2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:
Free-wheeling, 'live and let live' democrats are, I think, going to have to get scared, angry and very organized to win.

"Live and let live Democrats" !!! My strong impression, both from history and recent politics, is that the left is much farther from libertarianism than the right. Most political solutions offered by the left (and Democrats), whether on environmental, social, or economic matters involve much higher degrees of government coercion, redistribution of property and control than the right (or even today's Republicans). If it suits your fantasies to visualize the left as "free wheeling and live and let live" it is OK with me, but don't put it forward as anything resembling the truth.

I dont think thats what he was talking about, george, and you probably know that.

Point he was making is obvious enough: the radical (christian) right has been increasingly better organised and more motivated - more fired up and their eyes more on the prize. Whereas on the left, until Dean came along, those who would be activists seemed to be more disinvolved, more resigned, more laconic than in a long time - probably a result from, simultaneously, lazily relying on Clintons personal voter appeal and turning away from the party in disenchantment about his actual policies. They were all - whatever, they can do what they want, I'm just gonna focus on my personal life, instead - "live and let live". The Right's frustration and bitterness may have made them lose the 96 elections, but its now helping them get out the vote, bolster the activists, when thats needed most.

If PDiddie is right and these elections are going to be more about optimally mobilising one's core support than about winning over doubters in the middle - and I think he could be right - that gives the Reps a considerable advantage. That would be one reason to support Dean, actually - he may not do so well (yet) among the undecideds, but none of the other Dems seems remotely capable of mobilising core support anything as effectively as Bush will mobilise his, and Dean does.

georgeob1 wrote:

"huge money"? How would you describe George Soros and 'Move On'?? Indeed the top twenty or so individual political contributors are generally Democrats. Republicans have a very large base of contributors in the middle that does net a lot for them.

Ehmm ... "Bush raised another $2.6 million in Florida yesterday" (MSNBC, last Friday) - that doesnt sound like a base of middle-class contributors.

In fact, "So far Bush donations average $283, Dean donations average $77", TNR and WP point out. Nuff said.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

George -- Stop with the cliches! Lose Limbaugh! Think for yourself!

Tartarin,

Do YOU think I frequently resort to cliches? Interesting.

Do you believe I don't think for myself ?

Consider how effectively I have resisted your propaganda and shrill criticism.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

NIMH -- I'm quoting what I heard in the news this morning (and in commentaries. It wasn't exactly 60/40, they said, but close. Maybe that's been updated -- haven't a clue.

"With all 4,143 precincts counted, Blanco had 52 percent, or 730,737 votes, to Bobby Jindal's 48 percent, or 676,180" (CNN)

0 Replies

http://www.drooker.com/graphics/images/see-no-evil.gif

When the president and his wife, Laura, touch down at Heathrow Airport Tuesday evening, they will be whisked to Buckingham Palace and largely kept in what he himself describes as a security-enclosed bubble -- cut off from activity in the rest of the city

0 Replies

Nimh,

If you are suggesting Blatham meant relatively 'live and let live' (among)Democrats, you are correct. In fact, as you detected, I was reacting to any association of 'live and let live' with left wing or Democrat politics.

You note that the so called radical (Christian) right is better organized and motivated than - well you didn't specify, but I took it to mean any other element of the political spectrum. I don't believe that proposition will stand up to scrutiny. Some elements of the right are certainly organized and motivated, but so are labor unions, environmental groups, public education groups, advocates for womens, gay and other elements of human rights groups, etc. Most of these are associated with the Democrats, and they appear to me to be every bit as well organized and motivated as the so called religious right - frankly better organized in my view.

The problem for Democrats (in my view) is the relative lack of a coherent worldview uniting the various single issue elements that drive much of the party's priorities. Republican support is more popular in the sense that it arises from the less formally organized and more spontaneous interests of a large number of people, and therefore gets around the problem of occasionally discordant individual issues. 'Energize the base' may indeed be the challenge, but the problem for Democrats is there are many bases and they are not all energized by the same things.

0 Replies

nimh

You just saved me a lot of typing. Please continue to help me keep my pants up. And let's just note that you are often a very fine writer indeed.

george

On the subject of just distribution of wealth...I was messing around yesterday trying to find a teaching module on Rawls which might be adaptable to a format such as this, but with little luck. I'll likely have to do this myself, but I am presently beset by a gang of internal thugs banging at my front door. However, when I've finally set this up, and you've gone through the module, you will become, it is certain, an economic liberal. And to correct an earlier statement, yore children may not be in jail after all.

0 Replies

blatham, That should be "your."

0 Replies

ci

You critical bastard...take a look now.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

On the subject of just distribution of wealth...I was messing around yesterday trying to find a teaching module on Rawls which might be adaptable to a format such as this, but with little luck.

Ah! One of my favorite subjects! I don't think Rawls's ideas need a teaching module. They are quite straightforward, and consist of two points.

1) According to Rawls, people should design society in the way a rational, egoistic person would prefer if she didn't know her position in it. The canonical way to put this is in form of a thought experiment: You're about to be born, and you get to choose the design of the society into which you are born. But there's a hitch: you don't know who your parents will be, whether you will be male of female, rich or poor, healthy or handicapped, et cetera. Which society would you prefer? Whatever your answer is, that's what you should strive for in politics.

2) According to Rawls, people in this thought experiment will be very risk averse. They will minimize the damage of the worst case (poor, sick, female etc ...) at the cost that if things turn out fine, they won't be quite as well off. As a consequence, Rawls wants a society that makes the poorest pople best off. This will include, according to him, large transfer payments. He wants to transfer income up to the point where the benefit to the poor of getting a bigger slice of the pie just balances the disincentive for the non-poor to produce a big pie for the poor to get a slice of.

Personally, I agree with point 1) and disagree with point 2).

0 Replies

george

Stemming from earlier discusions, I'd like to direct your attention to this thread...
http://www.able2know.com/forums/posting.php

Please see my last note to Craven, and then take a peek yourself at where I've directed him, the footnotes through too footnote 3, source 5... or you can go right to it here http://www.talion.com/election-machines.html

0 Replies

thomas

My prof's experience on teaching the 'original postion' was that many students often had a tough time with it. The research I did yesterday echoed his experiences. When I get this worked up, I'll be sure to give you a holler and you can play too.

0 Replies

Why Karl Rove Fears Howard Dean
Be careful what you wish for:

Quote:

According to Republican pollsters Bob Moore and Hans Kaiser:

Quote:
The potential for the economy to remain sluggish... and conditions in the Middle East are impossible to predict. Should these situations remain status quo or worsen, America will be looking for someone new... who can shake America out of the doldrums and reinvigorate the body politic. Dean would provide solutions and excitement where the other Democrats... are not as convincing because they don't have the perceived conviction of a Howard Dean.

A Dean candidacy is a lot more realistic than people think Dean's appeal is closer to Ronald Reagan's than any other Democrat running today.... The Democratic Party used to chuckle about Reagan and his gaffes, which they believed would marginalize him to the far-right dustbin of history. But when his opponents tried to attack him for some of his more outlandish statements, the folks in the middle simply ignored them. Voters... looked to the bigger picture, where they saw a man of conviction who cared about them and had solutions for their problems. ( source: http://www.moore-info.com )

* * *

How do I know? Because if they really thought Dean would be easy for Bush to beat, they'd build him up to make sure he'd win the Democratic nomination. They were doing that last summer, but no longer. They now fear Governor Dean most of all. That explains why Republicans bash Dean constantly. On right-wing hate radio and on the talking head shows. On the editorial pages and in the "news" sections. As these tactics fail, Republican fear grows.

They fear Governor Dean because Dean thrives on slams and bad press. They just make his support grow wider and deeper. Republicans need Democratic disunity but Dean brings together all corners of the Democratic Party -- even those who defected to Nader in 2000 -- with unmatched passion and intensity. Dean does this without alienating independent "swing voters." Republican pollsters and consultants used to dismiss that as impossible, but Dean is doing it. Already the emerging issues favor Dean as well.

0 Replies

PDid, I picked Dean when he was not so popular back in the early days of his campaign. I liked what I saw and heard. I do get somethings right once in awhile. Smile

0 Replies

Yes, I think that's right, PDiddie.

Thomas and Blatham -- I've never heard of Rawls (except Lou?) but I love him already and would like to take the course where he (or, hey, she?) is taught. As to Thomas' point 2, I wouldn't have assumed that the unborn would know how the poor, female etc. would know about these specific handicaps, or even (say) the "meaning" of wealth in each society. Wealth in some societies often means greater obligations, etc.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

... He wants to transfer income up to the point where the benefit to the poor of getting a bigger slice of the pie just balances the disincentive for the non-poor to produce a big pie for the poor to get a slice of.

Thomas,.
I think the segment above tells the tale. What are the metrics for determining the "benefit to the poor of getting a bigger slice" and of determining the "disincentive for the non-poor to produce.."? Does one attempt to equate dollars of benefit to the poor with dollars of missed production by the non poor? This is reminiscent of other simple minded, one dimensional, linear analyses of highly non linear, multidimensional problems that so infest economics. Life and history reveal only one alternative, and all such applications of these ideas have involved the exchange of a known (in one dimension) benefit for a loss in production which is only imagined. Moreover the available facts strongly suggest the real losses of production are generally much greater than are usually estimated - and generally as a result of the transfer itself.

Since the percapita values of benefit and production are likely very different, what is the social/moral basis for this particular proposition or the meaning of this particular balance point?

Of course what is usually omitted from such speculations is how the mice will bell the cat. What power in whose hands will measure the marginal costs and benefits, and transfer the property from one set of people to another? So far our experiments with such things have led to side effects which dwarfed the primary ones that motivated the theoreticians, and which caused great misery in both the economic and all other aspects of life.

Rawls is a new name to me. Perhaps another good reason to concentrate on material that has stood the test of time.

0 Replies

(I'm just wondering, if Thomas made only two points due to the fact that Rawls only wrote two books Laughing

)

0 Replies

Tart

John Rawls, and a yank to boot. Here's a little taste re the 'original postion'...

Quote:

Rawls asked what basic political arrangements people would choose if they were in the "original position" of establishing the basic structure of government. To prevent self-serving choices, he hypothesized that such a choice must be made behind a "veil of ignorance," which shields our constitution-makers from the knowledge of both their relative fortune and their conception of the good.

Someone in the original position could not choose laissez-faire capitalism on the ground that she is wealthy, or oppose a right of abortion on religious grounds. Behind the veil of ignorance, she would not know what her wealth or religion would be.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20021211.html

0 Replies

George's curmudgeonly comments to the contrary notwithstanding, a pure Rawls thread might really get us somewhere. A good way of reaching for new ideas based on personal experience. Damn I'm tired of knee jerks.

0 Replies

blatham, The temptation overcame me, because you rarely, if ever, make mistakes. Glad to see you made the correction. Wink

0 Replies

Blatham is backing a lame horse when he tells us about John Rawls.
The most eniment and erudite explicator of the legal system in the United States has told us that John Rawls is simplistic. Rawls, according to Judge Richard A. Posner, believes that the most abstract version of liberalism should command the assent of every reasonable person in our society.

Posner illustrates his view of the simplictic approach provided by Rawls in a comment concerning Rawls' poor performance in his book-"Political Liberalism" when Rawls does not provide evidence needed. Posner comments:

quote

"Rawls should not have suggested that the unconstitutionality of laws forbidding abortion could be established by lightening fast reasoning from a handful of unexceptional basic principles."

The key words in Posner's commentary are
lightening fast reasoning and

a handful of unexceptional basic principles.

The only other writer I have encountered who makes such sweeping assumptions without proof as Rawls is John Dewey.
Both are generally ignored by serious students.

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know