That was such an interesting exchange let’s try to keep it going. And as much as I enjoyed the South Carolina travel log, I want to pick up on Hankster’s point that people don’t vote for people whom they perceive are looking down on them, it’s “the Dem’s black cloud” as he put it.
However, I believe the majority of non-investment-banker American’s know both parties look down on them. All the candidates are well-educated millionaires; even Barack made nearly $5 million last year. And they know neither party is going to do anything meaningful for them. Neither party will take on the corporate oligarchy that feeds and sustains them, nor tackle any important issue facing the nation.
But they think Republicans (at least until the current administration) will do a better job of maintaining a strong military and protecting the homeland, and probably little else that might screw up their lives.
The Democrats, on the other hand, are born scolds and meddlers. They won’t let you smoke anywhere, you have to accept a gay couple’s marriage as the same as yours, the woods are for hikers and skiers, not for guns, ATVs or snowmobiles, somebody else’s kid gets preference at the college your kid wants to attend, no dodge ball on the playground, no religion of any kind in school, and everyone is a victim.
I’m not saying these positions are wrong – in fact I favor a number of them -- but they are frequently being forced on an unwilling population, and the Democrats have a way of making you feel that if you don’t agree, you are a reactionary clod; someone to be bullied into submission or pitied as a fool. This gets old quickly.
A better strategy would be for the Democrats to pick a really large national problem, one that all Americans can accept as an appropriate target for our national attention and treasure. Then they need to find a way to come together as a party and agree on a plan to address this problem as a party. In this way they will distract attention from their not-so-latent social-engineering addiction and stand in clear contrast to the Republicans, who seem to have had no agenda of any kind since about 1982.
Do you think this is a strategy that could work? Then what is the issue?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Global warming -- the Dems clearly have the upper hand and Al Gore while the GOP is all over the map on what, when and how the fed should address this problem
The Dems need to get behind a massive program of public investment. They should pass veto-proof legislation that repeals Bush's tax cuts for the rich and uses the funds to pay for energy efficiency audits for homes and businesses, rebates and tax incentives for improving energy efficiency.
Update and improve on the Kyoto Protocol and get those emission caps set with realistic goals that are addressed now, not years and years down the road.
Also, address wind and solar power, as well as a major overhaul of the electricity grid (we New Yorkers have had it with the black-outs and brown-outs!) and fixing that national mess of a passenger rail system, Amtrak!
This is a cause everyone could rally around and the Dems already have a decent blueprint to kick-start the action.
Sorry, that Anonymous comment is actually me,
AY.
jbd's link is a dead end.
I agree that energy independence appears to be the foundation on which so many of our problems sit upon. It is also one which conservatives have less leverage. Newt had reached out to stake a claim on this issue from a conservative point of view but Republicans tend towards a hands off approach to business. You don't have to look twice at Detroit to see this approach hasn't had legs.
As to Republicans not having an agenda; look at the recent Supreme Court appointments.
I used to see this little old man selling Daily Worker newspapers in Greenwich Village. I found it hard to fathom how he could still believe in communism after all of what history has played out as its best shots. I look at spending in the Reagan and GW Bush administrations and wonder how they keep talking the talk but not walking the walk.
Except for a few notable crackpots like James Inhofe of OK, climate change and global warming looks politically doable in the future once Bush gets out of office.
Public investment is absolutely necessary on a number of fronts. Global warming is only one. Federally funded clean coal technology research is one area that could help considering we're the Saudi Arabia of coal.
But where does the $$ come from?
We need to rethink our defense spending. We spend close to a Trillion $$ on defense and I'm not sure where the attack is coming from. If we're the beacon of hope throughout the world why do we spend $$ on defense as if we're constantly under siege.
None of this is possible unless the dems get a veto proof majority in congress (unlikely) or get a dem elected president (more likely).
I’m going to make it unanimous and go with “energy independence” as the issue the Dems should make theirs. In addition to actually being good for the environment, the economy and national defense, real success would have the added benefit of making America feel good about itself and optimistic for the future, which might give us the courage to tackle other difficult problems.
In response to Birdman I say that taking on this problem does not necessarily mean spending untold billions of taxpayer dollars. It will take a lot of political will to fight the entrenched economic powers that have a stake in the status quo, but unleashing the power of capitalism is what is required. The money is out there.
Post a Comment