What's Next?

I've read two articles in the last little bit about the Democrats lack of a positive program - a subject I touched on earlier this week. The first was from the Economist and the second was at Salon. In both cases you have to watch a short ad to read the articles, and in both cases I advise you to do so.

The Economists article opposes the Democratic strategy of opposing President Bush's plans.

Whether it is George Bush's ideas for Social Security (pensions) reform, the free-trade agreement with Central America (CAFTA) or efforts to control the rise in spending on Medicaid, the Democrats in Congress are offering nothing but blanket opposition. No alternatives, no negotiation. Just say no.

The Economist acknowledges some of the difficulties in coming up with a positive program of our own. For one thing we have zero chance of getting it implemented at the present time. For another we don't all agree on what the best program should be. The Democratic Party has both those in favor of Free Trade, those advocating "Fair Trade" and those would like to see Trade severely curtailed. Who is going to harmonize those view? And more to the point, why fight that particular battle right now? Since we can't implement a specific trade policy, why fracture the party fighting that one out right now?

And who would benefit from such an inner-party squabble?

Anyway I don't think the Economist is really all that pro-Republican. But they are coming at from a Business point of view. And the one thing that businesses prefer above all else in a government is predictability. Right now it's difficult for businesses to know what Democrats are going to do once we regain power. Some things are obvious (repealing at least part of the Bush tax cuts, for example). But other things aren't. And I hate to say this, but that's sort of the way things go right now.

The Salon article looks at the opposition strategy from a more political angle, and so makes the obvious point that there are political advantages to it.

As Democrats regroup from the electoral drubbing of 2004, they intend to portray Republicans as they themselves were cast a decade ago: a majority corrupted by political hubris gone awry. If a unifying strategic theme can be found among Democrats as they prepare for midterm elections, it is their intention to run as the alternative to what they claim is Republican legislative overreach and abuse.

And there it is. As it says later in the Salon piece, the upcoming elections have to be about the party in power, not the party out of power.

"It is preferable and desirable to have a positive agenda, but I think it is absolutely necessary as the out party to make the election about the in party," said Stu Rothenberg, of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report. "The Republicans in 1994 blocked Democratic initiatives and complained about gridlock. They also already had negative stuff, such as the Clinton healthcare plan, and it worked pretty well. The atmospherics are right for a Democratic year in 2006. The voters are dissatisfied with the direction of the country and not particularly pleased with the president."

So should we continue our opposition strategy or come out with some serious plans of our own? I don't know for sure; I think we do need some issues to stand on. Reforming Health Care for example. Even if we don't have a specific plan to propose, just talking about it will put Republicans on the defensive (since they don't want to talk about it). But I think there's nothing wrong with focusing on the guys who actually have power in this country.

An Announcement

I was just listening to old Rush Limbaugh, and it appears that there is some confusion over what we liberals stand for. Apparently there is some confusion over whether we liberals are opposed to beheadings. Some people have the notion that we liberals see insurgents and terrorists beheading prisoners as just a simple cultural folkways.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Why I don't know a liberal who isn't horrified at the thought of someone being beheaded.

I just wanted to clear that up. We liberals do not like people being beheaded.

But, as it turns out, we also don't like people being tortured.

Leaders, Liberals, Laggards, and Liars

Herman Cain's latest article is entitled Leaders, Liberals and Laggards, and covers Social Security. Specifically it covers how Liberals and Laggards are hampering President Bush's attempts to Lead the debate. Mr. Cain, as is traditional, spends little time wondering if President Bush is leading us in the wrong direction.

We are winning this debate in the short term, which is good. Better than letting President Bush's plan to destroy Social Security go forward. But it does leave us open to the charge of obstructionism. One great rhetorical sleight of hand is to present your prescription to a problem as the only solution. Here's the problem; here's the solution, why don't Democrats want to solve this problem? Hermain Cain uses this formulation continuously.

The first critical thing that real leaders do is remove barriers to understanding a problem and its solution. Liberals create barriers to cause confusion. . . .

The second critical thing that leaders do is ask the right questions. Liberals ask the wrong or misleading questions. . . .

Third, leaders inspire the best in people, which is to believe in themselves. Faith in individual liberty and choice produces solutions to problems for the common good of the people. Liberals incite the worst in people, such as jealousy and envy. This produces divisiveness, dysfunctional social systems, and bigger government for the good of their political party. . . .

This pattern works, in a sense, because he successfully minimizes any Democratic Plans to fix Social Security. Thus we have one side maturely putting forward their plan to fix America, and the other side digging in their heels, seemingly out of sheer maliciousness. The truth is that both sides have put forward plans. Democrats have been putting forward plans for years. One involves raising the cap on Payroll Taxes, and it seems like that would work. But we haven't publicized our plans as much.

I'm of two minds about this call. Part of me says that if the Republicans want us to do something so unanimously (and the Republicans have been pretty darn unanimous in their advocation that we should put forward a plan), well I can't think that it's a good thing. After all once we talk about raising the cap (if that ends up being our proposal), Republicans phrase it as a tax increase and slam into us. President Bush's plan has yet to be fleshed out in any detail, presumably for the same reason (although in his case it might be the program cuts that he would get slammed over).

On the other hand if they paint us as simple obstructionists, well, that's not much better. And how bad would admitting we want to raise taxes hurt us? If a program is running short of money, there are two answers. Raise more money (through taxes, or, in theory, President Bush's private accounts) or spend less Money (through cutting services).

I know Commentators aren't supposed to admit this, but I killed a guy in Buffalo. Also I don't know exactly what the right answer is.

Can we win the War in Iraq?

A couple of years ago, before the invasion of Iraq, Thomas Friedman's articles particularly convinced me to support the war in Iraq. My support was thoroughly lukewarm, but I acknowledged that it might end up ok, if we did it right. I also agree with Friedman's oft stated complaint that we have failed in Iraq because Donald Rumsfeld wanted to fight the war on the cheap. The most important priority in this administration is protecting the tax cuts, not the safety of the American people or even American soldiers.

With his latest article, however, we part ways. He suggests doubling the troops in Iraq.

Maybe it is too late, but before we give up on Iraq, why not actually try to do it right? Double the American boots on the ground and redouble the diplomatic effort to bring in those Sunnis who want to be part of the process and fight to the death those who don't.

The problem with this line of thinking is two fold. One, where are the new soldiers going to come from? Are we just going to double the lengths of stays for national guard and army reserve units? Army recruiting is down.

Secondly, and more important, there's that "maybe." Maybe it is too late. Without a winning strategy, how do you ask more American troops to die for a victory we've already lost.

Let that Freak Flag Fly!

Pandragon has a story on a secondary American flag suggested by Marcia Thompson Eldreth. A Christian American Flag, to be hung right under "tradition" non-Christian flag. Weird looking thing, truthfully. Anyway go check it out.

The modern conservative movement does seem very symbols oriented. I suppose because with the economy still faltering and the war in Iraq losing popularity, symbolic victories look a bit more feasible.

Let's Make David Limbaugh Retch

David Limbaugh's latest article is total crap, as you might expect. He starts it with this sentence.

If I hear one more time how the United States better clean up its image in the world so we don't further alienate foreigners and generate more terrorists, I think I'm going to retch.

Hey Mr. Limbaugh, we need to clean up our image so we don't further alienate the other nations of the world and generate more terrorists!

Instead of caring about world opinion, Mr. Limbaugh suggests that the real problem is Democrats and Journalists reporting on these issues. If we liberals didn't harp on things like the Downing Street Minutes or the torture at Gitmo, well, our international image would be better. In other words, the problem isn't the abuse, it's the report of the abuse.

Incidentally, if any leftist starts complaining about the number of dead tortured to death, make sure he sticks to the official figure. Only 27 people have been tortured to death, and not one person more. Or at least those are the current official figures.

Anyway David Limbaugh is living in a fantasy world where we can win against the Iraqi insurgency without paying any attention to getting the Iraqi people on our side. All we have to do is kill enough Iraqi Insurgents and we will win. You'll forgive me if I don't find that entirely believable.

The Qu'ran and Najis

Diane West's latest article covers the rules American troops have to abide by in handling the Qu'ran in Guantenemo. She opposes them handling the Qu'ran in the specified way.

The fact is, under Islamic law, non-Muslims are deemed unfit to touch the Quran. That much is generally known. What is not usually considered is the reason: According to the Islamic law, we are unclean.

The term is "najis." . . .

In effect, then, with its official policy of clean cloves and detainee towels, the United States military is promoting, enabling and accepting the Islamic concept of najis -- the unclean infidel -- a barbarous notion that has helped fuel the bloodlust of jihad and the non-Muslim subjugation of dhimmitude. Our soldiers are many things: self-sacrificing, bold, loyal and true. They are not unclean.

Is this political correctness run amok? Not exactly. It's something else again, a new threat from within that needs vigilant redress. P.C. is about victimology, the elevation of perceived victim groups to the canonical pantheon. The Gitmo rules are more blatantly about surrender, a voluntary self-extinguishment, a spreading condition of denial of what is right and worth standing for. Not what you expect from the United States Southern Command.

I'm not sure I buy that Ms. West. For one thing, there are practical concerns involved. Guantenomo bay is essentially a prison - how riled up do you want the prisoners to be? You might have fantasies that our troops can offend dozens of prisoners and suffer no consequences, but I'm pretty sure that is not the case.

Secondly I think the article presents a false dichotomy. It posits respect for Islam as submission to it. I don't know if that is necessarily true, and it hasn't escaped my notice that Conservatives argue regularly that paying respect to Christianity in America isn't submitting to it.

Anyway an interesting but wrongheaded article.

Darn links!

I screwed up my last Round the Horn Column. Instead of linking to Pen-Elaynes comments, as I had thought I was doing, I linked to Scrutiny Hooligans twice. What a dingbat I am. So I apologize for this error, and assure you I will make this kind of mistake again. So please go read Elayne's words as they are smart and she is right.

Equivalence and Deep Throat

Obviously, now that Deep Throat has been revealed to be Mark Felt, they must do what they can to minimize our memory of the excesses of the Nixon White House. One method is to suggest that what this story really shows is that the Press likes Whistleblowers who tell on Conserveratives and is not a fan of whistleblowers who tell on Liberals.

After all, Linda Tripp did basically the same thing as Mark Felt, and yet she's pilloried. Jay Bryant makes this argument in his latest article, but he's far from convincing. Frankly I'm not sure he's even trying. Watergate involved government misuse of power on a massive scale; the Lewinsky scandal involved a President having inappropriate sex. Now I'm not a fan of what Clinton did, but to equate the two, well it's a joke. Even with the mention of AIDS and fathers abandoning their kids in the ghetto, it's still a joke.

Mr. Felt is part of the Nixon scab that blemishes the Republican party, apparently forever.

Mea Culpa

Sorry about the no posts yesterday, but I was busy. Sort of. In a way.

Anyway to make it up to you, here's an updated Quotes Page.