Wednesday, November 3, 2004
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (3)
My one useful prediction for today....
Thomas Frank's lecture fee just tripled.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Hmmm.... perhaps someone at the the New York Times op-ed page has been reading this blog.
Glenn Reynolds reminds me to link to Josh Chafetz's takedown of Frank's thesis in The New York Times Book Review. However, that doesn't vitiate my argument that Frank's star going to be on the rise in the market of public intellectuals, for three reasons. First, regardless of whether Frank's normative distaste of the free market is correct, his positive analysis -- that Red State voters identify with the Republicans because of cultural issues -- seems pretty trenchant. Second, Frank's materialist theory of politics plays well in the places that will pay for Frank to talk. Third, contra Chafetz, I can't completely dismiss Frank's thesis -- that economic populism might resonate with Red State voters.posted by Dan on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM
If people in Oklahoma knew how much their votes for Bush helped MY liberal pinko commie lifestyle in Princeton, NJ, they would never stop puking. My fiance and I will probably get more tax cuts next year. We have no children, so we don't need to worry about underfunded schools or if they will get drafted. We can actually afford to pay for this privatized health care system Bush seems to want, AND still save in our 401k's, AND still enjoy our smoked Brie and white Burgundy.posted by: Elle Wiz on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Underfunded schools? The delusions never cease. Given the historic role of the Federal government in education (nil), I shudder to think how awful our schools were before Bush passed No Child Left Behind.posted by: Dylan on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
So Professor...have you any thoughts to share on this issue
On Nov. 2nd the republicans redefined Christianity. Now all you have to do to be a Christian is hate gays. God help us.posted by: Ken on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Yeah, there will be a lot of folks willing to pay a guy to tell them people are stupid for believing what they believe. And all you need to have a winning political strategy is to make them unstupid, so that they believe what he believes!posted by: Zathras on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
How much do you think Bob Shrum's speaking fees will go up, Dr. Drezner? How about Al Gore's, Jimmy Carter's, Terry McAuliffe's, etc.? Do you actually think that MORE people will want to have their intelligence insulted and their voting choices psychoanalyzed by such luminaries, after what just happened?posted by: Gabriel Pentelie on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Drezner nails it, the first blogger to do so.posted by: bob mcmanus on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Now there's one more book that I have to add to my list of ones that I need to read. Oh, well.
Honestly, I hope Tuxeira and Judis were right in saying that the country is moving more towards the Democrats at the federal level. Perhaps, in 2008, we will see nice returns in North Carolina and Virginia that give us a solid win. But as long as there are many voters who would support a candidate that says the most ridiculous things just as long as he's a "Christian man with good Christian values," I imagine that it's going to be an uphill battle.
If I can go off topic for just a second and get a head start on the "What about 2008?" comments, I'd say that Edwards is out, Richardson is out, and Vilsack is likely out. Grandolm would be good, except that she's originally from Canada, so unless they want to change the Constitution to let Arnold run (something I wouldn't put past them), she's out. Who does that leave as possibilities? I'd say Napolitano, although the failure to deliver Arizona is a certain black mark on her record. I'd also suggest Doyle, even though I know nothing about him, Selibius (of Kansas), Rendell of Pennsylvania, and Warner of Virginia. I'm not even going to try to jump on the idea of Hillary running, not because I hate the idea of that, but because I hate the idea of Dick Morris having his idiotic commentary and vile mug all over Fox news for the next four years.
*This just reminds me why I could never be a true Republican and/or social conservative, even though I could see voting for a moderate Republican. I see nothing wrong with believing in any particular religion, but when I hear someone mention Christian values, I shudder.posted by: Brian on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Brian, any Democrat who seriously wants to run for President in 2008 had better begin the process by forgetting about the 2008 campaign.
Someone who acts in public life with a view toward the next campaign may wind up like George W. Bush, but he's more likely to end up like John Kerry. How long did Kerry have to work this year persuading voters that he was a real potential President, as opposed to someone who just met the minimum qualifications? He had to do this because he had spent years preparing and positioning himself to run for the office -- not to serve in the office, just to run for it.
You could argue George W. Bush did this too. But George W. Bush started with advantages -- name ID from his father, an enormous fundraising base, a weak opponent -- no future Democratic candidate can count on having. Democrats have said for years that Bush got lucky, and there's more than a little truth to that. Hoping one of their own candidates gets similarly lucky is not a plan for success.
Don't worry about the 2008 campaign. Especially, don't worry about the Iowa caucuses. Four years is a long time, long enough for some Democrat to make a record worth running on.posted by: Zathras on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
I'm just assuming it will be Hillary - she starts off with a huge name-recognition advantage over everyone but Edwards, and she'd instantly have a base of avid, vocal supporters. I'd say her biggest hurdle to getting the nomination is her 2006 reelection against Giuliani or Pataki, but I tend to think she'd win that, although that's really hard to tell at this point.
I do agree that getting Dick Morris to shut up would be a great public good.posted by: Devin McCullen on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
* Hillary Clinton has to be the happiest person in all of this; she can now run in 2008.
* Is it now time for the left and the press (A redundancy, granted) to give up on pushing the meme that W's an idiot?
I mean, ;look, you've got the press (notably excepting Fox) siding with Kerry; You've got millionaires claiming to support the little peple...(IE; you and me) by singing over multi-million dollar checks, supporting Democrat groups... to the point where Democrats on the whole outspent the Republicans nine to one... All the tar drawing power of all the hollywood types htat lined up behind Kerry... all the Democats like Teddy Kennedy who spent over 4 years trying to slime the Republicans... Rotundo Moore.... imagine the look on HIS face this morning....and all of this couldn't get more than this kind of a turnout to beat this supposed idiot?
Perhaps the facts don't fit the liberal's worldview after all, eh?
I hold to my prediction in these spaces of a year ago; we will now see the Democrat party as we know it, in it's death struggle. Democrats will be turning on themselves as they start to understand just what it is they've lost.
The silence on the usual moonbat channels, inculding DU(h), and usenet's alt.politics.* areas, is deafening. Aside from pointing fingers at each other, of course. It's comical to watch.
* We will now see the Democrats speak loudly about how the country needs healing... after they've just spent the last four years trying to help Usama BinLaden tear it apart.posted by: Bithead on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Bithead: I hold to my prediction in these spaces of a year ago; we will now see the Democrat party as we know it, in it's death struggle. Democrats will be turning on themselves as they start to understand just what it is they've lost.
Could very well be. The Economist was saying a couple weeks ago:
The second reason why the Republicans have more to gain from a victory in November is that they think they can use a second Bush term to turn themselves into America's de facto ruling party. ... the Republicans have put emasculating the Democrats at the very heart of their second-term agenda. They plan to reduce its footsoldiers..., to reduce its income...
Of course, if this is truly the final nail in the coffin for Democrats, this may be good news for the Libertarian Party...posted by: fling93 on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
So it will.
While the Ohio saga may linger for some days, it's abundantly clear that the Democrats have suffered a devastating defeat. Bush has his mandate, the GOP owns Congress and the governorships, and the Supreme Court is only a matter of time.
Let the recriminations begin. Progressives will no doubt cite a host of factors, from Kerry's wooden personality, the unshakable flip-flopper label, the Swift Boat slanders, "voted for it before I voted against it", among others. But these are questions of tactics, not strategy. At the end of the day, Democrats must realize their party is adrift in terms of ideology, policy and branding, and that is the source of Tuesday's calamity.
Democrats need to learn five lessons from this debacle, and learn them fast:
For more detail, see:posted by: Jon on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
I'm not necessarily a hard core Democrat, but does anyone, including Republicans, think that it's good for the country to have an emasculated Democratic Party? Is the US going to go the way of Mexico and have a democracy in name only, where one party runs the country? I sense a lot of resentment toward the Democratic Party and the "liberal media" and get the feeling that a lot of the Repubs commenting here would like that. Personally, I find that troubling, just as I would find it troubling if Dems wanted to eliminate the Republicans. Shouldn't there be a line that you don't cross? If guess not if you are God's Official Party.posted by: MWS on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
fling93: Of course, if this is truly the final nail in the coffin for Democrats, this may be good news for the Libertarian Party...
Bithead: So it will. And I wouldn't call that a bad thing.
Oh, neither would I, since the only other hope of the Libertarian Party is electoral reform, which seems to be such a nonstarter whenever I bring it up, even among Libertarians. At least there is historical precedent for a third party replacing one of the big two. I don't see a wedge issue, this time, but the Dems have always been an odd patchwork of interests, so maybe we won't need one.posted by: fling93 on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Yes, I'd call it a good time for an emsaculated Democratic Party. Consider the comments of their own:
Second, gut any Bush hopes for legitimacy. Find the places in Florida and Ohio and every other state where a plausible argument for Republican vote fraud can be made. It doesn't matter whether it did happen or not. What matters is if it can be plausibly alleged to marginal Bush supporters and to the media. We also have to let the issue go where it's implausible. Hammering on voter fraud where it's not at least plausible on that level is only going to hurt our credibility. We have to sink our fangs into Republican ankles and hang onto them for dear life on the legitimacy issue. We have to make him "Bush the only American President who was never elected" whether it's true or not.
Apparently, this one's not heard Kerry's call for "Unity".... At the least he clearly doesn't understand this kind of thing is EXACTLY why the Democrats LOST.posted by: Bithead on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
In all the gloating going on over this catastrophic victory, to coin a phrase, let's not forget about something. The Democratic party isn't just the party of liberals. The Democratic party is also the party of African-Americans and other minority groups whose views and issues are all but completely ignored by the Republican party.
With democrats so completely out of power, where does that leave these minority groups who have spent decades cultivating political relationships that just barely brought us to half parity with the majority in this country?
Republican power brings with it a responsibility to ensure that all Americans can enjoy the fruits of being an American. The first Bush administration was all but hostile to the issues of African-Americans. What's a Bush administration with a mandate and a congress that will not be tied down by gridlock going to do for minorities who voted overwhemlmingly for the opposition?posted by: Jerry on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
If the Democrates really do cease to exist, wouldn't that be a function of democracy, and wouldn't obstructing their fall be worse for America than having only one party? What about popular sovereignty, so effectively displayed in this election? Although, perhaps John McCain can make some more rules about who can run for office, and that way, we can actually have a one-party rule.
While the Democrats may have to change significantly in order to remain viable, does anyone really believe they would just cease to exist? I mean, it's not like a significant amount of the population will just let go of their views and become conservative. The Democrats are still in the best position to fulfill the desires of their constituency, and until a better rival is found (even in the Republicans, as seems to be Dan's point), that constituency will continue to support the existence of the Democratic Party.posted by: john on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Oh, *Comon*, folks... The Democrats are not the only other party out there.... and thank God for that. Which I suspect is why the topic of the Libertarians got raised earlier. Trust me; the Democrats going away will be no loss whatever to this country, particularly with people in it like I quoted.
And as for the minority voter, you're quite right. But let's not forget they too are leaving the Democrats behind. the number of Black Republicans, as an example, has doubled in the past year or so, and that growth shows no signs of slowing down.
A look at the Cabinet of Mr. Bush is a start toward understanding why.posted by: Bithead on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
I am a Republican, and I agree with you about the dangers of a terminally wounded Democratic Party. No long-term good can come from that. If unchallenged by a viable opposition, the Republicans can get just as venal and corrupt as the Democrats have gotten. Just look at the Illinois contingent.
So, I hope the Democrats start getting their act together soon and realize that their future lies with people like Evan Bayh, Jennifer Granholm, Barack Obama, and Harold Ford (Tenn.), not with people like Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton.
And if they want to gain credibility with the Great American Semi-tolerant Middle, they better start disassociating themselves from the Chomsky/Zinn fringe represented by the likes of Michael Moore. They better start paying a lot more attention to the issues discussed on the pages of the St. Louis Dispatch, not the editorials of the International Herald Tribune.posted by: Gabriel Pentelie on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
I agree it would be good if it were a natural function of the democratic process. But it's one thing for a party to wither because it is out of touch with the times (such as the Whigs did) and another for the party in power to take actions designed to destroy it. I suppose that eventually some new party would arise, but why wouldn't the Republicans use their power to try to forestall the development of the new party? What incentive they have not to coopt new parties and maintain their power? In England, new parties have arisen (e.g., the Liberal Democrats) but Labor seems to be entrenched despite Tony Blair's widespread unpopularity.
I don't think this is really likely to happen. I think the Democratic Party has too much residual strength to really be destroyed. And I'm not opposed to new parties replacing old. I would love to see a vibrant new party. God knows the Democratic Party needs to change. But I find it disturbing that people are so hostile to the Democratic Party that they find it appropriate to try to destroy it. Whatever happened to the idea or respecting the loyal opposition? (I know-the Repubs will say the Democrats aren't loyal.) And I find it less than reassuring to assume that the "market" will provide a viable alternative.posted by: MWS on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Yes, minorities don't belong to the Dems. They're only there by default, along with the unions and the greens and the lawyers. If you'll put up with them, you can put up with free-market Libertarian types.
Don't worry about the extremist barking moonbats like Badnarik. That's a hallmark of all third parties because the plurality voting system only gracefully supports two parties. Moderates generally aren't willing to "waste" their vote. If the LP does eventually supplant the Dems as one of the two big parties, it'll become more moderate and mainstream.posted by: fling93 on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Is Jerry serious? Like, slavery is just around the bend? Like, African-American extortionism (NAACP) helps? Like, whites don't have similar levels of poverty? Hispanics in Florida?
What's a Bush administration with a mandate and a congress that will not be tied down by gridlock going to do for minorities who voted overwhemlmingly for the opposition?
How about this: from now on, no matter who wins, minorities have to be represented. In fact, let's just give them a part of the legislature that they elect because black votes for the opposition are better than other opposition votes and so deserve to be represented no matter what. Because representational democracy is a crock, and losing to the will of the people sucks.
Part of representative democracy involves losing. What will happen to those who supported the losing party? Obviously, we are going to either enslave them, or expatriate them. We can't keep them here and let them become part of society. Why? Because they lost!
Note to Jerry: Please try to understand that I am being sarcastic. What I actually mean to say is that representational democracy involves the will of the people. All the people. Blacks voted. Whites voted. You seem to believe that blacks deserve a say because they are black. Once, people believed that blacks were property because they were black.
Perhaps people deserve representation on some other basis than skin color?
Everyone (who is eligible under the law) deserves a say, and everyone who voted had their say. Their vote was counted, and Kerry lost. All democrats, not just blacks, have less say in the government now, but that is because they are clearly a minority, and that's how America works.
Now when you actually show me some direct evidence of majority tyranny, you might have a point.posted by: John on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Dan here likes to speak about free markets... Well, let's talk about a free market of ideas. IN a free market, if you're trying to sell somehting nobody wants, you go out of business. The only people I see willing to destroy the Democratic party are the Democrats themselves, by selling things increasingly few people want.
Get someone else to take their place.posted by: Bithead on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
MWS: But it's one thing for a party to wither because it is out of touch with the times (such as the Whigs did) and another for the party in power to take actions designed to destroy it.
Indeed, I think their going after Daschle's seat is an obvious sign this is their goal. My wife says that sorta thing is very unusual. The Dems are just as disorganized as they've been in the past decade, and are showing no signs of recovering. Had Bush been a competent moderate, this wouldn't even have been close. Now they'll put the hammer down.
MWS: why wouldn't the Republicans use their power to try to forestall the development of the new party?
They would, but there is already a natural division between fiscal and social conservatives within the Republican Party. In the absence of a Democratic opposition, you can be certain that eventually some of the fiscal ones will break away, since splitting the vote would no longer be a danger.posted by: fling93 on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
The death of the democratic party?
This was hardly a landslide. It was most assuridly a bitter defeat, but the republican pick ups in the Senate can largly be attributed to retiring southern Dems and 50.01 to 49.99 races, the gains in the house to Tom Delay's Texas gerrymander (harrah for chet edwards), and the presidency to the votes of social conservatives against gay marriage. Interestingly, we swapped NH and NM and everything else seemed to stand pat.
Still, you won we lost - you are in charge - now govern.posted by: TexasToast on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Er, Bithead. The Dems just barely lost. They're hardly destroyed as an alternative party, any more than the GOP was when it got wiped out tremendously more badly in 1964. And since your idea of an alternative party to the GOP is the Ayn Randians, I'm not going to be all that shocked when the country laughs in your face.
As for WHY the Dems narrowly lost: there were two key factors. The first is homophobia -- which the Dems must not pander to, but which they can partially defuse by pointing out (as Kerry did not during the debates) that the FMA that Bush backed would not only outlaw gay marriage (with its religious connotations) but also outlaw secular gay civil unions (which 64% of the voters backed, according to the polls).
The second factor is that the Dems really have not yet come up with a coherent, convincing national security policy. The voters were perfectly aware that Bush was telling fairy tales when he insisted that things are not going to hell in Iraq and that nothing major needs to be changed; but they were equally aware that Kerry was telling equally absurd fairy tales when he insisted that the only thing needed to correct the problem was to somehow persuad huge numbers of foreign troops into Iraq. The truth, of course, is that within a few months the President is going to have two choices: either pull out of Iraq (or at least part of it) and let it go to hell, or massively increase the number of US troops in it, which will certainly require far more spending and will probably also require reinstituing the draft. Neither of these guys faced up to that genuinely difficult choice. And neither of them mentioned that keeping our military in Iraq tremendously limits our ability to prevent Iran from acquiring its own very real Bomb -- or to cope with any military crisis produced by the fact that North Korea and Pakistan already have the Bomb. Kerry's advisor Graham Allison HAS pointed this out -- as, for that matter, has George Will -- but Kerry ignored him.
Finally, Kerry didn't even play properly to his very real strength on economic issues. He could and should have stuck to simply pointing out -- correctly -- that Bush is building up a deficit whose consequences for most of us will be disastrous, and that he's creating most of it by handing out massive tax cuts to the already-rich. But, once again, during the debates, Kerry solemnly insisted that just by eliminating those upper-class tax cuts he could not erase that deficit but ALSO pay for a large middle-class tax cut AND for a considerably enlarged health-care program AND a variety of other goodies -- without even trying to explain how the figures added up. When Bush said flatly that the figures did NOT add up, Kerry never even tried to respond to him. It was a Dukakis Moment, and so he reduced his credibility on economic issues to the point that he couldn't wield them as a really effective weapon against Bush.posted by: Bruce Moomaw on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
I do not believe I used the word "market" and so I like you to avoid putting words in my mouth. I am not talking about an economy.
Rather, in politics, what has happened is the opposite of what you stated, and the Democratic party has lost influence precisely because it is out of touch with the times. This is the point raised by Dan et al. I believe that Republicans have effectively combated the Democrats by appealing to moral values: an effective strategy in this electorate. The Democrats, in stark contrast, have failed to adapt, and since 1994 have only become more separated from the majority of Americans (please, please don't argue otherwise, please). As much as it stings, the democrats have become the "elite" party, relying on "intellect" as their means of discrimination (look at the media, academia). While intellect is a virtue, it is aptitudinal, not moral. I don't think it's as appealing to America (whether you thinks thats unfortunate --).
When average person is told that Bush is dumb (and don't deny that this has happened) and Kerry is better because he is smarter, this average American probably doesn't react so warmly, given that he or she is likely closer to Bush than to Kerry in intellect (not that Bush is super-dumb, but Kerry is quite intelligent).
This is a small example.
Also, to reiterate, I like sarcasm.
Also, Bruce's post is good, but lay off Bush and the economy. The economy is fine. Jobs aren't as good as in the 90's, but they are bad and employment reacts to growth, rather than causing it.
Also, I voted for Kerry, but I can still sleep at night because I have all that extra cash from the tax cuts to put in my pillow.posted by: john on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
I mean that jobs aren't that bad, as in unemployment is really not that high.
Among other typos.posted by: john on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
First as to the Democrats loss being a narow one...
Bush 58,241,287 51%
In case your 'calc.exe' isn't working that's a 3 and ahlf million plurality.
Bruce, your comment about the Democrats and a national security policy ring true. They have none, still being stuck in the 60's and smelling of pot smoke.
Your comments regarding 'homophobia' is utter nonsense, however. THe American people having spoken as regards hoosexuals getting 'married' has nothing whetever to do wiht homophiba. I didn't see anyone calling for the outlawing of the behavior, have you? They're simply against using the power of government to mainstream the behavior. And by the way; did you notice that those measures passed even in states like MI where Kerry won?
And Kerry didn't play on economic issues because the American people are quite aware it's all for naught, if the security issue isnt dealt wiht FIRST. And the polling suggests that about half the voters figure what you call Kerry's economic strengths to be weaknesses, instead. Example; Please explain to me how many jobs with living wages are paid for by the poor.
Just as the Republicans did after the 1964
I know some of the lefties out there will
I might allow you to take issue and say that
Bush is more mainstream than that.posted by: pragmatist on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Democrats are going to continue to lose until they at least realize they are outside the mainstream on any number of issues. Karl Rove didnt trick a bunch of nominally democratic Kerry voters into suddenly voting for Bush because he brain washed them into hating gays. That rationalization is only going to suck the party further down the sink hole.
The democratic party stopped looking for converts years ago. Now they look for heretics.posted by: Mark Buehner on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
"He had to do this because he had spent years preparing and positioning himself to run for the office -- not to serve in the office, just to run for it."
I am not sure how right you are, even though there's probably some truth to it.
"Don't worry about the 2008 campaign. Especially, don't worry about the Iowa caucuses. Four years is a long time, long enough for some Democrat to make a record worth running on."
I was engaging in some mere speculation.
Personally, I think we are headed down such a dark road that the next Democratic nominee may have to be slightly less controversial than Bill Clinton to win.
And anyway, it's the 2006 midterms that come next, baby! Only two more years until we face the next round of disappointments.posted by: Briam on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Bruce Moomaw: And since your idea of an alternative party to the GOP is the Ayn Randians, I'm not going to be all that shocked when the country laughs in your face.
That wasn't Bithead's idea so much as mine.
Libertarian-leaning types include folks like Jacob Levy, Megan McArdle, David Bernstein, Tyler Cowen, Stuart Benjamin, Virginia Postrel, Gene Healy, Julian Sanchez, and yes... Dan Drezner. We're not moonbats. We're a lot more mainstream than the LP, and an untapped market. The LP is not marginalized by their ideas. They're marginalized by the two-party plurality system.
The Dems may still have residual strength, but probably not for much longer after the Republicans are done weakening their base for the next four years. And as they are already fragmentary by nature, a little infighting could go a long way.
Of course, a totally incompetent Bush Presidency could screw everything up and re-energize the Dems for 2008. <sigh>posted by: fling93 on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
"I'm just assuming it will be Hillary - she starts off with a huge name-recognition advantage over everyone but Edwards, and she'd instantly have a base of avid, vocal supporters. I'd say her biggest hurdle to getting the nomination is her 2006 reelection against Giuliani or Pataki, but I tend to think she'd win that, although that's really hard to tell at this point."
Interestingly enough, she was supposedly considered this year for the vice presidential spot. And when that was discussed, it said she had one big advantage, besides the one you already mentioned: she's already had her background shocked. I can't imagine that there was something the Republicans missed when trying to slime her.
Yet, she may make a very bad president (see Brad DeLong's comments) and would have a hard time getting the nomination because of that. What's more, assuming it is divided as it allegedly was this year, they may not want to make the nominee a woman. But also, what if she doesn't want to do it? There have been reports that she's happy just being a senator. Perhaps she can take some sort of leadership position in the Senate.
As for Pataki and Giuliani, I don't see why either of them are such great threats. Pataki is even less inspiring than Dick Gephardt and Bob Graham, if you can imagine that. What is more, he may want to run for president in 2008. I am not sure if he can go from a governorship to the Senate to the presidency in a matter of four years, but then, I don't know as much political history as some others. As for Giuliani, the last Marist Poll which tracked him running for the Senate that I saw had him at 50% and Clinton at 48%. I believe that's terrible, since he still has the iconic status from 9/11. Once he becomes a politician again, he would lose much of that. And yet, he's only running 2% ahead? He could win it, to be sure, but it would be far from the cakewalk that some imagine. He'd have a much better shot at running for governor, but he'd probably go up against Spitzer, who would likely be a tough opponent. Besides that, the governorship is an executive position, like a mayor, while a senator is a legislator. Personally, I hope he fades into oblivion, but as we saw last night, I don't always get what I want.
"I do agree that getting Dick Morris to shut up would be a great public good."
I should start some sort of Web site to track the many different ways he ties everything imaginable to his central thesis: that Hillary Clinton is in a mad quest for power and will stop at nothing to become president. How often do we see someone in the public eye who consistantly resorts to a "heads, I win; tails, you lose" approach?
I'd jump to a Libertarian-Hawk party in a second.posted by: Mark Buehner on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
I wonder what's driving the resentment against Morris, here. He would seem to have called the race rather well last night....
Hmmmm... or is that it, maybe?posted by: Bithead on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
I'll try not to take up that much more space on Mr. Drezner's blog, but let me say that the all the calls of the destruction of the Democratic party are ridiculous. There's no question last night's election was an ass raping of the first degree, in the House, Senate, and at the federal level, but Bush won by about four million votes, not forty million votes. And as I am sure you all know, there were a number of states that could have gone either way. If we look at history, John Dewey, Barry Goldwater, George McGovern, and Walter Mondale suffered historically embarrassing loses, but their parties didn't disappear.
If we can believe Tuxeira and Judis, and everyone seems to think we can, then the country is actually moving more towards the Democrats at the national level. Unless something historic, like Watergate or 9/11 happens, things should become easier for the Democrats. They probably discounted some cultural issues to some degree, but at the same time, the Republicans won't be able to milk gay marriage forever.
But let's run with your idea for a minute. In the next thirty years or so, maybe the Democratic party will be replaced by something new. Does that mean half of the country is swinging to the far right? I don't see that happening.posted by: Brian on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
"but at the same time, the Republicans won't be able to milk gay marriage forever. "
Its attitudes like that which will ensure the Republicans will continue to dominate the heartland. The gay marriage split is only one symptom.
No, I don't see it as the country swinging to the right.
Rather, I see it as the Democrats driven by the Deaniac types, being driven increasingly to the far left, and away from honor and truth in the process of trying to suport that rabid leftism.
I asked several years ago, during Clinton, where all the good Democrats were, and refined that question over the years after the 2000 election cycle, following the Clinton and Gore misadministration. It remains a question.
I will ask you to remember Bill Clinton. If catching someone in a lie swayed Democrats out of thst rabid leftism at all costs, it certainly would have happened then… and we both know it did not. I will remind you of an Oldsmobile being driven off a bridge a few years earlier. Either of those would under the conditions of an honorable electorate, have ended their carrers, and swung elections for a few decades to come.
Neither happened, and we both know why… The Democrats, as a rule, have a history of holding party and leftism, over truth. Kerry’s rabidly leftist base disagreed with his even being in the service in the first place. Any lie he told in that regard was viewed by such people as a badge of *honor* among them.
And again I point to the quote I posted earlier from Kos.
Let’s be clear, here; the Democrats have been taken over by the far extreme of their own party, and refuse to recognize it, or else are deathly afraid to make any complaint about it, for fear of being excommunicated. The message clearly has been sent to the rank and file of the Democrat party: Lockstep or step off. And nobody dares stand up to the party’s radicals. Thus are the Democrats are destroying THEMSELVES... mostly by holding silence about what they see.posted by: Bithead on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
That 3.7 million votes is a 3-point margin, Bithead -- I stand by my statement that Kerry barely lost. Not only is this not a Goldwater-McGovern-Mondale scale loss; it isn't even a Dukakis- or Dole-scale loss. Look who won the next elections after those two. (For that matter, look who won the next elections after Goldwater and McGovern.) Bush and the GOP have a narrow plurality; it they overplay their hand, that thing will happen to them which always happens to parties that overplay their hand and overestimate their mandate.
As for Bush's policies not being harmful to the economy -- particularly over the coming years, as that deficit and the national debt go up and up and up -- well, a landslide majority of economists disagree with you. (Interesting side note: don't forget that China holds most of our paper.) And as for further income redistribution toward the rich stimulating our economy further: back during Clinton's 1994 tax hike on the rich, virtually all of the Reaganites screamed that he would throw the country into a flat-out recession. National Review ran a cover story by Paul Craig Roberts, "How To Grow The Deficit"; Forbes magazine predicted an imminent economic collapse and urged its readers to move their money out of the US and into the safe harbor of -- you guessed it -- Japan. These same clowns are giving Bush his economic advice (to the extent that he takes the economic advice of ANYONE other than Dick "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" Cheney); there's no reason to think they're any more accurate now than they were then. We have already passed the point at which further tax breaks to the rich stimulate the economy enough to benefit rather than harming most Americans, and I imagine that fact will become very clear before 2008. (The exit polls, by the way -- like every poll taken during this administration -- shows the voters agreeing, by close to 2 to 1, that Bush is "sympathetic to the rich rather than to the average American." That attitude is a time bomb just waiting to go off immediately in the GOP's face if the economy starts going significantly south.)
As for homophobia: the logical thing for gays to do is simply to start making use of the fact that a big majority of Americans oppose legalizing gay marriage but favor legalizing gay secular unions. Start putting measures on state ballots to legalize the latter specifically. Despite the results of this election, it's abundantly clear that this country is much less homophobic than it was 20 years ago, and the difference in attitudes in polls on this subject as Americans get younger is nothing short of awe-inspiring. As with racism, breaking up this particular kind of bigotry requires political patience but will pay off eventually.posted by: Bruce Moomaw on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
"What's a Bush administration with a mandate and a congress that will not be tied down by gridlock going to do for minorities who voted overwhemlmingly for the opposition?"
Posted by Jerry at November 3, 2004 02:59 PM
We're gonna kick'em while they're down! Whooooeeee! A mandate! Let's go pre-empt somebody!posted by: gigem on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Postscript, courtesy of ABC News: "The Bush administration announced Wednesday that it will run out of maneuvering room to manage the government's massive borrowing needs in two weeks, putting more pressure on Congress to raise the debt ceiling when it convenes for a special post-election session."
And away we go! Maybe sooner than I thought (although I always figured the vultures would come flapping home to roost fast where Iraq and Iran are concerned).posted by: Bruce Moomaw on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
When Thomas Franks was interviewed recently on the NewsHour, he was asked why Democrats were now the party of the wealthy, and strongest in the wealthiest states. He answered that that was his next book, "What's Wrong with Connecticut"? Perhaps the subtitle would read "How Liberals Won the Moneybags of America." Another case of voting values against economic self-interest.
I certainly have enjoyed reading the above comments submitted. The range and depth are interesting and will no doubt draw responce in the days following. But, since my concerns haven't been mentioned, may I? The first: Sen. Kerry received his 1st discharge from the US Navy in (I think 1978). This is the sacrosanct one, unavailable to the public during the campaign (reminds me of Clinton's medical records never made public). Why? He had worked, at this time, ('71,'72 I believe)with the Comunists at the peace accords in Paree, and still a member(inactive), of the Naval Reserve, not a U S representative there. And then the "real discharge" in '78. Real strange all this. It leads one to think of the variety of discharges other than honorable...bad conduct, undesirable,...
As for the debt ceiling, what did you expect, given that our financial and military centers were attacked, just about at the peak of the Clinton recession?
And need I point out that one of the 'clowns' giving Mr. Bush advice, just pulled in a Nobel Prize in economics?
"While the Democrats may have to change significantly in order to remain viable, does anyone really believe they would just cease to exist? I mean, it's not like a significant amount of the population will just let go of their views and become conservative."
I'm not so sure you see the impact of what's been happening during the past three years. We're seeing a profound cultural change, but a lot more will be insideous:
It's going on now and has been increasing.
Oh, I know... "It can't happen here!" That's what everyone thinks until it's too late to do anything non-violent to stop it.
Bush only got a little more than half of our country - he didn't get all of us, and we shouldn't roll over and play bible-whipped by the new self-righteous mandate.
"Its attitudes like that which will ensure the Republicans will continue to dominate the heartland."
Attitudes like what? Are you denying that gay marriage was a deciding issue? And are you denying that, since many states banned it, it cannot be an electoral issue for much longer?
"What democrats dont realize is that Bush has steadilly eaten into their core constituencies, blacks, jews, and especially hispanics. The numbers are low but significant."
In what ways? I don't remember how many Jewish votes Gore received, Kerry received 75% of them. I doubt there was a huge switch anywhere nationwide. The same goes for the black vote, where Gore got 91% and Kerry got 89%. He did do better among Hispanics by getting 5%, which is nothing to scoff at, and he did particularly well among younger Hispanics, who voted for him because of gay marriage. But like I said, is that going to be an issue forever? Of course not.
There could be further inroads among Hispanics, but I am not going to panic unless the GOP starts making decent gains each election.
"If Hispanics went anywhere near 40% Bush, the whole demographic picture Brian just suggested is flipped on its head."
All of your claims go against what the experts say.
posted by: Brian on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
"Rather, I see it as the Democrats driven by the Deaniac types, being driven increasingly to the far left, and away from honor and truth in the process of trying to suport that rabid leftism."
Unless Dean took a swing to the far left while in office (hypothetically, of course), he would have been much more like Joe Lieberman than a lot of people realize. His opposition to the war was what made him an icon of the left, in addition to his backbone and fiery spirit. All of the other hype that he was caught up in can be dismissed as primary nonsense.
"I asked several years ago, during Clinton, where all the good Democrats were, and refined that question over the years after the 2000 election cycle, following the Clinton and Gore misadministration. It remains a question.
I will ask you to remember Bill Clinton. If catching someone in a lie swayed Democrats out of thst rabid leftism at all costs, it certainly would have happened then… and we both know it did not. I will remind you of an Oldsmobile being driven off a bridge a few years earlier. Either of those would under the conditions of an honorable electorate, have ended their carrers, and swung elections for a few decades to come."
What the hell are you talking about?
"The Democrats, as a rule, have a history of holding party and leftism, over truth....Let’s be clear, here; the Democrats have been taken over by the far extreme of their own party, and refuse to recognize it, or else are deathly afraid to make any complaint about it, for fear of being excommunicated. The message clearly has been sent to the rank and file of the Democrat party: Lockstep or step off. And nobody dares stand up to the party’s radicals. Thus are the Democrats are destroying THEMSELVES... mostly by holding silence about what they see."
The fact that you can say that with a straight face is a sign of what a partisan you really are.
posted by: Brian on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
"And need I point out that one of the 'clowns' giving Mr. Bush advice, just pulled in a Nobel Prize in economics?"
I assume you are referring to Edward Prescott. If that's the case, I have to ask, when has he been on the CEA? There were a lot of people who signed those petitions for Bush - although there were many more who signed ones in opposition - and the fact that he was one of them doesn't mean much.
As for whether his advisors are "clowns," I'd have to say that's a ridiculous statement. From what I gather, they are highly competent, well respected individuals in their fields of economics. Their expertise isn't in question.
***The problem is, they aren't the ones in charge. Do you really think it was one of his CEA members who got him to sign the steel tariff legislation? This administration makes every decision based on politics. We know that because people like John DiIlulio and Paul O'Neill have told us.***posted by: Brian on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Bithead: "And need I point out that one of the 'clowns' giving Mr. Bush advice just pulled in a Nobel Prize in economics? Funny how those little details get in the way of a great rant, huh?"
Not when a sizable number of other Nobel Prize winners also regard Bush's economic advisors as clowns (which gives you some idea of how much the Nobel in Economics is actually worth) -- and not when the supply-siders' predictions in 1994 turned out to be ludicrously wrong. (By the way, lest we forget, Bush has a strong tendency to either ignore or outright fire those economic advisors -- like those military advisors -- who actually turn out to be correct.)
And, no, I'm not saying that Bush shouldn't have run a deficit during a recession -- no economist, as far as I know, has ever criticized him for that. What most of them ARE criticizing him for is planning to massively expand the deficit through upper-class tax cuts AFTER the recession is over -- and also for running the wrong type of deficit even during it, since tax cuts are supposed to have far more potent demand-stimulating effects during a downturn if they don't go to the wealthy.posted by: Bruce Moomaw on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
You see, Elle Wiz - the tax cuts work for everyone. Bush's policies are helpful not only for his voters, but virtually for everyone, including pinko commies in New Jersey.
A message for the left-wing radicals here:
You should listen to Kerry, your candidate. He may be the most left-wing senator, but he is still a mainstream reasonable guy compared to virtually all of you.
He said, for example,
"In the days ahead, we must find common cause."
Bush said similar things in his speech. So you should follow Kerry's words, and help your president Bush to lower taxes, stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, simplify the tax code and other laws, and help to strengthen the moral values in the society.posted by: Lubos Motl on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
John said "I do not believe I used the word "market" and so I like you to avoid putting words in my mouth. I am not talking about an economy."
John, I apologize. That was my paraphrase and I did not mean to put words in your mouth.
I agree with a lot of your points. The Democrats need to stop treating everyone who votes against them as idiots. I'm amazed at the comments I see to the effect of the stupidity of sourtherns, rural voters, etc. I also agree that the animosity toward the intelligentsia is understandable. However, I fear that it has led to a general anti-intellectualism with respect to policy that is harmful.
Almost 50 million people voted for Kerry so it seems like the Democrats haven't alienated everyone.
One question for you: I am genuinely puzzled when I hear conservatives refer to the Clinton Administration as left-wing. I perceived it as a slightly left-of-center, but largely mainstream administration dominated by DLCers (which I approve). I am not being sarcastic, I am really curious as to why you consider Clinton to be left-wing.
I repeat my general point: if the Democratic Party dies because of a natural political evolution and is replaced by something more in tune with the electorate, that's fine. If it's done it by the GOP trying to crush it, that's not so fine.
Frankly, I am counting on internal divisions within the GOP to disrupt their unity, not because I am such a Democratic partisan but because I am uncomfortable with such concentrated power. I hope you are right. I agree that that the Dems are a disaster now and they have no one to blame but themselves.
I agree the Dems need to get their act together. But I don't think its entirely fair to conflate the Dems with Chomsky/Zinn and Moore. Clearly, all of them would consider the Democrats far too conservative. It's ironic that you refer to Harold Ford as one of the new breed. I went to college in Memphis when his father was the rep there and he was really just a liberal, racial-card playing hack. Apparently, his son is different.posted by: MWS on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
What alot of you are missing is that the has been media DID deliver on it's promise to deliver an extra 15% to Kerry.
If you look at surveys only approx 30-35% of the American people call themselves Liberals compared to 50-55% who call themselves conservatives. So those of you who are screeching that half of the country is on your side you are living in a fool's paradise.
A fool's paradise. Yes, that is where the mindset of the Democratic party has been for at least 10 years. Like small children they have blamed everything and everyone BUT THEMSELVES for the situation they are in. They do not see their shrill, shrieking radical left wing has utterly disgusted many who would generally vote Democratic. The powers that be in the DNC have failed to grasp that the 1960's are OVER, so is the 20th century for that matter. More importantly the LLL's, the has been media and the Democrats were too busy wallowing in self pity and self loathing to notice that there was a sea change in attitudes in the aftermath of 9/11. One that was not in their favor. My rough estimate is that 10-15% of the Democratic base said adios to the Democrats after the 2000 election and 9/11. These people (such as myself) were the centrists of the party who could no longer stomach what the Democrats were doing and saying to undermine the country as a whole. These people will not be coming back to the party I can assure you.
I suggest you read "The Democratic Party is Toast" by Grover Norquist. It is the obituary of the Democratic party.posted by: Nahanni on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
The foundation of Frank's book is simple-minded and false. Democratic redistributionist economic Ponzi schemes do NOT better serve the material interests of ANY American, let alone those of middle America. The good people of Kansas are voting not only in their moral interests, but in their econonic interests as well. Middle Americans don't want to be poor, unemployed and nihilistic like the Europeans.
And if you want to know what lies at the heart of the Democratic problems, look no further than the title of this book. There is nothing wrong with Kansas. There is alot wrong with the Democrats. They should stop blaming Kansans and start looking in the mirror.posted by: HA on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Republican power brings with it a responsibility to ensure that all Americans can enjoy the fruits of being an American. The first Bush administration was all but hostile to the issues of African-Americans.
How were they hostile to African-Americans? That is absurd. If you are talking about opposition to affirmative discrimination, then the Republicans are working for the long-term interests of African-Americans.
Affirmative disrimination is a gross violation of the concept of equal protection. It can only stoke resentment on the part of those who lose out from its application. It isn't in the long term best interests of African Americans to foster a RATIONAL resentment from whites.posted by: HA on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Thomas Franks will ensure many more years of losses and bitter recrimination for those of his mindset. By forcing people to become triple invested in his poison he only ensures that they will never successfully be able to masquerade as rational moderates. Make no mistake about it Dr. Drezner, much more than 51% of the populace despises the likes of Thomas Franks. Forget Kansas - there are plenty of us who would gladly show him the error of his ways in Fenway Park, for example. That would be unequivocal unadulterated good fun.posted by: rhodeymark on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
meh - s/b Frank PIMFposted by: rhodeymark on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Why is it only when Democrats lose elections, that they start becoming worried about moderation?posted by: Bithead on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
The Thomas Franks take on America appears to be informed by an unconscious Marxism. He reduces people to their economic appetites. Nothing else is important or even matters. Scratch that Starbucks materialist and I think you'll find a hard boiled athiest. I don't think the Democratic party wants to go there. It's got troubles enough as it is.posted by: Jerry on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
As a frequent visitor to Oklahoma, I can attest that you can get decent smoked Brie and white Burgundy there.
The two areas of medicine, laser eye surgery and cosmetic plastic surgery, that have fallen outside the system of government rationing that currently exists have seen prices decline. Under a less restricitive, private system, we will extend this greater affordability to more than just the vain and the semi-blind. So even more goodies for you. We're happy to help.posted by: Don NYC, USA on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Jerry- Your comment noted. And there, in a nutshell is why those of the ilk of Mr Franks are losing bigtime... They can't work outside that little monetary box. Which, in turn explains why the whole argument for the Democrats anymore is the class warfare thing.
posted by: Bithead on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Why do you hate America?
I asked several years ago, during Clinton, where all the good Democrats were, and refined that question over the years after the 2000 election cycle, following the Clinton and Gore misadministration. It remains a question.
I will ask you to remember Bill Clinton. If catching someone in a lie swayed Democrats out of thst rabid leftism at all costs, it certainly would have happened then… and we both know it did not.
Clinton had the highest popularity of any outgoing president when he retired in 2000. It seems to me like the American people were pretty firm in their opinions.
I would ask you, "Where have all the good Republicans gone?" I think that Clinton lied about getting a blow job and I stand apart from him in proportion to how serious that offense is. Bush lied to the American people (and the world) about going to war (and his relationships to Ahmad Chalabi and Ken Lay amoung other things. Can you demonstrate your goodness by standing apart from Bush to a degree that is proportionate to those lies?
Rayposted by: Ray on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
"And if you want to know what lies at the heart of the Democratic problems, look no further than the title of this book. There is nothing wrong with Kansas. There is alot wrong with the Democrats. They should stop blaming Kansans and start looking in the mirror."
Thanks, HA. Those of us who're lifelong Kansans, very frankly, are getting a bit annoyed with the Democrats' assumption that we're a bunch of unlettered tambourine-whacking slope-shouldered toothless slackjawed subcephalic oafs.
Mr. Frank has his opinion, based on certain experiences; fine -- mine are somewhat different. My circle of society primarily want three things from our Federal government: Get out of our wallets, out of our business, and off our backs.
Just one example: I'm one of those Kansans who pays among the highest electrical utility rates anywhere in the country, even higher than those poor suckers in Wichita who bought into the then-current notion that "nuclear power will be too cheap to meter". Why? As a rural client, my power is supplied by a Rural Electric Cooperative. I'd like to invest in wind power; I can't afford to do so because R.E.C.s aren't required to buy back surplus production, and the state legislature hasn't yet seen fit to correct this situation.
This is what the R.E.A. (a Federal creature) has done for me. Another big-government program that's manifestly outlived its usefulness. Ahh, the power of the bureaucracy -- it is not to be contended.
We are, yes, deeply distrustful of arrogance, elitism, and intellectual snobbery. We aren't anti-intellectual; we simply prefer our scholarship to meet certain tests of believability. We (many of us, at any rate) believe that Creationism and Darwin can peacefully coexist. We knew, viscerally, that Michael Bellesisle was full of crap, and long before anyone bothered to challenge him scholastically.
Do we have problems unique to rural America? Certainly. The lack of vitality in rural economies is cliche. How, I wonder, does this differ significantly from the lack of vitality in many urban-core economies, other than that fewer people are directly impacted? And we do have those problems as well; there are certain areas of Wichita and Topeka through which I prefer not to drive at night.
Yes, we've had our problems with the fundamentalists. The Rev. Fred Phelps is, embarrassingly, one of ours. A few years ago, our State School Board was deadlocked by an equal division of fundies and realists, and evolution got tossed on its ear in Kansas. We've since rectified that situation. Unfortunately, the Rev. Phelps refuses thus far to expire.
Shoot, we even got us a big-time business scandal; the state's largest electric power producer got looted of several million dollars by (nonnative) executives bent on lining their own pockets. Us poor dopes somehow managed to figure it out and bust 'em; the fact that we managed to make the discovery on our own must confound Mr. Franks.
We've got one of the finest publically funded medical schools in the country (University of Kansas); one of the best publically funded law schools in the country (again, KU, who also incidentally plays some pretty good basketball until March rolls around each year); one of the best publically funded engineering colleges in the U.S. (Kansas State University); a much-respected veterinary college (again, K.S.U.); the most Goldwater, Truman, and Rhodes Scholars ever to come from the ranks of public universities (yet again, K.S.U.); and a perenially nationally ranked and national championship college debate team (paradoxically, once again, Kansas State). All this from a state with a population of 2.5 million and, perhaps more topically, only 6 Electoral College votes.
We dumb? Don't theenk so, Lucy. But we're getting pretty damned tired of being told we are by our "betters". Nota bene: Though we're fairly reliably Republican in matters Federal, we usually manage to elect either RINO or, as is current, liberal Democrat governors. Why this is so I can't say, other than to note that Mrs. Sebelius's Republican opponent in 2002 was a lackluster campaigner and generally a losing proposition; we turned on him for his shortcomings.
Incidentally, if you Google "Gov. Sebelius", the first page-view you'll get concerns her veto -- yet again -- of a concealed carry provision for non-sworn Kansas citizens. It's a hardy annual around here; keeps coming up every spring, keeps getting killed (much to my disappointment) every summer. We're only one of five states without some form of such personal-defense law in the country. Were that we could only change that.
Have we largely rejected East Coast blue-blood Limousine Liberalism? Yep. West Coast activist moonbattery? Again, yes. And because we've rejected them, we are perforce closed-minded redneck racists without the sense to "know what's good for us." Baloney. We have a pretty fair idea of what works for us out here in the sticks, and neither of them is it. We prefer to "do for ourselves", thank you. A quaint superannuated artifact of a none-too-distant homesteading and ranching history? Perhaps. But we take pride in our own self-reliance, and help others when they need it as well.
And although for much of the Civil War (okay, for those of you below the Mason-Dixon Line, the War Of Northern Aggression) we were a sideshow of little note, one of the flashpoints of the conflict was right here, as we refused to be intimidated by Missouri Redlegs attempting to cow us out of our anti-slavery convictions.
It's not so much that we're anti-progressive out here in flyover country. It's more that, if we're going to be progressive, it better show some signs of not only addressing a real, as opposed to a perceived, failure, as well as providing a solution that actually works. From our persepctive, simply throwing money at a problem (and filtering it through a parasitic Federal bureaucracy) to a large extent, hasn't.
I don't presume to speak for all Kansans; we're too diverse a lot for that, far more so than most of our "betters" think. But I rather believe that a good many of my fellow Jayhawkers would tend to agree with me here. And I do know that we're pretty tired of the condescension we've received, even from some of our own, and even as we realize that, yes, we're pretty much irrelevant to the lives and livlihoods of most of our fellow citizens -- with perhaps the exception of our principal economic product, foodstuffs.
'Bergposted by: 'Berg on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Clinton lied about a great deal more than that, and you know it. As I said at the time; the Lewinsky thing was, if nothing else, a tool. to get rid of a far bigger problme than the (then)current argument can account for.
Whereas Bush lied not at all.
Bush lied not at all.
And that was a point that was valided by the American people this last Tuesday.
And if Clinton's popularity was so high, please explain to me why it was that he never got what Mr. Bush just did; Elected by a majority of the popular vote.posted by: Bithead on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
That was a wonderful comment, 'Berg.posted by: fling93 on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Thanks for the Kansas primer. And after following through to your blog, I suddenly had an urge to buy a Garand! Of course, being from the sky-blue portion of the blue-bubble spectrum, Jersey, I've never owned a firearm of any kind. But I think it may be time to head out to the Pine Barrens and bag that Jersey Devil. No, not McGreevey, this Jersey Devil:posted by: HA on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
From the review of Frank's latest book on amazon.com: "Thus the pro-life Kansas factory worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically."
Let's take these in order: The factory worker is not particularly unsafe, OSHA isn't going to disappear and the Republicans aren't going to repeal important safety rules. What probably won't happen are the imposition of rules which statistically save one life in a million years.
Which feeds into #2, keeping that job. Costs count, and keeping unit costs lower by not enacting bootless 'safety rules' will help keep that job in the US.
Regarding #3, the perception of the Democrats is that they tax the rich to give to the welfare class, entirely bypassing the working class. Largely true, except that in policies like affirmative action the Democrats have proven themselves no friend of the caucasian working class. I don't think the Democrats should end AA, but rather rename it and extend it to all less-privileged groups including the white working class.
One more thing. Tax rates are much higher on the working class today than they were predating the 1970s. The shift occurred mostly during the 1970s when the Democrats were in power and refused to index tax rates to inflation.
Friends of the working class?posted by: Don on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Had the Chomsky/Zinn mindset simply resulted in informing the self-promoting rantings of Michael Moore et al, I would agree with you.
However, I see Edwards's "Two Americas" class warfare rhetoric as stemming from the same source. Likewise Kerry's "global test" instincts, which reflect a moral-equivalency view of the role of the United States in the world, a view that he has apparently held at least since his return from Vietnam. What else explains Kerry's vote against the Gulf War in 1991, for instance, a war that certainly met the "global test" requirements?
Next time you visit a Border's store, check out the shelf-feet devoted to Chomsky and Zinn, as opposed to the treatment accorded Paul Johnson or Thomas Sowell. And keep in mind that Zinn is, as far as I know, the most assigned history book in high-schools and colleges in the U.S. His book was even promoted in Matt Damon's "Good Will Hunting".
So, I believe that my "lumping" was appropriate, unfortunately. I can only hope that the lesson that the Democrats take from this last election is not that there is something "wrong with Kansas", but that there might be something wrong with them.posted by: Gabriel Pentelie on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Some might say there are a lot of traditionally Democratic supporters leaving the Democratic Party. In reality, the Democratic Party is leaving it's traditional supporters.
The Democratic Party has shifted from looking out for the interests of the common man to looking out for the interests of the extreme left! The vast majority of middle-america is more concerned with making a living than fighting for "reproductive rights". He is more concerned with taking care of his family than expanding the family to include homosexual couples.
The Democratic Party should return back to it's foundations: jobs, entitlements, security, and freedom. Otherwise, the Republican Party will continue to court and win-over converts.
The lesson of the 2004 elections is that the far left CAN'T win a victory...only value-based middle America can accomplish that goal.
posted by: Francis Dupuis on 11.03.04 at 09:26 AM [permalink]
Post a Comment: