Letters to the Editor
-
@Robert Franklin
Interesting post.
What are the motivations behind the seemingly disappointing positions taken by the majority Dems since last November's election? The answer, I believe, is that the Dems do not want to be seen as soft on terrorism or matters of national security and if that means supporting the Patriot Act or keeping Gitmo open for another year, or so, they will do it. Absolutely, the worst case scenario for the newly elected Dems whether in the WH or in Congress in 2008 is to get caught on the wrong side of national security. I can almost hear the chorus from the repugs if some unpleasantness occurs following the 08 election and the Dems HAD unilaterally messed with what "had worked" for 7 years. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary understand this almost reflexively, even if Cindy Shehan doesn't. Now if the Dems can strenghten national security, then knock themselves out, but they have to very careful about dismantling some visible aspect of national security simply because some lefty pundit is uncomfortable with it.
This is simply a gut-check kind of assessment that reflects pragmatism and anti-populism.
-
Lacking "big bold ideas" Dems still need to address some recurrent themes
Thank you for this lucid examination of Democratic woes and some remedial panaceas.
Ms Walsh rightly observes that the national dominance of Republicans since Nixon was spurred by the social turmoil of the 60s and 70s-rightly or wrongly associated with liberals and Democrats. This vague fear of social unraveling, moral decline and political anarchy has been an extraordinarily rich vein for a generation of Republicans to exploit by some subtle and not so subtle methods. The theme has become the specialty of the Religious Right, culminating with G. W. Bush, and the increasingly dominant theme of the Republican Party. The use of a simplistic and fearsome, binary moral logic reached its zenith, as Ms Walsh points out, in the Schiavo incident.
If the success of the Republicans was not mounted on the merit of any "big bold idea" as Ms Walsh submits, the term "idea" here should not include this theme of social unraveling and its attendent fears. If permitted to call this a "big idea" capable of use for political advantage, then Republican fortunes are very much in its debt. At the same time, this theme of social unraveling remains politically relevant despite the abuse and overappeal to these fears by Republicans. There is yet considerable turmoil and unease resulting from the rapidity of technical and economic change, not to mention the effects of Republican policies on working families. These fears and impulses remain after the most ham-fisted efforts by Republicans to exploit them. Democrats will need to do a better job in countering Republican fear-mongering and of presenting themselves as protectors of a viable social and moral order. Solving the health care crisis or the growth of entitlements may not be possible in today's political climate. Yet, any Democratic success in coming years will require a more conscious effort to counter fears that Republicans have exploited almost reflexively.
-
democrats are not lame, just hesitant...
democrats as a whole, are more sensitive than republicans. democrats ask questions where republicans give answers. democrats are 'blue collar' labor force where republicans are 'white collar' labor force. independants always get left out. they are the non-profit organizations and volunteer groups hired by democrats and sometimes paid for, if profitable, by republicans. there is nothing sensitive about "money". only that it helps make 'those jobs' that are 'human services' oriented, easier to do with funding than without! republicans are corperate where democrats are management anwsering to corperate. 'it's the nature of the beast' in theory...damned if you are and damned if you're not. maybe we all shouldn't all answer to "they saids" anymore...