Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Lola wrote:

I read the Luntz memo. That can hardly be classified as Democratic propaganda. If you haven't already done so, you can read the memo here:

http://www.luntzspeak.com/memo.html

Thanks for the link, and yes, I have already done so. And just to make sure we're clear on this: I'm not arguing against your contention that Mr. Rove, Mr. Norquist and their friends have set up a very effective, and, overall, very dishonest marketing machine. On the opposite, I agree with this contention. What I am arguing against is the vibes I am frequently getting along the lines that the Republicans' success is mostly an optical illusion created by Rove's deceptive marketing. And I am not just getting these vibes from yourself and Blatham; you just happen to be the ones I'm arguing with right now.

Lola wrote:

Otherwise, do you have some homework for us Thomas? I'll be glad to read it. Bring us up to date, if you will.

I'm not sure what aspects of Republican philosophy you're specifically interested in, so here is a grab back of books I have found interesting and enlightening myself -- whether I agreed with them or not. Please feel free to pick whatever sparks your curiosity.

The most competent case I have seen made for the economic policies favored by today's Republicans is Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press (1962). For an equally competent and succinct case made for the kind of jurisprudence favored by current Republicans, I recommend Antonin Scalia: A Matter of Interpretation, Princeton University Press (1998). (Based on hearsay, an even better source for this purpose is Robert Bork: The Tempting of America, Free Press (1997). But I haven't read that one yet.) For an overview of Neoconservative thought, I recommend Irwing Selzer (Ed.): The Neocon Reader, Grove Press (2005). I don't have a source by someone from the Religious Right, making a hype-free case for their philosophy. Maybe that's not a coincidence. But if anyone in this thread knows one, I would be interested in hearing about it. Finally, for an insightful historical account of how the ideology and the marketing combined to make the Republicans a success, I liked Micklethwait, Wooldridge: The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, Penguin Books (2004). The authors work for the Economist; they report from a distance, but treat the Republicans friendly overall.

Again, the point of reading these books is not to agree or disagree with anything they say. For example, I disagree with most things in The Neocon Reader, and suspect I would disagree with the yet-to-be-posted Religious Right book as well. The point is that I believe in having every political case made to me by the fittest side to make it. Beyond that, you can learn that many things the Bush administration does makes no sense in terms of their stated conservative goals. Even if you disagree with those goals, knowing the philosophy behind them will allow you to make arguments that conservatives will listen to. ("Look at this!! Is this really what you wanted from a Republican president?") As we evil Germans say about marketing: The worm has to be tasty for the fish, not the fisherman.

Happy reading Smile

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

thomas

Happy to address this matter with you, honestly, given that you confess to your own failings before I begin.

Anytime. What do you want me to confess?

0 Replies

Great post, Joe Nation. That's exactly what I was getting at.

0 Replies

I would add Mark A. Levin's "Men in Black" to Thomas's reading list.

0 Replies

Lola has finally exposed me. I am not a real person. I am a carefully programmed AI device in Karl Rove's back office, cleverly responding to discredit the lofty intentions and expressions of liberal true believers. (But I do have a cigar!)

Just to clarify matters, let me emphasize that my preference for Republicans is just that - a preference. I consider them, today, less misguided and likely to do harm than their Democrat opponents. I am mindful of the decades long domination of American politics by Democrat liberals and of both the good they have done and their many failures and excesses. I believe we need a period of the application of contrary ideas to correct these excesses and a few of their follies.

I am very skeptical of all politicians and of their susceptability to manipulation by well-situated interest groups of all kinds (business, social, secular, religious, institutional, whatever). I am confident of the potential of Republicans to become as inward-looking, captive to their own elites, self-serving, and misguided as are the Democrats today. Indeed I believe the Republicans today are afflicted with all of these maladies, but less so than the Democrats and, more importantly, less in the areas in which a new balance of forces here is overdue. In short I believe that today their prejudices are more useful and applicable to the political, economic, and social situation of the United States than are the prejudices of the Democrats. But all that could change. That's it - that is the depth of my loyalty as a Republican.

I have little doubt that one could construct the impression of a dark conspiracy behind many of the institutions, groups, and individuals who support the Republican party. As Thomas has pointed out, the effort would require a bit of selectivity in sources and in the selection of the subset of the applicable facts one choses to weave together. Should I make the effort to study the process from this perspective as Blatham suggests? My answer is yes, provided that we are both willing to study with equal fervor the equivalent machinations of the labor unions , George Soros, NOW, PETA, NAMBLA, and the other inhabitants of the lunatic fringe of liberal politics in this country. The reasonable conclusion here is that the effort would be like a tour of one of the old 'Boys Towns' in Juarez, Nogales, Mexicali, or Tijuana - stimulating, but not particularly enlightening or elevating.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

blatham wrote:
thomas

Happy to address this matter with you, honestly, given that you confess to your own failings before I begin.

Anytime. What do you want me to confess?

In what ways are you yourself guilty of that for which you indict me? Now and again, you'll perhaps appreciate, I have found myself reflecting on thomas' past arguments.

ps of the eg sort...three months back, I quoted "The Right Nation" to george.

0 Replies

Come on george. I thought you military guys had some balls. Let's take just one - Soros and Scaife.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Lola has finally exposed me. I am not a real person. I am a carefully programmed AI device in Karl Rove's back office, cleverly responding to discredit the lofty intentions and expressions of liberal true believers. (But I do have a cigar!)

Just to clarify matters, let me emphasize that my preference for Republicans is just that - a preference. I consider them, today, less misguided and likely to do harm than their Democrat opponents. I am mindful of the decades long domination of American politics by Democrat liberals and of both the good they have done and their many failures and excesses. I believe we need a period of the application of contrary ideas to correct these excesses and a few of their follies.

I am very skeptical of all politicians and of their susceptability to manipulation by well-situated interest groups of all kinds (business, social, secular, religious, institutional, whatever). I am confident of the potential of Republicans to become as inward-looking, captive to their own elites, self-serving, and misguided as are the Democrats today. Indeed I believe the Republicans today are afflicted with all of these maladies, but less so than the Democrats and, more importantly, less in the areas in which a new balance of forces here is overdue. In short I believe that today their prejudices are more useful and applicable to the political, economic, and social situation of the United States than are the prejudices of the Democrats. That's it - that is the depth of my loyalty as a Republican.

I have little doubt that one could construct the impression of a dark conspiracy behind many of the institutions, groups, and individuals who support the Republican party. As Thomas has pointed out, the effort would require a bit of selectivity in sources and in the selection of the subset of the applicable facts one choses to weave together. Should I make the effort to study the process from this perspective as Blatham suggests? My answer is yes, provided that we are both willing to study with equal fervor the equivalent machinations of the labor unions , George Soros, NOW, PETA, NAMBLA, and the other inhabitants of the lunatic fringe of liberal politics in this country. The reasonable conclusion here is that the effort would be like a tour of one of the old 'Boys Towns' in Juarez, Nogales, Mexicali, or Tijuana - stimulating, but not particularly enlightening or elevating.

There you go again george. I said nothing whatever about you being carefully programed by Rove, nor did I mention any conspiracy, much less a dark conspiracy. Other's impression that I have such ideas is largely a product of your characterization of my beliefs. Not by my ideas themselves. You capitalize on Hillary Clinton's use of the word and the hay the Republicans made of it at the time.

My point is that, even though I point out your distorted characterizations of my posts, you continue to repeat them. You repeat the same ones each time. And I recognize that technique. I have no idea where you got it, but it's a good one. And I'm encouraging my fellow liberals to use it as effectively as you do.

Look at the success you've enjoyed with this technique. Thomas for instance believes that I give off

Quote:

vibes [he] frequently get[s] along the lines that the Republicans' success is mostly an optical illusion created by Rove's deceptive marketing

Whatever causes Thomas to get these vibes from me, I don't know. However, I suspect that his inclination to read into my posts what he already assumes is encouraged by your chronically posted untrue allegations.

Good show old man, you don't let the fact that the repetition of these claims makes you look like a one trick pony deter you from your task of leaving these impressions. I don't know what the source for your technique is. Maybe you're just a man with a cigar who has always used smear tactics to denigrate the arguments of those with whom you disagree. Whatever the source, I'm simply analyzing them and pointing them out as a technique worthy of emulation.

0 Replies

You can't put an intelligent, humanist as your party favorite to run for president in this country. When will you learn? Kerry also had a very bad habit/weakness, and that is the fact that even he wasn't consistent and promised too much that was impossible for any president to deliver - especially when the congress is controlled by the "other" party.

0 Replies

GeorgeOB1 writes

Quote:

Should I make the effort to study the process from this perspective as Blatham suggests? My answer is yes, provided that we are both willing to study with equal fervor the equivalent machinations of the labor unions , George Soros, NOW, PETA, NAMBLA, and the other inhabitants of the lunatic fringe of liberal politics in this country. The reasonable conclusion here is that the effort would be like a tour of one of the old 'Boys Towns' in Juarez, Nogales, Mexicali, or Tijuana - stimulating, but not particularly enlightening or elevating

I think the problems the Democrats have is that they are dependent upon their lunatic fringe and thus must cater to it and not criticize it. Thus, more and more these fringe groups are controlling the center of the party and form the image of who the Democrats are. The image is enhanced by the failure of the Democrats to be a party of ideas and possiibilities, but rather their only recognizable unified agenda is to condemn, criticize, complain, and obstruct. People being what they are will not be strongly attracted to this. Thus the Democrat base is mostly made up of people who support the lunatic fringe, who don't have a clue but have always voted Democrat, or who are bribed, coerced, or frightened into voting Democrat. As people become more educated, they become less easy to control in such an environment.

The lunatic fringe in the GOP are the radical Christian right--these are the nuts who, for instance, want Darwin thrown out of the schools and Creationism taught as science--and the militant pro-lifers who want abortion made illlegal everywhere and for any reason and utilize extreme measures to get their point across. The GOP center is not at all adverse to opposing such extremes and denouncing any unlawful means used.

Further I agree with all the weaknesses of the GOP that George outlined and recognize the possibility of the GOP becoming ingrown and self serving as he defined. I am an occasional pollee for both Rasmussen and Zogy and one of the questions that is always asked on every poll is what political party I identify with and do I see myself as a 'strong' 'moderate' 'not very strong' member of that party. (That isn't the exact words but that is the gist of the question.) I always mark 'not very strong' as my loyalty is not to the party but to the principles it embodies. And currently the GOP does have some good ideas, some noble ambitions, some forward looking proposals, and some positive outlooks all noticably missing in the Democrat world these days. And it is this that makes the GOP more attractive than the Democrats to a majority of Americans.

Of course it is to the advantage of the GOP that most politically-minded Democrats do not listen to the very good advice from their experts (Carville, Begala, Sullivan, Hitchins, Raspberry, et al) and remain in denial.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

In what ways are you yourself guilty of that for which you indict me?

On the specific charge of evaluating political philosophy X and quoting almost exclusively anti-X sources for the underlying facts, I plead not guilty. I'm sure I have lots of other ideological blinders of my own, but I am not aware of what they are. Perhaps that's inevitable, because if I did see them they wouldn't be blinders anymore.

blatham wrote:

Now and again, you'll perhaps appreciate, I have found myself reflecting on thomas' past arguments.

That is true. And while I stand by my opinion about your choice of sources, I was grossly exaggerating when I compared you to that creationist I had debated with. I now think I shouldn't have done that. Sorry.

0 Replies

Quote:

Lola wrote:
I read the Luntz memo. That can hardly be classified as Democratic propaganda. If you haven't already done so, you can read the memo here:

http://www.luntzspeak.com/memo.html

Thanks for the link, and yes, I have already done so. And just to make sure we're clear on this: I'm not arguing against your contention that Mr. Rove, Mr. Norquist and their friends have set up a very effective, and, overall, very dishonest marketing machine. On the opposite, I agree with this contention. What I am arguing against is the vibes I am frequently getting along the lines that the Republicans' success is mostly an optical illusion created by Rove's deceptive marketing. And I am not just getting these vibes from yourself and Blatham; you just happen to be the ones I'm arguing with right now.

I don't know where you get these vibes, Thomas, but they're not mine. I don't think the Republicans' success is an optical illusion. Surely you can see that I think their success is all too real. What the Democrats should do now in order to enjoy the same success is multi-faceted. My point is that whatever their tactics, they must include current marketing techniques or we will fail again.

Quote:

I'm not sure what aspects of Republican philosophy you're specifically interested in

I'm interested in their use of marketing. I'm also interested in the sources of money and power behind them. (and no, I do not mean a conspiracy. I mean what Irwin Stelzer means when he says that neoconservatism is more a tendency than a movement) I am interested especially in the influence of the Evangelical Fundamentalist organizations and funding sources.

I know little about economics. And I haven't the time to learn. So I'll leave the neoconservative stuff to you and others who are more familiar with it.

It's my idea that the evangelical fundamentalists and the Neocons and which ever other interest groups vote together (in national elections) these days because it serves each of their purposes. They are not, in my opinion conspirators with each other. But together they form a powerful block of voters. And they are greatly supported by well developed and well thought out marketing and political strategys. They are currently scratching each other's backs.

So here's some reading for you. It's easy and short and does not involve buying a book. If you want more bits simply Google The Council for National Policy.

http://www.alternet.org/story/21372/

Do you have something for me that is less costly and less time consuming than an entire book? I'm having to conserve money lately and my time is also limited? This is not my profession, it's my interest in how the political situation influences me and my ability to live well.

Thanks.

0 Replies

Well, Blatham says I don't have any balls, and Lola says I am a one trick pony (or perhaps gelding). Some days it's hard to get an even break.

I have made a real effort to be candid, balanced and even a bit light-hearted in all this. What do I get for it? - more criticism, and more strident in form & content.

Lola says this of me, and others of like persuasion.

Lola wrote:

And it's not only that we don't use these techniques. What's worse is we're being sold ourselves. And we're being sold by the kind of technique used by george above. Listen to him. What we have to do, according to george, is become not ourselves to become something we are not. And he says it with such genuine calm concern in his voice. Who wouldn't want to believe him?

I don't suggest that george is on a mission from the Republicans...... although I don't rule out the possibility. George is fine tuned and he could very likely have picked up the technique as one picks up the latest fashion styles by looking at pictures in magazines and on TV. A good mimic can do this and not even realize what they are doing. Heck, I've picked it up just observing Foxfire, george, JW et al. And Fox "News" sets a fine, easily mimicked example.

I guess that puts me somewhere between the Manchurian Candidate and a mindless mimic. This even though I have confessed to being only an episodic Republican.

I guess Bernie wants me to debate or perhaps just study Soros and Sciafe. I did read a book by & about Soros ("Soros on Soros") and found it moderately interesting. A guy with lots of money who read some books by Karl Popper and now is using his profits on currency trading to advance his versions of those ideas in places that interest him. I don't know anything about Sciafe but am willing to bet he is different only in his political outlook and prejudices. The core of all this is that in truth I don't give much of a damn about just what are the ideas that may underlie the motives of the principle donors of either party. What I care about is what I estimate the parties will do if they gain political power.

Unlike the Parliamentary systems that prevail in Europe where political parties are organized around relatively fixed political ideas and philosophies, here we have a two-party system, which institutionalizes not so much a political philosophy (though they do that a bit too), as political opposition and contention. It is a very pragmatic game of inside and outside and continuing struggle. Right now I favor what the Republicans are doing and what I estimate they are likely to do, over what I estimate the Democrats would likely do. The motives of the actors in this drama are likely unknowable, and don't interest me much. I also favor the characters of most of the Republican candidates as I estimate them to be, though I don't claim to be able to see that all too clearly either.

This in not to say that I don't have any enduring ideas on politics, security, economics and social policies. As you know, I do have such ideas and they are moderately (in my view) conservative with respect to social and economic matters and, with respect to security and international policy, reflective of my own views of the historical context in which we live. Today these happen to roughly coincide with the Platform of the Republican Party - not perfectly mind you. In these matters one takes what he can get.
.

0 Replies

Quote:

And it is this that makes the GOP more attractive than the Democrats to a majority of Americans.

It's a very small majority, Foxfire. Why don't you follow Thomas' advice and read a little outside your own prejudices? Watch The Jim Lehrer News Hour on NPR. It only takes an hour. Check out the link I provided for Thomas or do your own research.

And you are in massive denial if you think your lunatics are only your fringe. Of course, I realize that all depends on whom you consider to be a lunatic. Which of course goes a long way in defining where you fit on the scale. One's rating of oneself is by definition not objective. Self report is severely limited. If Zogby or whichever poll wants to know who they are really talking to, they should have an independent rating scale based on certain objective criteria. Which they don't, as far as I know.

0 Replies

Quote:

Right now I favor what the Republicans are doing and what I estimate they are likely to do, over what I estimate the Democrats would likely do. The motives of the actors in this drama are likely unknowable, and don't interest me much. I also favor the characters of most of the Republican candidates as I estimate them to be, though I don't claim to be able to see that all too clearly either.

Of course, by your own admission you have little objective or at least balanced information to make this judgement. Oh well.......whatever.

Just Goggle Richard Mellon Scaife or Joseph Coors, or Nelson Bunker Hunt or Cullen Davis or any other wealthy member of the Council on National Policy. At least, that way, you wouldn't be totally ignorant when making these decisions.

Quote:

I guess that puts me somewhere between the Manchurian Candidate and a mindless mimic. This even though I have confessed to being only an episodic Republican.

Here's another example of the technique of which I speak. I said neither of these things. I was complimenting you and giving you the benefit of the doubt. I said you were fine tuned. It's a skill to be able to mimic. Not everyone can do it. I never even thought that you were mindless and I certainly didn't say it. A bit too busy to keep yourself properly informed, perhaps. I know you're a busy man. And there's nothing wrong with that.

And I never said you were a gelding. That's another distorted characterzation of what I said. I won't be too insulted by your prejudiced distortions of what I say if you won't be too insulted by mine of what you say. It's politics, george. And you have such a nice big cigar. :wink:

Come on now, friends anyway, right?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

I don't know where you get these vibes, Thomas, but they're not mine. I don't think the Republicans' success is an optical illusion. Surely you can see that I think their success is all too real.

Then perhaps I misphrased that sentence. The vibe I am getting from you is that the success of conservative ideas reflects purely a competitive advantage in their marketing, as opposed to any competitive advantage in the underlying product. The reason I am getting this vibe from you is because I have never heard you make an effort to consider that possibility.

Lola wrote:

I'm interested in their use of marketing. I'm also interested in the sources of money and power behind them. (and no, I do not mean a conspiracy.

I don't hear you express an interest in the substance of their policy preferences at all. May I assume you're not interested in it, or would you interpret this as another instance of George's manipulative tactics victimizing me?

Lola wrote:

So here's some reading for you. It's easy and short and does not involve buying a book. If you want more bits simply Google The Council for National Policy.

http://www.alternet.org/story/21372/

Thanks. I'll surf around there a bit.

Lola wrote:

Do you have something for me that is less costly and less time consuming than an entire book? I'm having to conserve money lately and my time is also limited? This is not my profession, it's my interest in how the political situation influences me and my ability to live well.

On funding etc., you're better informed than I am. Whenever I want to look into these things, I just follow the links to PFAW and such, which you posted in your thread about "The Religious Right and Contemporary American Politics". For smaller-than-book-sized bits about the way intelligent Republicans think, you could read articles from the blog of Virginia Postrel, the blog of Eugene Volokh and frends, and maybe the home page of Irving Kristol's magazine The Public interest. But as I said, I'm not getting the impression that you're interested in actually thinking through the logic of conservative ideas. No problem, Chacun à son gout

0 Replies

I love you Lola, but your damn boyfriend said I don't have any balls, and you said I was a mindless mime and a one trick pony. Laughing

That deathtothetroops passive aggressive showoff and the reactions of some here to him did piss me off for a while the other day, but in fact I am an easy-going guy, and I do like you both. I am really trying to honestly describe my thoughts about these subjects.

I think I can form an accurate impression of the likely actions of the actors in our political scene if they come into power without an exhaustive reearch into the motives of their donors and contributors. (Do you remember the famous words of Jesse Unruh, the now deceased Democrat head of the California legislature, in his introductory instruction to newly elected legislators --"If you can't drink their booze, eat their food, and f%$k their women - and then vote against them the next day, you don't belong here." -- I doubt that Jesse ever seriously lived up to this principle, but the sentiment is good.). I'm not saying that this is never revealing or significant, but rather there is quite a lot of other stuff to go on, and it has so far been quite reliable for me.

0 Replies

Thomas is making an excellent point.

There is more to the political program of liberal Democrats that is reflected in the private agendas of Barbara Streisand, NOW, the CIO, Move On whatever, Soros, PETA, and the rest of the menagerie that supports and promotes them. Beyond all that there are some prevaling ideas and values that influence their choices about social, economic and international policy. The political choices they make are influuenced by both factors and the characters of the principal actors themselves. It would be a gross distortion to characterize them sole by an examination of the more lunatic of their supporters.

The same is true of Republicans.

0 Replies

George writes

Quote:

Beyond all that there are some prevaling ideas and values that influence their choices about social, economic and international policy.

This is in direct opposition to my opinion expressed in my previous post. With consideration that I am frequently guilty of exaggeration for emphasis, my personal observatins are that the Democrat party, other than the agenda put forth by their lunatic fringe, are pretty much devoid of any ideas at all right now and they are stuck in a mode of complaining, criticizing, ridiculing, defamation, and obstruction.

So far all their spokespersons have been like Lola who cannot seem to defend the Democrats with any measurable criteria other than various ways of opposing the GOP or going with the agenda of the lunatic fringe.

So if I am wrong, I am very willing to be educated here.

0 Replies

Well, I think you are a bit wrong on this. It is fairly clear that Democrats in general prefer government action and intervention to address social and economic issues: republicans generally oppose this. A consequence is that Democrats generally want higher taxes than do Republicans. Republicans oppose taxes as a matter of policy: Democrats accept them as necessary for what they believe will be beneficial economic or social action by government. There are many other consequences and manifestations of these ideas that are also fairly enduring distinctions between them. I suspect that both sides as willingly engage in the posturing and theatrics that are the mother's milk of politics.

0 Replies

Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know