Dean to seek chairmanship of Democrats

Their reason for living is to say No to everything the Republicans try to do.

Now, one might point out that liberal intellectuals have plenty of new ideas, but Democrats in elected office do not. That, however, isn't true either. In 2004, John Kerry and John Edwards ran on a program that was undeniably substantive. They proposed rolling back a large chunk of Bush's tax cuts and dividing the proceeds between deficit-reduction and a number of spending programs, including a fairly innovative health care plan that involved reimbursing employers for catastrophic costs. Democrats in Congress do spend most of their time reacting to an agenda controlled by Republicans. But they have proposed a higher minimum wage, terrorism risk insurance for private businesses, legalizing the importation of prescription drugs, and reinstituting pay-as-you-go budget rules.

You probably don't remember many of these ideas, if you ever heard of them in the first place. But don't feel guilty. There's a perfectly good reason for ignoring these ideas: They have no chance of being enacted as long as Republicans control the White House and Congress. The truth is that liberal ideas aren't getting any circulation because Democrats are out of power, not vice versa. Not long ago, to take an example almost at random, Senate Democrats held a press conference with James Woolsey to unveil an energy-independence agenda. Not a single major newspaper or network covered it. This isn't because reporters harbor a bias against liberals. It's because they harbor a bias against ideas that stand no chance of being enacted. And so, the vast majority of the time, the press will simply ignore ideas put forth by the minority party. [..]

Today, Democrats generally oppose change because "change" means doing things Bush's way. This puts Democrats in the dilemma of either supporting new policies that are almost invariably bad--certainly from a liberal perspective--or appearing wedded to the status quo. [..] It's one thing for Democrats to sketch out the sort of alternatives they would prefer if they ran Washington. But, as long as Republicans do run Washington--and certainly as long as Bush sits in the Oval Office--doing nothing is often going to be the best available scenario for liberals. [..]

What other examples exist to support the notion that conservatives have built an awesome ideas machine? The one most often invoked is privatizing Social Security. And, on the surface, it seems like a potent case. Conservative think tanks have spent years nurturing the idea of transforming Social Security, partially or entirely, into a system of individual accounts. Certainly, the history of privatization attests to the right's ability to take hold of an idea hopelessly out of the mainstream and inexorably drive it into the center of the national debate. [..]

Privatization [however] also points to [a] weakness in the conservative idea machine: its inability to address the problems of the day. The concept of privatization has slowly ground forward over 25 years or more, propelled by an endless stream of conferences, papers, and articles from conservative think tanks and magazines. And Bush has sold it as a response to a looming fiscal disaster. By any objective measure, though, Social Security is not a major fiscal problem compared with the deficit or health care. Health care, in fact, is rapidly bankrupting both the government and the private sector.

Here the comparison between right and left is instructive. Liberals are brimming with ideas about reforming health care and taming the deficit. Conservatives have little to say about either of these problems. On the deficit, they are theologically opposed to raising taxes, and they have learned from Newt Gingrich that massive spending cuts are political poison. On health care, controlling costs means controlling waste, yet much of that waste is income for interest groups closely aligned with the Republican Party [..]

The point here is not that conservatives want for new ideas. It's that the question of which ideas hold sway is a function of which party holds power and what priorities it has.

It is certainly true that conservatives have devoted more energy to the question of fundamentally reshaping Social Security. But this difference has nothing to do with who has more or better ideas and everything to do with priorities. Liberals like Columbia University's Jeffrey Sachs have devoted lots of energy to devising plans to end world poverty. Liberals have devoted enormous attention to the problem of global warming, while the Bush administration insists it will kill any action on the topic. Is this because conservatives have no ideas, or are committed to (as Bush recently described Democrats) "the philosophy of the stop sign, the agenda of the roadblock"? No, it's because conservatives philosophically disagree with those ends.

These aren't contests of which side has more or better ideas. These are ideological battles over resource allocation. When Democrats regain power, their ideas will again control the agenda, and Republicans will again find themselves devoted primarily to the task of resisting change. [..]

One meaning has surfaced from Republicans with particular frequency during the Social Security debate. "[T]he only idea offered by Democrats is that [Bush] abandon his plans to reform Social Security altogether," lamented Weekly Standard Executive Editor Fred Barnes last month. "George Bush has been willing to address a long-term, politically thorny problem," observed David Brooks in the Times. "But his Democratic counterparts are behaving like alienated junior professors. No productive ideas. No sense of leadership." In reality, Democrats have explicitly stated their willingness to address Social Security's future deficit as long as privatization is off the table. So, when conservatives decry Democrats' lack of ideas, they mean a refusal to adopt conservative ideas.

Liberal pundits also like to flay Democrats for lacking positive ideas, but they mean something else entirely. [..] In a recent Times column, Thomas L. Friedman wrote, "Democrats [are] so clearly out of ideas." Friedman's ideas? Promoting alternative fuels, "a new New Deal to address the insecurities of the age of globalization," stem-cell research, and action on global warming.

Of course, the above describes the Democratic position almost perfectly. It seems odd, but in fact this sort of thing is quite common: One constantly hears impassioned demands that the Democrats do exactly what they are already doing. Often, this confusion simply reflects the Democrats' inability to publicize their ideas--or frustration at their inability to win political victories in GOP-dominated Washington. (I can't tell you how many conversations I've had in which liberal friends ask why the Democratic leaders aren't simply saying that Bush's tax cuts are unaffordable and go to the rich, when in fact they are doing so with stultifying repetitiveness.)

...(I can't tell you how many conversations I've had in which liberal friends ask why the Democratic leaders aren't simply saying that Bush's tax cuts are unaffordable and go to the rich, when in fact they are doing so with stultifying repetitiveness.)

Why don't the Democrats offer solutions when they shoot down GOP ideas?

I've been watching closely with the Social Security. Why don't they offer a solution, rather than a demand?

It is certainly true that conservatives have devoted more energy to the question of fundamentally reshaping Social Security. But this difference has nothing to do with who has more or better ideas and everything to do with priorities. Liberals like Columbia University's Jeffrey Sachs have devoted lots of energy to devising plans to end world poverty. Liberals have devoted enormous attention to the problem of global warming, while the Bush administration insists it will kill any action on the topic. Is this because conservatives have no ideas, or are committed to (as Bush recently described Democrats) "the philosophy of the stop sign, the agenda of the roadblock"? No, it's because conservatives philosophically disagree with those ends.

Bush cool on climate deal

in the interview, Bush was cautious, and environmental experts said rather than risk an open rift, the eight leading nations had decided on an accord offering the barest minimum on planetary warming.

"If this looks like Kyoto, the answer is 'no'. The Kyoto treaty would have wrecked our economy," Bush said [..]

While Blair has made headway on Africa, he has been stymied on climate change by the United States, the world's biggest polluter, which has been grudging in even accepting the world is warming and has not signed up to the Kyoto Protocol.

All the other G8 powers -- Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia -- have signed up to the protocol to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, which came into force in February.

Statement by DNC Chair Howard Dean on the Retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

WASHINGTON, July 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean today applauded Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's service to the nation. He called on President Bush to follow the example set when President Reagan nominated Justice O'Connor by choosing consensus over conflict in selecting a nominee to fill the vacancy:

"As the first woman on the Court, Justice O'Connor is one of our nation's most important historical figures. Her retirement marks a truly significant moment. While we might not have agreed with all of her decisions, she has been a voice of moderation whose career was marked by a commitment to placing the law ahead of partisanship and ideology. It is crucial that the next Supreme Court Justice bring this philosophy to the highest court in the land.

"All Americans today are united in expressing our gratitude to Justice O'Connor for her service to our country: President Bush should choose to continue that unity. Americans deserve a dignified process, one that puts our democracy and the rights of all Americans ahead of partisanship and ideology.

"President Bush should follow the example established by President Reagan when he nominated Justice O'Connor. President Reagan had the courage to stand up to the right wing extremists in his party by choosing a moderate, thoughtful jurist.

"A President faces no more important decision in terms of protecting the rights and liberties of all Americans than nominating a Supreme Court Justice. President Bush has a constitutional responsibility to do what presidents before him have done -- seek the advice of senators from both parties before making a nomination, and choose a mainstream nominee who will protect our most important rights and freedoms.

"Democrats hope this process can be one of consensus, rather than confrontation, but that will be up to President Bush."

Can I have a tiara?

Lash wrote:

Can I have a tiara?

Not only a tiara, but I might just toss in a scepter as well.