Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Well said!

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. Bush has his share of support, his share of people who see him as electable, who see him as the best choice. If we are to win, we mustn’t arrogantly assume that people will simply come to us because of our confidence in our own picture of Bush. We must convince a number of those people out there that our picture of Bush is closer to the truth than theirs. That will take great care and subtlety of argument.

We cannot afford to consider Bush’s fall from power inevitable at this point, because we may neglect to deliver our message where it will have the most profound effect.

Al, I hope you’re right, but lets not let the current Dem upswing go to our heads. Bush has a lot of cash in the kitty and a highly effective spin capability. That means he can dominate the airwaves in the lead up to election day. That’s something worth fearing regardless of his crap record.

I actually agree with you on a lot of the items you posted in this message, but I will take issue with-
“Imagine a president who never misses an opportunity to weaken environmental regulations in favor of corporate profits.”

As my favorite environmentalist Gregg Easterbrook constantly points out, this is one of the least convincing arguments the left has made about George W. Bush (he is a liberal and opponent of Bush, generally, by the way). Let me give you an example. Recently the National Research Council published a report basically endorsing Bush’s much attacked Clear Skies Initiative (http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309089328?OpenDocument). Have you heard about this anywhere? of course not, because it is in the left’s interests to make it seem like everything Bush does on every issue is for big corporations or terrible in some way. The truth is that the Clear Skies Initiative is a rather moderate, progressive policy that employs the free market to gives companies incentives, not just regulations, to produce less pollution. Every environmental indicator other than green house gasses is pointed in the right direction, and has been for a while now, and Bush’s proposals like the Clear Skies Initiative should be support for those who want to improve the environment, not just make political hay.

I also think your point about the military funerals is rather unfair. If he went to them, you would just say he is doing it as a political, meaningless gesture. Its a no win.

Finally, I dont think this election will be a run away victory on either side. While people may not like Bush, and for many good reasons, I think that once the true John Kerry comes out, most of the country will find him far to liberal for their liking (I am from Massachusetts and he is rather liberal by even the People’s Republic of Massachusetts’ standards). So it will be just like the 2000 election, no one too happy with either choice, and a close vote in the swing states…

Al:

I would suggest to you that the current surge upwards, primarily for John Kerry, might be fueled by the process, rather than reality. Two months ago, Kerry was viewed very negatively by Democrats and Republicans alike; now he is the darling of the Democratic party.

It is clear to me that political races are dominated by great ebbs and flows (witness how far Bush 41 fell quickly, and how Clinton surged to a rather surprise victory in his first campaign).

For you to suggest that Bush is not “electable” is a pipe dream. Whether you agree or disagree with his direction of the country, it is clear that many do agree with his direction. And that is the clearest sign of electability. Dont fall into the trap of lambasting Bush for whatever position he might take, as Misha pointed out with the info about funerals and environment.

You suggest bad intent by saying…”Imagine an administration that strives to keep the country in a state of fear and paranoia in order to justify ever larger defense and “homeland security” budgets.”, yet I can imagine you quickly castigating the administration the moment something happens due to terrorism. Trying to have it both ways simply makes the intelligent portions of your argument meaningless.

Ultimately, it is obvious that Bush is the favorite in this horse race, due to many factors including incumbency, finances, an improving economy, and the redistribution of electoral votes, among others. This is NOT to say he will win, but for you to conclude that he is not electable is simply wishful thinking. Your argument would have been better served by simply focusing on the potential negatives that he also has (the deficit, potential future terrorist attacks, fallout from Iraq).

Actually, I wouldn’t wait for a terrorist event to castigate the administrations anti-terrorism efforts since I believe much of that effort has been wasted on the misguided belief that the war on Iraq has something to do with the “Global War on Terrorism”.

But you are correct, this is primarily my wishful thinking and my optimistic belief that the American people will finally come to their senses.

Misha, you may be right about Bush’s environmental record, but please do not call Gregg Easterbrook of the New Republican a liberal.

Robert- I just read his book “the progress paradox”, and he came out with proposals like raising the minimum wage to 10 dollars. I dont know any non-liberal who thinks that a 10 dollar minimum wage is a good idea…

I didn’t say he was conservative. He’s a moderate, but he’s no liberal.

misha, you can say that Gregg Eastbrook is a liberal, but please if you are going to assert that George Bush has anything but a shady enviormental record give me some better details. As far as I have heard the biggest proposal our current president has made involved hydrogen fuel celled powered cars and the easiest (and most common) way of getting hydrogen is from… oil.

I thought I gave you details about the Clean Skies Act, and a very nice link to perhaps to one of the most respect Science Research organizations touting his plan as what is needed to go beyond the limitations of the Clean Air Act. It seems that it is those who attach Bush’s supposedly “shady” environmental agenda (based on what did you come up with that adjective?) that need to produce facts from similarly objective think tanks (rather than simply special interest groups who have a vested interest in taking down conservatives).

Misha:
First, the market is like any complex system it is capable of many differen points of equilibrium, not all of which can be seen as positive.

Second, I do not think that you can truly consider the market to be in control if the government is paying people incentives to raise their standards. That’s not the market taking care of things, that’s government interceding, and doing so more on behalf of the business than the people whose lives they effect.

Third, from appearances, it’s voluntary, and voluntary regulation is contradiction in terms. The whole point to regulation is that the government restrains a behavior, rather than letting it occur.

We don’t allow insider trading, we don’t allow people to broadcast a radio station at any frequency they want in a given area, and we don’t allow export of certain items abroad.

If we are serious about taking care of environmental problems, we have to make it mandatory. Now, we can adjust the speed and the extent of the regulations to allow businesses to gradually upgrade their systems to more environmental friendly technologies, if you want the market to take a hand. That might also enable the market for pollution control devices to improve.

Fourth, not every good human behavior can be properly modelled in economic terms. Economics and finance are blind to many things, especially when speculation is the name of the game, and not the real results of the businesses at hand.

Global Warming is a real problem. The CO2 we are releasing is a quite a substantial amount, and it is warming up the world around us. The question is how much, and how fast, and what will be the result. If it does occur, it will be a severe blow to the economies of the world, as our coastal cities and ports are indundated, and unpredictable climatical changes wreak their havoc.

An author of a book on planetary science I just read compared taking a wait-and-see attitude about Global Warming to jumping off a cliff to measure it’s height. Should we really have to start this disaster in motion to convince ourselves to do something about it?

Like the markets, the atmosphere has it’s points of equilibrium. Like the market, not all of those points of equilibrium are going to be kind to the people dependent on the system. Once we get into that point of equilibrium, though, it may be harder to turn things back, than it was to get ourselves there.

I believe the Market or any other overemphasized school of thought can be the beginning of bad habits and worse situations. I would rather regulate now, and improve the situation while it’s easy, than wait ‘til later to remedy a difficult, disastrous situation.

misha-
I went to the site you claimed “basically endorses Bush’s much attacked Clear Skies Initiative” first of all i don’t think the word endorse is a good choice, second of all it never mentioned the clear skies intiative, and it states that the clean air act needs to be updated. I really don’t know how you got the idea this was praise for the president. And by the by, Shady is a word that I got from my limited vocabulary. I beleave it can be used to describe a statement that seems to be not telling the whole truth.
martin

the system is mandatory, in terms of OVERALL polution reduction throughout the nation- but it also makes sure this reduction is done efficiently, by having those to whom reduction is cheapest “sell” their units of polution to those for whom it is more expensive. let me give you a simplified example. Right now, the government say “there are 100 units of polution, and we need to reduce it to 80”- so it mandates that everyone reduce their polution by 20%. So we end up with 80 units of polution. Under Bush’s plan, we would also end up with 80 units of polution (actually less, see bellow), but the company to whom it would be more costly to reduce polution would pay the company to whom it would be less costly. So now the company who can reduce polution more effectively would reduce its polution by more and the one that couldnt, woudl reduce it by less. this would make for the same level of reduction, but with much more efficiency.. Furthermore, because the system is more efficient, we can actually have LESS overall polution with MORE efficiency. So we would end up with less polution than under the current plan. note that this system is only “voluntary” to the extent that you can pay another company to reduce their polution by the same ammount that you dont reduce it. everyone wins under this plan, and sounds like a pretty good idea to me… the market is a powerful tool and we can use it to get real progress in the environmental field

that site I said recomends a “multi-state, multi-pollutant” solution, which allows to trade “polution reducing” licenses.. that is what the Clean Skies Initiative is all about.

that is what the Clear skies intitive is all about? that sounds like an over simplifacation to me. check out the facts page @ cleartheair.org I found a few more things the clear skies intiative is about.

Is that what that is? I’ve heard about it before. In the wake of Bush decisions that have basically removed the necessity of upgrades to aging facilities, I think all it will do is allow the worst polluters to just keep on pouring the stuff out, paying what they would to upgrade their facilities into the hands of those who pollute less.

Of course, if you wish to know the result of that, why don’t you take a car trip past the Houston Ship channel or Texas City with your windows open? Pollution isn’t just a problem because of broad issues like Global Warming and Ozone Depletion, but also because of the local communities it affects.

It seems to me, that the system you suggest is merely a way for those in industry to pass the buck. We need to set healthy standards, before we can afford to set wealthy ones.

It may be difficult, but why can’t the market adjust to these difficulties, as they have to so many others? You catch the news everyday, and there’s always something being screwed up. At least in this case, our system will not be putting burdens on those who depend upon environmentally sensitive areas for their jobs, or those who are forced to deal with medical problems on account of pollution inflicted on their communities.

And of course, we would be going far towards the goal of avoiding the kind of climate change that would serve to slowly strangle our economy over the next thirty to fifty years.

And at the very leaste

Sorry about that last part. Must have missed it.

Misha said: note that this system is only “voluntary” to the extent that you can pay another company to reduce their polution by the same ammount that you dont reduce it. everyone wins under this plan, and sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

Misha, everyone wins except those children in the playground a few blocks from the company in Georgia that paid another company in Oregon to not reduce its own pollution. The clear skies initiative completely misses the point that ALL Americans have a right to cleaner air, not just those who luckily live by a company that can more afford to reduce its emissions.

misha-
a problem with allowing the trading of polution credits is it leads to an area with far more pollution than is safe, so prices of homes goes down, poor people inhabit these newly degraded houses, and that furthers the gap between rich and poor, not only in terms of money but now health as well.

Excellent point, martin, I missed the property value consequence. We know from research that health goes down as economic impoverishment goes up. A double health whammy on those affected.

I am glad I got a nice debate going on my very first post on these boards :). I understand your guys worries, but just keep an open mind. Problems with concentration of polution in one state or one area can be modified by limited to whom the “polution credits” can be sold ect. There is a reason this organization came out for using the market-driven mechanism to improve the current process rather than results oriented system- it is likely to work better. You cant always just regulate, regulate, regulate, you need to give business options so they can work within the scheme in a way that benefits both the environment and the economy. I am not saying I am going to change anyone’s mind here, but just keep an open mind to these proposals- every proposal will have one downside or another.

Kudos to Misha for actually providing a specific idea. In general, the site needs more specific, or altnernative viewpoints than overt generalizations. Early in the post, Joebadadonuts makes the excellent point that to win over repubs/independents in the 2004 election, Dems have to outine specifics. A minority (albeit a large minority) of the population will vote for anyone other than Bush, but general assertions like Bush is bad on the environment and Iraq was wrong, will not convince enough of the fence sitters.

In general, I challenge those who are anti Bush to start providing some viable alternatives as part of your criticisms. It is very easy to say that Iraq was wrong, income gaps are evil, and we need healthcare for everybody. However, providing an alternative and specific viewpoint is essential in political discussions, and it is sorely missing from today’s national debates.

Part of the reason I come to this site is to try and understand the dem or 3rd party viewpoints and simple anti Bush statements often come across as either anger, or cop outs. For example, how is it Bush’s fault that jobs have been lost? Can’t an argument be made that productivity and technology gains have restructured manufacturing jobs, and it is not policy decisions? What role should government be allowed to play in regulating that companies not ship jobs overseas, and what competitive impact would that have on companies? Isn’t it feasbile that if companies do not ship jobs out that they lose competitive advantage, and thereby jeopardize even more jobs than the ones that left? Can’t it be argued that the 90’s boom was a once in a lifetime event that was independent of Clinton policies? What long term plans to combat terror compete with Bush’s long term plan of instilling democracy in the middle east? These are all questions that deserve a better debate than Bush is stupid and evil, and it’s unfortunate that negativity and hostility overshadow what could really be a lively discussion on fundamental issues. The country is now so polarized because politics has been boiled down to pure negativity for political gain, and we are missing out on what could be an excellent discussion of the actual issues.

Misha said: you need to give business options so they can work within the scheme in a way that benefits both the environment and the economy. I am not saying I am going to change anyone’s mind here, but just keep an open mind to these proposals- every proposal will have one downside or another.

I respect your opinion on this matter and you make well reasoned points. Underlying your argument however, is the premise that the environment and business are inherently opposed to each other. I believe this is a false premise. The protection of our environment is simply a matter of reducing our negative impact upon it. Business which would falter if rules mandating a reduction of impact have in the past, and will presently and in the future, produce businesses which create low impact technologies and low impact services.

Given this, the issue really rests on high impact businesses influencing decisions to protect their status quo methodology to produce profit vs. incurring the costs to change or be replaced by businesses which foster low impact.

This is privilege and power protection vs. innovative health and welfare oriented new businesses and methods. I agree that change in business has an inherent cost just as energy is required to move an object. Our regulations should mandate low impact practices and if they did, the taxpayer would be far less put out by their money used to get there.

The clean air act makes government a partner in the premise that what is good for environmental public interest must be a detriment to business as a whole, and vice versa. Given that government is supposed to be the public’s protector, it is disengenuous to protect business practices which harm the public health and welfare while stating such action is in the public interest. It simply is not. What it is is protection of campaign contributions and political alliances pure and simple.

I don’t trust the market to drive things by itself. It’s too vulnerable to fads, to expediency, to misplaced expectations, and popular misconceptions. You can’t regulate everything, and shouldn’t, but sometimes the price of not regulating is a market crippled by corruption, and a society overwhelmed by the adverse effects of irresponsible corporate behavior, from pollution, to monopolistic business practices.

So much has changed in the last 200 years. We have folded our population into the cities from the country and multiplied it more than fifty-eight times. Our knowledge of Science, and our grasp of technology has taken a literal quantum leap from what it was at that time, and we have engineered and manufactured things that would have dropped the founding fathers dead in amazement. We have also built an economy of such scope and size that it would have beggared their imagination. The technology behind modern arms far outguns it’s revolutionary era equivalents. Our communications technology and media can bring to us in seconds what they would have either had to witness for themselves, or else hear as a report with a lag of months, if not years. All in all, the only thing that has not changed in two hundred years is human nature.

The idea that we can return to the style of government present in the 1700s is unrealistic when one considers what has changed in that time. The number of risks and hazards possible in todays world has multiplied, and new problems have emerged from our new techniques and technologies that could not have been imagined by those who lived life before their invention.

Regulations cannot do everything, but they can stand guard at precisely those places where you would have them thrown out- where they add costs that the businesses otherwise would not take on. Sometimes, that is the necessity, because acting otherwise can cost lives, destroy communities, and disrupt the open, robust functioning of our economy and society.

The Corporations of American must answer to the law. They cannot be allowed to commit a multitude of sins that would put an individual into jail merely because they’ve collected themselves into company.

We’ll put a person in prison for negligence that leads to somebody’s death. We’ll go after terrorists who seek to poison our lands and resources. We’ll jail someone who plays con games. Why should manufacturers, chemical plants, and financiers be held to a different standard because they’re corporate?

because they push hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Bush Warchest…..

i’d write a letter but my asthma is kickin up…..damn los angeles air….

The economic problem with pollution is that the cost of pollution is not reflected in the price of the product or service. Pollution definitely has cost. Costs show up as increased health care, lower property values, decreased quality of life, and damage to crops. And since these costs are absorbed by the economy as a whole, things that should really be expensive to produce are able to be kept at an artificially low price.

To this theory, I’ll add two axioms:

1) People living in poverty or depressed economies are willing to trade pollution for economic growth (even if it kills them).

2) A global economy demands a global solution to pollution.

Without global environment treaties, the U.S. will have a tough time competing - which will put more pressure on dissolving our own environmental protections. This administrations disdain for global cooperation is its real environmental Achilles heel.

Bush does his part for homeland security… I hope this disturbs you as much as it does me.

Bush’s brilliant answer to the problem of WMD attacks.

I think we need to first imagine an electorate that hasn’t yet realized Bush’s faults.

We also have to imagine the dollars and conservative base that fund Bush’s image as a successful and competent president.

we also need to pick a canidate that will get the disinfranchised voter to come out and vote.

If the administration had laid out a case based solely on the intentions of the Iraqi regime, I doubt you would have had massive public support or any international support for that. The argument last year was one not only of intentions but of capability and actual possession of weapons of mass destruction.

-David Kay quoted in CNN article

The Article in Question.

Al. I would argue that litigation costs and risk management are pollution costs that any prudent company would consider in making a decision to pollute or not to pollute.

I would also argue that the fear of litigation is a contributor to why many environmental problems go unaddressed. That is why some of the regulation reforms are needed.

I absolutely agree George, as long as someone holds the companies to account when they break the law. However, since existing lawsuits are being tossed overboard at the EPA and the administration and Republican party continue to push for tort reform. I’m not sure what you mean by “fear of litigation is a contributor to why many environmental problems go unaddressed.

Voters are not dumb. Many people dislike Bush, and so do I. But if the Democrats are not going to come up with concrete plans for the country’s development, all they can do is to discredit Bush again and again. There are quite a few more months in order to oversaturate voters with this, and this will ultimately be their loss if there ever is a backlash.

Even if the anti-Bush sentiment grows healthily and the Democrats gain control of the executive branch, it will only take a short while for the other side to strengthen their power in Congress. In the end, no one else will gain, and the presidency will look like a poor prize. Instead of Bush-beating, perhaps the Democrats can try formulating viable alternatives to what Bush is doing now.

As always, it is so easy to criticise, but so difficult to come up with constructive plans. By the way, the outrage over the breast exposure, appointment of a gay bishop and gay marriage laws in Massachusetts should make it clear to you that many Americans are still fairly conservative where it strikes home. It would be wise for Democrats not to ignore such social trends as well, rather than proudly displaying the liberalistic banner.