[Randman]

What are the Dems thinking? Despite any advantages of Dean running the party, most people are not going to forget the images of him self-destructing during the election.
And the GOP surely will be there to reinforce such an image. Next to Kerry as the candidate, this has to go down a real stinkeroo of a decision.

[mitchell_pgh]

As a Republican, I feel Dean has a much better chance of making an impact as compared to Kerry. I would NEVER vote for Kerry. I do not trust Kerry. Kerry has a horrific voting history of continuously voting against progress.

I would at least consider what Dean has to say before making a decision. A luxury Kerry no longer has in my book.

[Millennium]

I very much oppose Dean's politics, and I doubt the man's stability. But I don't think anyone can deny that the American Left needs a shot in the arm, and he has proven his ability to provide that. He's the Steve Jobs of politics, for good or for ill (to be honest, both for good and for ill).

It may become a problem if he remains chairman for too long; he stands to destroy everything which he rebuilds. But I hope that he's learned enough from the 2004 nomination process to know when to tone things down.

[Randman]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I hope that he's learned enough from the 2004 nomination process to know when to tone things down.

But the general public image of him isn't going to change much.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I very much oppose Dean's politics, and I doubt the man's stability. But I don't think anyone can deny that the American Left needs a shot in the arm, and he has proven his ability to provide that.

The question is, do mainstream liberals need a leftist shot in the arm? Or is the takeover by the left the reason the Democrats are becoming more and more isolated?

That's not for me to answer, but I do have an interest in two viable parties in this country. A more moderate Democratic Party (or some other viable, electable party) is needed to keep the Republicans from becoming too extreme.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The question is, do mainstream liberals need a leftist shot in the arm? Or is the takeover by the left the reason the Democrats are becoming more and more isolated?

I don't know. I wasn't talking so much in terms of constituency as in terms of energy. Moreover, what they need is positive energy, working towards something, rather than just resisting stuff. Dean was able to do that.

That's not for me to answer, but I do have an interest in two viable parties in this country. A more moderate Democratic Party (or some other viable, electable party) is needed to keep the Republicans from becoming too extreme.

See, that's why I think the Democrats need to shift further left: to provide a balancing factor. Sometimes, the only thing that can balance one extreme is another.

We saw this during the late Bush and early Clinton years. Republicans were pretty far to the right at that point, and Democrats were pretty far to the left. There were no real candidates from either party who presented themselves as centrist, and there was much talk of trying to create a third "center party". As soon as that movement started to gain momentum, both parties rushed to the center and tried to grab it. For whatever reason, the Republicans won that round, and have since started to pull the center back towards the right.

What the Left needs to do, much as it pains me to admit it, is to keep on pulling, to provide a counterbalancing force and keep the center more towards the actual center (or at least slow the rightward shift). Right now, they're not doing that. They're trying to hold onto their base by staying put, right when they most need to be moving. Politics is not a static line; it's almost like a kind of undulating balloon, and it's constantly moving towards whichever side is pulling strongest. If you don't want it to shift right, you have to pull left.

Even Dean wasn't really all that extreme, when you think about it. Certainly he was far-left, but not too much further than most of his colleagues in the Democrats. There are plenty of people more extreme than him in the party.

I'm not terribly worried about the Republicans becoming the sole electable party, though. This has happened more than once before in the history of the US, and every time it happens, it's followed almost immediately by a schism. The Republican Party itself was formed this way some 150 years ago, back when the Democratic-Republican party took one-party status (I couldn't make that name up if I tried). The beginnings of such a schism are already starting to form within the Republicans, and it could very well be inevitable at this point even if the Democrats do not die out. Mark my words: if there is ever only one electable party, it will not stay that way for long.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Randman:
But the general public image of him isn't going to change much.

Not immediately, no, but within two or three years it'll be mostly forgotten, and even those who do remember won't care much.

Think about it: what do you know about the current leader of the party? Probably not much; he's not in the limelight very often. That's deliberate: party leaders work behind the scenes. They try not to attract much attention to themselves, because that would take the attention away from their candidates and elected officials, which is where it belongs. If Dean wants to get the Shrieking Dean image off of his back, then this is the perfect position for him to take, because it means he gets to lay low while still making the difference that he wants to make.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I don't know. I wasn't talking so much in terms of constituency as in terms of energy. Moreover, what they need is positive energy, working towards something, rather than just resisting stuff. Dean was able to do that.


See, that's why I think the Democrats need to shift further left: to provide a balancing factor. Sometimes, the only thing that can balance one extreme is another.

We saw this during the late Bush and early Clinton years. Republicans were pretty far to the right at that point, and Democrats were pretty far to the left. There were no real candidates from either party who presented themselves as centrist, and there was much talk of trying to create a third "center party". As soon as that movement started to gain momentum, both parties rushed to the center and tried to grab it. For whatever reason, the Republicans won that round, and have since started to pull the center back towards the right.

What the Left needs to do, much as it pains me to admit it, is to keep on pulling, to provide a counterbalancing force and keep the center more towards the actual center (or at least slow the rightward shift). Right now, they're not doing that. They're trying to hold onto their base by staying put, right when they most need to be moving. Politics is not a static line; it's almost like a kind of undulating balloon, and it's constantly moving towards whichever side is pulling strongest. If you don't want it to shift right, you have to pull left.

Even Dean wasn't really all that extreme, when you think about it. Certainly he was far-left, but not too much further than most of his colleagues in the Democrats. There are plenty of people more extreme than him in the party.

I'm not terribly worried about the Republicans becoming the sole electable party, though. This has happened more than once before in the history of the US, and every time it happens, it's followed almost immediately by a schism. The Republican Party itself was formed this way some 150 years ago, back when the Democratic-Republican party took one-party status (I couldn't make that name up if I tried). The beginnings of such a schism are already starting to form within the Republicans, and it could very well be inevitable at this point even if the Democrats do not die out. Mark my words: if there is ever only one electable party, it will not stay that way for long.

I think the further left the Democrats go, the more isolated and smaller they will become. The country isn't going to follow them, they are just going to be appealing to a smaller and smaller base of extremists. Only true believers will be "excited" by the prospect of being permanently out of power and rendered increasingly irrelevant. Most people find winning more exciting than losing.

The danger of that from my point of view is that it will free the Republicans from any need to appeal to the center. That's not necessarily a good thing even from the point of view of a Republican.

I agree with you that in the long run, if this is how it plays out, then there will be a new middle party that will be carved out of the rest of the landscape. The Democrats will go the way of the Whigs, and as you say, the Republicans will schism. My guess is they would schism into theological and more libertarian wings.

So I agree with you in the long term, but I worry about the short term. I think that moving further left would be stupid for the Democrats (except their hopeless idealists), and for a few election cycles, probably bad for the country as well.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think the further left the Democrats go, the more isolated and smaller they will become.

Many analysts on the Democrat side also believe this, and so they're trying to 'play it safe', as it were. The problem is, this assumes that the center never moves.

Truth be told, if we were to look at the political spectrum of the whole world, even the Democrats are somewhat on the right. What Americans call the center believe very differently from what people in the UK call the center, and they in turn believe differently from the "center" in China, Australia, France, Iran, Germany, North or South Korea, or anywhere else.

On anything smaller than a worldwide level, the center isn't static. It can move, and it is moving, as we've seen from 1996 onward. Republicans have a solid hold on the center, but it's not because the Republicans have moved left: it's because the center has moved right. If the Democrats want to survive, they need to try and pull the center back to the left. How do they do this? The same way the Republicans did it, only in reverse: sell the left, make it appealing. The current Republican Party places a great emphasis on morals, but the Democrats can play that game too, if they do it right.

The country isn't going to follow them...

They followed the Republicans, so why not the reverse?

The Democrats gained power in the mid-20th Century because they showed an almost infectious enthusiasm for getting things done. They knew what they wanted to do, they communicated it clearly, and they got it working, and they did this all while the Republicans were resting on their laurels. What we've seen in the Republican rise to power really isn't all that different. The "Contract with America" was the same sort of thing: a vision and a plan, and something that the Republican candidates could become enthusiastic about in a time when the Democrats didn't have anything similar.

The Democrats have come up with something similar recently, but they're not pushing it very well. The candidates aren't enthused, and if they aren't then the constituency certainly won't be. They haven't even given it a name. Not that pretentious buzzwords mean much, but naming a thing is very powerful symbolically: people name things that they consider important. This is a large part of what made the Contract with America such a brilliant move: it stuck in people's minds.

They are just going to be appealing to a smaller and smaller base of extremists.

They will, unless they make it appealing to the center, as Republicans did. Contrary to popular belief, this is not impossible. The center is not a great immovable mass.

Most people find winning more exciting than losing.

Indeed, but they find having a real purpose -something to work towards- more exciting than just standing around and holding the fort. Liberalism has always been more exciting than conservatism, and the Republicans have pulled the ultimate coup in this sense: they became liberals while leaving the label behind so that they can still use it as an insult, and no one even realizes that it's happened.

The danger of that from my point of view is that it will free the Republicans from any need to appeal to the center. That's not necessarily a good thing even from the point of view of a Republican.

Why appeal to the center when you can reshape it in your own image? That's what Republicans have been doing since 1996, through what amounts to a massive marketing campaign.

I agree with you that in the long run, if this is how it plays out, then there will be a new middle party that will be carved out of the rest of the landscape. The Democrats will go the way of the Whigs, and as you say, the Republicans will schism. My guess is they would schism into theological and more libertarian wings.

That's my guess as well.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Truth be told, if we were to look at the political spectrum of the whole world, even the Democrats are somewhat on the right. What Americans call the center believe very differently from what people in the UK call the center, and they in turn believe differently from the "center" in China, Australia, France, Iran, Germany, North or South Korea, or anywhere else.

That's probably true, but I don't think it is terribly relevant to this discussion. The reason the US political landscape is different from other countries is because our political traditions and heritage are different. The roots of that go back literally hundreds of years. That's a little beyond the scope of what we are discussing here.

On anything smaller than a worldwide level, the center isn't static. It can move, and it is moving, as we've seen from 1996 onward.

I'm not sure that I entirely agree with this. It's very flattering to the Republicans, but I think it is overstated. Of course, a party can convince people that it is more responsible and trustworthy than the other party, and that can cause voting patterns to shift. But I don't know that it follows that people themselves change their core political beliefs. Just because a person goes from voting Democratic to voting Republican doesn't mean that they went from liberal to conservative. It can also be because they just see their interests represented better in one party other than the other. As an example, there is the quote by former Democrat Ronald Reagan, who commented that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him.

Another larger example could be voting patterns in the South. Southern Democrats were never liberal, yet for decades they were in a liberal party. Since the 1970s, they have been shifting over to the Republican Party. At the same time, northeastern Republicans have been shifting over to the Democratic Party. Did people become more or less liberal and conservative, or did they just switch party affiliation? It's probably more the latter.

On the other hand, I do think that the intellectual initiative has shifted to conservatives, especially on economic and foreign policy issues, and perhaps some social issues. The Democrats seem to have anchored themselves at their high water mark in the 1970s. I see this a lot in legal opinions. Whether you are talking about things like affirmative action, econimic policies or (outside the law) in foreign policy, it is as if many Democrats turned off their intellectual engine and dropped anchor in 1973. On the other hand, the country isn't the same for anyone, and certain ideas have percolated about in ways that seem "liberal." Racial and gender equality are among those issues, and you can begin to see the same thing in gay rights, and other issues that can be called individualism issues. The country as a whole (including younger conservatives) has embraced many of those attitudes at the very time you think the country has become more conservative.

The problem for the Democrats is that just as some of their ideas have been embraced, they haven't updated their responses to changes. So, for example, instead of embracing the widespread commitment to racial equality, they are still defending the overwhelmingly unpopular idea of racial preferences. Instead of recognizing new geopolitical realities, they treat foreign policy exclusively through the lens of Vietnam. And above all, they remain far too wedded to the Sixties and Seventies model of legislation from the bench. All of this is isolating them, and making them unacceptable to many people in the center who otherwise could be their natural constituency. So the center votes Republican, even when they have a lot of disagreements with that party as well.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think the further left the Democrats go, the more isolated and smaller they will become. The country isn't going to follow them, they are just going to be appealing to a smaller and smaller base of extremists. Only true believers will be "excited" by the prospect of being permanently out of power and rendered increasingly irrelevant. Most people find winning more exciting than losing.

<snip>

I agree with you that in the long run, if this is how it plays out, then there will be a new middle party that will be carved out of the rest of the landscape. The Democrats will go the way of the Whigs, and as you say, the Republicans will schism. My guess is they would schism into theological and more libertarian wings.

It's a bit early for that don't you think? All the doom and gloom about the democratic party being spoken by right-leaning members of the forum seems awfully premature. We have now had a right wing president in this country who is being written a blank check by a slight majority of the country because he looks like an everyman and goes to church and isn't shy about it. The right is galvanized by religion right now. Once that zeal fades, there will still be a right and left in this country. People seem to think no one voted for the democrats in the last election.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
It's a bit early for that don't you think? All the doom and gloom about the democratic party being spoken by right-leaning members of the forum seems awfully premature. We have now had a right wing president in this country who is being written a blank check by a slight majority of the country because he looks like an everyman and goes to church and isn't shy about it. The right is galvanized by religion right now. Once that zeal fades, there will still be a right and left in this country. People seem to think no one voted for the democrats in the last election.

You'd have a point, if it weren't for the fact that...

1. the Democrats are losing House and Senate seats at a rather alarming rate.

2. they couldn't unseat a president as controversial as Bush.

3. they will be losing 1-2 SCOTUS justices in the next 4 years (biggest loss, IMO).

As for being "galvanized by religion". When you have Hillary pounding the pavement in defense of religious values, you gotta admit that you have a problem.

Middle America is growing at a faster rate than the Left. Why is that? To be frank, maybe it's because they're more into starting families (or family people are more likely to become more conservative). Perhaps, the Left is aborting a large % of their future voters?

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
You'd have a point, if it weren't for the fact that...

1. the Democrats are losing House and Senate seats at a rather alarming rate.

It's been three legislative terms since the switch and the religious fervor has just gotten started.

2. they couldn't unseat a president as controversial as Bush.

Bush very nearly unseated himself. He was elected by the narrowest margin a wartime president has ever had. You do like to forget about 48% don't you?

3. they will be losing 1-2 SCOTUS justices in the next 4 years (biggest loss, IMO).

Last time I checked, Renquist wasn't exactly a friend of "the left."

As for being "galvanized by religion". When you have Hillary pounding the pavement in defense of religious values, you gotta admit that you have a problem.

Middle America is growing at a faster rate than the Left. Why is that? To be frank, maybe it's because they're more into starting families (or family people are more likely to become more conservative). Perhaps, the Left is aborting a large % of their future voters?

Nice asinine comment at the end. Very characteristic. Why is the stereotype always perpetuated that political views have something to do with people who start families? The fact is, the Republican party found their lightning rod: fundamentalist religion; and everything that goes with it including bigotry against homosexuals, non-christians, and the perpetuation of scientific ignorance. Convince people of widespread moral decay and you've got a legion of hand-raising evangelicals to legislate morality on us all.

On topic, I don't know that Howard Dean is as liberal as people like to believe. He never supported a national health care system and only wanted civil unions for homosexuals, believed in states rights on gun control, etc... Kerry was the more liberal choice. The sad thing is the Dean scream will be replayed over and over by the media because people love to watch others do something unscripted. He's got a lot of talking to do to get people to look past it.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:


It's been three legislative terms since the switch and the religious fervor has just gotten started.

[/b]

Bush very nearly unseated himself. He was elected by the narrowest margin a wartime president has ever had. You do like to forget about 48% don't you?

[/b]

Last time I checked, Renquist wasn't exactly a friend of "the left."



Nice asinine comment at the end. Very characteristic. Why is the stereotype always perpetuated that political views have something to do with people who start families? The fact is, the Republican party found their lightning rod: fundamentalist religion; and everything that goes with it including bigotry against homosexuals, non-christians, and the perpetuation of scientific ignorance. Convince people of widespread moral decay and you've got a legion of hand-raising evangelicals to legislate morality on us all.

On topic, I don't know that Howard Dean is as liberal as people like to believe. He never supported a national health care system and only wanted civil unions for homosexuals, believed in states rights on gun control, etc... Kerry was the more liberal choice. The sad thing is the Dean scream will be replayed over and over by the media because people love to watch others do something unscripted. He's got a lot of talking to do to get people to look past it. [/B]

Yep, I like my "asinine" comment, and it's probably more accurate than you'd ever admit. As for me being "biggoted against homosexuals, blah, blah, blah", find any post that I've made aganist them. Dude, I live with 2 homosexuals and am a member of the LCR. You have no idea what you're talking about and know nothing about me.

As for your retort.

1. The progression of the republicans into the middle will continue, unless the Dems get their act together, and religion has little to do with how out of touch they are.

2. I don't care about the 48%, they're shrinking and becoming less relevent every day.

3. I wasn't speaking about Renquist, there are other justices who are likely retiring in the next 4 years.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:

Bush very nearly unseated himself. He was elected by the narrowest margin a wartime president has ever had. You do like to forget about 48% don't you?

If the democratic party was unable to defeat Bush, what makes you think they could possibly unseat a more likable, less controversial republican?

[thunderous_funker]

The Clintons killed the Democratic party. Dead. Kerry has perhaps salted the gravesite.

If the Democratic party is to have any future at all it must become a Reformist/Progressive party.

The current paradigms of Right/Left, Conservative/Liberal don't work any more. Anyone calling Bush a Conservative is in serious self-denial.

The fact is the GOP has a strong working coalition made of diverse interests and the Democratic party does not.

Clinton/Gore/Kerry strategy of "we're not Republicans" isn't going to work any more.

The Democratic party must be about something. And it can't be the tired old debate about the New Deal or Welfare Capitalism.

Dean can talk about election reform, campaign finance reform, healthcare reform, and reasonable/rational compromise on complex social issues with authority because that is his record. He's a problem solver, not an ideologue and just might be exactly the right kind of person for the job.

Its this simple: if Dean can't fix the Democratic party, then it should be disbanded once and for all in favor of a new party that is free of the historical baggage.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The Clintons killed the Democratic party.

And yet Clinton was the only Democratic president in my lifetime to win re-election. It's hard to believe that winning elections kills the party.

Anyway, how do you feel about Dean as DNC chair? It's a little odd to go from near-presidential nominee to party chair.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
And yet Clinton was the only Democratic president in my lifetime to win re-election. It's hard to believe that winning elections kills the party.

Clinton won, as every president, by building a working coalition. When I say they killed the party, I mean that they sacrificed so much for the sake of political pandering that they had nothing but empty promises in the end.

Originally posted by BRussell:
Anyway, how do you feel about Dean as DNC chair? It's a little odd to go from near-presidential nominee to party chair.

If nothing else, Dean will talk real turkey. The last decade has seen the DNC devolve into the pro-choice, big business party for the rich campaigning against the pro-life, big business party for the rich.

Dean will get the party to start talking about real issues that matter to real people, not just talking points to secure the next round of contributions from all the usual suspects.

[Curios Meerkat]

[zigzag]

I was never that impressed with Dean as a candidate, but he might make a suitable party leader. First of all, almost anyone would be an improvement over Terry McCauliffe, a real weasel. Second, Dean would mostly be seen on Sunday talk shows, and he does fairly well in those settings. However, I don't know how much real power such a person holds, so I couldn't say whether he would help the party overall or not.

The Dems will go nowhere unless they find a genuinely likable - and centrist - Southerner/Westerner. Everything else is basically lung exercise. The only exception I can see is Hillary, and that's mostly because so many people had positive feelings about her husband, a likable centrist Southerner.

[kjb]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The question is, do mainstream liberals need a leftist shot in the arm? Or is the takeover by the left the reason the Democrats are becoming more and more isolated?

That's not for me to answer, but I do have an interest in two viable parties in this country. A more moderate Democratic Party (or some other viable, electable party) is needed to keep the Republicans from becoming too extreme.

One thing I think perceptions like this of Dean fail to recognise is that he, in fact, is quite the centrist.

He has a better record of balancing a budget that the current president.

He is pro-gun rights.

While balancing the budget in Vermont, he provided health care for all of the state's children.

I think the "leftist" label comes from his "correct" (as far as WMD are concerned) anti-war stance. Outside of this position, I think the "leftist" nametag is hard to pin on Dean when we actually look at his record.

Kev

[zigzag]

Originally posted by kjb:
One thing I think perceptions like this of Dean fail to recognise is that he, in fact, is quite the centrist.

He has a better record of balancing a budget that the current president.

He is pro-gun rights.

While balancing the budget in Vermont, he provided health care for all of the state's children.

I think the "leftist" label comes from his "correct" (as far as WMD are concerned) anti-war stance. Outside of this position, I think the "leftist" nametag is hard to pin on Dean when we actually look at his record.

Kev

Unfortunately for many candidates, it doesn't matter - in politics, perception = reality.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by kjb:
One thing I think perceptions like this of Dean fail to recognise is that he, in fact, is quite the centrist.

He has a better record of balancing a budget that the current president.

He is pro-gun rights.

While balancing the budget in Vermont, he provided health care for all of the state's children.

I think the "leftist" label comes from his "correct" (as far as WMD are concerned) anti-war stance. Outside of this position, I think the "leftist" nametag is hard to pin on Dean when we actually look at his record.

Kev

Vermont Greens I know refer to Dean as "the best Republican governor we ever had".

He was tarred & feathered in the presidential primary. Americans did not get the real picture of Dean. And I don't think he handled things very well. His campaign was very amateurish.

I think he is perfectly suited to chair the party. That way he can be a force for good policy without having to necessarily be the public cheerleader (which he seems to have considerable trouble doing---"HEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHH!" )

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
He was tarred & feathered in the presidential primary. Americans did not get the real picture of Dean. And I don't think he handled things very well. His campaign was very amateurish.

No, no, no. The scream was but the cherry on the top. He was already in a freefall. Americans did get the real picture of Dean, and you pretty much explained it in your last two sentences: He didn't handle things well, and he was unable to take a firm grip of his own campaign and dictate how things were going to done.

I think Kerry's campaign was all over the place, too. Both his and Dean's campaign staffs were shaken up late in their respective games. It's hard to vote for a man to run the country when he can't even manage a cohesive and focused campaign.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
No, no, no. The scream was but the cherry on the top. He was already in a freefall. Americans did get the real picture of Dean, and you pretty much explained it in your last two sentences: He didn't handle things well, and he was unable to take a firm grip of his own campaign and dictate how things were going to done.

I think Kerry's campaign was all over the place, too. Both his and Dean's campaign staffs were shaken up late in their respective games. It's hard to vote for a man to run the country when he can't even manage a cohesive and focused campaign.

Anyone who thinks Dean is the leftist fringe doesn't have any idea at all about the real Dean. Period.

That's the long and short of it.

Presidential campaigns are not a measure of leadership or ability. They are are a marketing exercise. Another reason our choices seem to get worse as times goes on.

[NYCFarmboy]

Dean 'The Scream' is Dem gravedigger

by Michael Goodwin from the NY Daily news:

The Democratic Party died yesterday after a long, painful lack of direction. Born in 1792, it was the second-oldest political party in the world, after the Tories of Great Britain. But it suffered decline for years and finally succumbed to complications brought on by elitism and anger. The cause of death was officially attributed to an obstruction lodged in its leadership.

Okay, as Mark Twain might say, reports of the Democratic Party's death are premature. But come Feb. 12, they won't be.

That's the day Howard (The Scream) Dean is likely to win the job of national Dem boss. It's also the day the party ceases to be a viable alternative to George Bush.

How did it happen that the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton became irrelevant to the majority of Americans? How could the "party of the common man," as it first called itself more than 200 years ago, become out of power and out of touch?

The easy answer is that, like all social nightmares, this one happened because good people did nothing as the virus spread. So while there is much dissent from the party faithful, most of it is in private.

In public, there is silence from those who know that Dean will take the party over the cliff and into an abyss of fringe liberalism that has no foundation in the American populace. Dean and the extremists he represents shouldn't even be allowed to call themselves Democrats. Deaniacs is what they are.

Petty personal feuds are part of the problem. Martin Frost, the moderate former congressman from Texas, had a shot at defeating Dean until Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, piped up. Pelosi is reportedly still steamed that Frost challenged her for the House post two years ago, so she helped clear the path for Dean.

Pelosi, of course, is a charter member of the Dean-Michael Moore wackadoo wing. She used her talk after Bush's State of the Union speech to call for a "timetable" for quitting Iraq, an idea that borders on the insane. You don't have to support the war to recognize that telling the terrorists when we're leaving is an invitation to disaster.

Dean's rise comes with a new lie about him - that he's really a moderate. That bit of false labeling, based on his record as Vermont governor, conveniently overlooks his far-left campaign for President. It's that race that gave him the prominence for the national party job.

It's worth remembering how bad a candidate Dean was. The Scream came after the Iowa caucus, where Dean finished a dismal third, with only 18% of the vote. The first to declare himself a candidate, he was the front-runner for a year and led the pack in fund-raising, much of it raised on the Internet.

But when the first votes were counted, John Kerry and John Edwards smashed him, with Kerry getting 38% of the vote and Edwards 32%. Dean went psycho on TV that night and never recovered. A month later, he was out of the race, having not won a single primary.

He was too far left for primary voters, the cream of the liberal crop. But now the 447 internal electors think he should be the face, voice and chief operator of the whole party. That tells you something about the state chairs and other special-interest shills supporting Dean.

His victory would be a loss not only for real Democrats, but for America, too. Bush has many strengths, especially on the war on terror, but he is flirting with extreme ideology by supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

A credible opposition party is crucial to keep the needle in the middle on such issues. But Democrats apparently have decided to fight extremism with more extremism.

May they rest in peace.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/idea...p-238331c.html

[zigzag]

I'm inclined to agree with Goodwin. While I don't think Dean is wacko, I think he represents an anachronistic side of the party - in a nutshell, Northeastern liberalism and '60s counter-culturalism. That might be an unfair generalization, but there's enough truth in it to matter politically - as I've said, perception=reality. The Democrats have accomplished many positive things - indeed, in fighting for equality, personal freedom, and environmental quality for the past 40 years, things Republicans now take for granted, it is in many ways a victim of its own successes - but the country as a whole perceives the party's message and culture as shopworn, and the people in charge still don't seem to get it. Unfortunately, in my view, the other party is still trafficking in bigotry and doesn't present a very appealing alternative. But it's clearly doing a better overall job of gauging the mood of the voters.

As many Republicans and Democrats alike were heard to say on November 2nd: "Boy, do I miss Bill Clinton."

[IceBreaker]

Originally posted by zigzag:

As many Republicans and Democrats alike were heard to say on November 2nd: "Boy, do I miss Bill Clinton."

The only person aside from Democrats that misses ex-Pres. Bill Clinton is Monica Lewinski.

He was a pathetic president who degraded America and lied under oath committing perjury.

[Busemann]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
The only person aside from Democrats that misses ex-Pres. Bill Clinton is Monica Lewinski.

He was a pathetic president who degraded America and lied under oath committing perjury.

..says the moral vanguard from the right

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I'm inclined to agree with Goodwin. While I don't think Dean is wacko, I think he represents an anachronistic side of the party - in a nutshell, Northeastern liberalism and '60s counter-culturalism. That might be an unfair generalization, but there's enough truth in it to matter politically - as I've said, perception=reality. The Democrats have accomplished many positive things - indeed, in fighting for equality, personal freedom, and environmental quality for the past 40 years, things Republicans now take for granted, it is in many ways a victim of its own successes - but the country as a whole perceives the party's message and culture as shopworn, and the people in charge still don't seem to get it. Unfortunately, in my view, the other party is still trafficking in bigotry and doesn't present a very appealing alternative. But it's clearly doing a better overall job of gauging the mood of the voters.

As many Republicans and Democrats alike were heard to say on November 2nd: "Boy, do I miss Bill Clinton."

I must say I'm surprised to hear to you endorse that pathetic tripe from Goodwin.

What are Dean's main issues?
1) healthcare
2) election reform
3) incompetence in the war

If those are extremist or fringe issues than this country is already doomed and it has nothing to do with Dean's politics or the people who support him.

Taking healthcare reform head on is probably the best thing this country could do. It would do more to bouy the economy and give financial relief to Americans than any half-brained, half-arsed tinkering with Social Security or the bloody tax code.

General Motors spends more on employee health benefits than it does on steel.

Fix that and you have fundamentally done more to encourage investment and job creation than any "trickle down" tax manipuation that Bush or Rove ever dreamed of.

Dean represents the growing number of Americans who finally understand that and are committed to doing something about it. If they are voices in the wilderness as some of you think, then the ccountry is already headed for the cliff and it won't be Deaniacs who pushed it there.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I must say I'm surprised to hear to you endorse that pathetic tripe from Goodwin.

What are Dean's main issues?
1) healthcare
2) election reform
3) incompetence in the war

If those are extremist or fringe issues than this country is already doomed and it has nothing to do with Dean's politics or the people who support him.

Taking healthcare reform head on is probably the best thing this country could do. It would do more to bouy the economy and give financial relief to Americans than any half-brained, half-arsed tinkering with Social Security or the bloody tax code.

General Motors spends more on employee health benefits than it does on steel.

Fix that and you have fundamentally done more to encourage investment and job creation than any "trickle down" tax manipuation that Bush or Rove ever dreamed of.

Dean represents the growing number of Americans who finally understand that and are committed to doing something about it. If they are voices in the wilderness as some of you think, then the ccountry is already headed for the cliff and it won't be Deaniacs who pushed it there.

I might not have been as clear as I could have been - by saying that Dean represents an anachronistic side of the party, I didn't necessarily mean that he actually embodies it (although I think he embodies it in some ways), I meant that he is perceived as embodying it. He's weighted with the baggage of old-style liberalism whether he deserves it or not. That's why I keep repeating: in politics, perception equals reality. The party needs a new face, and while I think the "lefty" rap against Dean is overstated, I don't think he's the face they need if they want to compete. Maybe he can overcome that, but I'd be surprised if he does (he is, nonetheless, an improvement over McCauliffe).

I think Goodwin overstates the case, but insofar as he worries about the party's ability to compete in the future, I'm inclined to agree with him. No amount of "But Dean's ideas are really good!" can overcome the baggage he and the party are carrying. When you can't sell it to Iowa Democrats, who are you gonna sell it to? These are political realities and the only thing that will change them is a serious economic crisis.

Despite his shortcomings, Kerry was their best available candidate at the time - none of the others would have done as well in the general election. But patrician Northeastern liberals with flaky wives are not going to cut it, and the party needs to get used to it and go in new directions. Dean might be a fine person with good ideas but he's not the answer to that particular problem.

It may not matter - I don't know if the public really cares who the party chair is, and I don't know how much power they actually wield. But the party in general needs a new face.

[BRussell]

Dean's ideas don't matter, it's all image. That's the state of American politics, and has been for as long as I can remember.

For whatever reason, Republican states don't vote for Deans and Kerrys, but they'll vote for Clintons and Carters. I think it has very little to do with substantive policy issues, though that might be part of it, but primarily it's just how well people relate to someone. (BTW, no one ever asks why New Englanders don't seem to have trouble voting for southerners...)

I watched Bush on local TV when he came through here last week. It's really amazing to see how different he is out here in the real country. Non-stop folksy, references to "the almighty," anti-intellectualism, down-home boy schtick. He's at least as patrician in heritage as Kerry, and yet he knows how to portray an appealing image to these folks who make up such a large percentage of voters throughout the country.

For Democrats to win, they have to pander, with image, to the red states. (Actually I think the blues and reds will switch next time around, so Democrats will have to learn to pander to the blue states .) I have come to believe that's really the key to winning the election, as pathetic as that is. That Bush would be re-elected after his first term shows that facts just don't matter. It's all image, and the image must be the protestant folksy middle-American or you lose.

[thunderous_funker]

If its all image then there is no reason to have an opposition party. Personality contests are a lot easier if you don't have to pretend to be "about" anything.

Dems should just join the republican party and put forward their favorite affluent, white southerner in each primary and stop complaining.

What I'm reading loud and clear is the argument that nothing in America really needs changing--not in any real fundamental way--so to put forward reformer candidates is just political suicide.

Like I said, if that's true, then the Dems are already dead and America already headed for the cliff and Deaniacs have nothing to do with it at all.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
If its all image then there is no reason to have an opposition party. Personality contests are a lot easier if you don't have to pretend to be "about" anything.

Dems should just join the republican party and put forward their favorite affluent, white southerner in each primary and stop complaining.

What I'm reading loud and clear is the argument that nothing in America really needs changing--not in any real fundamental way--so to put forward reformer candidates is just political suicide.

Like I said, if that's true, then the Dems are already dead and America already headed for the cliff and Deaniacs have nothing to do with it at all.

Sorry to disappoint, but reality bites. To be a major, competitive party, you have to assemble fairly broad coalitions of people, most of whom are going to be more-or-less mainstream, not earnest reformers. You only get earnest reform when a crisis hits, and no crisis is hitting, at least none of sufficient proportions to generate the kind of political will that you want to see. That doesn't mean there are no differences between the parties, or that image is all that matters, it just means that you have to make compromises and figure out how to sell your ideas to real people, which to a degree involves imagery, rhetoric, and personality.

I'm not suggesting that you have to like it, I'm simply stating a political reality: the voters have not been buying what the Democrats are selling. Don't shoot the messenger.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I'm not suggesting that you have to like it, I'm simply stating a political reality: the voters have not been buying what the Democrats are selling. Don't shoot the messenger.

I'm not quibbling with that. I'm saying the Democrats haven't been selling anything for years.

"we'd do the exact same thing but at least we're not Republicans" doesn't count as anything.

Neither does "they'll take away your right to an abortion if you trust them".

I'm not talking about Reform in the sense of abolishing our concept of property or a 100% tax on income gained from rent. I'm talking about common sense reform to problems that affect every single citizen whether they realize it or not.

The healthcare problem is in escapable. It must be confronted. It is the the largest drag on the economy, the biggest squeeze on family finances and the reason that the chicken littles are running around trying to convince you that Social Security is falling out of the sky.

And yet I hear no one really talking about it. Bush's solution was to spend a trillion dollars we don't have and hope the problem goes away until after the election.

Any party that wants to present itself as the opposition party had better start making a helluva lot of noise about real solutions to the healthcare crisis. And yes, its a crisis. Los Angeles is closing emergency rooms every year. Tenet, one of the largest for-profit hospital chains in the country, is on the verge of bankrupcy and closing or selling hospitals right and left. The number of uninsured is rising almost as fast as the costs.

And even while it appears that Kerry had a fairly detailed plan on the matter, he spent the entire election trying to convince us that he'd kill brown people just as good as Bush and that the war was a mistake but he'd still stay the course just like Bush only different.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm not quibbling with that. I'm saying the Democrats haven't been selling anything for years.

"we'd do the exact same thing but at least we're not Republicans" doesn't count as anything.

Neither does "they'll take away your right to an abortion if you trust them".

I'm not talking about Reform in the sense of abolishing our concept of property or a 100% tax on income gained from rent. I'm talking about common sense reform to problems that affect every single citizen whether they realize it or not.

The healthcare problem is in escapable. It must be confronted. It is the the largest drag on the economy, the biggest squeeze on family finances and the reason that the chicken littles are running around trying to convince you that Social Security is falling out of the sky.

And yet I hear no one really talking about it. Bush's solution was to spend a trillion dollars we don't have and hope the problem goes away until after the election.

Any party that wants to present itself as the opposition party had better start making a helluva lot of noise about real solutions to the healthcare crisis. And yes, its a crisis. Los Angeles is closing emergency rooms every year. Tenet, one of the largest for-profit hospital chains in the country, is on the verge of bankrupcy and closing or selling hospitals right and left. The number of uninsured is rising almost as fast as the costs.

And even while it appears that Kerry had a fairly detailed plan on the matter, he spent the entire election trying to convince us that he'd kill brown people just as good as Bush and that the war was a mistake but he'd still stay the course just like Bush only different.

I agree with many of your points, but the idea that citizens need to pursue reform "whether they realize it or not" is problematic - telling people that they don't know what's in their own best interests is generally a losing proposition. That's compounded by the fact that there's little agreement as to what constitutes common-sense reform. In any event, a lot more **** will have to hit the fan before people's minds change and the necessary political will arises. If and when that happens, the Democrats' time may come again, although I don't think they'll get very far with the same old faces. Too much baggage.

I think the simple reality is that the country as a whole has shifted a bit rightward, people are wary of old-fashioned liberal politics, and nothing Kerry or Dean could have said would have made any difference. We seem to agree that the Democrats need to change their tune, but I remain of the opinion that focusing on the center is the right approach, as compromising as that might be.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I agree with many of your points, but the idea that citizens need to pursue reform "whether they realize it or not" is problematic - telling people that they don't know what's in their own best interests is generally a losing proposition. That's compounded by the fact that there's little agreement as to what constitutes common-sense reform. In any event, a lot more **** will have to hit the fan before people's minds change and the necessary political will arises. If and when that happens, the Democrats' time may come again, although I don't think they'll get very far with the same old faces. Too much baggage.

I think the simple reality is that the country as a whole has shifted a bit rightward, people are wary of old-fashioned liberal politics, and nothing Kerry or Dean could have said would have made any difference. We seem to agree that the Democrats need to change their tune, but I remain of the opinion that focusing on the center is the right approach, as compromising as that might be.

While Americans might often be called ignorant, I don't belive they are fundamentally stupid.

The problems is that the rules of engagement, the level of discourse, the terms of the debate have been so horribly colored and skewed that most Americans operate from a position of extreme misinformation concering key issues.

Advocating "centrist" positions most often equates to accepting propaganda and misinformation and attempting to shift public opinion within the narrow confines of ignorance or gross misinformation.

Futility. Absolute futility.

I understand that when you say "play to the center" you probably want to say that we should be appealing to positions that are broadly and deeply supported. But in today's context of ignorance and misinforation, that quite literally means abdication to the status quo.

Notice how quickly any discussion of an issue such as healthcare devolves almost instantly into tired and practiced clithes and myths that have little or no basis in fact. In fact, its hard to imagine an issue in which most Americans are more ill-informed of hard facts than the issues surrounding the healthcare debate.

If we can't explode those myths, nothing will ever change. We can't simply give in to mass hypnosis on such an important issue because people have developed reflexive and contrary opions based almost entirely on misinformation and myth. We have to challenge those misconceptions. We can't just say "well, most people think this way (rightly or wrongly) so ignoring that perception (right or wrong) is political suicide..."

Its amazing to me that while Americans are such bold, enterprising and aggressive thinkers in almost all aspects of life that our political system is almost entirely paralyzed by timidity. Our range of discourse is insultingly narrow.

This is the country of Big Ideas and dammit there ought to be a politcal party that believes in at least talking about big ideas even if we eventually compromise on them. Right now it seems we're aren't even allowed to talk about them. Democrats sure as hell aren't.

[UNTeMac]

TF for president!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
While Americans might often be called ignorant, I don't belive they are fundamentally stupid.

The problems is that the rules of engagement, the level of discourse, the terms of the debate have been so horribly colored and skewed that most Americans operate from a position of extreme misinformation concering key issues.

Advocating "centrist" positions most often equates to accepting propaganda and misinformation and attempting to shift public opinion within the narrow confines of ignorance or gross misinformation.

Futility. Absolute futility.

I understand that when you say "play to the center" you probably want to say that we should be appealing to positions that are broadly and deeply supported. But in today's context of ignorance and misinforation, that quite literally means abdication to the status quo.

Notice how quickly any discussion of an issue such as healthcare devolves almost instantly into tired and practiced clithes and myths that have little or no basis in fact. In fact, its hard to imagine an issue in which most Americans are more ill-informed of hard facts than the issues surrounding the healthcare debate.

If we can't explode those myths, nothing will ever change. We can't simply give in to mass hypnosis on such an important issue because people have developed reflexive and contrary opions based almost entirely on misinformation and myth. We have to challenge those misconceptions. We can't just say "well, most people think this way (rightly or wrongly) so ignoring that perception (right or wrong) is political suicide..."

Its amazing to me that while Americans are such bold, enterprising and aggressive thinkers in almost all aspects of life that our political system is almost entirely paralyzed by timidity. Our range of discourse is insultingly narrow.

This is the country of Big Ideas and dammit there ought to be a politcal party that believes in at least talking about big ideas even if we eventually compromise on them. Right now it seems we're aren't even allowed to talk about them. Democrats sure as hell aren't.

I don't think it's a question of being allowed to talk about issues - there's no shortage of information out there. Indeed, on average the electorate is probably better educated and informed than ever (not necessarily well informed, but better in relative terms). It's a question of whether people are interested in listening. Like alcoholics, they have to come to certain realizations on their own - you can't browbeat them. And sometimes you just have to accept the fact that they don't see things the way you do. For every one of you, there's someone on the other side of the political spectrum wringing their hands with equal frustration, thinking if only people would listen . . . Hell, you can see it every day on this little online forum.

It's always been this way, and has often been far worse. The fact is that it's a very cumbersome system, and change comes slowly. When people are ready for change again, they'll pay more attention to people like Dean. Or not.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I don't think it's a question of being allowed to talk about issues - there's no shortage of information out there. Indeed, on average the electorate is probably better educated and informed than ever (not necessarily well informed, but better in relative terms). It's a question of whether people are interested in listening. Like alcoholics, they have to come to certain realizations on their own - you can't browbeat them. And sometimes you just have to accept the fact that they don't see things the way you do. For every one of you, there's someone on the other side of the political spectrum wringing their hands with equal frustration, thinking if only people would listen . . . Hell, you can see it every day on this little online forum.

It's always been this way, and has often been far worse. The fact is that it's a very cumbersome system, and change comes slowly. When people are ready for change again, they'll pay more attention to people like Dean. Or not.

Well, the Republicans have been pushing a pretty aggressive reform agenda pretty damn successfully for years now.

Apparently Americans will accept change when it is presented in terms that appeal to them.

The Democrats, OTOH, have been on their heels as the "status quo" party and watched it all crumble in front of them.

Playing to the center has already cost the White House, the congress and very soon the supreme court. 8 years of Clintons health, labor and environmental protections eroded to almost nothing in 4. And now the centerpeice of 20th century liberalism in America, Social Security, is under attack and all the Democrats talk about is how they need to play to the center.

Well, the center is no longer a respectable position and the commons are under all out attack.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Well, the Republicans have been pushing a pretty aggressive reform agenda pretty damn successfully for years now.

Apparently Americans will accept change when it is presented in terms that appeal to them.

My point exactly.

The Democrats, OTOH, have been on their heels as the "status quo" party and watched it all crumble in front of them.

Playing to the center has already cost the White House, the congress and very soon the supreme court. 8 years of Clintons health, labor and environmental protections eroded to almost nothing in 4. And now the centerpeice of 20th century liberalism in America, Social Security, is under attack and all the Democrats talk about is how they need to play to the center.

Well, the center is no longer a respectable position and the commons are under all out attack.

But if voters have responded positively to the Republican message, it's largely because it appeals to them, as you just said. Thus my point that, short of becoming Republicans, I'm not sure there's anything the Democrats can do for the time being, and that it didn't really matter what Kerry or Dean had to say, just as it didn't matter what Bob Dole had to say - they were on the wrong side of the political cycle. But if and when the Bush/Republican agenda falters, or voters just get tired of it, they'll swing back. I think that contributed a good deal to Clinton's election - people were just sort of tired of the same-old same-old, were ready for a change (if not a radical change), and Clinton presented an attractive alternative. That's why I don't think the Democrats should abandon the center and risk marginalization.

Of course, if you simply can't abide by centrist politics, there's not much I can say. But if the voters find the Republican message appealing, what makes you think a more vocal or radicalized Democratic Party will do better? As far as I can tell it would only marginalize them. A lot of people here think they might as well go down swinging, but I disagree.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Of course, if you simply can't abide by centrist politics, there's not much I can say. But if the voters find the Republican message appealing, what makes you think a more vocal or radicalized Democratic Party will do better? As far as I can tell it would only marginalize them. A lot of people here think they might as well go down swinging, but I disagree.

Here we see the essential problem. The fact that you don't see the difference between a party's message and its agenda.

Almost no part of the GOP agenda is part of the GOP message. The absense of an oppositon party has allowed that to happen.

Bush didn't win the election on his domestic agenda. In case you missed it, he actually has a very low approval rating. He won because Americans like him personally and don't trust Democrats because they don't have any message or clear agenda other than tearing down the Republicans and sending mixed messages on the war.

The GOP message is War on Terrorism and the so-called Culture War. The Democrats ran on "yeah, we want that too but different."

Bush's coalition hangs on only a tiny handful of ideological issues that have little or nothing to do with the interests of a majority of Americans. Its the absense of an honest alternative that makes that coalition a winning majority.

The Democrats don't have to be radical or reactionary. They simply have to be articulate and present a clear vision of what they believe America should be working towards.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Here we see the essential problem. The fact that you don't see the difference between a party's message and its agenda.

Almost no part of the GOP agenda is part of the GOP message. The absense of an oppositon party has allowed that to happen.

Bush didn't win the election on his domestic agenda. In case you missed it, he actually has a very low approval rating. He won because Americans like him personally and don't trust Democrats because they don't have any message or clear agenda other than tearing down the Republicans and sending mixed messages on the war.

The GOP message is War on Terrorism and the so-called Culture War. The Democrats ran on "yeah, we want that too but different."

Bush's coalition hangs on only a tiny handful of ideological issues that have little or nothing to do with the interests of a majority of Americans. Its the absense of an honest alternative that makes that coalition a winning majority.

The Democrats don't have to be radical or reactionary. They simply have to be articulate and present a clear vision of what they believe America should be working towards.

I do my full share of criticizing Bush, and fully recognize his deceptions, but I don't think charisma is the only reason he's succeeded. Charisma is important, but don't forget: the Republicans have taken both houses of Congress, a trend that started when Dubya was still stealing property from homeowners to build a publicly-financed baseball stadium. The Republicans are politicians like any others, but people appear to be responding to their overall message. If you don't acknowledge that, I think you're making the same mistake the Democratic leadership has been making. I think that's evident when you say "Bush's coalition hangs on only a tiny handful of ideological issues that have little or nothing to do with the interests of a majority of Americans." So says you and Tom Frank, but those people would say, "I'll make that determination myself, thanks." And that's what they've been doing, to the Democrats' dismay.

I don't think there's any great mystery to it, or any magic bullet: the majority of voters have simply expressed a consistent preference for Republican values (or at least the values that Republicans profess). I don't think it serves to dismiss them and say "They don't know what's in their best interests." That reminds me of Republicans who say that blacks only vote Democrat because they don't know any better.

Anyway, I don't want to beat this to death, I just want you to sleep better. It's not the end of the world.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
[BAnyway, I don't want to beat this to death, I just want you to sleep better. It's not the end of the world. [/B]

I hear ya. I'm not losing much sleep over it these days.

The GOP domestic agenda hurts but all of it can be fairly easily undone when the shyt hits the fan. I'm not overly concerned even if I do recognize a lot of needless cruelty stemming from it.

Just like Reagan, however, the foreign policy gaffs will be visited upon the heads of our children and, at the current rate, their children as well. Some of it might never be fixed. Its shameful and terrible.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Just like Reagan, however, the foreign policy gaffs will be visited upon the heads of our children and, at the current rate, their children as well. Some of it might never be fixed. Its shameful and terrible.

Planning a rebuilding, Thunderous?

[thunderous_funker]

Now who's misunderstanding hisory?

Reagan's militantism and belligerence preserved Soviet hardliners position years longer than they would have survived on their own in the face of extremely popular domestic reformers.

Reagan "winning" the Cold War is an absolute myth. However we should easily identify the other characters in the Reagan legacy since they happen to be killing Americans even as we speak.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Now who's misunderstanding hisory?

Reagan's militantism and belligerence preserved Soviet hardliners position years longer than they would have survived on their own in the face of extremely popular domestic reformers.

Reagan "winning" the Cold War is an absolute myth. However we should easily identify the other characters in the Reagan legacy since they happen to be killing Americans even as we speak.

Classic.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Classic.

"the suggestion that any United States administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish." --George F. Kennan

"Thus the general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union." -- George F. Kennan

Not to mention that this view is also put forward by all the major players in the prestroika movement. Reagan strengthened the enemies of perestroika, not its proponents.

Reagan and Thatcher were waging the Cold War for years before Gorbachev came to power and with almost no visible result.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
"the suggestion that any United States administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish." --George F. Kennan

"Thus the general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union." -- George F. Kennan

Not to mention that this view is also put forward by all the major players in the prestroika movement. Reagan strengthened the enemies of perestroika, not its proponents.

Reagan and Thatcher were waging the Cold War for years before Gorbachev came to power and with almost no visible result.

You know we are never going to agree on this. I have seen this argued from both sides, and with much more balance. Gorbachev and especially Shevardnadze have both indicated that in fact US and more generally western pressure did have much to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. It didn't just happen.

However, I suspect arguing with you about this is about as productive as arguing with a flat earther about astronomy. You have your world view, and you will stick with it no matter what. Have at it. I don't really care. I just find it amusing.

But you really should change that ridiculous line about the Mujehedeen. You are too intelligent not to know that the causality really isn't there.

By the way, Kennan, visionary as he was in 1947, was a persistent critic of US foreign policy from about 1948 on. Of course he wasn't going to admit that he was wrong, and that every president from Truman on was right. Didn't you know about his little feud?

[thunderous_funker]

yeah. People who don't believe the BS surrounding the deification of Reagan are Flat Earthers.

Ironic choice of insinuations.

As for the Mujahadeen, I wasn't thinking of them expressly. I was thinking of Iraq. It was Reagan who took Iraq off the list of Terror States to sell them weapons including WMD technology. It was Reagan who ignored the atrocities that are supposed to make liberals feel guilty for not supporting Bush today.

But in true ironic fashion you thought of the Mujahadeen which probably had a lot more direct impact of the implosion of the Soviet system than Reagan ever did.

And we didn't even talk about Reagan's legacy in Central America where he was guilty of presiding perhaps the greatest crimes ever committed by the US government.

Reagan came up merely as an example of disastrous short-term meddling that led to horrific long term consequences--not only for foreign populations but ultimately for Americans who are now dealing with it.

If I had to pick one world to summarize my point, its "blowback". Sadly, none of those lessons appear to have been learned since we appear bent on doing exactly the same thing all over again.

Maybe its not that surprising considering how many Reagan-era dinosaurs are back in business in DC these days.