I don't care how you fight back, but for God's sake fight back1

As far as I'm concerned, Josh Marshall single-handedly defeated Social Security Privatization.

I was bored to tears reading most of that stuff. But he kicked their ass.

If the Democrats can recover from their current state - emotional, knee-jerk reactions to everything about Bush - what he says, what he eats for meals, the way he walks - then there is hope for the 2-party system.

If the Democrats can recover from their current state - emotional, knee-jerk reactions to everything about Bush - what he says, what he eats for meals, the way he walks - then there is hope for the 2-party system.
Posted by: GOPGregory on December 23, 2005 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

In order for that to happen, the Pope would have to visit the White House, and exorcise Satan's spirit out of Bush's body so he would stop doing evil things. You know, like torturing, illegally detaining, invading our privacy, handing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to war profiteers, appointing incompetent corrput cronies, starting wars with countries that are not a threat to the US, generally mangling the constitution, the rule of law, the english language, etc.

Once Bush's behavior changes, people will stop paying attention to him. Honest. It's not everyone else who's crazy. Bush's behavior really does merit all this criticism.

"On the right, not so much."

Might be a problem of perception more than anything else.

A typical response here to any article from the right containing "numbers, graphs, and summaries of serious policy research:"

"Who care what that group has to say? They're just a bunch of partisan hacks."

And that's where the debate usually leaves off.

Shorter GOPGregory,

If Democrats are willing to be bendover wimps then there is a place for a two party state...so long as it serves the needs of the elite to the exclusion of all others...as for democracy...no way.

"but blogs do provide a forum to educate and inform at a non-expert level in between all the snarkiness and partisan catcalling." I guess it does provide the forum for like minded people to rally to and for agitaters to see what the other side is up to

Kevin wrote: ...the lefty blogosphere does have at least a few high traffic sites that provide a steady diet of policy-lite: fact-heavy posts containing numbers, graphs, and summaries of serious policy research.

So, which sites are those?

what he eats for meals, the way he walks

I was just about to snark this but OBF did such a masterful job I just couldn't.

I wholeheartedly believe that if it wasn't for the efforts of Marshal, Kos, and a few others (including you, Kevin drum) in the blogosphere, the facts behind stories like:

- Terri and Michael Schiavo
- The response to hurricane Katrina
- The Plame leak
- The use of torture by US agencies
- The use of warrantless wiretapping against US citizens

and others would not have been as visible to the general public. It used to be that the mainstream media would call bullshit on the govrnment and other entities as they saw it happening...Until recently, the MSM has largely failed in that task...Actually, not a task; it's more like a responsibility...

From where I sit, it's the blogosphere that's fulfilling that function, except that now calling bullshit on the MSM is part of the task (er, responsibility).

So in a roundabout way, thanks for the mild reversal, Kevin. I didn't quite get what you were talking about in your earlier post regarding Kos.

What I think better blogs ARE good at is communicating a message about a complex topic, such as SS, in such a way that the media can ultimately be pushed into something resembling accuracy in their reporting. And the media has very great power in these debates as a filtering mechanism for the messages being sent out from each side.

Blogs affect the message the media puts out in two ways -- either directly because people in the media may read them, or indirectly, by influencing large numbers of vocal readers to prevail on the media to get their facts right, and reject pure spin.

In our democracy, this function is absolutely vital. It often means little or nothing for a brilliant policy paper to be written if there's no way in which it comes to influence the media itself. Blogs broadcasts the message out to the parties who most need to hear it to change direction.

It's hard to look at what happened with SS without concluding that that's what went on. The policy papers were already written. The defects in the Bush proposals were well known. But without blogs it's in no way obvious he would have been stopped.

tbrosz, the right's resentment and hostility towards intellectuals, research, and policy that isn't cooked up by PR-firms masquerading as think-tanks explains the lack of serious policy analysis on the right.

Yes there was wonkery involved in the Bamboozlepalooza tour (and Josh Marshall nearly did save Social Security single-handedly) but without the proper tactics like actually getting out there and blanketing the "townhall" coverage with social-security supporters, forcing the GOPpers into coming clean on whether they were for social security or for privatization, digging up historical notes, those were not products of wonkery. Those were tactical and rhetorical decisions that were underpinned by wonkery.

Of course wonkery is fucking important, but you know what pure wonkery has gotten us? BUSH PRESIDENCY that's where.

So keep on toiling away in your wonky dungeons.

That's great Tbrosz, straight from the guys that dismiss every fact they don't like as a product of the "liberal media" or "liberal academics." Come on, its Conservatives that have mastered the art of subjective relativity in the last 10 years. Global warming anyone?

So...the opposite of what you said before?

Grape Crush:

It used to be that the mainstream media would call bullshit on the govrnment and other entities as they saw it happening...Until recently, the MSM has largely failed in that task...Actually, not a task; it's more like a responsibility...

From where I sit, it's the blogosphere that's fulfilling that function, except that now calling bullshit on the MSM is part of the task (er, responsibility).

Maybe, maybe not. Go back through most of the posts on this site on those subjects. How many were simply sourced from the New York Times, Washington Post, or other largely-liberal mainstream media sources?

I haven't done this myself, and the results could go either way, but at least it would be a check on your theory.

I do know that the mainstream media and the Democratic Party seems to be driving the current NSA controversy and IMO the liberal blogosphere is largely trailing in its wake.

...but they aren't crazy about moving to an ample, generous welfare state either.

What does this even mean? People LOVE Social Security and Medicare. I'm pretty sure people would like these programs to be more generous.

What "generous welfare state" program that people do not want are we talking about here?

Alternatively, what "welfare state" program that we have do people want to get rid of? Unemployment insurance? Food stamps? Medicaid?

Sure, "welfare" (AFDC). Because they have no idea how limited the program really is, or how miserly it is, or how few people are in it. They think it's the second biggest item in the federal budget, after foreign aid. In other words, they hate it because of ignorance, reinforced by demagoguery.

The idea that Americans want to shrink, rather than grow, the "welfare state" (more precisely, the "social insurance state") is not an idea that can "walk a hundred miles."

On a related topic, I was talking to my conservative-to-independent brother over Thanksgiving. Hates "welfare." Just hates it.

Here's what I suggested: a government program where if you don't have a job but you want to work, you go to a government office, and they give you work for eight bucks an hour and health insurance, doing anything that needs to be done.

He loved the idea. But we agreed it wouldn't have a chance -- it's "socialism," and besides, it would be a lot more expensive than "welfare" is.

You'd be surprised how widespread the feeling is that people have a right to a job. But it's a sentiment that's way, way far left of the Democrats any more.

Here's an interesting idea from a writer to Instapundit:

"[T]here is a class confrontation of a kind going on — but it's not between rich and poor. It's between the working class and what might be called the government-worker class. The gap between the two groups has been growing for a while."

No serious policy discussion can ignore, as Political Animal ignores, the illiberal effects of government employee unions.

Some suggestions for liberal themes:

We want a government that's:

1. Responsive -- no more Katrinas
2. Limited -- no NSA breathing down our necks, no Supreme Court in our bedrooms, law-driven not security-driven, limit cultural activism
3. Responsible -- pay as you go
4. Honest and Transparent -- limit money in politics, fight intelligence manipulation
5. Efficient -- leverage buying power to reduce costs of insurance, drugs
6. Reliable -- Respect international consensus (Global Warming, World Court, United Nations)
7. Bold -- lead the world in support of peaceful human security initiatives (Darfur, Middle East)
8. Fair -- distribute costs of government equitably, enforce laws evenly, support diversity
9. Smart -- actively fund cutting edge research
10. Dynamic -- actively solicit best practices solutions to wide range of problems
11. Far-sighted -- pro-actively fund peaceful human security initiatives while while disrupting security threats

Responsive, limited, responsible, honest, transparent, efficient, reliable, bold, fair, smart, dynamic, far-sighted. These are the characteristics of liberal government in America in the 21st century.

We are New Pragmatists, willing to apply government or private solutions as needed and as appropriate. If our solutions work then people will know us by the good work we do and to hell with the GOP propaganda machine.

Focus on the work -- the challenges faced and met.

social dem -- sure people like Gov benefits. The problem is in getting them to pay for them. If you were right, some enterprising member of Congress would get up and say, Social Security gap, no problem. Let's just raise the payroll tax two percentage points, and we're done. End of story.

the lefty blogosphere does have at least a few high traffic sites that provide...policy-lite...and summaries of serious policy research. On the right, not so much.

It is important to remember that the Republicans are not just the "party of ideas" but the "party of ideas only". As we can see when it gets to implementation, there's not much there.

Gosh, I'm surprised that there is no mention of Mary Mapes in this pean to lefty blogs as fact-checking sites. The facts are that sites like Instapundit and Luskin and Chicago Boyz and Captain's Quarters are powerful resources for the right.

Kevin has done a good job on such subjects as the Bush TANG story a year ago. If Mary Mapes had relied on Kevin to check her story she might not have made such a fool of herself and Rather.

The big loser in all this is the MSM. The exchange between the Powerline guys (another big resource of facts) and the NYT reporter about the NSA story is an example. The newspapers are circling the drain unless they figure out how to deal with a world in which they don't control the research.

You're doing a good job, Kevin even if we only agree about 20% of the time. Your readers would do well to scan Powerline and Instapundit every day too. There is a huge echochamber on the left (on the right too) that doesn't help with the politics of the situation. It helps to know what the other side is thinking.

Hoi Polloi thinks that Republicans are "not much there" with implementation while he lives in a Republican country with little blue crusts on the coasts. He needs to get out more..

kevin drum:

would you kindly agreee to be one of the first opinion leaders to avoid using terms like "wonk" and "policy wonk" and "geek" in your writing.

i understand these terms are widely used in the media and are part of our contenmporary slang, but they have a smart-alec, anti-intellectual connotation which this country does not need to further.

it seems inconsistent to me for the media to rail on and on about the deficiencies of our student in math and science on the one hand, and then to widely promote a term that sneers at intellectual interst or capability.

i understand this request will be viewed as yet another instance of political correctness. it is not. it is based on the notion that we cannot have a widely informed citizenry, which we desperately need but do not have at this moment in our history, when some of the terms we commonly use to identify people who have an interest and concern in details of government or policy are fundamentally negative.

"And that's where the debate usually leaves off." - There is very little real debate in US politics anymore. That is a function, I think, of the philosophy that the best way to govern is to go for 50% plus one vote on every issue, rather than ever working for a larger, less partisan consensus. Of course some issues will have to be be decided that way; and yes, Democrats have at times also tried to govern that way. But Rove has perfected that approach, so that it is the fundamental policy of the Bush administration. It is a very destructive policy, and a very poor way to decide important policy questions. Real debate, and real compromises, yield much better results in the long run.

....but they aren't crazy about moving to an ample, generous welfare state either.

BECAUSE we all know that social security to the nation's elderly is what the NRO loves to label as one of those "entitlement" programs, under which other "entitlement" programs like Medicare and even post-war veteran care share the same dislike for funding by Repugs.

These "entitlement" programs fall under the axe of right-wing conservatives whom seem to think that Bush should be fully allowed to start any war, costing any amount, all while those same so called conservatives aren't THEN to crazy about supporting the after effects with ample, generous welfare funding.

Bush created a big, costly mess in Iraq and now conservative don't want to clean up after the president, whos policies they so heartly supported. A president that made so many bad decisions, broke some many laws, under so call "conservatives" policies that were nothing but bullshit from day one.

So here is my conservative liberal-minded thought for new year, make all those stupid Bush supporters that supported Bush and his really un-conservative policies, pay for the clean-up after Bush's big govenment adventure.

Why should liberals have to pay to clean after Bush's BS. Clinton had a surplus, all while the "conservative" Bushies has created the biggest deficit in our nations history - but us liberal minded individuals were never stupid enough to buy into any of Bush's stupid, spend like there is no tomorrow policies, therefore NRO and Murdock should pay thought the noise for the policies they supported.

Frankly, why not let NRO and Murdock pay for Bush's deficit and all those "entitlement" programs the grew under Bush uncaring, uncompassionate administration, seeing as how Repugs were happy enough to work so hard to created the path for such misuse of taxpayer money to begin with, I mean they ones that rally around the mis-spending of taxpays hard earned money pretending that Bush was a conserative.

Bush was never a conservative, he only wears this supposed “conservative” label but there has NEVER been a more liberal president in the nations history, because Bush was as liberal as he wanted to be with taxpayer money, Bush with extremely liberal in giving himself unfretted rights to abuse any law that he wanted too, Bush was liberal to point of grandiose in all that he aspired to do whilst would be “conservatives” supported his extreme liberal right to do so.

Conservatives that used to worry about the deficit do not exist anymore. Whatever happened to real conservatives – why did they get caught up supporting the most liberal president of our time? Surely from a real conservative, if there are any left, Bush has surely taken to many liberal rights.

If Bush is meaning of what conservative is - than surely the word conservative will need to be redefined.

If conservative means traditional, unadventurous, conventional or moderate that surely conservatives have lost their way supporting Bush liberalism.

Of course wonkery is fucking important, but you know what pure wonkery has gotten us? BUSH PRESIDENCY that's where.

I'd rather say that that was, in both the 2000 and 2004 elections, the result of focus on tactics -- just dumb tactics -- of the type not at all associated with ideological purists or wonks.

Particularly, in 2000, Gore's attempts to distance himself from the most popular outgoing President of the modern era.

I am just yearning for definitions as I read this: What is meant by "wonky?" What is the relationship between wonky and policy? Whatever. Kevin Drum also deserves a round of applause for his excellent work on SS last spring--remember the graphs!!!! His contribution involved intelligently considering the data and extrapolating. Josh Marshall kept hammering the political side, so no one could hide.

But in the end, I don't think policy comes from wonkiness. I think policy comes from values (though values may be informed by the data.) And perhaps instead of wonkiness we could start talking about scholarship?

Max Sawicky comments that "The Repubs' messages are highly debatable, and from my standpoint invariably wrong, to be sure, but they are not hollow....We need propaganda and agitation, but to give the public something substantive that it can take to heart is the basis for progressive transformation of society."

I assume the "something substantive that [the public] can take to heart" that Sawicky speaks of involves the wonky use of data. But what is disturbing and persuasive in the dominant strain of conservatism is that it has NOTHING to do with data: it is characterised by power-orientation, magical thinking and paranoid delusions. Its appeal is exactly the opposite of what Sawicky wants: "the progressive transformation of society." This dominant strain of conservatism exists and gets its energy from resistance to the progressive transformation of society. When we say "progressive" they hear: "weak, vulnerable, steal our wealth and coddle strangers and perverts."

I see two conservative orientations in the modern Republican party. The dominant one (with its paranoid delusions and hero-worship) is fascist. The older conservative tradition was based in a view of limited government, privacy & civil liberty, capital formation, prudence in personal habits. They did use scholarship, not ideology, to justify their policies.

We're all wondering whether or not the older conservative tradition will remember who they are and what they stand for. I think the blogosphere may play a roll in culling the true conservatives from the fascists.

In my previous post, in the last sentence, roll = role. It's too close to luncheon for my brain to suppress the stomach, I guess.

tbrosz on December 23, 2005 at 2:34 AM:

Maybe, maybe not.

More like 'maybe and maybe not'...

Go back through most of the posts on this site on those subjects.

C'mon, there's never enough time to do really exciting things like re-read most of the posts on this site...:)

How many were simply sourced from the New York Times, Washington Post, or other largely-liberal mainstream media sources?

The idea of a 'liberal' media is a myth akin to this manufactured 'War on Christmas', but thanks for being weakly antagonistic in an attempt to make the larger point, which is that most of the posts here and on other political blogs are commentaries on reported news items. This is a point which I agree with, but would like to extend this idea: Although blogs across the political spectrum source much of their content from the MSM, the questions raised and the facts checked and the ideas proposed are qualities of the blog medium...The electronic equivalent of two guys sitting in a bar shooting the shit...with the only main difference is that, for the most part, we can check to see if the other guy has his facts straight in near-time.

I haven't done this myself, and the results could go either way, but at least it would be a check on your theory.

I would say that the MSM is both a source of news items in the blogosphere and a catalyst for analysis and critique of those same news items. I mean, there's not much objective analysis going on in the average news story; there are few attempts to establish meaning from the facts.

Which, come to think of it, is probably the way it should be. We should leave the drawing of conclusions to, well, us individuals...

Yes, I'm trying to both have and eat my cake.

I do know that the mainstream media and the Democratic Party seems to be driving the current NSA controversy and IMO the liberal blogosphere is largely trailing in its wake.

Again, not exclusively the Democratic Party, but otherwise I'd have to agree. With a few exceptions, I wouldn't say the political blogosphere is strong on investigation, but definitely stronger on analysis.

Sorry, but the liberal blogosphere's low point was its kneejerk reaction in the Schiavo case.

It was pitiful, 90 percent of the liberal bloggers who didn't know what that case was about, which was about the rights of profoundly disabled to not be starved to death because of inconvenience, and the problems with guardianship laws which allowed abuse in this case to happen.

No, this was about defending the religious right. If Jeb, Randall Terry, and the others hadn't been involved, the liberal blogsophere wouldn't have given a shit.

They were wrong, and they know it.

I meant "defeating" the religious right, of course. :)

Susan Nunes on December 23, 2005 at 2:45 PM:

Sorry, but the liberal blogosphere's low point was its kneejerk reaction in the Schiavo case.

That's your opinion, which I really disagree with.

It was pitiful, 90 percent of the liberal bloggers who didn't know what that case was about

And you did? I'm sure you can tell us...Oh! Here it comes...

which was about the rights of profoundly disabled

Having virtually no brain is merely 'disabled'? Go find an article on the autopsy reports from a mainstream news source, actually read them, and get back to me on that one.

Sweetie, she was gone...The only 'right' in question was who had say over her disposition.

to not be starved to death because of inconvenience

That's low, considering the extraordinary actions Michael Schiavo took to try to heal, then care for, his wife. I hope you never have to go through what that man has been through.

and the problems with guardianship laws

Agreed. That makes you 1 for 4...

which allowed abuse in this case to happen.

Please cite fact-based examples of abuse, besides of the abuse of the law by the federal and Florida state governments that occurred in this case.

You can't.

No, this was about defeating the religious right.

No, this was about a personal tragedy being used for score points with a constituency.

If Jeb, Randall Terry, and the others hadn't been involved, the liberal blogsophere wouldn't have given a shit.

If Jeb, Randall Terry, and the others hadn't been involved, it never would have been an public issue in the first place. It would have been settled through the courts, and 'Jeb, Randall Terry, and the others' wouldn't have been given a black eye over their intrusion into a family matter.

They were wrong, and they know it.

If you are talking about Bill 'the video doctor' Frist, Jeb, Randall Terry, and others, then yes, I'd have to agree that they were wrong and they knew it.

But the blogs on the left? They seemed to be the only ones getting the facts straight, aside from the Florida judiciary.

See, I wouldn't have known how to refute your crap assertations if it wasn't for the time I spent going over the facts presented in these lefty blogs. Almost every single point you brought up has been refuted numerous times in these 'lefty blogs' that you are disparaging.

You're too easy...

Policy wonks tend to think that the political party that offers the best arguments to the voters on the issues will win on Election Day. The Republicans have shown us repeatedly that The Issues are not the most important variable in an election campaign. True, the issues might actually be important to many Swing Voters early on, but when both sides start to loudly pick apart each other’s facts & interpretations, the typical Swing Voter quickly becomes confused. As the debate over The Issues drags on, Swing Voters realize that they don’t understand the details well enough to make an informed decision, so they end up relying on their impressions of the candidates.

Republican strategists see this clearly. That is why they continuously try to create doubts in the minds of the Swing Voters about the character of the Democratic candidate. They know that it doesn’t really matter if they can’t find any real flaws in their Democratic opponents. Accusations, insinuations, & innuendo will work just fine. They hope to encourage voters to question the motivation and dependability of The Democrats. They try to create the perception that Democrats are “defective” in a disturbing way.

The most important reason why negative campaigning has worked so well for the Republicans is because their negative attacks on the Democrats create a positive impression of Republican candidates, who appear—in contrast—to be individuals who do not possess the defects that they have accused others of having. They define themselves [positively] by defining their Democratic opponents [negatively]. On a visceral level, what the Republicans actually “stand for” in the minds of Swing Voters on election day is that they are not Democrats—those defective people who seem to have been born to ruin everything.

Yes, it’s a good thing that Democrats and Progressives and Liberals have their think tanks. It’s great to have facts when you need them. But there is nothing that these think tanks are generating that can help Democrats to win elections. Kos is right. We’ve got to master the emotional side of political strategy or we’re going to continue to get our butts kicked.