July 14, 2004
What to do, what to do
I have reservations about voting for Kerry. I had reservations about voting for Nader in 92, 96, and 2000 as well. I did vote for him, however. My problem is not with Kerry himself, but rather with the Democratic Party as a whole. The democrats are no longer the liberal party that they once were. Democrats largely are. The Party is not. The party has recast itself as Republican Lite.
The DLC adopted a strategy of moving as far to the right as possible on economic issues in order to attract big business dollars. This has served to alienate the working class while failing to bring in the volume of cash they had been hoping for. The Party seems to have taken the attitude of "What're you going to do, vote REPUBLICAN?" when it comes to their traditional base of unions, blue collar workers, progressives, and minority groups. More and more the answer is "No, we're just not going to vote." Blue collar workers, the "real Americans" that the Republicans so publicly idolize while privately raping them, tend to be more moderate or conservative on social issues, and with economic issues off the table there is no reason for them to support the Democrats.
Clinton was the epitome of this strategy. He moved as far to the right as he could without registering as a Republican, and spoke all manner of heartwarming platitudes about the common man, while bending over backwards to do every favor possible for big business, usually at the expense of the common man. I don't think that Kerry is as charismatic as Clinton, but I think he would be a far better President than Clinton was. Kerry and Edwards are hardly the heirs to the passionate leaders of progressivism that brought us the 8 hour workday, the end of child labor, the end of company towns, National Parks, Civil Rights, and so many other advances made in the first half of the 20th century. All the Democratic Party offers to counter the fiscal conservative/social extreme conservative model of the Republicans is fiscal conservative/social moderate. So that's the range of political thought in this country now?
Politics in America is rapidly becoming a battle between moderate conservatives and the far right. If you are a centrist or a liberal, you are not a welcome participant in most instances. The earnest if moderate populism of John Edwards is truly a shock. That the media is trying to brand Edwards as a Marxist, much as they did to the fiscal conservative and social moderate Howard Dean, is not at all surprising. There are fewer voices to the left of center on the national scene than there were 100 years ago. My options are to vote for an Independent who will not have any real effect on the election, vote for a Green who will not have any real effect on the election, or vote for the lesser of two evils.
I think they realize they must do that to get elected.
But I don’t think it’s so much about big business as it is about the common man. Public opinion would just not support the kind of liberal ‘new deal’ type policies I think you would prefer were being discussed.
“The era of big government is over.” -Bill Clinton
Unfortunately the era of big government is not over. It’s more like on hold. It’s certainly no smaller.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at July 14, 2004 03:18 PMrev_matt,
Your point that the DLC was instrumental in moving the Democratic Party towards the center, is accurate. So is your assessment that some elements of the group (Evan Bayh comes to mind), were trying to remake it into GOP-lite. However, if the DLC had the same kind of influence in the party today, Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller would be our nominees.
I happen to be one of those fiscal conservative/social moderate members of the party, yet I knew that it would take a ‘progressive’ candidacy like Howard Dean’s to energize the traditional base, if we were to have any chance in November. And, the party is much stronger and solid as a result.
It is common knowledge that the Democratic Party has more divergent political ideologies than the Republican Party. But, I also think that those divergent ideologies co-exist far better than most people think.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at July 14, 2004 07:45 PMExcellent posts.
Good point, Eric.
I think it’s a pendulum thing, just a characteristic of human political essence. Sooner or later, the population will be burnt by the Right’s extremism and swing to the left. Iraq could be that locus. I’ve heard some significant grumbling, personally, from some of the soldiers retuning. It’s very reminiscient of Vietnam for me. Rumsfeld has become very McNamara like.
Posted by: Greg at July 14, 2004 10:12 PMThe troops need a break. Bring ‘em home, regroup, have some pow-wows and some learning sessions on what worked and what didn’t, clean up the slate, and be smarter and tougher for the next time we think there’s a threat.
I don’t think that’s a particularly “right wing” or “left wing” position, but simply a common sense one.
Clinton was the epitome of this strategy. He moved as far to the right as he could without registering as a Republican, and spoke all manner of heartwarming platitudes about the common man, while bending over backwards to do every favor possible for big business, usually at the expense of the common man.
That’s totally untrue. Under Clinton we had lower crime, higher employment, stricter environmental policies, incomes were up across the board, inner cities were being revitalized, our social safety net was stronger… basically, there was more of everything good and less of everything bad.
And there is absolutely no way you can characterize Democrats as Republican-lite. There are huge fundamental differences between Democratic and Republican stances on almost every issue.
On energy, Kerry is promoting a “Manhattan Project” effort to achieve energy independence for this country within ten years. Bush’s plan is to stabilize the Middle East to promote more US taxpayer investment in foreign oil production.
On the environment… Do I even need to go there?
On foreign policy, Kerry favors an engagement policy based on multilateral institutions using the full arsenal of US diplomatic, financial, economic, humanitarian, and military resources that this great nation has at its disposal. Bush has adopted a narrow isolationist, unilateral and bilateral approach to global problems favoring military solutions, trade wars, and currency manipulation.
On the economy, Kerry favors a restart of Clinton era fiscal responsibility, bureaucratic streamlining, job creation, and “pay as you go” program funding. Bush favors bigger government, tax cuts for the rich, reduced government services, and a “borrow and spend” strategy for government programs.
On health care… Bush just did that. He feels no more needs to be done. Kerry has a very good plan to make health care affordable for all Americans in order to reduce the burden on employers who are currently the biggest providers.
Bush’s plan is to end affirmative action. Kerry’s plan is to “mend not end” the programs.
On education, Bush’s disastrous economic policy has forced universities to drastically increase tuition fees. Bush’s handling of the NCLB act is ensuring a collapse of public edcation and a migration of students to private schools - if the parents can afford it, and if the private school has room and the student meets it’s acceptance criteria. Kerry’s plan is to fully fund NCLB and make sure public schools are strengthened and held accountable for the quality of our children’s education.
I can go on and on. If you think Democrats are Republican-lite, you’re just not paying attention.
>make sure public schools are strengthened and held accountable for the quality of our children’s education.
The problem with education is that parental fingers point everywhere except where they need to be pointed. Right back at themselves.
You can throw all the money in the world at education and still have bad results if the parents aren’t doing their job.
Nobody thinks throwing money at the problem is an end in itself, Ciggy.
Yes, obviously, parents need to get more involved. But that’s not enough when your school suffers from poor quality teachers, inadequate lesson plans, or a culture of just passing the kids through whether they learned anything or not.
The NCLB Act was an excellent start at making public schools accountable for educating the kids. Too bad Bush won’t fund it to the amount specified in the law he signed. Tax breaks for the rich are a higher priority.
Rev. Matt—
I seriously sympathize with your concerns regarding the Democratic party. In many ways, it has become GOP Lite. However, George W Bush has not just been another Republican President. I won’t try to list all of the problems he has caused. But I will touch on two areas—the environment and government services.
Bush has set back environmental regulations at a pace that would astonish even Ronald Reagan & James Watt. Specifically, I am most concerned about Bush turning his back on efforts to alleviate global warming; if the overwhelming majority of scientists are correct, this may well be the greatest man-made catastrophe in history, killing millions worldwide. Bush’s favored incentives for even greater use of oil and coal are actually leading us in the opposite direction of what is needed. The word “appalling” is totally insufficient for this moral failure.
Moreover, Bush and the Republican Congress have created fiscal conditions that will lead to horrible deficits and require massive cuts in programs in that people depend on; the trillions that Bush & Co. have siphoned off with their tax cuts are totally unprecedented.
This is not a president who is part of any Republican tradition. If the Democrats have become Republican Lite, Bush and Company have super-sized immoral policy.
The record of this administration leaves absolutely no room for women and men of good conscience to stand back and allow Bush to be returned to office. I pray you will also come to this conclusion, and do so soon enough to help in the massive effort it will take to dislodge him.
Thank you.
Posted by: Rich Gilman at July 16, 2004 05:53 PMCould you give me an example of how Democrats are Republican Lite? I don’t see it.
AP, the Iraq War is a prime example. The only difference of opinion there is that the international community should get more involved, which isn’t even a difference of opinion but a boast of greater ability to achieve the same end.
Whereas what needs to happen is that the conventional forces need to withdraw and Special Operations and Intelligence forces need to do their jobs in secret.
Nobody can bitch about “oppressive Americans” if nobody knows Americans are THERE.
I’m sorry Ciggy, I was talking differences on general issues, rather than specific tactics. But even on the Iraq issue you see a big difference:
Democrats would actively seek UN and NATO collaboration because it would ease the burden on us and would actually help the Iraqis.
Bush has never sought UN collaboration, rather he’s made demands of the UN to provide services. He’s called on NATO to provide forces, but not for a NATO operation like the Balkans or Afghanistan.
Other than the fact that neither party is willing to pull troops out of Iraq immediately, their approaches to the problem are night and day.
Also, the Iraq war is the only example I can think of where you might get the (wrong) idea that Democrats are Republican Lite.
A few comments above, I listed the differences on energy policy, the environment, foreign policy, the economy, health care, affirmative action, and education.
Anything else? I don’t mean to badger you, Ciggy. I’m just really curious. Thanks for indulging me. :)
