dagblog - Comments for "If ..."

There are many strands to the

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 21:52:55 +0000

There are many strands to the argument, some more rational than others. A few examples:

- Government is bloated - the classic conservative argument

- Government is corrupt - another classic (appeals to liberal too)

- Government is inept - this is the one you might think to be most important, but you don't often hear it from conservatives

- Government is discriminatory - anti-white, anti-Christian

- Government is tyrannical - lightbulbs, death panels, gun control, etc.

The last two are the bread-and-butter of the modern conservative movement. Before the 1970s, these ideas were more commonly held by liberals: Southern state governments were discriminatory, the CIA and FBI were tyrannical. But in the past few decades, the right has co-opted them. If you watch Fox news, you don't get many stories about government bloat, corruption, and incompetence. You get stories about zealous bureaucrats who ban Christmas celebrations and tell people what laundry detergent they can use.

Do you think part of the

MrSmith1 — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:46:18 +0000

In reply to Smith, I don't have any easy

Do you think part of the problem is the conflating of the actions of Government with the actions of Congress? Seems kind of weird that the Republicans can convince people that Government doesn't work simply by themselves being recalcitrant legislators ... then, as long as they can throw monkey wrenches into the system, they can continue to prove the validity of their theory that Government doesn't work. Wow, that really sucks for us. LOL

But damn, either way We never

MrSmith1 — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:30:14 +0000

In reply to The conservatives seem to

But damn, either way We never get to actually wear the jackboots.

The conservatives seem to

Michael Maiello — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:44:49 +0000

In reply to If ...

The conservatives seem to have bought into a couple of clever concepts that help them survive in any environment.

The first is that there's a tyranny of the majority at work on issues where they are clearly in the minority. This is there response to the country loosening up and embracing humanity on social and civil rights issues. When they can't claim majority support for banning same sex marriage, they will claim that they are now an oppressed minority being forced to accept what they find reprehensible. Wrong? Yes. Convincing to the adherent? Yes. Of course, Genghis has chronicled how the right used the language of victimization to motivate its base.

The second concept they have is that of the silent majority. When they're ascendant it's just proof to them that everybody really shares their values, they just don't talk about them because, you know, jackbooted liberal thugs. When they're not ascendant it's because the real will of the majority is being thwarted by, you know, jackbooted liberal thugs.

Smith, I don't have any easy

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:07:19 +0000

In reply to You may be right ... and your

Smith, I don't have any easy answer to these questions, but they are absolutely the right questions to ask. Once we give up the illusion that middle America is in the grip of a temporary hysteria or that the silent sensible majority will ride to the rescue whenever it wakes up, we will be forced to confront the fact that not enough Americans trust the government.

Without that trust, legislating new programs or even sustaining existing ones is exceedingly difficult, and the only way for a liberal to win an election is to abandon liberal principles and pray that the Republicans nominate more Christine O'Donnells. Look at Claire McCaskill. She's virtually a Republican already, and she cynically promoted nutcase Todd Akin in the Republican primary because he's the only one she can beat (maybe). This is our answer to the rise of the right?

It can't be. It won't work. Progressives have to stop coasting on the legacy of their 20th century dominance and start doing what the first progressives did 100 years ago--convince people that government can and will be effective, not only in sustaining our current way of life but in improving it.

There is so much that can be

ocean-kat — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:51:26 +0000

In reply to You may be right ... and your

There is so much that can be done to change things and it would be so easy but the damn democrats in congress just won't do it. I'm not talking about hard politically dangerous ideas like privatizing health care with a government run single payer model. Here is one simple change that could have profound consequences.

Eliminate the filibuster in the senate.Oh yes republicans will rage but the public would see it as fair. Most people would feel that, of course if you get 51 votes the legislation should pass. Sure that means democrats don't get to filibuster republican legislation. But I think we'll gain much more than we lose. Getting democrats together is like herding cats. We're just too individualistic and diverse. Republicans submit more to party authority and now, with the moderate republicans being purged, march more in lock step.They're just more effective in using the filibuster to block democrat policies and appointments than dems are in blocking republicans.

Democrats do have a lot of good policy ideas that would benefit the public. It wouldn't have to be far left progressive legislation, just good effective center left governing. If the public saw us getting things done that seemed to improve things we'd get more support and the public would slowly turn left.

Remember the gang of 14 back in 2005? Democrats were filibustering some conservative court appointees. Senate republicans were talking about using the "nuclear option" of changing the senate filibuster rules. I was praying they would. End or lessen the filibuster that gets used against us far more often than we use it against them and the republicans get any negative backlash for ending it. Would have been a big win for democrats in the long term even though Bush would have gotten his court nominees passed. Which by the way most were approved anyway after the gang of 14 stopped the filibuster.

I think it became obvious the filibuster needs to go in Obama's first two years when a majority democratic congress needed 60 votes to pass damn near anything. And do the republicans get blamed for their obstructionism by the public? Hell no, mostly they blame the whole do nothing congress. Do you think if republicans get control of the senate the dems will stick together enough to filibuster anything but the most egregious legislation?

They were fighting during the

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 05:15:00 +0000

In reply to You may be right ... and your

They were fighting during the FDR years too - just keep fighting.

Once in a while stop, whisper "bi-partisanship", and then get back to fighting.

It's the lay of the land. Fight till you drop. Grandkids fight till you drop.

Any idea what politics were like in the time of Saladin? Moderates got blown away by extremist crazies. Seriously. As it was, so it shall be.

You may be right ... and your

MrSmith1 — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 02:27:18 +0000

In reply to Uh...newsflash, Mr. Smith,

You may be right ... and your answer is a bitter concept to accept. But, if you're right, why are we still fighting? Why not give in to the inevitable GOP ideological victory now and save ourselves from all those years of anguish and dashed hopes?

Is it possible to stop the Conservative star from further ascending? Can we ever force it into decline? What will it take? How will we do it? What do we have to do to get them to knuckle under to OUR ideological beliefs? Don't tell me we can't or that we never will, humor me and give me a plausible scenario in which we succeed. You know you have one in the back of your mind somewhere. It's what keeps you going, it's what keeps all of us going.

Oh jeez. Yeah, that's what I

MrSmith1 — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 02:03:15 +0000

In reply to Registration Squads? Sounds

Oh jeez. Yeah, that's what I meant. Pfft.

The difference, of course, being that registration squads want you to have papers and will help you to get them.

Registration Squads? Sounds

Resistance — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:14:50 +0000

In reply to I have said for a long time

Registration Squads?

Sounds like a ~~Hitler~~ youth movement, checking mandatory voter cards, to see what party affiliation you support.

Papers please.