"THE RIGHT'S GRAND AMBITION..."

I am making copies of the article. It lays it out in terms most of us can grasp.

FINALLY, a workable platform that has a positive message. Maybe more people will begin to understand how much they have lost in the past two years. Now I need to take the time to read the entire article.


I do not believe that most Americans want what the right wants. But I also think many cannot see the choices clearly or grasp the long-term implications for the country.
This is a failure of left-liberal politics. Constructing an effective response requires a politics that goes right at the ideology, translates the meaning of Bush's governing agenda, lays out the implications for society and argues unabashedly for a more positive, inclusive, forward-looking vision. No need for scaremongering attacks; stick to the well-known facts. Pose some big questions... We are a very wealthy (and brutally powerful) nation, so why do people experience so much stress and confinement in their lives, a sense of loss and failure? The answers, I suggest, will lead to a new formulation of what progressives want.

There are so many points to be made that will open eyes. I'm reading something else right now from Truthout about the followers of Straussian philosophy of government among the neocons which says, basically, that citizens need to be led by leaders who have no moral obligations except to lead. I don't have time now to provide a link, but I'll be back later. Ah, I have it on Wordpad:
===========================================

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/050903I.shtml
Suddenly, political Washington is abuzz about Leo Strauss, who arrived in the United States in 1938 and taught at several major universities before his death in 1973.
Thanks to the "Week in Review'' section of last Sunday's 'New York Times' and another investigative article in this week's 'New Yorker' magazine, the cognoscenti have suddenly been made aware that key neo-conservative strategists behind the Bush administration's aggressive foreign and military policy consider themselves to be followers of Strauss, although the philosopher - an expert on Plato and Aristotle - rarely addressed current events in his writings.
The most prominent is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, now widely known as ''Wolfowitz of Arabia'' for his obsession with ousting Iraq's Saddam Hussein as the first step in transforming the entire Arab Middle East. Wolfowitz is also seen as the chief architect of Washington's post-9/11 global strategy, including its controversial pre-emption policy.
Two other very influential Straussians include 'Weekly Standard' Chief Editor William Kristol and Gary Schmitt, founder, chairman and director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a six-year-old neo-conservative group whose alumni include Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, as well as a number of other senior foreign policy officials.
PNAC's early prescriptions and subsequent open letters to President George W. Bush on how to fight the war on terrorism have anticipated to an uncanny extent precisely what the administration has done.
=================================
Like Plato, Strauss taught that within societies, ''some are fit to lead, and others to be led'', according to Drury. But, unlike Plato, who believed that leaders had to be people with such high moral standards that they could resist the temptations of power, Strauss thought that ''those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior''.
For Strauss, ''religion is the glue that holds society together'', said Drury, who added that Irving Kristol, among other neo-conservatives, has argued that separating church and state was the biggest mistake made by the founders of the U.S. republic.
''Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing'', because it leads to individualism, liberalism and relativism, precisely those traits that might encourage dissent, which in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. ''You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty,'' according to Drury.

It's my feeling that the left -- progressives -- need to discuss the platform (vs. our reaction to Bush), issue by issue. There are points being made on the right which we should look at from a fresh of view, try not to respond with the usual knee-jerk. One of these has been fiscal responsibility (the issue which, in a switch!, the left now owns and should run with); another is the reach of the federal government. Just as the right has stolen issues from us, we need to reexamine those issues, break them down into their components, and take them back.

Some points I'd like to discuss:

America should not continue to seek to be a super-power. Our military should be in a process of being slimmed down...

The federal government must be curtailed in its spending, in its alliance with big money, in its approach to social problems, etc. etc.

On the other hand, socialism as applied to health and other safety nets should not be a bugaboo. Government administration of healthcare, for example, works just fine in a number of democratic countries. We need to stop bending over for United Healthcare and big pharma.

We need to build an educational system from which we all can expect a good deal more. Learning how to think and articulate in a variety of languages and fields should not be "relegated" to magnet schools and elite private universities.

Civil liberties are not a privilege but a right which cannot be erased FOR ANY REASON. The idea that the American people haven't got the guts to face down "terrorism" with all their liberties in tact is a crock of the worst liquids from the Bush septic system. Don't question the necessity of civil liberties and then ride around with a flag on your car.

Who says we shouldn't decide for ourselves whether to own a personal firearm; which gender to love and raise kids with; which school to go to; in what kind of household to raise our kids, be they procreated or adopted; and how and when to end our own lives, if we should choose to do so. Does any religion have the right to trump the rule of law in this democratic republic? Shouldn't religion maintain the respect of most people where respect is due, but stay entirely out of our political and legal territories?

We might also have large, colorful mock funerals of Strauss in the streets, carrying signs with little reminders of his philosophy and its links to the current administration -- quote by quote!

The trouble we are in right now makes that Cuban thing during the JFK years seem like playground stuff.

I can only hope the country comes to its senses.

I don't, as most of you seem to be indicating, think the focus should be trying to wake up the people on the left -- but to wake up the people "going along" on the right.

The conservatives in this country have as part of their core constituency -- people who absolutely should not be there. They truly are the people steadying the hand of someone trying to slit their throats.

And for those people who proclaim Jesus as their Savior or God -- but who go along with the conservatives because of the abortion issue -- they are making a pact with the Devil.

They are the ones who have to be awakened.

Yes, I think you're right, Frank. But the point is that many centrist Republicans (I know some) dislike Bush and his policies but have nowhere to go -- they say. I think we need to give them some well-thought-out options and that's why I think the Dems will have to quit playing the same old tune!

CodeBorg just posted this in another thread and I can't resist posting it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40212-2003May10.html

Really, I think the wake-up call you mention is needed right through all constituencies, cutting through the media fog.

Tartarin

Well, I hope somebody does something right -- and I hope everyone who has to wake up -- actually wakes up.

These are very, very dangerous people. Give 'em four years more and there is no telling how much damage they will cause -- some of it already irreparable.

Wow! Just finished the article. It could be used as a guidebook for the Democratic platform.

Frank said:
I don't, as most of you seem to be indicating, think the focus should be trying to wake up the people on the left -- but to wake up the people "going along" on the right.

Frank, with the right plan, it could work with both groups. Greider's last paragraph says why this could be successful for both left and those on the right who are uncomfortable with this administration, but don't see any other options out there. Here is the excerpt:

My own conviction is that a lot of Americans are ready to take up these questions and many others. Some are actually old questions--issues of power that were not resolved in the great reform eras of the past. They await a new generation bold enough to ask if our prosperous society is really as free and satisfied as it claims to be. When conscientious people find ideas and remedies that resonate with the real experiences of Americans, then they will have their vision, and perhaps the true answer to the right wing.

To do that, there has to be clear and workable plans ready to be put into place with a new administration. For the right to become enthusiastic participants, the Dems need to pick a few strong issues, such as civil rights, health care, education and openness in government. (This is a vital weakness in the Bush administration--they either have to open up or shut up.)

I also think that moderate Republicans are concerned about the role of religion in government. By showing how entrenched, and how well hidden, some of the powerful movements have become, the Dems have a powerful and positive platform on which to lay bare the hypocrisy and secretiveness of GW's admin, with the goal of 'honesty' in government. (Radical thought).

Tartarin, the list you propose for the Democrats to address is worthy, but perhaps too ambitious, especially for the moderate Republicans. I would rather see a few issues addressed which have a good chance of gaining acceptance than trying to solve all the problems in one election. There is too much riding on it this time and the appeal must include a general audience rather than just Democrats. (It's hard to choose which issue--they've all taken such a beating.)

Well, personally, I think this is a power thread, but it needs thought.

I have a conservative republican son-in-law who is with one of the big Wall Street firms (how much more representative can you get?). I have known him a long time, and love him dearly, and my daughter says he keeps asking us over so he can argue with me. Which we do. The thing is, he has been saying that if the dems come up with a candidate he can go for, he'll vote. He voted for Bill Bradley, because he thought Bradley was smart and could do good things. he's not the only one. My son - not quite so conservative - goes out of his way to reassure me he did not vote for Bush. So what are they looking for, and who do they want?

Iraq has both cleared and clouded the issue for them. The point of making America safe for democracy does not resonate, but getting rid of Saddam Hussein does. They both do businesss with other countries - my son is in Germany now. So they're exposed to how others look at us. One is in money, the other in chemical formuae, so it's not just buying and selling. A long way round to the point that they want a better future, but are not satisfied with what they see.

There are a lot of people like that. But they won't move unless they hear a clear, strong voice offering some specifics. I wish I could personally kick the candidates to make them speak up. But more than that, I think we need clear strong, unafraid voices to state in simple terms what is wrong with the policies and people running this country. Most people I know relate far more to the person saying these things than to the general principles. Also - at this point the family favors Kerry, for different reasons.

Diane - I read that too. But we are not the ones who have to be gotten to. We are the ones who read and feel and discuss. That's why I get so hipped on having that clear voice speak loudly and feelingly to the people.

And, I have this visceral reaction to Norquist and Rove - to most of them, actualy, but particularly to those two. They represent everything I detest about the repub party. Now, is Racicot stepping down because of Rove?

I think one of the things which most troubles me is the unwillingness of (any) candidates in just about any recent election to speak out. It's all about keeping the dogs from barking, and many of those dogs are corporate pit bulls. That's why I'm not committing to any candidate who appears to be in thrall to corporate interests -- a commitment to myself this time which may rule out any candidate in either of the two main parties (not that I'd vote Republican unless you began to remove my fingernails slowly, with a hot wrench). Dean appears to be closest to being a clean candidate at this point, but who knows. Honesty and independence are so high on my list that I can no longer give in to the comfort of voting for anyone who'll get the current bastards out of office. There's always the possibility the Bushies will hang themselves, of course, though Greider doesn't seem to think they will.