum software went nuts. Here's one: http://forum.rockridgeinstitute.org/?q=node/600

I find his ideas useful tactically but I don't think they will prove decisive strategically. That's where developing an internally coherent Progressive paradigm with long term goals is crucial.

THEN the sort of discipline Lakoff talks about will prove more useful. Otherwise we're just repackaging tired old ideas.

[bemildred]

58. You seem to think this is all inadvertent, just incompetence or bad luck.

I don't think it is.

[ulTRAX]

61. so then what?

Do you attribute the rise of the Right to the superiority of their ideas? Their ability to get a few more percentages of non-voters? Voting fraud?

[bemildred]

64. Collusion between the parties. nt

[kentuck]

67. The Left's only chance is to embrace the DLC....

and work within for change. The left is too radical to be accepted by a majority of America. The DLC is not too radical. Better to have a devil you know than one of the other Party...The Left, if they were smart, would embrace the DLC, and then attempt to get their agenda passed with the DLC in the leadership. The Left stays in the background because they are America's stepchildren and will never be accepted by America. Why can't they face reality?

[flaminbats]

74. the DLC is not a political action committee..

it does nothing to raise money for campaigns, winning elections, or recruiting local candidates. In my opinion the DLC existed to produce alternative candidates for those like Mike Dukakis..who lacked a clear agenda.

Lack of a campaign agenda now isn't our problem..campaign money, publicity, and criticism of the party in power is what we need. Let each congressional candidate forge a platform, the DNC needs to provide the air-time and publicity for challengers making those sacrifices.

[ulTRAX]

86. the problem with the DLC is........

The problem with the DLC approach is that it's suicide by a thousand cuts. In this case I agree with Lakoff. It undermines the Progressive framework and gives credence to the Right's framework. Strategically it's a disaster.

The Democrats need a clear vision of where to take this nation in 50 years. Only once our values are clear and this vision developed, will a long-term strategy to implement that vision become apparent. If all we think about is the next election... that vision will never develop.

[elperromagico]

78. It's the difference between being proactive and being reactive.

What's one of the key arguments used against Democrats?

"They have no ideas. All they know is that they don't like Bush's ideas."

Look at the Social Security debate. Bush and the Republicans claimed Social Security was in crisis and proposed partial privatization, something they've been proposing for years. The plan has met with no popular success, but they'll likely keep proposing it, year after year, whether they're in power or not.

What was the Democratic response? Leave Social Security alone. There is no crisis. Now, most of us here recognize that there is no immediate Social Security crisis. We can understand the Democratic position.

But, if Bush's SS campaign succeeded in accomplishing anything, it succeeded in convincing a large segment of the country that there is an impending SS crisis. Those people are concerned about their SS benefits but they don't trust Republicans to deal with it. As usual, the public looks to the Democrats when it comes to SS.

What, then, is the net result? Americans who believe SS is facing a crisis look at the Republicans and see a solution, albeit a bad one.

Americans who believe SS is in crisis look at the Democrats and see no solution other than "We don't like the Republican solution." This merely adds fuel to the notion that Democrats have no ideas.

That's just one example of the proactive vs. reactive syndrome. Rather than saying "We don't like Bush's ideas," Democrats ought to be working together to present their own ideas - even if those ideas are destined for initial failure - and pushing those ideas until they catch on.

[ulTRAX]

80. Democrats MUST be the Party of Honesty

I thought Kerry's approach to SS reform was shameful... as was his approach to deficit reduction. His plan called for a balanced budget in 5 years but he was using the unified budget definition of "balanced". This would ignore about a TRILLION dollars in borrowing from the federal trust funds during those 5 years.

[hnsez]

83. The Repukes have raised TWICE as much as Dems in '05

[LittleClarkie]

101. But more than we had at this time in the last election cycle

Measure us against us, not the Republicans. We will always lag behind them. What we have is committed people more than money as a resource.

[hnsez]

102. All I know is I am pissed and will remain so until I c 1 neocon in chains

[AmericanLiberal]

103. I wish I could say "told you so"

I saw this coming in the late 1990s. With the complete absence of activism in the Democratic party circa 1997-1998, it was pretty clear we were headed in a rightward direction. But in the glow of the Clinton presidency and the doctrine of moral relativism, not many agreed with me. I only wish now I had spoken up more then about the crisis of the left.

[ulTRAX]

104. Democratic activism has to be targeted to the threats

I think you're partially right. The 90's were a lost opportunity.

Given the progress the Right has made in its master plan, traditional Democratic activism isn't enough. The activism has to be tailored to the threat. The first part is to blunt the Right's offensive on creating debt, hijacking the judiciary, and free trade. To accomplish that the Democrats have to educate the public on deficits and become the Party of true fiscal responsibility. In this case the 90's were wasted. Yes Clinton got us to a balanced budget but never got out the pie charts to educate the public.

Democrats have to undermine the Right's claims that only liberal judges are "activist" judges and they only want judges that "faithfully interpret the Constitution". Democrats should have been laying the groundwork for this all though the 90's by attacking Originalism.

Last they have to work to modify existing trade agreements to level the playing field.

But the above is still defensive. There needs to be an OFFENSIVE for a positive vision of where the Democrats/Progressives want to take America.