I suspect the Republican "Department for Political Opponent Psychology" (otherwise known as POP) has long had Kerry's number and know exactly what buttons to push.
Kerry's comment regarding "if you don't study hard, you'll wind up in Iraq" was reasonably explained by him as "misspeak." He apparently meant to joke about Bush's lack of academic achievement leading to the decision to go to war in Iraq.
Either way however it comes across as a "flip" remark from a wealthy east coast pointy headed liberal...i.e. the same image that undoubtedly cost Kerry the Presidency. And, as such, of course Republicans jumped right on it. Kerry would be wise to just say..."I misspoke, however if I offended any of military - the best educated military in the history of our country - I certainly apoligize." Period. End of story. Get on with the election. Anything else only prolongs the mistake, takes Democrats away from the closing OFFENSE, and faintly smells of 2008 Presidential positioning prematurely. Geez...
If anyone had any doubts regarding Ms. Harris "mental stability," read today's Washington Post article: "A Campaign Goes South." I never had a lot of sympathy for Ms. Harris, who seemed to me all along as someone with an awful lot of money, but dealing with less than a full deck. The Post article confirms this impression; losing this election is the least of this person's problems and it sounds as if we're getting close to some sort of "intervention." It is a different problem than Foley's, but the Republican "tolerance" seems similarly motivated by money. Did they put Katherine's money ahead of her own health? Hmmm? Another example of Conservative Compassion?
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
One Week and Counting...Literally
Time for an election prediction: Senate - 49 Democrats; 49 Republicans; 2 Independents; House of Representatives - 223 Democrats; 211 Republicans; 1 Independent.
And, since I arrived at this on the basis of a Washington Post internet survey, I failed to make a copy and could probably never repeat that count, so the following is from memory.
In key Senate races, I see the Democrats holding in NJ and winning in Missouri, but losing in Tennessee and Virginia. In NJ, I am betting the Democrat "machine" simply beats the Republican "machine." In Missouri, the Fox ad controversy gives the edge to the Democrats; in Tennessee, the national media gives the Republicans the edge (more on that below); In Virginia, it's the reverse of NJ - i.e. the Republican machine beats the Democratic machine. Democrats also pick-up a couple of seats in the West, winning close races.
As a supporter of Harold Ford, Tennessee was a tough call and revolves around the Republican attack ad seen as "racist" by many Democrats and much of the national media. While, I think Ford himself handled it correctly, the pro-Ford attention given the ad by the national media may turn out sufficient rural vote to give Republicans the edge. If there is one group disliked by rural, red state America more than Democrats, it's the national media. Thus, a backlash to the backlash beats Ford.
Rush Limbaugh gives Missouri to the Democrats (thanks Rush). "Compassionate Conservatism" may have been forgotten along the way by GW, but not by many of his supporters in that same rural red state America.
In the House, I arrived at the Democratic gains on the basis of primarily two major issues: the War in Iraq and Republican scandals. The potential for a larger Democratic wave was off-set by gerrymandering safe Republican districts and the Republican 72 hour turn out machine. In the West, I gave several House races to Democrats in States I felt might be carried by the Democratic Senate races, on the theory of a "Senate Coattail" effect.
Overall, Democratic gains may be capitalizing on an American voter desire to turn away from political polarization and a return to more "moderate" politics; ironic in that this desire may result in greater polarization. In a CSPAN televised discussion of Gerrymandering this morning, there seemed to be a consensus that the Democrats would be more successful in "competitive districts," and the result of the election would be a Republican Congress driven even further to the right, with Democrats winning the battles for the "center." If this is the case, Democrats will have positioned themselves well for 2008, but had best tread carefully through the next two years to hold and build on that advantage. Contrary to recent Republican attacks, there was also a consensus that Nancy Polosi would NOT drive a liberal agenda during the next two years, with this in mind and short of the votes necessary to overcome Presidential vetoes.
Based on all of the above, it would appear that the political events of 2007 and 2008 will be driven by Presidential politics beginning in earnest on November 8th, 2006 and "events."
Do not expect any significant changes on issues such as social security, health care reform, immigration, the dilemmia of the middle class, etc. And, the focus will still be on Iraq. Democrats will need to walk a fine line in trying to promote "disengagement" while avoiding the potential stigma of being branded as the Party who "lost Iraq," which incidently would be a very convenient Republican "exit strategy."
And, since I arrived at this on the basis of a Washington Post internet survey, I failed to make a copy and could probably never repeat that count, so the following is from memory.
In key Senate races, I see the Democrats holding in NJ and winning in Missouri, but losing in Tennessee and Virginia. In NJ, I am betting the Democrat "machine" simply beats the Republican "machine." In Missouri, the Fox ad controversy gives the edge to the Democrats; in Tennessee, the national media gives the Republicans the edge (more on that below); In Virginia, it's the reverse of NJ - i.e. the Republican machine beats the Democratic machine. Democrats also pick-up a couple of seats in the West, winning close races.
As a supporter of Harold Ford, Tennessee was a tough call and revolves around the Republican attack ad seen as "racist" by many Democrats and much of the national media. While, I think Ford himself handled it correctly, the pro-Ford attention given the ad by the national media may turn out sufficient rural vote to give Republicans the edge. If there is one group disliked by rural, red state America more than Democrats, it's the national media. Thus, a backlash to the backlash beats Ford.
Rush Limbaugh gives Missouri to the Democrats (thanks Rush). "Compassionate Conservatism" may have been forgotten along the way by GW, but not by many of his supporters in that same rural red state America.
In the House, I arrived at the Democratic gains on the basis of primarily two major issues: the War in Iraq and Republican scandals. The potential for a larger Democratic wave was off-set by gerrymandering safe Republican districts and the Republican 72 hour turn out machine. In the West, I gave several House races to Democrats in States I felt might be carried by the Democratic Senate races, on the theory of a "Senate Coattail" effect.
Overall, Democratic gains may be capitalizing on an American voter desire to turn away from political polarization and a return to more "moderate" politics; ironic in that this desire may result in greater polarization. In a CSPAN televised discussion of Gerrymandering this morning, there seemed to be a consensus that the Democrats would be more successful in "competitive districts," and the result of the election would be a Republican Congress driven even further to the right, with Democrats winning the battles for the "center." If this is the case, Democrats will have positioned themselves well for 2008, but had best tread carefully through the next two years to hold and build on that advantage. Contrary to recent Republican attacks, there was also a consensus that Nancy Polosi would NOT drive a liberal agenda during the next two years, with this in mind and short of the votes necessary to overcome Presidential vetoes.
Based on all of the above, it would appear that the political events of 2007 and 2008 will be driven by Presidential politics beginning in earnest on November 8th, 2006 and "events."
Do not expect any significant changes on issues such as social security, health care reform, immigration, the dilemmia of the middle class, etc. And, the focus will still be on Iraq. Democrats will need to walk a fine line in trying to promote "disengagement" while avoiding the potential stigma of being branded as the Party who "lost Iraq," which incidently would be a very convenient Republican "exit strategy."
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Republicans Discover Bi-Partisanship
Thanks to media analysis, the Republican attack ads have largely backfired. And, the Rush Limbaugh attack on the Michael J. Fox ad in support of embyronic stem cell research has possibily cost Republicans the United States Senate.
Within the last few days, Republicans in close races or those in which they are clearly running behind have shifted to a new tactic...bi-partisanship. No matter that this Congress has been one of the more partisan in our history, staunch Republicans such as Rick Santorum (Pa) and Clay Shaw (Fl) are now touting their "cooperativeness" with unlikely Democratic "allies" from Barbara Boxer to Hillary Clinton. In addition to this last ditch effort to convince the voter of Republican bi-partisanship, the National Republican Party has apparently decided to focus on the lack of a national Republican agenda, in the claim that these are 435 "individual" races, based on local issues...i.e. we have no national platform to run on.
The apparent failure of the attack ads and this shift to "it's every district for itself," tells me the original Republican strategy for this election - terrorism and the economy - has failed. I would suggest the cause of this failure is that in the former case, the majority of Americans have come to think of the war in Iraq as a diversion from the war on terror and, in the latter case, they do not feel the current economy has done much for them personally.
[A third major issue of the majority of voters, illegal immigration, has once again been mostly ignored by both parties.]
It seems likely that Democrats will take control of the House and pick up seats in the Senate. These gains could be turned into a mid-term election landslide depending on turnout. With the polls showing the "independent vote" running 2 to 1 against Republicans, the Republicans have a tough choice in the closing days of the campaign: how to turn out their own base, while discouraging independents from voting? The tactics of the last few days - i.e. there are no real national issues at stake and its 435 individual elections and, anyhow, we are basically bi-partisan, may be their approach.
Within the last few days, Republicans in close races or those in which they are clearly running behind have shifted to a new tactic...bi-partisanship. No matter that this Congress has been one of the more partisan in our history, staunch Republicans such as Rick Santorum (Pa) and Clay Shaw (Fl) are now touting their "cooperativeness" with unlikely Democratic "allies" from Barbara Boxer to Hillary Clinton. In addition to this last ditch effort to convince the voter of Republican bi-partisanship, the National Republican Party has apparently decided to focus on the lack of a national Republican agenda, in the claim that these are 435 "individual" races, based on local issues...i.e. we have no national platform to run on.
The apparent failure of the attack ads and this shift to "it's every district for itself," tells me the original Republican strategy for this election - terrorism and the economy - has failed. I would suggest the cause of this failure is that in the former case, the majority of Americans have come to think of the war in Iraq as a diversion from the war on terror and, in the latter case, they do not feel the current economy has done much for them personally.
[A third major issue of the majority of voters, illegal immigration, has once again been mostly ignored by both parties.]
It seems likely that Democrats will take control of the House and pick up seats in the Senate. These gains could be turned into a mid-term election landslide depending on turnout. With the polls showing the "independent vote" running 2 to 1 against Republicans, the Republicans have a tough choice in the closing days of the campaign: how to turn out their own base, while discouraging independents from voting? The tactics of the last few days - i.e. there are no real national issues at stake and its 435 individual elections and, anyhow, we are basically bi-partisan, may be their approach.
Friday, October 27, 2006
The Attack Ads
Two recent Republican attack ads deserve responses worthy of the attacks. In Virginia, my suggestion to Democratic challenger Webb, in response to Allen's attacks regarding Webb's fictionious novels and excursion into sexual perversion is to remind voters he wrote that as a Republican, before converting to the Democratic Party.
Elsewhere, a conservative Democratic incumbent is under attack by his Republican challeger as a "killer," because of his love of Big Game hunting. In this instance, the Democratic incumbent might remind voter's that while it is true that he loves hunting, "at least I don't shoot my friends."
Hey, folks...these are the same people that have failed to capture Osama Bin Laden, told "Brownie" he was doing an excellent job and couldn't bear to part with the money a genuine sexual pervert was bringing into Republican coffers.
Advice (based on some pundit's recent quote) to Republicans: "When you find yourself in a hole, the best thing to do is to stop digging."
Elsewhere, a conservative Democratic incumbent is under attack by his Republican challeger as a "killer," because of his love of Big Game hunting. In this instance, the Democratic incumbent might remind voter's that while it is true that he loves hunting, "at least I don't shoot my friends."
Hey, folks...these are the same people that have failed to capture Osama Bin Laden, told "Brownie" he was doing an excellent job and couldn't bear to part with the money a genuine sexual pervert was bringing into Republican coffers.
Advice (based on some pundit's recent quote) to Republicans: "When you find yourself in a hole, the best thing to do is to stop digging."
Panic in the Homestretch
Republicans seem to be determined to turn what looked like modest mid-term Democratic gains into an overwhelming Republican defeat.
Yesterday, Dick Cheney made his contribution on a conservative radio talk show by going after the pro-torture vote with an endorsement of "water boarding." [Democratic Congressional staffers may want to make a note of Mr. Cheney's position for when they interrogate him as to who exactly attended his energy policy meetings.]
Then there are the 527 campaign ads. The 527 funds are based on a loop hole in campaign financing. They allow the extreme supporters of a candidate - i.e. the lunatic fringe - to throw shit (sorry...but this stuff is worse than throwing "mud") at their candidates opponent, while allowing their candidate to disclaim the attacks AFTER the ads have run).
These ads have brought American politics to a new low and, I would suggest, are an integral part of the Rove strategy for winning elections and "turning weaknesses into strengths").
In 2004, we got the "Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry." Sensing that Democrats intended to promote Kerry as a Vietnam war hero and play upon Bush's less than stellar service in the Air National Guard, they co-opted the Democratic message by attacking Kerry's Vietnam service. No matter that the attack was filled with absurdities and fabrications, it successfully put Democrats on the defensive and probably cost Kerry the election - i.e. turning Bush's "weakness" (his questionable National Guard service) into a "strength."
As we go into the final days of this election, many Republicans have resorted to the same type of Rovian tactics, with nonsensical attacks on Harold Ford, the Michael Fox furor, the "Soprano ad" in New Jersey and a dozen other similar, but less publicized stories across the country.
Winning elections through inneudeo, falsehoods and manipulation of voter emotions is a disservice to the American electoral system and a tool utilized by those who have nothing else to run on. This Administration and a Republican Congress have done little more than secure tax cuts, largely by taking on record breaking national debt, and distributing "pork," like it was the last days of the Roman Empire. The War and National Security, Immigration Policy, Social Security, Health Costs, Energy Policy and the declining Middle Class all remain unresolved.
The latest wave of nonsense seems to be directed, however, as a counter-attack to a Democratic attack that never came...i.e. "values." And, in this, the Democrats may have out-smarted Rove.
Certainly, the "value" issue was there for Democrats. From Tom Delay, to Duke Cunningham, to Foley, Ney and the entire Republican House cast of characters, it may have been foreseen that Democrats would go after Republicans on the issue of ethics. Yet, while there has been some reference to this in Democratic campaigns, the Party has for the most part stuck to the War issue and allowed the almost daily headlines on ethical lapses to speak for themselves.
If Democrats can hold their temper in face of these attacks for 10 more days (and they are almost certain to get worse), they may turn modest gains into a landslide victory. Hopefully, moderate Republicans will also find this an opportunity to return sanity to their party.
Yesterday, Dick Cheney made his contribution on a conservative radio talk show by going after the pro-torture vote with an endorsement of "water boarding." [Democratic Congressional staffers may want to make a note of Mr. Cheney's position for when they interrogate him as to who exactly attended his energy policy meetings.]
Then there are the 527 campaign ads. The 527 funds are based on a loop hole in campaign financing. They allow the extreme supporters of a candidate - i.e. the lunatic fringe - to throw shit (sorry...but this stuff is worse than throwing "mud") at their candidates opponent, while allowing their candidate to disclaim the attacks AFTER the ads have run).
These ads have brought American politics to a new low and, I would suggest, are an integral part of the Rove strategy for winning elections and "turning weaknesses into strengths").
In 2004, we got the "Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry." Sensing that Democrats intended to promote Kerry as a Vietnam war hero and play upon Bush's less than stellar service in the Air National Guard, they co-opted the Democratic message by attacking Kerry's Vietnam service. No matter that the attack was filled with absurdities and fabrications, it successfully put Democrats on the defensive and probably cost Kerry the election - i.e. turning Bush's "weakness" (his questionable National Guard service) into a "strength."
As we go into the final days of this election, many Republicans have resorted to the same type of Rovian tactics, with nonsensical attacks on Harold Ford, the Michael Fox furor, the "Soprano ad" in New Jersey and a dozen other similar, but less publicized stories across the country.
Winning elections through inneudeo, falsehoods and manipulation of voter emotions is a disservice to the American electoral system and a tool utilized by those who have nothing else to run on. This Administration and a Republican Congress have done little more than secure tax cuts, largely by taking on record breaking national debt, and distributing "pork," like it was the last days of the Roman Empire. The War and National Security, Immigration Policy, Social Security, Health Costs, Energy Policy and the declining Middle Class all remain unresolved.
The latest wave of nonsense seems to be directed, however, as a counter-attack to a Democratic attack that never came...i.e. "values." And, in this, the Democrats may have out-smarted Rove.
Certainly, the "value" issue was there for Democrats. From Tom Delay, to Duke Cunningham, to Foley, Ney and the entire Republican House cast of characters, it may have been foreseen that Democrats would go after Republicans on the issue of ethics. Yet, while there has been some reference to this in Democratic campaigns, the Party has for the most part stuck to the War issue and allowed the almost daily headlines on ethical lapses to speak for themselves.
If Democrats can hold their temper in face of these attacks for 10 more days (and they are almost certain to get worse), they may turn modest gains into a landslide victory. Hopefully, moderate Republicans will also find this an opportunity to return sanity to their party.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Two Weeks and Counting
It's truly a miracle. Two weeks before the election, gas prices plummet, the President announces he never really meant "staying the course," and our senior military commander and Ambassador in Baghdad introduce a timetable for withdrawal.
A week or so ago, in the midst of the furor regarding a new book published by a former White House staffer of Bush's "Faith Based Initiative Program," there was a brief story many may have missed. The book suggested that the "Faith Based Initiative" was little more than a Republican political ploy to capture Christian Conservative votes. Various Republican operatives jumped on this, without directly contradicting the book's claims. The story, which may have been missed was a statement by the author's former boss in the "Faith Based Initiative" White House Office, who had resigned earlier. I can't recall his name at the moment, but his remark was essentially in support of the book's criticism, to the effect, "everything in this White House is driven by politics; people have no idea." People may be finally getting the idea and the Republican same old, same old may turn a Democratic edge into a Wave.
Most of the Republican last minute desperation moves may only worsen their position in the closing days. Rove needs to be reminded of Lincoln's remark: "You can fool some of the people all of the time; all of the people some of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
If Democrats somehow manage to shoot themselves in the foot on election day, the Party will need a thorough overall of its apparatus if they hope to recover for 2008. This would probably mean the end of a Hillary Clinton bid for the Presidency and the turning of the Party toward "new faces," such as Bareck Obama. If Democrats win, look for the Clinton bid to be strengthened and Obama getting a major executive branch appointment under a Clinton Presidency, thus giving him executive experience and grooming him for a subsequent Presidential bid of his own.
If Republicans lose, it will be a clear signal that moderate Republican's need to rid themselves of the radical right that has been running the country for the last six to twelve years. If they win and hold...well...then the old Lincoln adage needs revision.
In any event, look for 2008 to be a battle for the "middle." Voters are weary of polarized politics. Bi-partisan solutions are needed in foreign policy, immigration, health care, social security, education, taxes, etc., etc. And, perhaps, first and foremost, is the need for political reform.
A week or so ago, in the midst of the furor regarding a new book published by a former White House staffer of Bush's "Faith Based Initiative Program," there was a brief story many may have missed. The book suggested that the "Faith Based Initiative" was little more than a Republican political ploy to capture Christian Conservative votes. Various Republican operatives jumped on this, without directly contradicting the book's claims. The story, which may have been missed was a statement by the author's former boss in the "Faith Based Initiative" White House Office, who had resigned earlier. I can't recall his name at the moment, but his remark was essentially in support of the book's criticism, to the effect, "everything in this White House is driven by politics; people have no idea." People may be finally getting the idea and the Republican same old, same old may turn a Democratic edge into a Wave.
Most of the Republican last minute desperation moves may only worsen their position in the closing days. Rove needs to be reminded of Lincoln's remark: "You can fool some of the people all of the time; all of the people some of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
If Democrats somehow manage to shoot themselves in the foot on election day, the Party will need a thorough overall of its apparatus if they hope to recover for 2008. This would probably mean the end of a Hillary Clinton bid for the Presidency and the turning of the Party toward "new faces," such as Bareck Obama. If Democrats win, look for the Clinton bid to be strengthened and Obama getting a major executive branch appointment under a Clinton Presidency, thus giving him executive experience and grooming him for a subsequent Presidential bid of his own.
If Republicans lose, it will be a clear signal that moderate Republican's need to rid themselves of the radical right that has been running the country for the last six to twelve years. If they win and hold...well...then the old Lincoln adage needs revision.
In any event, look for 2008 to be a battle for the "middle." Voters are weary of polarized politics. Bi-partisan solutions are needed in foreign policy, immigration, health care, social security, education, taxes, etc., etc. And, perhaps, first and foremost, is the need for political reform.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Mid-Term Election
Within the last week, the Republican campaign focus, for the remaining weeks, has become obvious. I see four major areas of emphasis: terrorism, the economy, fear of Democrats, and a circling of the wagons.
Only the latter may hold some promise...i.e. accepting loss of a majority in the House and focusing on holding a Senate majority, by pouring money and effort into "must win" races.
Terrorism and the economy are both up-hill fights for Republicans. Recent polls show them running behind on both issues. In order for them to reverse this they must make "linkages" the public no longer seems to believe are valid.
On terrorism, since Iraq is by most accounts THE issue of the campaign, Republicans must make the now discredited linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If they cannot do this successfully, then "terrorism" becomes a negative issue for them, rather than a positive. It's simple, if Iraq is not the "central front" on the War on Terror, what the hell are we doing there? Once the WMD and Al Qaeda linkages fell apart, the only argument the Republicans had left was the neo-con argument regarding pre-emptive war, stability in the Middle East, stamping out global tyranny, etc.
Facts have overtaken ideology. The Party is now caught between the rock and the hard place since even Republican voters are hesitant to buy in to a commitment supporting an aggressive foreign policy to democratize the world. Common sense tells most American voters that this is the wrong mission morally and/or far beyond our resources. "Staying the course," has become synonymous with the Ostrich with its head in the sand. Daily headlines illustrate that Al Qaeda is fast fadding into the Iraqi background and that sectarian violence, which has little to do with the United States or any radical Muslim vision to take over the world, is coming to the forefront.
I have noted that "Iraq as the center piece" of the War on Terror has taken a backseat in the last few days to fear of Democrats - i.e. how can the people who voted against the Patriot Act and associated legislation be trusted to run the War on Terrorism? This is a phony ploy. Democrats did not vote against these acts as much as they voted against some of the provisions of these acts. It might be worth noting that the underlying assumption of this attack is the Bush political philosophy of "you are either with me or against me" and a Bush tendency to treat Democrats as in the same category as Al Qaeda.
Were I a Democratic candidate, I would be running on the "high ground," - i.e. it is obvious our Iraqi policy has failed, largely because it has been based on assumptions since proven to be false. Secondly, because of this failure, it is time for a change in course and reappraisal and thirdly, it is time this country returned to a domestic bi-partisan foreign policy through an emphasis on a strong military, homeland defense and multilateral diplomacy. 9/11 was, in addition to the murderous goals of a relatively small body of Muslim fanatics, the result of a failure in bureaucratic structure and perception far more than any ideological failure between Democrats and Republicans. If we cannot assume that both Parties have the best interests of the American people at heart, albeit from different viewpoints, then a democratic, two party representative democracy is pretty much dead.
The issue, directly related to the "War on Terror," which neither Party seems to want to address on a national level is that of immigration. To some degree, Democrats are going to need to subordinate the specific interests of the various special interest groups that comprise their coalition in order to start winning elections again. That doesn't mean to abandon them, but to put them within some perspective. As an example, I was called by a voter survey group today, who wanted to know where I stood on gay marriage. I told them that "I have no opinion and, in view of the War on Terror, an attack on our basic civil liberties and an economy, which if any more successful will drive me to bankruptcy, I have temporarily deferred formulating any opinion on the subject." Hopefully, at the national level, Democrats understand that if they are dissuaded by their own interest group's concerns away from the issues currently foremost in the American voter's psyche, they will not win elections. In regard to immigration this means, in my opinion, adopting a position similar to some conservative Republican candidates. Let's secure the borders first, for the sake of national security, and THEN discuss how to be fair to the some 15 million "undocumented" illegal aliens and future visa policies. IOW, national security trumps both a desire to capture future Democratic voters AND the need for a continuing flow of cheap labor. There is a simple proposition at work here that 90% of Americans seem to understand, but has failed to penetrate the Beltway: A Nation-State without Enforcable Borders isn't a Nation-State. And, to forestall comments on the European Union in this regard...the EU is in a transition process toward a European federation...much like the United StateS of America, rather than simply a NAFTA or what was formerly known as the European Economic Community (ECC).
Turning to tax cuts, the Republican election argument hinges on another linkage, similar to the linkage between Iraq and the War on Terror. Regarding taxes, Republicans must make the link that the tax cuts have resulted in a stronger economy and that, in turn, has bettered the economic status of the majority of American voters. [Note: I listened to GW address an audiance last week on how wonderful he's been for the economy. Living in a different part of town than GW, I was at first surprised, until CSPAN clarified that he was addressing Republicans at a $25,000 a plate fund raiser. "Ah OK," I thought, "He's right, just not talking to me."] Democrats have been relatively silent on this issue and may be missing the boat, since polls are running against Republicans on this as well. Again, were I a Democratic candidate, I would be counter attacking with several arguments. The first is that the tax cuts and the link to middle class economic improvement is somewhat like continuing to "stay the course" in Iraq. How long do we wait for victory in Iraq and how long does the middle class wait for the "trickle down" effect of tax cuts? Unless policies, which essentially place more money in the hands of the investor class, are coupled to policies that discourage the outflow of jobs abroad and encourage fair trade over free trade, a "better economy" is meaningless to the vast majority of the American people.
IOW, the main argument is that the Bush tax cuts have only further stratified wealth in the country and run the risk of turning the country into a nation of classes, based on economics.
The second major argument for the Democrats on the economy is that short term economic macro-growth has been purchased on the backs of future generations via budget deficits. We are no closer to resolving the looming disasters of increased energy costs, health costs, and social security than we were six years ago, but we are six years closer to those disasters and record deficits make the solution to these problems more difficult to achieve than easier.
"Democrats Will Raise Your Taxes," is relatively easily countered by: "We hope not, but we may be forced to in order to reduce Republican deficits and restore fiscal sanity. It is insanity to cut taxes in a time of war." This is a relatively simple, but clearly understood response.
Although too late for the November election, Democrats will need a broader approach to economic issues for 2008. A few words on this broader perspective.
In capturing the White House in 1992, Democrats had to go beyond their traditional coalition of labor, minorities and social liberals in three areas: free trade, balanced budgets and efficiency in government. This shift, which to a degree alienated the traditional Democratic base, was based on a very savy analysis of the changing composition of the American middle class. In effect, it was an acknowledgment that the traditional coalition no longer possessed the power to elect a President. Labor had remained entrenched in "featherbedding" and refused to recognize the impact of a new global labor supply and the impact of technology. "Minorities," essentially Black America, failed to go outside its ethnic identity and incorporate the growning Hispanic community (despite Jesse Jackson's attempts at a Rainbow Coalition). Social liberals refused to recognize genuine failures in the social experiments of the Great Society. Returning to my first Post, Democrats, in their own way, succombed to group greed, as opposed to individual greed.
By basically co-opting traditional Republican policies, Clinton forced Republicans to produce new initiatives. The primary source for these initiatives came out of the Republican south and focused around government reform and cultural values. Georgia Representative Newt Gingrich, Texas Representative Dick Amery and others produced, for the mid term elections, "The Contract With America," a brilliant marketing tool, which effectively allowed Republicans to take control of Congress in 1994.
Clinton had won the Presidency with New Left politics, but failed to reform his own Party; most Congressional Democrats remained rooted to the old coalition. [More on all of this in later Posts and how the Democratic Party must "reidentify" itself for the 2008 Presidential election].
Gingrich's "Contract With America," was essentially a "New Right" created to challenge Clinton's "New Left." And, twelve years later, it has largely met the same fate as Clinton's New Left met in 1994 and 2000. Two of its most popular provisions: term limits and balanced budgets have been disgarded by a Republican Congress. Some sort of progress has been achieved in several provisions (welfare reform, largely begun under Ronald Reagan; capital gains cuts, etc.). Several provisions were actually the preogative of state and local government all along and several are still "works in progress".
By and large, however, Democrats should understand that the present stunning 16% favorable rating of the U.S. Congress stems from three basic factors: corruption, fiscal responsibility and an apparent total incompetence regarding solutions for long term national problems.
Aside from these rather obvious needs for Congressional improvement, which the American people rightfully expect to be treated on a bi-partisan basis, there is a common national problem that ties the issues of post 9/11 security together with our economic future, namely the phenomena known as "Globalization."
By and large, both Republicans and Democrats have pursued policies, from slightly different perspectives, that encourage the process of globalization and attempt to ensure our global economic supremacy in the process. Unfortunately, many of these relatively short-term policies and goals have been achieved only through disassociating "national interest," from an essential premise of representative democracy, the ulititarian principle of "the most good for the most people." I would suggest this should be THE issue of the 2008 election campaign. How do we define, both in domestic and foreign policy, the national interest and how is that interest related to the majority of the American people? The Party that answers, or even attempts to answer, that question will, I predict, be the victor in 2008. If, as we have apparently done to date, both parties avoid this question and continue to offer soley parochial solutions based on their respective antiquated ideological bases, the two Party system will have failed.
More on the election and the larger issue of Globalization in future Posts.
Only the latter may hold some promise...i.e. accepting loss of a majority in the House and focusing on holding a Senate majority, by pouring money and effort into "must win" races.
Terrorism and the economy are both up-hill fights for Republicans. Recent polls show them running behind on both issues. In order for them to reverse this they must make "linkages" the public no longer seems to believe are valid.
On terrorism, since Iraq is by most accounts THE issue of the campaign, Republicans must make the now discredited linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If they cannot do this successfully, then "terrorism" becomes a negative issue for them, rather than a positive. It's simple, if Iraq is not the "central front" on the War on Terror, what the hell are we doing there? Once the WMD and Al Qaeda linkages fell apart, the only argument the Republicans had left was the neo-con argument regarding pre-emptive war, stability in the Middle East, stamping out global tyranny, etc.
Facts have overtaken ideology. The Party is now caught between the rock and the hard place since even Republican voters are hesitant to buy in to a commitment supporting an aggressive foreign policy to democratize the world. Common sense tells most American voters that this is the wrong mission morally and/or far beyond our resources. "Staying the course," has become synonymous with the Ostrich with its head in the sand. Daily headlines illustrate that Al Qaeda is fast fadding into the Iraqi background and that sectarian violence, which has little to do with the United States or any radical Muslim vision to take over the world, is coming to the forefront.
I have noted that "Iraq as the center piece" of the War on Terror has taken a backseat in the last few days to fear of Democrats - i.e. how can the people who voted against the Patriot Act and associated legislation be trusted to run the War on Terrorism? This is a phony ploy. Democrats did not vote against these acts as much as they voted against some of the provisions of these acts. It might be worth noting that the underlying assumption of this attack is the Bush political philosophy of "you are either with me or against me" and a Bush tendency to treat Democrats as in the same category as Al Qaeda.
Were I a Democratic candidate, I would be running on the "high ground," - i.e. it is obvious our Iraqi policy has failed, largely because it has been based on assumptions since proven to be false. Secondly, because of this failure, it is time for a change in course and reappraisal and thirdly, it is time this country returned to a domestic bi-partisan foreign policy through an emphasis on a strong military, homeland defense and multilateral diplomacy. 9/11 was, in addition to the murderous goals of a relatively small body of Muslim fanatics, the result of a failure in bureaucratic structure and perception far more than any ideological failure between Democrats and Republicans. If we cannot assume that both Parties have the best interests of the American people at heart, albeit from different viewpoints, then a democratic, two party representative democracy is pretty much dead.
The issue, directly related to the "War on Terror," which neither Party seems to want to address on a national level is that of immigration. To some degree, Democrats are going to need to subordinate the specific interests of the various special interest groups that comprise their coalition in order to start winning elections again. That doesn't mean to abandon them, but to put them within some perspective. As an example, I was called by a voter survey group today, who wanted to know where I stood on gay marriage. I told them that "I have no opinion and, in view of the War on Terror, an attack on our basic civil liberties and an economy, which if any more successful will drive me to bankruptcy, I have temporarily deferred formulating any opinion on the subject." Hopefully, at the national level, Democrats understand that if they are dissuaded by their own interest group's concerns away from the issues currently foremost in the American voter's psyche, they will not win elections. In regard to immigration this means, in my opinion, adopting a position similar to some conservative Republican candidates. Let's secure the borders first, for the sake of national security, and THEN discuss how to be fair to the some 15 million "undocumented" illegal aliens and future visa policies. IOW, national security trumps both a desire to capture future Democratic voters AND the need for a continuing flow of cheap labor. There is a simple proposition at work here that 90% of Americans seem to understand, but has failed to penetrate the Beltway: A Nation-State without Enforcable Borders isn't a Nation-State. And, to forestall comments on the European Union in this regard...the EU is in a transition process toward a European federation...much like the United StateS of America, rather than simply a NAFTA or what was formerly known as the European Economic Community (ECC).
Turning to tax cuts, the Republican election argument hinges on another linkage, similar to the linkage between Iraq and the War on Terror. Regarding taxes, Republicans must make the link that the tax cuts have resulted in a stronger economy and that, in turn, has bettered the economic status of the majority of American voters. [Note: I listened to GW address an audiance last week on how wonderful he's been for the economy. Living in a different part of town than GW, I was at first surprised, until CSPAN clarified that he was addressing Republicans at a $25,000 a plate fund raiser. "Ah OK," I thought, "He's right, just not talking to me."] Democrats have been relatively silent on this issue and may be missing the boat, since polls are running against Republicans on this as well. Again, were I a Democratic candidate, I would be counter attacking with several arguments. The first is that the tax cuts and the link to middle class economic improvement is somewhat like continuing to "stay the course" in Iraq. How long do we wait for victory in Iraq and how long does the middle class wait for the "trickle down" effect of tax cuts? Unless policies, which essentially place more money in the hands of the investor class, are coupled to policies that discourage the outflow of jobs abroad and encourage fair trade over free trade, a "better economy" is meaningless to the vast majority of the American people.
IOW, the main argument is that the Bush tax cuts have only further stratified wealth in the country and run the risk of turning the country into a nation of classes, based on economics.
The second major argument for the Democrats on the economy is that short term economic macro-growth has been purchased on the backs of future generations via budget deficits. We are no closer to resolving the looming disasters of increased energy costs, health costs, and social security than we were six years ago, but we are six years closer to those disasters and record deficits make the solution to these problems more difficult to achieve than easier.
"Democrats Will Raise Your Taxes," is relatively easily countered by: "We hope not, but we may be forced to in order to reduce Republican deficits and restore fiscal sanity. It is insanity to cut taxes in a time of war." This is a relatively simple, but clearly understood response.
Although too late for the November election, Democrats will need a broader approach to economic issues for 2008. A few words on this broader perspective.
In capturing the White House in 1992, Democrats had to go beyond their traditional coalition of labor, minorities and social liberals in three areas: free trade, balanced budgets and efficiency in government. This shift, which to a degree alienated the traditional Democratic base, was based on a very savy analysis of the changing composition of the American middle class. In effect, it was an acknowledgment that the traditional coalition no longer possessed the power to elect a President. Labor had remained entrenched in "featherbedding" and refused to recognize the impact of a new global labor supply and the impact of technology. "Minorities," essentially Black America, failed to go outside its ethnic identity and incorporate the growning Hispanic community (despite Jesse Jackson's attempts at a Rainbow Coalition). Social liberals refused to recognize genuine failures in the social experiments of the Great Society. Returning to my first Post, Democrats, in their own way, succombed to group greed, as opposed to individual greed.
By basically co-opting traditional Republican policies, Clinton forced Republicans to produce new initiatives. The primary source for these initiatives came out of the Republican south and focused around government reform and cultural values. Georgia Representative Newt Gingrich, Texas Representative Dick Amery and others produced, for the mid term elections, "The Contract With America," a brilliant marketing tool, which effectively allowed Republicans to take control of Congress in 1994.
Clinton had won the Presidency with New Left politics, but failed to reform his own Party; most Congressional Democrats remained rooted to the old coalition. [More on all of this in later Posts and how the Democratic Party must "reidentify" itself for the 2008 Presidential election].
Gingrich's "Contract With America," was essentially a "New Right" created to challenge Clinton's "New Left." And, twelve years later, it has largely met the same fate as Clinton's New Left met in 1994 and 2000. Two of its most popular provisions: term limits and balanced budgets have been disgarded by a Republican Congress. Some sort of progress has been achieved in several provisions (welfare reform, largely begun under Ronald Reagan; capital gains cuts, etc.). Several provisions were actually the preogative of state and local government all along and several are still "works in progress".
By and large, however, Democrats should understand that the present stunning 16% favorable rating of the U.S. Congress stems from three basic factors: corruption, fiscal responsibility and an apparent total incompetence regarding solutions for long term national problems.
Aside from these rather obvious needs for Congressional improvement, which the American people rightfully expect to be treated on a bi-partisan basis, there is a common national problem that ties the issues of post 9/11 security together with our economic future, namely the phenomena known as "Globalization."
By and large, both Republicans and Democrats have pursued policies, from slightly different perspectives, that encourage the process of globalization and attempt to ensure our global economic supremacy in the process. Unfortunately, many of these relatively short-term policies and goals have been achieved only through disassociating "national interest," from an essential premise of representative democracy, the ulititarian principle of "the most good for the most people." I would suggest this should be THE issue of the 2008 election campaign. How do we define, both in domestic and foreign policy, the national interest and how is that interest related to the majority of the American people? The Party that answers, or even attempts to answer, that question will, I predict, be the victor in 2008. If, as we have apparently done to date, both parties avoid this question and continue to offer soley parochial solutions based on their respective antiquated ideological bases, the two Party system will have failed.
More on the election and the larger issue of Globalization in future Posts.
Friday, October 20, 2006
The November Election: Three Weeks to Go and Counting
The Republican strategy in the remaining weeks before the election is becoming increasingly clear and based (surprise, surprise) on the Rovian tactic of turning "weaknesses to strengths"). In this case, the weakness is a failed policy in Iraq, which will be negated by the tried and true political tactic of fear-mongering. Democrats need to meet this challenge head-on and call it for what it is. It may be time for them to take a page from FDR, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
The Bush argument (notable not so much for its "newness," as its pre-election emphasis) is we are in Iraq because it is better to fight them there instead of here. In this way, he links Iraq to his War on Terror and the entire underpinnings of the neo-conservative ideology. The image this intentionally conjures is U.S. troops dying in the streets of Baghdad versus American civilians dying in the streets of the United States. It's, "yes, it is 'hard work' in Iraq, but a nuclear bomb on an American city would be worse."
Democrats need to confront this with six points:
1) Much of the recent increase in violence in Iraq has nothing to do with the United States. Rather, U.S. casualties are going up due to a shift in military tactics, which involves increasingly inserting ourselves between two warring factions (Sunnis and Shites) in an Iraqi civil war. This is a battle over who will control Iraq and both sides will use terrorist tactics, but it is not part of some world wide conspiracy to destroy the United States, other than in the sense that our presence and interference in this civil war may create additional enemies.
2) Definition of the enemy as "terror" - i.e. the War on Terror - is a misnomer. While no one can condone such tactics, it was not the IRA, Basque Separatists, Japanese fanatics, or even Ha mas or the Palestine Liberation Front who attacked us on 9/11. It was Al Qaeda and that is whom we should be "making war" against. True, we should condemn terrorism in any form, and cooperate internationally with anyone fighting against the use of such tactics, but it is total folly to think we can "make war against it." That is a war without end, the endless pursuit of perceived enemies, rather than proven criminals. The serious enemy, the enemy who has already declared war against us, the enemy responsible for the attacks on our embassies in Africa, our disaster in Somalia, the U.S. Cole attack, etc. is Al Qaeda.
3) The Bush Administration, by shifting the goal of our response from eliminating the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack (Al Qaeda) to a global, ideological struggle between tyranny and democracy has largely increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks on the United States and created a confrontational international environment by means of a "War" wherein victory can be achieved only once all global tyranny is defeated. Certainly, the United States needs to encourage and support democratic efforts world-wide, but it is not within our national interest or our resources to "impose" democracies on others.
4) The proper response to 9/11 was to eliminate Al Qaeda and bring their leader, Osama Bin Laden, to justice. This should have been accomplished through a build-up of U.S. presence in Afghanistan, pressure on Pakistan and, defensively, more attention to homeland security - i.e. controlling our borders, greater oversight and screening of visa applicants, etc. Some of this, the Administration has accomplished. Tearing down the "walls" between our intelligence agencies, increased cooperation regarding the international movement of money, airport security, etc. were positive steps, but pale beside the magnitude of the threat - i.e. a nuclear suitcase bomb. Pursuit of some messianic goal of world democracy, from Iraq to North Korea is a diversion of resources.
5) The world needs to know that if attacked, the United States will bring the attackers to justice, whereever they are, how ever long it takes and that, if necessary, we will mobilize our entire country to accomplish that goal. It will not be "business as usual." To deflect that message into a political debate over the extent of the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, border controls, the future of the United States in the process of globalization, our role in the Middle East, or the end of a bi-partisan foreign policy is a disservice both to the people and security of the country...and the memory of thise who died in the 9/11 attack.
6) In a secular state, founded on the basis of a separation between state and religion and in the vein of "render all things that are Caeser's unto Caeser and all things that are God's to God," the President needs to be reminded that his first responsibility is NOT to God, but to the people of the United States. If we believe otherwise, we will have ceased to be a democracy. Indeed, I see little difference between a foreign policy based on a religious view that "God meant everyone to be free," from one that suggests "God did not mean everyone to be free." This is not a religious war, it is (or should be) a war against those who made war on us.
In sum, Roosevelt was right...the only thing this country has to fear is fear itself and Democrats need to remind voters that deflecting attention away from failed policies on the basis of fear will no longer work.
The Bush argument (notable not so much for its "newness," as its pre-election emphasis) is we are in Iraq because it is better to fight them there instead of here. In this way, he links Iraq to his War on Terror and the entire underpinnings of the neo-conservative ideology. The image this intentionally conjures is U.S. troops dying in the streets of Baghdad versus American civilians dying in the streets of the United States. It's, "yes, it is 'hard work' in Iraq, but a nuclear bomb on an American city would be worse."
Democrats need to confront this with six points:
1) Much of the recent increase in violence in Iraq has nothing to do with the United States. Rather, U.S. casualties are going up due to a shift in military tactics, which involves increasingly inserting ourselves between two warring factions (Sunnis and Shites) in an Iraqi civil war. This is a battle over who will control Iraq and both sides will use terrorist tactics, but it is not part of some world wide conspiracy to destroy the United States, other than in the sense that our presence and interference in this civil war may create additional enemies.
2) Definition of the enemy as "terror" - i.e. the War on Terror - is a misnomer. While no one can condone such tactics, it was not the IRA, Basque Separatists, Japanese fanatics, or even Ha mas or the Palestine Liberation Front who attacked us on 9/11. It was Al Qaeda and that is whom we should be "making war" against. True, we should condemn terrorism in any form, and cooperate internationally with anyone fighting against the use of such tactics, but it is total folly to think we can "make war against it." That is a war without end, the endless pursuit of perceived enemies, rather than proven criminals. The serious enemy, the enemy who has already declared war against us, the enemy responsible for the attacks on our embassies in Africa, our disaster in Somalia, the U.S. Cole attack, etc. is Al Qaeda.
3) The Bush Administration, by shifting the goal of our response from eliminating the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack (Al Qaeda) to a global, ideological struggle between tyranny and democracy has largely increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks on the United States and created a confrontational international environment by means of a "War" wherein victory can be achieved only once all global tyranny is defeated. Certainly, the United States needs to encourage and support democratic efforts world-wide, but it is not within our national interest or our resources to "impose" democracies on others.
4) The proper response to 9/11 was to eliminate Al Qaeda and bring their leader, Osama Bin Laden, to justice. This should have been accomplished through a build-up of U.S. presence in Afghanistan, pressure on Pakistan and, defensively, more attention to homeland security - i.e. controlling our borders, greater oversight and screening of visa applicants, etc. Some of this, the Administration has accomplished. Tearing down the "walls" between our intelligence agencies, increased cooperation regarding the international movement of money, airport security, etc. were positive steps, but pale beside the magnitude of the threat - i.e. a nuclear suitcase bomb. Pursuit of some messianic goal of world democracy, from Iraq to North Korea is a diversion of resources.
5) The world needs to know that if attacked, the United States will bring the attackers to justice, whereever they are, how ever long it takes and that, if necessary, we will mobilize our entire country to accomplish that goal. It will not be "business as usual." To deflect that message into a political debate over the extent of the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, border controls, the future of the United States in the process of globalization, our role in the Middle East, or the end of a bi-partisan foreign policy is a disservice both to the people and security of the country...and the memory of thise who died in the 9/11 attack.
6) In a secular state, founded on the basis of a separation between state and religion and in the vein of "render all things that are Caeser's unto Caeser and all things that are God's to God," the President needs to be reminded that his first responsibility is NOT to God, but to the people of the United States. If we believe otherwise, we will have ceased to be a democracy. Indeed, I see little difference between a foreign policy based on a religious view that "God meant everyone to be free," from one that suggests "God did not mean everyone to be free." This is not a religious war, it is (or should be) a war against those who made war on us.
In sum, Roosevelt was right...the only thing this country has to fear is fear itself and Democrats need to remind voters that deflecting attention away from failed policies on the basis of fear will no longer work.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Moving Along
Thanks to tommyblog who noted that I wasn't posting new Blogs, but simply carrying on through "Comments" posted to the initial Blog.
In my last "comment" I praised Secretary of State Rice for achieving UN sanctions against North Korea so quickly. That praise stands; however, I would like today to point out what may have been an error during her recent Asian trip of potentially enormous proportions.
Her error relates to one of the legendary moments of American foreign policy. In 1950, shortly before North Korea's invasion of South Korea, then Secretary of State Dean Acheson gave a famous speech outlining the new boundaries of "containment," - i.e. a sort of drawing the line in the sand and outlining where in the free world (as it was called at the time) the United States would stand and fight against any communist encroachment. In Asia, he noted "Japan" and the U.S. commitment to Japan's defense. Notably, he did not mention South Korea. Shortly thereafter the North Korean invasion of the South took place and some historians today point to Acheson's oversight as an encouragement to the North Korean action.
Similarly, Rice's Tokyo speech focused on Japan, wherein she made it very clear that the United States would defend Japan with whatever it takes...including nuclear weapons, if necessary. It will be interesting to see if she will give the South Koreans the same assurances and, if she does not, the significance of the omission.
Would such an omission be an Acheson-like error or a redefinition of American foreign policy within the region? If the latter, are we now drawing the line in the sand at the Japanese shoreline and transferring the burden of the defense of South Korea to China, in recognition that South Korea lies within the Chinese sphere of influence? In view of the Administration's rhetoric regarding global democracy, this would be an extraordinarily calloused change of policy.
For the sake of the 38,000 U.S. troops currently on the North Korean-South Korean border, South Korea and Taiwan it might behoove Secretary Rice to clarify her remarks.
Note on the Republican Congress Pre-Election Mode:
In the aftermath of 9/11 when GW took us to War, he also made it clear, "but it will be business as usual...not to worry." The response of the House Republican leadership to the recent scandals, particularly those of Representatives Foley and Ney, seem to be in the same vein. With Foley, it's been, "oh well, we took care of that a long time ago, to bring Foley up now must be a Democratic election ploy." In the case of Ney, who as a confessed felon continues to occupy his offices and receive his salary and allowances, its "oh, we'll take care of that after the election and when we reconvene." The overwhelming impression is that within the Party leadership, scandal like War has become "business as usual." Where's the outrage?
In my last "comment" I praised Secretary of State Rice for achieving UN sanctions against North Korea so quickly. That praise stands; however, I would like today to point out what may have been an error during her recent Asian trip of potentially enormous proportions.
Her error relates to one of the legendary moments of American foreign policy. In 1950, shortly before North Korea's invasion of South Korea, then Secretary of State Dean Acheson gave a famous speech outlining the new boundaries of "containment," - i.e. a sort of drawing the line in the sand and outlining where in the free world (as it was called at the time) the United States would stand and fight against any communist encroachment. In Asia, he noted "Japan" and the U.S. commitment to Japan's defense. Notably, he did not mention South Korea. Shortly thereafter the North Korean invasion of the South took place and some historians today point to Acheson's oversight as an encouragement to the North Korean action.
Similarly, Rice's Tokyo speech focused on Japan, wherein she made it very clear that the United States would defend Japan with whatever it takes...including nuclear weapons, if necessary. It will be interesting to see if she will give the South Koreans the same assurances and, if she does not, the significance of the omission.
Would such an omission be an Acheson-like error or a redefinition of American foreign policy within the region? If the latter, are we now drawing the line in the sand at the Japanese shoreline and transferring the burden of the defense of South Korea to China, in recognition that South Korea lies within the Chinese sphere of influence? In view of the Administration's rhetoric regarding global democracy, this would be an extraordinarily calloused change of policy.
For the sake of the 38,000 U.S. troops currently on the North Korean-South Korean border, South Korea and Taiwan it might behoove Secretary Rice to clarify her remarks.
Note on the Republican Congress Pre-Election Mode:
In the aftermath of 9/11 when GW took us to War, he also made it clear, "but it will be business as usual...not to worry." The response of the House Republican leadership to the recent scandals, particularly those of Representatives Foley and Ney, seem to be in the same vein. With Foley, it's been, "oh well, we took care of that a long time ago, to bring Foley up now must be a Democratic election ploy." In the case of Ney, who as a confessed felon continues to occupy his offices and receive his salary and allowances, its "oh, we'll take care of that after the election and when we reconvene." The overwhelming impression is that within the Party leadership, scandal like War has become "business as usual." Where's the outrage?
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Opening Comments
Family and friends have encouraged me to establish this "Blog." I suspect the principal reason behind this encouragement is to avoid lengthy telephone conversations. Nevertheless, I will try herein to fullfill their wishes.
My primary topic will be American Politics, although I shall not feel constrained to stay on topic.
With the exception of the lunatic fringes of the far right and left, I have traveled virtually the entire spectrum of the American politics. My first foray into this system was in college, at which time I served as a liberal Democratic Party Precinct Chairperson. I left the Democratic Party, following the George McGovern campaign, dissolutioned by the treatment of Thomas Eagleton. Following college (and a Master's degree in Political Science), I joined the Corporate World and described myself as a "moderate Republican." Most of my business career was spent as the representative of a Fortune 500 company in Western Europe.
In 1995, I was downsized, indirectly due to the frenzied corporate rush to Globalization and the resulting Merger Mania. At that time, I was in charge of Strategic Planning and New Business Development, for the largest division of the same Fortune 500 company. In retrospect, I asked for and received this position at approximately the same time the powers-that-be had decided to sell the division. Timing is everything. As such, strategic planning and new business development in a division to be sold was not high on the Corporate Office agenda.
Following my departure from the Corporate World, I began my climb down the ladder of economic success. I tried self employment as a consultant with a group of other downsized colleagues. Failing in that, I went to work for the U.S. Government. I am presently "semi-retired." After voting twice for Bush Senior, I left the Republican Party with the coming of Bush Junior. As with many of us, both departures were based on my belief that "I didn't leave the Party inasmuch as the Party left me."
Through my academic studies, I have a fair understanding of our political system and our history. Given this, I can happily note that "things have been worse." They were worse between the Revolution and the Consitutional Convention of 1789, under the Articles of Confederation. They were worse during the Civil War and its aftermath. They were worse during the Great Depression. They were worse during the early dark days of World War II. They were worse during the race riots following the Civil Rights Movement and during the painful process of extracting ourselves from a nonsense war in Vietnam.
But, simply saying this does not mean there is not room for considerable improvement in our political system today. Our success or failure must be judged within the context of our own times. Considering today's pressures for globalization, the threats of terrorism in an age of weapons of mass destruction, global environmental problems and our necessary transition to non-fossil fuel based energy sources, the increasing stratification of wealth and power, etc., my humble conclusion is that we are currently in, pardon the expression, very deep doo-doo.
The fundamental purpose of the State is to ensure the social contract each of us enters into within our respective communities. By agreeing to the rule of law, we give up our individual freedom to act however, whenever and whereever we may desire. Instead, we act within the bounds agreed to by the community-at-large, in return for safety, social stability and security. In this society, a critical component of that safety and security lies in the protections afforded us through our Bill of Rights, i.e. our individual freedom within the context of the community.
An underlying assumption in the arguments to follow will be that beginning in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement of the second half of the twentieth century, a key American social failure was the constant stressing of individual rights, without a corresponding emphasis on individual responsibility. This has had, in my opinion, two negative effects. The first is the belief that our individual "rights" are divinely given. To a significant extent over-emphasizing this concept, whether true or false, tends to negate the rectitude and position of the State. And, it expresses itself in much of our political thinking, from Christian fundamentalism, to libertarianism, to our President's pursuit of a global foreign policy based, not on national self-interest, but on God's desire to bring freedom to everyone on the planet.
The second negative effect lies in the inevitable greed that follows this over-emphasis on individual rights as opposed to a perspective which balances those rights against the needs of the community. This greed frees us morally, as individuals in pursuit of God-given individual freedom, to manipulate both the State and the community toward our own personal ends.
In sum, for this initial "blog," it is my belief that we have largely ignored one-half of the social contract for the last fifty years. Subsequent blogs will attempt to address this neglect; its causes and effects, within the context of the events of the day. Comments, of course, are welcome.
My primary topic will be American Politics, although I shall not feel constrained to stay on topic.
With the exception of the lunatic fringes of the far right and left, I have traveled virtually the entire spectrum of the American politics. My first foray into this system was in college, at which time I served as a liberal Democratic Party Precinct Chairperson. I left the Democratic Party, following the George McGovern campaign, dissolutioned by the treatment of Thomas Eagleton. Following college (and a Master's degree in Political Science), I joined the Corporate World and described myself as a "moderate Republican." Most of my business career was spent as the representative of a Fortune 500 company in Western Europe.
In 1995, I was downsized, indirectly due to the frenzied corporate rush to Globalization and the resulting Merger Mania. At that time, I was in charge of Strategic Planning and New Business Development, for the largest division of the same Fortune 500 company. In retrospect, I asked for and received this position at approximately the same time the powers-that-be had decided to sell the division. Timing is everything. As such, strategic planning and new business development in a division to be sold was not high on the Corporate Office agenda.
Following my departure from the Corporate World, I began my climb down the ladder of economic success. I tried self employment as a consultant with a group of other downsized colleagues. Failing in that, I went to work for the U.S. Government. I am presently "semi-retired." After voting twice for Bush Senior, I left the Republican Party with the coming of Bush Junior. As with many of us, both departures were based on my belief that "I didn't leave the Party inasmuch as the Party left me."
Through my academic studies, I have a fair understanding of our political system and our history. Given this, I can happily note that "things have been worse." They were worse between the Revolution and the Consitutional Convention of 1789, under the Articles of Confederation. They were worse during the Civil War and its aftermath. They were worse during the Great Depression. They were worse during the early dark days of World War II. They were worse during the race riots following the Civil Rights Movement and during the painful process of extracting ourselves from a nonsense war in Vietnam.
But, simply saying this does not mean there is not room for considerable improvement in our political system today. Our success or failure must be judged within the context of our own times. Considering today's pressures for globalization, the threats of terrorism in an age of weapons of mass destruction, global environmental problems and our necessary transition to non-fossil fuel based energy sources, the increasing stratification of wealth and power, etc., my humble conclusion is that we are currently in, pardon the expression, very deep doo-doo.
The fundamental purpose of the State is to ensure the social contract each of us enters into within our respective communities. By agreeing to the rule of law, we give up our individual freedom to act however, whenever and whereever we may desire. Instead, we act within the bounds agreed to by the community-at-large, in return for safety, social stability and security. In this society, a critical component of that safety and security lies in the protections afforded us through our Bill of Rights, i.e. our individual freedom within the context of the community.
An underlying assumption in the arguments to follow will be that beginning in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement of the second half of the twentieth century, a key American social failure was the constant stressing of individual rights, without a corresponding emphasis on individual responsibility. This has had, in my opinion, two negative effects. The first is the belief that our individual "rights" are divinely given. To a significant extent over-emphasizing this concept, whether true or false, tends to negate the rectitude and position of the State. And, it expresses itself in much of our political thinking, from Christian fundamentalism, to libertarianism, to our President's pursuit of a global foreign policy based, not on national self-interest, but on God's desire to bring freedom to everyone on the planet.
The second negative effect lies in the inevitable greed that follows this over-emphasis on individual rights as opposed to a perspective which balances those rights against the needs of the community. This greed frees us morally, as individuals in pursuit of God-given individual freedom, to manipulate both the State and the community toward our own personal ends.
In sum, for this initial "blog," it is my belief that we have largely ignored one-half of the social contract for the last fifty years. Subsequent blogs will attempt to address this neglect; its causes and effects, within the context of the events of the day. Comments, of course, are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
