It irks me that Lind repeats the reductive, simplistic formula of dividing politics into "economic issues" and "social issues" when the most important issue right now is neither of these, but rather foreign policy. Is the hawkish neocon agenda a thing of social conservatives or economic ones? I would argue that it is driven by the latter and draws its support from the former. In fact, it serves as the link between the two, and this goes a long way to explain WHY the parties are aligned the way they are now. So the problem with Lind's optimistic take on electing conservative populist Democrats is that they are also more likely to support unilateral invasions and domestic spying in the name of "patriotism".

Even economic issues don't slice neatly along left/right lines. For example, economic protectionism and isolationism may seem like a leftist idea, until you consider that about the only politicians left advocating it are paleoconservatives and the Ron Paul types. Basically, the situation is a lot more complicated than Lind bothers to descibe, which is not to say that it can't be described. Here is a rough outline of what such a description may look like.

Domestic Economics:

A1 Welfare state

A2 Market-driven

Trade:

B1 Protectionism

B2 Globalization

Foreign Policy:

C1 Diplomacy

C2 Unilateralism

C3 Isolationism

Domestic Policy:

D1 Privacy

D2 Expanded surveillance

Religion:

E1 Separation of Church and State

E2 State-supported religion

Guns:

F1 Control/Ban

F2 "Over my dead body"

Affirmative action:

G1 Race-based

G2 None

G3 Class-based

Environment:

H1 Protect

H2 Exploit

These divisions may seem arbitrary in that some of the issues are obviously larger than others; however, I divided them based on all the possible ways that someone's platform could diverge. So for example, abortion and evolution would both go under Religion, because the vast majority who are opposed to one would also be opposed to the other, but it didn't make sense to group abortion and affirmative action under "social issues" because many religious blacks are pro-affirmative action yet anti-abortion.

As it stands, the Democrats generally hew to option 1 for each issue, while the Republicans choose option 2. Both parties are somewhat split over the trade issue, and the isolationist wing of the Republican party seems to be re-emerging. The gun issue has effectively been ceded, though the Democrats still nominally lean towards the control side. But overall, when I look at the current alignment, I see very little that can or should be changed. Turning towards protectionism and isolationism may win over Republican populists, but it is simply not a workable policy in the 21st century, and would harm us in the long term. The only thing I would say is that I can deal with ceding the gun issue (though I still think it's a mistake), and that scrapping race-based affirmative action in favor of an economic/class-based approach might go a long way towards changing the perception of the Democratic party.

In fact, on most of the above issues, the problem has been that the Democrats have failed to take a strong stand and articulate their stance in opposition to the Republicans, even when the majority of public opinion theoretically agrees with them (as in the case of the war). What it comes down to is that instead of abandoning core platforms, we simply need to emphasize certain issues more and show Republican-inclined voters that the economy personally affects them far more than whether two strangers want to get married.

Or, you know, have a multi-party system the way normal countries do.

...there's always equestrian, right?

Does this guy really think he's ENCOURAGING women when he says, "We'll take anybody! We don't care!"

I've wondered this myself. Do ugly people know they're ugly, or does everyone to some extent lie to themselves and push away such uncomfortable thoughts in order to go on living? The people likely to be reading this probably have a somewhat high standard for personal dignity, but I'd imagine that there are plenty of women out there for whom desperation trumps ego, and that these women would take him up on the offer even if it means admitting to themselves that they are unattractive and desperate.

Is it sexist? I doubt it. If anything, it probably sucks more for the men who are so desperate that they are advertising for ugly women. Let's please just admit the following: there are people of both genders who are simply unattractive by virtually any standard you choose to apply, regardless of "stereotypes" and "the media", and these people will have a harder time finding mates. Yes, it sucks, and yes, it's totally unfair, but society is under no obligation to annihilate all standards of beauty just so they can feel better about themselves. Blame nature. Maybe someday we'll be able to genetically engineer everyone to be at least moderately attractive. But the Christians will howl, and feminists will probably say it's sexist. So I don't see what the solution is.

Okay, Dave. You could have saved a few hundred keystrokes by just typing "omg juan cole hates teh jewz pass it on lol". Are you happy you got it out of your system now?

...and Bush = Sauron. Unfortunately Obama is starting to seem more like Boromir than Aragorn.