georgeob1 wrote:But the summary you provided Nimh addresses only rather trivial (but emotionally laden) issues on which all can (1) Agree without penalty; (2) enable them to promise the relief of contemporary preoccupations without (to that audience at least) having to deal with the consequences or side effects; (3) create the impression that they will deliver profound changwithout having to deal with the specifics.
Fair enough. Cant argue with that.. with any of that, pretty much.
georgeob1 wrote:The very absence of substance in it, is what enabled them to avoid the appearance of substantial disagreement. With the possible exception of Edwards, none of them is campaigning for anything - they are instead campaigning against the current adnministration.
This seems more of a disconnect. Substance-free?
The question of universal health insurance is, according to the voters at least, one of the most important substantive issues America faces at the moment. If a universal health insurance system would be established it would be a drastic change with a profound effect on the lives of millions of people. What it reminds me of is how Social Democratic PM Drees introduced a first, modest, universal pension plan in Holland in the 50s, and earned such repute and loyalty that he became known as "Father Drees". This could be of something near to comparable with that...
It would also have a hard to underestimate impact on the prevailing discourse of what is "acceptable" or "feasible" in politics, what is "American", even. It would mark a major seachange away from the libertarian rhetorics against the government taking on any new responsibilities in social programs that has held sway since 1980.
And that's just one of the substantive issues brought up in that summary. Guantanamo and policies on torture may not have an impact on any great
number of people, but the choice inherent in it is fundamental and very substantive, as on the Republican side John McCain also recognizes. It's one of those issues that brings the question to bear, in the way that McCain phrases it as well, of what it means to
be American, what duties and moral obligations should be considered to be included in it.
The starkly disparate position that all Democratic candidates take on what to do with Iraq is also hardly free of substance. The current administration is demonstrably on its way to establish a long-term US presence and involvement in Iraqi power structures. No new President can "end the war" in a year, for sure - there's a fair bit of rhetoric involved in all this, of course. But the long-term choices a Democratic President would make are very substantively different from those any of the credible Republicans would make.
These are all issues very much of substance, which the Democratic candidates seem to all largely be in agreement on. Of the three issues, the differences are largest on Iraq, but even there they are nuanced.
So, let me turn this around and ask you something. What would you say are those big, substantive issues that you see the Democratic field as seriously divided on?
