Wow, now that's a screech! But Kevin the nutcases on the left are just as nutty as the ones on the right, and just as dangerous both in the long and short term. We need a return to the center.

My prediction: The democrate nominee for president in '08 will win in a landslide and it will have absolutely nothing to do with war. We are entering a recession as we speak (write?) and it will all be about the economy.

I think Reagan was only "pragmatic" in the sense that (a) he and his people had some limited sense of shame and (b) he was working in a much more hostile environment. But he nevertheless actively wanted to destroy the welfare state. In the end, he succeeded in halting the growth of the welfare state, revoking the right to unionize, and generally demonizing and marginalizing the principles and adherents of the New Deal.

Looking back, it seems to have paid off.

Kevin, this is an interesting post of yours and it brings up some good points which we could discuss. The problem is that the resident trolls will have a field day and take a large crap all over the thread.

Why would anyone even moderately left of center spend more than a few minutes a week worrying about a few degrees of liberal drift in the Democratic Party?

Because your party members like Durbin refuse to condemn Hezbollah? Because the democrat platform is a few steps short of soviet communism? Because you haven't won a majority of the electoral votes since the mid 70s?

Seriously, the Democrat Party has been too far left to win electoral victory for a long time; Clinton was a fluke, caused by Perot-vote splitting. Move back to the center, or devolve into further irrelevancy.

The main difference I have seen is that I can't remember the last time the Democratic party, or anyone in it, actually proposed anything remotely liberal, even as a bill they knew would be voted down.

Even the Clinton health care plan was a negotiated compromise from the start.

And yet, the word is on Friday we get another senate vote on the gutting of the Federal Estate Tax.

Kevin, you should post on it before the vote. But what I find is intersting is that the Republicans had been introducing bills either eliminating or gutting the Estate tax every year for the last ten years or more.

I have never seen a Democratic bill proposing some sort of tax increase.

So what can you rationally believe? The current Republicans are the ones you have to deal with, either way.

They always come out of the box with the most consevative proposal they can think of, with no regard to whether it could pass, the only regard is to stop just short, and I mean JUST SHORT of Ann Coulter crazyness.

Your cited "old liberals" remember the days when both sides introduced bills which were readily compromisable. Not bills like today introduced just to give everone something to talk about on the cable talk shows.

Israel Intensifies Hezbollah Attacks Deeper Into Lebanon

adguqdguedu

I think this is really fascinating and it's something I've been thinking a lot about lately. I basically agree with what Matt is saying. I think it's going to be nearly impossible for the Republican party to come back from Bush.

Many older folks, even dems, grew up with the frame of the Republican party being these kind of moderate, tough of defense, fiscally responsible grown ups. But for people my age, we've grown up with the frame of the republican party being, what you said, batshit insane.

It'll be interesting to see how this shift in generational public perception plays itself out in upcoming elections.

On the flip side though, most people my age think of the democratic party as weak, spineless and lacking a moral center. So it's not like the last ten years or so have been 100% future net gain for dems.

And, right on cue, you get the AH mischaracterization of some Democratic position.

Its insanity. Its like watching some LSD fueled Beatles video from the 60's.

Matt Yglesias argues, basically, that young liberal turks who have only been following politics since the time the Republican Party went batshit insane (which would be either 1994, 1998, or 2000, depending on how you keep score) have a fundamentally different worldview than old liberal fogies who have been following politics for decades.

I'd have to say sometime between the nomination of Nixon and the inauguration of Reagan. Though those later dates are plausible dates where it may have become substantially more obvious to people not paying close attention.

Given the GOP's recent history of using bipartisan charades as a thin excuse for back alley political muggings, the first group considers the whole idea of bipartisanship to be dangerously naive. The second group, conversely, continues to value traditional bipartisan comity as a way of getting things done.

And both are right: Traditional bipartisan comity is a useful way of getting things done in our broken two-party system, but it takes two to tango and, given the GOP's recent history of back alley political muggings, the idea of pursuing "bipartisanship" as if there were viable partners for that effort is dangerously naive.

Kevin, I see you still haven't learned the lessons of the 60's and 70's. Your attempt to expel Joseph Lieberman is just a example of that. You and your boss Kos are trying to launch a inquisition of anyone who disagrees with your left wing agenda. You did that in the 60's and 70's by supporting Eugene Mccarthy and George McGovern and look where it landed you. A string of losses leading to the great Conservative Ronald Reagan achieving victory. What Democrats need to do in order to start winning again is to run people who support the politics of consensus and compromise with people on both sides of the aisle.
That's what Joe Lieberman is trying to do. He's trying to reach out to people of both sides of the aisle. But liberals like you and your boss Kos are trying to force your agenda on the American people by forcing Ned Lamont on America. America is a democracy not a blogofascist dictatorship led by Kos. Americans are going to rebel if you try to force your extremist agenda on them. The same people who destroyed the Democratic Party during the Vietnam and the 60's and 70's are trying to destroy it again. People are just trying to help the Democratic Party by telling the leftist netroots that Ned Lamont is too much of a leftist for the American people but you won't listen. Watch Ned Lamont lose in the primary or the general election and we will tell you we told you so.

Because you haven't won a majority of the electoral votes since the mid 70s?

Bill Clinton won a majority of electoral votes in both 1992 and 1996.

Either your talking points are 15 years out of date, or you don't know what an "electoral vote" is.

Kevin, thank you as usual for your thoughts. But I think you need to define your terms. Who were the "loony-lefty Dems in the 70s and early 80s" and what unsound policies did they support? For example, George McGovern campaigned for president in 1976 on a platform of ending the U.S. war in Vietnam. Was this loony or was this astute?

For decades, mainstream liberal politicians have called for protecting a woman's right to control her reproductive functions; preserving our environmental heritage; protecting workers from abusive employment situations of many kinds; promoting freedom of religion by keeping the domains of religion and government separate; and basing policy on science rather than wishful thinking. Is any of this loony?

The signature bill that Clinton signed, that liberals regret but establishment Republicans insist needed to be done, was the welfare reform act that abolished AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) and replaced it with TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families). Among its flaws is a five-year lifetime cap on benefits. That means that a low-income working family benefiting from TANF to supplement income for five years gets zero assistance when the wage earners lose their jobs entirely. Real, non-loony liberals opposed that bill. And what did spineless collaborators with Republican hate-the-poor policies get for compromising? Nothing, except shifting the policy center further to the right.

This compromising was not necessary for the health of the Democratic party and it was not necessary for the health of the United States. After all, the amount of money saved by welfare "reform" is far less than the amount of money we continue to waste through corporate welfare.

If you want to talk about Republican pragmatism, at least as far as presidents are concerned you have to start before Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a crazed revolutionary who began twenty-five years of dismantling programs that made it possible for ordinary people to succeed.

Thank you for considering my views,

Respectfully submitted,

Well, it's about time for a generational shift...don't you think? More than likely the whole Lamont/Lieberman campaign is really that coming to a head.

But it's stupid to worry about the "far left". The progressive movement is actually in the ideological mainstream. How the GOP wins is convincing people that they have their own ideas to reach the same ends. But there's no argument about the ends.

Now, when people realize that the GOP are actually NOT looking for the same ends, then the GOP will be booted out of power probably for quite a while, until they do the same soul-searching, and make the same transformation that the Democratic party is in the process of making.

The interesting question is why the second group is so entrenched in their pre-Bush worldview.

I can't figger that out.

I am 61 years old and a ferocious participant in the netroots, even though I lived through the "bipartisan" era. I don't agree with the use of phrases like "old fogies" vs "young turks." Age has nothing to do with it. Many of the attendees at Yearly Kos were around my age. Don't forget that we lived through the counterculture, and many of us have not forgotten its lessons.

...young liberal turks who have only been following politics since the time the Republican Party went batshit insane (which would be either 1994, 1998, or 2000, depending on how you keep score) have a fundamentally different worldview than old liberal fogies who have been following politics for decades.

And our frustration is compounded because the GOP began their journey towards lunacy in 1980 (or 1964 or 1946, depending on how you keep score), and that the fogies should have seen it coming...

"liberal turks who have only been following politics since the time the Republican Party went batshit insane"

I am curious, how would you describe Cindy Sheehan, Nancy Pelosi and possibly Al Franken?

"Worrying about lefties in the Democratic Party when the GOP is led by a guy named George Bush is like worrying about the Michigan Militia when a guy named Osama is driving airplanes into your buildings. The fogies need to get real."

Comparing UBL to GW. Woops there goes another election.

"We bought and paid for this party and now it's time to take it" That was a quote from a Moveon.org member following the '04 election of GW. And you think the party has "drifted" left of center? I'd say it's gone off of the cliff.

Thanks cmdicely for debunking American (chicken)Hawk. I was about to get around to it...

"Worrying about lefties in the Democratic Party when the GOP is led by a guy named George Bush is like worrying about the Michigan Militia when a guy named Osama is driving airplanes into your buildings. The fogies need to get real."

Actually, it's like worrying about Saddam Hussein when a guy named Osama is driving airplanes into your buildings.

What is this Democrat Party you speak of American Hawk? I have never heard of it.

Do you mean Democratic Party?

Anyhow, once again, I fail to see how things like putting no one above the law and having a zero-tolerance policy for state-sponsored torture are radical.

CMDiceley: Bill Clinton won a majority of electoral votes in both 1992 and 1996.

Either your talking points are 15 years out of date, or you don't know what an "electoral vote" is.

I apologize for my error. I meant to say popular votes.

What is this Democrat Party you speak of American Hawk? I have never heard of it.

Do you mean Democratic Party?

Why do Democrats always quibble about this? Your own presidents have referred to it as the "Democrat party". It is the party which contains Democrats. Can we talk about the issues instead of petty nomenclature?

Thanks,
Hawk

"The teenage birth rate fell 3 percent in 2003 to 41.6 births per
1,000 women aged 15–19 years, another record low for the
Nation. The rate has plummeted by one-third since the 1991 peak
(61.8). The rate for females aged 10–14 years declined to 0.6 per
1,000, a one-third decline since 2000. Birth rates for teenagers
15–17 and 18–19 years each fell 3 percent. The rate for ages
15–17 years was 22.4 per 1,000, 42 percent lower than in 1991,
and the rate for ages 18–19 years was 70.7 per 1,000, 25 percent
lower than in 1991. Declines in rates have been especially striking
for black teenagers: their overall rate dropped 45 percent since
1991, whereas the rate for young black females 15–17 years has
plunged more than half. Rate declines for all teenagers were
substantial enough to more than compensate for the increased
number of female teenagers, so that the number of births to
women under 20 years dropped to the fewest since 1946, the first
year of the baby boom."

Joel, this is why welfare reform was important. Less unwanted children. Clinton did the right thing

Matt Yglesias is correct, and the obvious reason is that there is an ongoing fight for control of the Democratic Agenda. Thus, the Internet and the political blogs have made this fight overtly public. And that's a good thing.

And as a Chicano military vet of vintage age, i.e, the Vietnam War, here in the Sonoran Desert, the GOP has finally shown who and what it represents, despite the crappola of the Goldwater persona. And the current GOP is even farther to the Right than Goldwater ever dreamed. So, "batshit insane" is an appropriate descriptive.

And why did they go 'insane'? It started in the Reagan Era and when he (Reagan) figuratively and literally took his siesta. During this time, his national security wonks crafted a study in which the "hispanics" were deemed "potential fifth columnists" and further, immigration was to become the 'wedgie' of all wedgies. And when confronted with this "batshit insanity", Reagan disavowed the study and ordered it destroyed, and much to his credit. But the political damage had been done. Consequently, Chicanos have and maintain a high level of distrust of the GOP and now, the GOP intentionally speaks of animals relative to undocumented immigrants. Go figure.

Thus, Chicanos as military veterans are determined that the GOP will become a minority political party given our demographics and political behavior. And this comes out of the behavior that is now inculcated among and within the overtly "aggressive" Moderates. Consequently, "la marcha" of several weeks ago contained no violence and only white shirts ala Latin American politics.

Jaango

Hmmmm, let's see here, turn into Chicken Hawk or die. Which arm do you want for the injection. If the only way I can survive politically is to become a hateful greedy sub-human that preys on the weakness of the unfortunate for my own monetary gain, use the left arm.

I apologize for my error. I meant to say popular votes.

And Al Gore won a majority of the popular vote in 2000. Strike Two.

Can we talk about the issues instead of petty nomenclature?

Have you ever talked about the issues? Sans Rush talking points and fragile strawmen?

"Reagan was a crazed revolutionary who began twenty-five years of dismantling programs that made it possible for ordinary people to succeed"

Joel, Reagan was:

Largely responsible for the demise of the cold war, ending a lot of fear among "ordinary people"

Responsible for giving huge tax incentives to corporate technology R&D departments in the 80's which led to the technology boom of the 90's which made a lot of "ordinary people" a lot of money.

Largely responsible for the release of 444 hostages in Iran giving a lot of "ordinary people" their lives back.

Largely responsible for tearing down the Berlin Wall giving East Germans their freedom.

Your lack of objectivity is transparent and ignorant.

And Al Gore won a majority of the popular vote in 2000.

No, Al Gore won a plurality (the greatest single share but less than a majority) of the popular vote in 2000.

Negroponte's dead in Central America do not consider Reagan a pragmatic conservative, but the ###X CEO compensation metric makes a good point. Like Republicans, Democrats sell out to wealthy corporations and we can expect increasing confiscation of the surplus value added by real people who add value to goods and services regardless of which US political party wins power. In 2012 we will still be in Iraq and CEOs will still be paid an increasing proportion more than their employees. I am happy to blame the leftist/witch hunters of the Democratic Party for this situation.

You know, someday some historian or political scientist is going to write about thie era, I mean, its really unbelievable.

I mean, realistically, the meme of the age is that, if you are a Democrat, you only get to spend something less than 50% of whatever time you devote to politics persuading people that your views would be good policy.

You get to spend at least 50%, maybe more, knocking down straw man after straw man after straw man.

I really think its time to bring back the fairness doctrine. There is so much conservative b.s talkradio and everything else that a sizeable percentage of the population has not idea what policy proposals the Democratic party actually stands for. Moreover, they also have no idea what policy proposals the Republican party actually enacts.

Its not a sustainable situation.

Your attempt to expel Joseph Lieberman is just a example of that. You and your boss Kos are trying to launch a inquisition of anyone who disagrees with your left wing agenda.

GOP Play #1: Demonize The (mysterious and elusive) Angry Left.
Um, Al, Connecticut voters, like most Americans, reject the incompetent hackery of the Bush administration. And, as has been well documented, Lieberman has been a serial enabler of that hackery. It's not an inquisition. It's not even personal. It's just business. Joe is the poster boy for Spineless Democrats(TM).
He's got to go.

What Democrats need to do in order to start winning again is to run people who support the politics of consensus and compromise with people on both sides of the aisle.

What in the blue fuck would a Republican know about "the politics of consensus?"

That's what Joe Lieberman is trying to do. He's trying to reach out to people of both sides of the aisle.

What, with his lips?
Here's Joe's Televised GOP Kissy List:

Dick Cheney
George Bush
Scott McClellan
Ann Coulter
Sean Hannity
Bill O'Reilly
Steve Gill, former Congressional candidate
Pat Robertson
William F. Buckley
Michelle Malkin
Rush Limbaugh
David Brooks
Carl Cameron, Fox News
Chris Shays
Nancy Johnson
Fred Barnes
Oliver North
Ed Rogers, Republican strategist
Ken Mehlman, RNC Chair

There's a reason Joe gets so much love from the GOP, Al.
Same reason I get a funny feeling - in a good way - when I think of a couple of Republican senators from Maine. (Susie, Oly, call me!)

But liberals like you and your boss Kos are trying to force your agenda on the American people by forcing Ned Lamont on America.

Yeah, that whole "free and fair elections" thing probably would seem unfamiliar to you. Maybe you could bring Katherine Harris up. It ain't like she's busy.

America is a democracy not a blogofascist dictatorship led by Kos.

Hee! I think I've found my new signature.

Americans are going to rebel if you try to force your extremist agenda on them.

That's the smartest thing you've said yet. And it's exactly why Lieberman's going down faster than a Clinton intern.
Americans reject the extremist agenda of the Bush administration. And, given a choice between someone who enables that extremism, and someone who stands up against it? Even you can figure that one out.

The same people who destroyed the Democratic Party during the Vietnam and the 60's and 70's are trying to destroy it again.

Yeah, their names are "Cheney," and "Rumsfeld" and "Wolfowitz."

Watch Ned Lamont lose in the primary or the general election and we will tell you we told you so.

Bring. It. On.

Ckelly: And Al Gore won a majority of the popular vote in 2000. Strike Two.

No, he had 48%, and Clinton never broke the low-40s.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

By contrast, Bush had a majority in 2004:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

Have you ever talked about the issues? Sans Rush talking points and fragile strawmen?

What are we doing right now?

Reagan was:

Largely responsible for the demise of the cold war, ending a lot of fear among "ordinary people"

Er, no. The fact that the cold war was largely a spending war between an advanced economy and a very large third-world economy was responsible for that, and that fact was well-established by the early cold war.

Responsible for giving huge tax incentives to corporate technology R&D departments in the 80's which led to the technology boom of the 90's which made a lot of "ordinary people" a lot of money.

Most of the key technologies (like the WWW) enabling the tech boom weren't developed weren't developed in corporate R&D departments.

Largely responsible for the release of 444 hostages in Iran giving a lot of "ordinary people" their lives back.

Only insofar as delaying their release enabled the Iranian mullahs to get a leader they preferred.

Largely responsible for tearing down the Berlin Wall giving East Germans their freedom.

No, see the cold war as spending war comment above.

Noam is right that beating up on loony-lefty Dems in the 70s and early 80s was arguably necessary for the health of both the party and the country. But here's the thing: it worked.

It didn't do them a damn bit of good.

In the minds of most FoxNews watchers, anyone to the left of McCain is a Stalin-loving, terror-supporting, sodomite frenchman.

The only thing that came of this, is the Dems abandoned their base, and have been losing electoral ground steadily since then. Except for Clinton. Who wasn't a Democrat.

"There is so much conservative b.s talkradio and everything else that a sizeable percentage of the population has not idea what policy proposals the Democratic party actually stands for. Moreover, they also have no idea what policy proposals the Republican party actually enacts.

Its not a sustainable situation."

Still in denial. It's amazing that the left is still saying that their message is not being heard after a record turnout of voters and a hugely divisive campaign in '04.

You're message is being heard, people are not buying it.

FYI, simply tune to MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, SF Chronicle and Air America (among others) to hear your partys positions.

"Most of the key technologies (like the WWW)"

The WWW was a by-product of the technolgy boom. The microchip developed by Steve Wosniak and silicon wafers were a huge result of that R7D money.

"...the Iranian mullahs to get a leader they preferred"

"The fact that the cold war was largely a spending war between an advanced economy and a very large third-world economy was responsible for that"

No shit. And who's idea was to out arm and out spend them?

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall"

Do you honestly think that the mullahs care who our President is? They were afraid of what Reagan might do.

Beware of those who would categorize. I was born in 1943, supported both JFK and Bill Clinton, think that W is the gratest threat to the Republic since George III, and think that my Yale classmate Joe Lieberman is a fine man, but that he has lost track of his bearings.

Go figure, but keep in mind that the Rs have moved so far to the Right that we can claim both the Center AND the Left, and the only way we can lose is to insist on only one.

xtalguy nails it.

I'm 52 years old, and I've been following politics closely since Watergate. But anyone who's paying any attention has to realize the ballgame's changed.

This isn't 1975, with Jerry Ford in the White House and an overwhelmingly Dem Congress; this isn't 1986, when Dems controlled the House, were about to retake the Senate, and even Reagan was starting to moderate in a number of areas; and it isn't 1997, when Clinton's political chops had been strengthened by reelection, but hadn't yet been undermined by the Lewinsky business.

In all those eras, the Dems could be bipartisan, because the Republicans couldn't pass laws without them. But now the Republicans have it all, and are taking no prisoners. For example, if Sen. Stevens' telecom bill makes it to the floor tomorrow, and is amended to protect Net Neutrality, we know that won't be worth a tinker's damn in conference committee: the worst of the House and Senate bills will pass, and Net neutrality will die.

In such an environment, of what value is Democratic bipartisanship? There's really no difference between bipartisanship and throwing in the towel, until we regain at least one house of Congress.

Jay: simply tune to MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, SF Chronicle and Air America (among others) to hear your partys positions

The only cable channel that properly expresses The Party's Truth is Fox News. And The Truth approved by The Party is the only truth there is.

P.S. Do you catch our special report on how the choco ration was increased from 20g to 10g?

Well, its appears to me that what people are "buying" at the moment, or to be more accurate, "bought" since there is another "sale" this fall, is that (i) military intervention in the Middle East is in some way important to the security of this country, (ii) cutting taxes and government revenue without any corresponding cuts in government expenditures is in some way "conservative" and (iii) quick, pull up your feet, there's a (a) fag, (b) nigger, (c) wetback, (d) welfare queen, (e) "lib-rul" under your bed!!!!!

Now, if I thought any of those things, either singularly or in combination, were true, I'd vote Republican as well. As it happens, none of them are true at all.

Neither is it true that the alternative to those three choices is some make-believe socialist bogey-man which Fox, and Rush and everyone else pushes. However credit where credit is due, getting things to this state of affairs was pure politics, completely devoid of substance, and extremely well done.

Fox News had more viewers for their recent coverage of the middle east conflict than MSNBC and CNN combined.

What was that again about the Democrats going after the middle? Hillary has been trying that without too much success and without any support from her own party. Good luck with all of that.

As an old fogie liberal, I dont ever remember a time, where "Liberalism" ever hurt our Country, the way "Conservatism has done, and is doing at present.

I guess trying to stop rivers from catching on fire, because of pollution is nuts.

I guess liberals jumped the shark, for supporting and fighting for equal rights for all Americans.

Its pure insanity, to support higher wages for workers, who are the ones actually producing all the wealth.

Im loony for supporting National Heath Care.

I have lost it, because Im against borrowing billions from China and Saudia Arabia, to give tax cuts that mostly go to the top 1%.

The frustrating part, is that the majority of Americans support "Liberals", on the vast majority of the issues.

"The frustrating part, is that the majority of Americans support "Liberals", on the vast majority of the issues."

No......they don't. It's that denial thing. Your message has been heard and it's not resonating.

"I dont ever remember a time, where "Liberalism" ever hurt our Country"

Jimmy Carter 1976-1979
Double digit inflation
Double digit unemployment
52 hostages for 444 days

Do you honestly think that the mullahs care who our President is? They were afraid of what Reagan might do.

That would be the Reagan who sold advanced weaponry to those same Iranian mullahs, and who cut and ran from Hezbollah after they bombed 240 Marines? Yeah, they were really shaking in their boots for fear of that guy....

American Hawk writes:

Why do Democrats always quibble about this? Your own presidents have referred to it as the "Democrat party". It is the party which contains Democrats. Can we talk about the issues instead of petty nomenclature?

Sure, we can talk about the issues, just as soon as you get the nomenclature right. Is it really that tough? If you can't get the name of the opposing party correct, how can we trust you with more challenging issues?

Shorter Jay: Jimmy Carter?!? He's history's greatest monster!

Republican Party went batshit insane

Actually, painting the Republicans as "batshit insane" is just about right.

Obviously the Democratic Party can't do that directly, but the bloggers and the Al Frankens sure can.

As for 'bipartisanship,' hell, when it is possible to form a genuine alliance with a Republican, why not? Bob Barr, for example, is sincerely dedicated to civil liberties; and, of course, it makes sense to work with him on that topic. But this idea of being nicey nice in order to please David Broder - i.e., Lieberman shit - that's different.

Stefan: That would be the Reagan who sold advanced weaponry to those same Iranian mullahs ... they were really shaking in their boots for fear of that guy

Damn straight they were. Heck, Carter gave them nothing. But they knew that if they crossed Reagan he might stop selling them weapons.

Besides, he was such a tough guy in the movies.

The microchip developed by Steve Wosniak and silicon wafers were a huge result of that R7D money.

Steve Wozniak didn't develop "the microchip" or, as best as I know or can tell, any microchip, and both the microchip and most of Wozniak's major contributions to computers were developed in the 1970s, prior to Reagan's tax cuts. (And I'm pretty sure that Jobs and Wozniak's garage experimentation wouldn't have been eligible for those tax benefits, anyway.)

And who's idea was to out arm and out spend them?

It was the fundamental strategy of the entire Cold War, well established in the Truman Administration.

Do you honestly think that the mullahs care who our President is?

Yes, I think authoritarians who maintain support for autocracy largely through reference to external threat care very much how well foreign leaders support that propaganda.

I think a point your forgetting when making the "old fogies" versus "young turks" assertion is that bipartisanship used to be the only way that business could get done in Washington. Lieberman's approach is still rooted in joining the Senate in the Bush I years. Democrats still held the House, the Senate would switch around on occasion and you had a Republican in the White House.

If you wanted any chance at advancing an agenda you had to work with the other guys. Lieberman is probably most guilty of not noticing that our one party government does not require bipartisanship and hence he is paying the price.

the only way we can lose is to insist on only one.

How profound. I hope both the "Lieberman-wing" and the "netroots" think about that long and hard.

Sure, we can talk about the issues, just as soon as you get the nomenclature right. Is it really that tough? If you can't get the name of the opposing party correct, how can we trust you with more challenging issues?

Your own presidents call it the Democrat Party. It might not be the official name (which is the Democratic Party of the United States of America, if I'm not mistaken), but it's a workable abbreviation which-- once again-- is used by democrat presidents. What's the problem?

I think what Kevin is saying is generally true, and it's similar in a lot of ways to what happened to the Democrats and liberal policy after the 1960s. Just as many prematurely predicted at the time predicted that the Great Society and other New Deal policy extrapolations were here to stay, and that liberalism was ascendant, so too have a lot of pundits said this modern Republican conservatism is ascendant. In the former case, what seemed like the dawn of a new age was in fact the high water mark, and I think the same will eventually be said of the present.

There are all sorts of differences of course, but in both cases one party suddenly grabbed control of Congress for a time, and steadily became more extreme, until moderates were alienated and things swung back. The time scales are different; the Democrats took a lot longer to alienate the moderates than have the Republicans, but then, politics tend to 'move faster' these days. Besides which, I think liberals tend to be a little more competent when governing, perhaps because they believe more strongly in most of the government roles they control.

I think in 20 years conservatives will look back at this decade as a time of great but generally unfulfilled potential, much as liberals do for the 60s. Hopefully, at least. Once again (hopefully) the moderates and opposition will pull the country back from the irresponsible extremism that one party has arrogantly attempted to impose on us all.

"In 1983, members of Al-Dawa ("The Call"), an exiled Iraq political party turned militant organization, were imprisoned for their part in a series of truck bombs in Kuwait. In response to the imprisonment, an ally of Al-Dawa, Hezbollah took 30 hostages, [6] six of whom were American. Hezbollah demanded the release of the prisoners for these hostages. Members of the Reagan Administration believed that by selling arms to Iran, Iran would influence the Hezbollah kidnappers in Lebanon to release their hostages. At the time, Iran was in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War and could find few nations willing to supply it with weapons. [7] It would also, according to National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, improve strained relations with Iran. For that reason, President Reagan authorized the transfer of weapons to Iran"

Kind of like what Clinton did with NK, sell them technology on good faith. Woops.

"...and who cut and ran from Hezbollah after they bombed 240 Marines?"

Why are you chastizing a President for leaving a country he felt we had no reason to be in?

I need to read all the comments before posting - thank you RT for saying what I said but better

Just as many prematurely predicted at the time predicted that the Great Society and other New Deal policy extrapolations were here to stay,

I think the programs of the New Deal and the Great Society (S.S., Medicare/caid, etc.) are still rather popular. What would happen if a conservative politician came out and said they are going to end Medicare or S.S.? Wouldn't last long.

Part of the outrage over the conservatives/GOP are their attempts to dismantle New Deal and Great Society. There is no way they could come out and say they want to dismantle the programs. They have had to rely on disinformation and a slow incremental change. Now that the GOP has succeeded in a few things--and only a handful of token policies--people aren't liking it.

How profound. I hope both the "Lieberman-wing" and the "netroots" think about that long and hard.
Posted by: gq on August 2, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

The "netroots" want to get rid of Lieberman, specifically because Lieberman doesn't get that point. I think the "netroots" want a Democratic Party that includes both Center and Left ideas. It's the DNC bastards who have been purging the party of left, and center-left ideas, in the name of fellating the Bushites in hope of getting a pat on the head.

I am a big believer in the idea of, "if you want to do something, see how it has been done before." Gingrich had this exact same dynamic in the House Republican Conference.

"It's the DNC bastards who have been purging the party of left, and center-left ideas, in the name of fellating the Bushites in hope of getting a pat on the head."

Do you seriously think that this is what Howard Dean has been doing?

I don't buy any of it. The republican party began going batshit during the Reagan years. Remember Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority and its "voter guides".

Also in the face of the "Reagan Revolution", when the republicans rendered the label "liberal" to the pejorative, most federal democratic elected officials run as fast as they could from the liberal label and began masquerading as republicans. Thus democrats have been, generally, rendered to the minority.

Wasn't it Truman who said something to the effect that given the choice between a republican and a democrat assuming republican policies, voters will vote for the real republican every time.

"Gingrich had this exact same dynamic in the House Republican Conference"

I will definitely vote for, and hope that Gingrich is our next President.

"Also in the face of the "Reagan Revolution", when the republicans rendered the label "liberal" to the pejorative, most federal democratic elected officials run as fast as they could from the liberal label and began masquerading as republicans. Thus democrats have been, generally, rendered to the minority."

It's not the label. It's the positions.

Your own presidents call it the Democrat Party. It might not be the official name (which is the Democratic Party of the United States of America, if I'm not mistaken), but it's a workable abbreviation which-- once again-- is used by democrat presidents. What's the problem?

The problem would be that he's lying. But what do you expect from someone from the Republic Party?

Kevin writes: Noam is right that beating up on loony-lefty Dems in the 70s and early 80s was arguably necessary for the health of both the party and the country.

What a crock of shit. What the hell "loony-lefty" Dems are you talking about? Jimmy Carter? Give me a fucking break. Carter was a conservative southern Democrat. George McGovern? If we had listened to war hero George McGovern, the Vietnam war would have ended years earlier, saving the lives of tens of thousands of Americans and millions of innocent Vietnamese civilians.

Kevin (and apparently Noam Schreiber) have so totally internalized the extremist far-right-wing bullshit propaganda of the corporate gangster elites that they can actually say things like that with a straight face.

The fact is that the calculated, and very expensively implemented, corporate gangster strategy of demonizing the traditional populist-humanist policies of the Democratic Party as "loony-lefty" was not only NOT "necessary for the health of both the party and the country", it set the stage for all the destructive actions of the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II administrations, the destruction of American democracy, the complete supremacy of the military-industrial-petroleum complex and its belligerent and viciously anti-human imperialism, the ongoing destruction of the very capacity of the Earth (a.k.a. "the environment") to support life, and the neo-fascist corporate feudalist government that we have today.

It is attitudes like the one that Kevin expresses in that statement that have turned the Democratic Party into an impotent and useless pack of dweebs, crawling on their hands and knees to beg the corporate gangsters let them please, please, please kiss their fat asses too, just like the Republicans get to do.

And that's why after 30 years as a registered Democrat I changed my voter registration to Green.

Oh, the Greens can't win elections? Well if the Democratic Party of Kevin Drum "stands for" the sort of attitude that Kevin expressed in that comment, then I don't even care if they win elections or not. It would just be trading one pack of corporate gangster shills for another.

"In 1983, members of Al-Dawa ("The Call"), an exiled Iraq political party turned militant organization, were imprisoned for their part in a series of truck bombs in Kuwait. In response to the imprisonment, an ally of Al-Dawa, Hezbollah took 30 hostages, [6] six of whom were American. Hezbollah demanded the release of the prisoners for these hostages. Members of the Reagan Administration believed that by selling arms to Iran, Iran would influence the Hezbollah kidnappers in Lebanon to release their hostages. At the time, Iran was in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War and could find few nations willing to supply it with weapons. [7] It would also, according to National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, improve strained relations with Iran. For that reason, President Reagan authorized the transfer of weapons to Iran"

Why on earth would Cut 'N Run Jay post this snippet? It only bolsters the fact that Reagan negotiated with terrorists and sold them weapons, contrary to rapid Republican rhetoric to the contrary. I know his reading comprehension is poor, but man....

Kind of like what Clinton did with NK, sell them technology on good faith. Woops.

No, kind of like negotiating with terrorists and then arming then to reward them for taking hostages, which Republicans claim not to do.

Shorter Jay: Look! Over there! Bill Clinton!

gq said: I think the programs of the New Deal and the Great Society (S.S., Medicare/caid, etc.) are still rather popular.

Certainly the New Deal is, but a lot of the Great Society programs, and other political programs proposed at the time, never happened or have been rolled back (housing developments, welfare, etc.). And likewise some of what the Repubs have accomplished is popular enough to stick around for awhile (welfare reform again, for example, and decreased gun control).

But it certainly can't be said that liberals really got much of what they wanted before the country shifted to the right in the 70s and 80s.
Certainly not on the environment, capital punishment, national health care, etc. Likewise, I don't think conservatives are going to get any closer to their dream achievements (like the dismantling of New Deal programs) than they already have. Their peak has come and gone.

As time goes on, still-existing programs from the Great Society era and the, I dunno, Scary Society era (or whatever this will be called) will gain stature with time, and will therefore make it look like more was achieved 'back then' than really was. The failures will be mostly forgotten. So it's easy now to remember what is popular and has stuck around from the 60s, but it's worth remembering that most liberals of the time would be largely disappointed if they saw the society of today (or the 80s). As will today's conservatives.

So many nutty ideas in Kevin's post, hard to know where to start.

I'll leave it at this: As a Republican I am relieved that Drum has no clue how nutty the Democratic Party comes across to normal voters.

Cut 'N Run Jay: It's not the label. It's the positions.

Now we know what Jay's seduction line is to all those twelve year old girls he's so interested in getting to know better....

Jay wrote: Do you seriously think that this is what Howard Dean has been doing?

I seriously think that you are a grossly ignorant little twit, who lives in a one-dimensional, cartoon comic book world populated by the inane stereotypes and the bogus, fake, phony accounts of history that are spoon-fed to you by the Republican Party propaganda machine, which specializes in preying on weak-minded fools like you -- just as authoritarian political gangsters of every persuasion, from Hitler to Mao, have always done.

Politics to you is nothing but a role-playing dungeons & dragons game: The Great Hero Ronald vs. the Evil Liberal Empire. What a load of bullshit. You have no connection to reality at all.

Why are you chastizing a President for leaving a country he felt we had no reason to be in?

Brave Sir Ronnie ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When Hezbollah reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Ronnie turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Ronnie!

He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge...

Young Democrats and liberals are learning their strategy by watching the winners --the Republicans.

They watch the Shrums, the Liebermans and the like and say, "that's a losing strategy"

This is just like sports teams watch winners, and the "West Coast Offense" becomes the playbook for most of the NFL.

If the old "fogies" want the "young turks" to listen to them, the fogies had better start delivering some victories in both elections and policy.

Also, on Bill Clinton...seems like his strategy is co-opting conservative principles, modifying them with liberal aims and implementing them. I just don't see this strategy doing anything but undermining us with all Republican government. After all, the Republicans do the same thing and when they get Democrats to sign on, it legitimizes their game. I don't think Bill Clinton has adapted to the new reality (I'm a big fan of his but not this strategy at this point).

politics since the time the Republican Party went batshit insane (which would be either 1994, 1998, or 2000, depending on how you keep score)

1865.

Down goes Frazier: As a Republican I am relieved that Drum has no clue how nutty the Democratic Party comes across to normal voters.

As a Republican, by definition you know nothing about what "normal voters" think. You only know what Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter tell you to think.

Jeez, seems like it has been two years since last was heard the "Clinton was elected because of Perot" bs that American Hawk spewed.

Several polls taken at the time verified what common sense would have indicated - had Perot not run, a certain % of his voters would not have come to the polls; the rest would have split 50/50 between Clinton and Bush, making it roughly 54-46 Clinton.

MY: "But, either way, it's tough to get over your formative political experiences, which is why there's still a lot of sympathy in this group for the Liebermans of the world."

What I don't get is *why*?! I mean, I remember when politics was different. But being sentient, I have noticed the huge changes. I get it that what used to work doesn't work anymore. And I am not a politician. I have a day job and follow politics in my spare time.

So why-oh-why can't professional politicians like Lieberman and Harmon and Feinstein, who spend all their time working on and thinking about this stuff, get a clue? How can they not notice? Why are they so dense? It is like their brains froze in place 15 years ago and no new information can be allowed to change their views or reasoning.

Stefan, you do remember that Iran was fighting Saddam at the time right? Let's see, Reagan gave Iran guns and Clinton gave NK nuclear technology, and you don't consider Kim Jung a terrorist? Just can't see outside that partisan prism can you?

Secular, you're so unhinged you're not even worth addressing.

"No......they don't. It's that denial thing. Your message has been heard and it's not resonating."

Every poll shows that Americans side with liberals, and want Democrats in control.

07/13/06 FOX News Poll: Democrats Favored On Most Issues; Bush Approval Down
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203346,00.html

An actual leftist believes something aligned between workers' ownership of the means of production and dictatorship of the proletariat. Folks who believe in those things have, since the 30s, have had little interest in the Democratic Party. One might call them looney, but they are not liberals.
People who favor some measured redistribution of wealth as a matter of social policy have found no home other than the Democratic Party. While they have enjoyed some (hard won) victories, they have never attained ascendancy, either within the party or in national elections. One might call them liberals, but they are not looney.
It remains unclear to me why positionsin the 1970s like having the Mississippi delegation to the Democratic convention be proportional to their electoral strength (they are 75% of Democratic voters in that state,) ending the VietNam war or pondering whether the War on Drugs is sound policy merited the canard of "looney liberal." I cannot recall a single Democratic candidate for the Presidency advocating anything more radical than an adjustment in redistributive policy or a judicious foreign policy. In hindsight this might have been a strategic error but perhaps not. As long as the Republicans have a lock on the South (for reasons of race) they are going to be difficult to turn back at the national level. That said, why shouldn't the Democrats stake out a meaningfully different (and easily understood) ideology? It can't be worse than their current situation.

http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/07/this_weeks_clue_4.html

I think you're right but the history of this involves both parties and goes back 40 years, not just 25.

And as to our own time...

http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/07/a_brief_history.html

The current power structure reminds me of James Buchanan. And their fans remind me of Grace Slick.
http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/08/hippies.html

Well it's good to know that Stefan supports the presence of armed US Forces in Beirut.

And btw, when is you lawyer friend going to call me? Or is he a friend?

Every time Liberman, Clinton(s), and their ilk knock down another "loony lefty" (I too would like to know what that actually means), the Radicals use Fox and Rushbo to drag the "center" another 3 notches to the right. At this point the "center" is what Harry Hopkins would have called "reactionary fascism".

But hey Kevin, go ahead, keep spreading those Radical memes. I am sure it won't hurt in November (2006 or 2008).

Cranky

And btw, when is you lawyer friend going to call me? Or is he a friend?

For God's sakes, man, arrange your own dates.

"Every time Liberman, Clinton(s), and their ilk knock down another "loony lefty" (I too would like to know what that actually means), the Radicals use Fox and Rushbo to drag the "center" another 3 notches to the right. At this point the "center" is what Harry Hopkins would have called "reactionary fascism"."

Entitlement spending on Americans topped $360 Billion in 2005, a record amount.

Spending on hospice and education care for illegal immigrants topped 7.4 billion.

Ending a dictatorship in Iraq has cost nearly $300 billion in three and a half years.

Fighting AIDS in Africa has cost $15 billion over two years.

Hardly examples of fascism.

I can only surmise Cranky that you are a left-of-center communist.

Stefan, you do remember that Iran was fighting Saddam at the time right? Let's see, Reagan gave Iran guns

Yeah, at the same time as Reagan was also supporting Saddam with weapons, economic aid and diplomatic cover, thereby letting Saddam massacre the Kurds and Shiites. Good old Reagan -- no dictator or Iranian mullah he was afraid to arm, but scared to death of Hezbollah.

Very perceptive, Kevin.

The old generation of Democrats is falling away. Ned Lamont's win in Connecticut will be a sign. As the Eisenhower Republicans were pushed to the margins in the early 70's. Howard Dean was as Barry Goldwater. George Bush III is as Jimmy Carter. The proudly liberal - not pandering centrist - equivalent of Ronald Reagan is due in 2008. I haven't figured out who it is yet, but I'll let you know.

Ray said: An actual leftist believes something aligned between workers' ownership of the means of production and dictatorship of the proletariat. Folks who believe in those things have, since the 30s, have had little interest in the Democratic Party. One might call them looney, but they are not liberals.

Okay, so would you agree that people who favor actual religious theocracy are 'not conservatives'? I'd say they're loony and conservative. The liberal/conservative ideology axis is heavily flawed, but nonetheless, in common understanding, your example would be (by American standards) at the far left end of 'liberal', and mine would be at the far right end of 'conservative'.

I just don't get why people get so defensive about the notion that they share an ideology (broadly speaking) with some loons. Of course there are loony liberals. I know at least two living in West L.A. On the other hand, I live in a generally liberal corner of a liberal city, all my friends here (and I do mean all) are liberal or moderate Democrat, and I know only two loons.

Your point's a lot stronger if you just concede that some liberals are loons, while maintaining their influence and percentage is less than that of conservative loons. It just sounds like you're in denial otherwise.

And if you're going to point out that Democrat presidential nominees are not leftist by their party standards, it's worth pointing out that Republican presidential nominees are not rightist by their party standards, either. If you don't think there are plenty of Republicans to the right of Bush, you're not paying attention to the party. Not that I blame you...

evin, I see you still haven't learned the lessons of the 60's and 70's. Your attempt to expel Joseph Lieberman is just a example of that. You and your boss Kos are trying to launch a inquisition of anyone who disagrees with your left wing agenda. You did that in the 60's and 70's by supporting Eugene Mccarthy and George McGovern and look where it landed you. A string of losses leading to the great Conservative Ronald Reagan achieving victory. What Democrats need to do in order to start winning again is to run people who support the politics of consensus and compromise with people on both sides of the aisle.

Al, answer me one serious question, and I'll allow this statement above serious thought, if only for one second.

The question is this:

In your previous 5000 posts, you have made abundantly clear your disdain, contempt, and sneering superiority complex towards all things liberal abundantly clear. You hate liberals and Democrats. You are an openly and completely partisan Republican, and you hate, fear, and ridicule the idea of a Democratic victory.
Considering all of this, why would you give us genuinely good advice? Why would you not give us the worst possible advice - advice dedicated towards advancing your goals of destroying the Democratic party?

Go ahead. Give it your best shot. Or, as is more likely, ignore this question - because there is no convincing answer. Like Sean Hannity's embrace of Joe Liberman, taking advice on Democratic strategy from you is liking taking advice on US foreign policy from Saddamn Hussein. You consider us your enemy. You do not give your enemy advice to help him, but to destroy him.

It's not just a recent phenomenon.

The Repubs went insane starting at least with Reagan. This is when they first proferred the faith-based theory of supply-side cargo cult economics. And the lies and defiance of the rule of law exhibited in the Iran-Contra scandal were the template for the theory and practice of the unitary executive power we see today.

Think about this incredible factoid. There hasn't been an elected Republican president in half a century who shouldn't have been impeached. Nixon, obviously. Reagan for Iran-Contra. Bush Sr. for pardoning his accomplices and lying about his knowledge of and participation in Iran-Contra. And of course the over-the-top multiple offenses of W.

The Republican party is demonstrably a force for evil in our society. Let's not mince words.

A pretty good post, actually, ChiSox Fan, but then you threw it all away with that "Democrat presidential nominees," which use of "Democrat" as an adjective not a noun is the clear and piercing call sign of the loon.

"Yeah, at the same time as Reagan was also supporting Saddam with weapons, economic aid and diplomatic cover, thereby letting Saddam massacre the Kurds and Shiites. Good old Reagan -- no dictator or Iranian mullah he was afraid to arm, but scared to death of Hezbollah"

Hezbollah was actually doing the killing of Americans at the time. Iran did not kill any hostages and the Saddam reign of terror was in it's infancy. Leave it to a liberal to pick the wrong fight.

That being said, Americans have made middle east foreign policy mistakes for over four decades.

> If you don't think there are plenty of
> Republicans to the right of Bush,

At this point I don't think there is much question that Bush is a Radical - possibly a subset of neocons, but more likely just a Cheneyite.

At first one could have argued that Bush suckered the true conservative Republicans (and even the far-right loonie Repubs), but at this date it would be very hard to argue that anyone who still calls himself a Republican of any type is anything but a Radical or at best fellow-traveller of the Radicals (with a few useful idiots sprinkled in).

Cranky

Although reasonable minds can differ on this subject, Noam is right that beating up on loony-lefty Dems in the 70s and early 80s was arguably necessary for the health of both the party and the country. But here's the thing: it worked. In the late 80s and 90s the party became far more soberminded, adopting nearly all the prescriptions that the centrist neoliberals had been fighting for. The neolibs didn't win every single battle — no faction ever does — but they sure won a lot of them.

Yes, indeed. The Democratic establishment wisely distanced itself from the loony left McGovernite/Naderite wing of the party, and instead embraced GOP-lite DLC types like Bill Clinton.

The current heir apparent to this conservatizing trend is Mark Warner, a moderate, big business-loving southern Democrat very much in the Clinton mold.

Kevin's post is pretty much navel gazing gibberish. The reality is that if democrats are perceived as too far left, they will lose (absent economic calaminty). Unfortunately for democrats, the lieberman mess,the weakness of their leaders (Pelosi, Dean, Reid), and their hatred of Bush make them appear more liberal. And the "weak on national security" argument exacerbates the situation. Even Kevin seems to be succumbing to a mild form of Bush hatred.

A pretty good post, actually, ChiSox Fan, but then you threw it all away with that "Democrat presidential nominees," which use of "Democrat" as an adjective not a noun is the clear and piercing call sign of the loon.

You got me, Stefan. I've been practicing adding the -ic at the end of Democrat, but I slipped. Now Karl will surely beat me.

But seriously, is that not a usual way to put it? I think I say/write Democrat and Democratic interchangibly as adjectives, but they look the same to me.

Hezbollah was actually doing the killing of Americans at the time. Iran did not kill any hostages

Oh, well, as long as they were only taking hostages and not actually killing them, I suppose it's OK to secretly sell them advanced weaponry...

and the Saddam reign of terror was in it's infancy. Leave it to a liberal to pick the wrong fight.

It's infancy? Man, these pathetic rationalizations get lamer and lamer. The 1980s, when we were supporting Saddam militarily and diplomatically, was the same time as he was massacring the Kurds with chemical weapons. Tell the Kurds that it was OK for us to provide Saddam with the weapons that murdered them because Saddam (who'd been in power since the late 1960s) was still in his "infancy."

glasnost,

The proudly liberal - not pandering centrist - equivalent of Ronald Reagan is due in 2008. I haven't figured out who it is yet, but I'll let you know.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, please do. Perhaps you can persuade ole Dennis Kucinich to give it another go. It's always good to have a representative of the loony left in the Democratic primaries, if only for their entertainment value.

But seriously, is that not a usual way to put it? I think I say/write Democrat and Democratic interchangibly as adjectives, but they look the same to me.

Seriously, no. "Democrat" is a noun (i.e. "he is a Democrat") while "Democratic" is an adjective ("he belongs to the Democratic Party"). Using them interchangeably makes you sound ignorant and/or rude. It's as incorrect as using "Republic" and "Republican" interchangeably as adjectives (i.e. "he belongs to the Republic Party").

Stefan, your self adoration is nauseating, your moral equivalency is disgusting and, like most dishonest intellectuals, your hindsight is 20/20.

What would someone in your high position offer up as a solution to the ME that has plagued the west for four decades? Afterall, that's how elections are won, not by telling everyone what they've done wrong.

Solutions?

Anything?

Anything at all?

Stefan,

I've never heard that that's rude, but I'll concede it grammatically. But I don't think your Republic/Republican example works. The nouns are 'Republican' and 'Democrat'. The adjective for 'Republican' is, also, 'Republican', or at least I've never heard anything else used. You can't add an -ic to Republican (perhaps, an 'ick', though). So I'm the one actually using 'Republican' and 'Democrat' in the same way: interchangibly as nouns and adjectives.

In any case, I'll tell you what. One of my closest friends is phone-banking for Ned Lamont. If she tells me it's rude, I'll stop using it. I may well be ignorant about this, but only because I never noticed. Seems minor to me, in any case.

That being said, Americans have made middle east foreign policy mistakes for over four decades.
Posted by: Jay

the most notable among them being the unquestioning support of israeli aggression and ethnic cleansing of palestinians.

not a bad concession for a typical racist repub to make, jay.

Because the democrat platform is a few steps short of soviet communism?

There is no "democrat" party, much less a platform, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

The Bush Party platform hasn't been much adapted since 1186. The first plank involves slaughtering the infidels and heathens in Jerusalem. I think the phrase "the streets will run with blood" appears about 37 times in the document.

"the most notable among them being the unquestioning support of israeli aggression and ethnic cleansing of palestinians."

um......didn't Israel let the Palestinian remain following their victory in the six-day war?

um.....don't Israeli's and Palestinians live side by side in many Israel communities.

um......didn't Irsrael leave Gaza in 2005 for the Palestinians?

um.....Didn't Yasser Arafat walk away from a defined border agreement allowing what could have been the official "State of Palestine"?

Ethnic cleansing? (read: intellectual dishonesty)

"The Bush Party "

um....there is no "Bush Party"

Since we're all being technically correct

Saddam (who'd been in power since the late 1960s)

Actually, Stefan, Saddam seized power in 1979; he was Vice President through most of the '70s, gradually consolidating his power through control of the Baath Party nomenklatura. But, yes, obviously the '80s were the real thick of his genocidal stage, and the stage when we were tacitly backing him against Iran. The timeline is similar to Stalin, who gradually consolidated control through the '20s, took over fully in '29, and was in full purge-gulag-show trial mode from about '34 until the war.

try not to be so coy jay ... you've been posting your bullshit here long enough, and have said enough about the palestinians and muslims in general, that we know how you really feel.

you're the epitome of racist, repub white trash. your opinions are those of a mongrel speaking of his betters. your dishonesty regarding the displacement and murder of palestinian civilians by israeli expansionists reads like holocaust-denial.

you're racist trash ... you have no credibility.

The only people who say "Democrat party" or otherwise use Democrat as an adjective are Republicans trying to annoy us.

It started in use in the 30s against FDR, then was revived by Bob Dole when he ran for VP in 1976.

Democrats don't use it.

there isn't much tacit about rumsfeld handshake with saddam, brooksfoe ... reagan supported this monster and encouraged his actions against the iranians and the kurds.

like many conservative posters here, reagan (or whomever was wiping his drool for him at that time) felt that the more arabs killing each other, the better.

Nads, your projectionism is embarassing.

Unable to legitimately debate the argument, Nads resorts to personal attacks. Taking a page right from Howard Deans notebook, I thought liberals were better than that.

In any case, I'll tell you what. One of my closest friends is phone-banking for Ned Lamont. If she tells me it's rude, I'll stop using it. I may well be ignorant about this, but only because I never noticed. Seems minor to me, in any case.

Coincidentally Hendrik Hertzberg has an article on this in this week's New Yorker in which he traces the eytomology and (mis)usage of "Democrat Party" and notes:

The Democratic Party itself takes this view, and many nonpartisan authorities agree. The American Heritage College Dictionary, for example, defines the noun “Democratic Party” as “One of the two major US political parties, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828.” (It defines “Democrat n” as “A Democratic Party member” and “Democratic adj” as “Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party,” but gives no definition for—indeed, makes no mention of—“Democrat Party n” or “Democrat adj”.) Other dictionaries, and reference works generally, appear to be unanimous on these points.

There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. “Democrat Party” is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but “Democrat Party” is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams “rat.” At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation. During the Cold War, many people bridled at obvious misnomers like “German Democratic Republic,” and perhaps there are some members of the Republican Party (which, come to think of it, has been drifting toward monarchism of late) who genuinely regard the Democratic Party as undemocratic. Perhaps there are some who hope to induce it to go out of existence by refusing to call it by its name, à la terming Israel “the Zionist entity.” And no doubt there are plenty of others who say “Democrat Party” just to needle the other side while signalling solidarity with their own—the partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign.

In the conservative media, the phenomenon feeds more voraciously the closer you get to the mucky, sludgy bottom. “Democrat Party” is standard jargon on right-wing talk radio and common on winger Web sites like NewsMax.com, which blue-pencils Associated Press dispatches to de-“ic” references to the Party of F.D.R. and J.F.K. (The resulting impression that “Democrat Party” is O.K. with the A.P. is as phony as a North Korean travel brochure.) The respectable conservative journals of opinion sprinkle the phrase around their Web sites but go light on it in their print editions....

The job of politicians, however, is different, and among those of the Republican persuasion “Democrat Party” is now nearly universal. This is partly the work of Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz, the Johnny Appleseed of such linguistic innovations as “death tax” for estate tax and “personal accounts” for Social Security privatization. Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party....

I am deeply disturbed by this, from Jay in the Rennaissance thread:

I am not sure what the solution is. You all seemed to be convinced beyond any doubt that our current path is all wrong and I just demonstrated that our paths for the last 27 years have failed as well. We all need to quit pointing fingers at ourselves and begin pointing our fingers at thos who really are to blame...
Whatever the answer is; war, diplomacy or a combination of the two, we need to collectively figure this out. Divided, we will fall.

"Collectively figure this out"???

Jay, a closet Socialist...

Who knew? The only glitch is that GWB is a divider, not a uniter.

Hopeless Pedant,

I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I've voted for plenty of candidates from both parties. If you seriously are offended by the use of 'Democrat' as an adjective, or else see it as automatically some sort of attack on the party, you really need to take a deep breath.

This is one of the pettiest, least important things to which I've ever seen people take offense. I mean, I consider myself fairly well read on Amerian political history, but it's news to me that this is a 1930s anti-FDR slur, or something Bob Dole said before I was born. I must be missing something, because this just seems bizarre to me.

no, your the divider. This issue has been debated ad nuseum for five years most notably in 2004 wherein the public voted and by more than 3.5 million popular votes, chose GW's positions. You have failed to recognize that fact and continue to DIVIDE, instead of resolve.

(read: intellectual dishonesty)

"This is one of the pettiest, least important things to which I've ever seen people take offense."

Welcome to Political Animal.

By 2008, the American public will be ready for a WW2 type effort on energy independence for environmental, military, and economic reasons. The wedge issues so useful to the right will have less power. The Thugs version will be mostly pork for existing fossil fuel vendors some of whom will be reluctantly diversifying and want to be subsidized by corporate welfare for their efforts.

The Dems must make the case, starting now, that daily, unnecessary energy consumption has to be considered unpatriotic and that the supposedly free market old guard is both too slow to respond and too subject to a conflict of interests on energy consumption. We need a New Deal type effort focusing on a variety of short and long term adjustments to a slowly boiling world. Since no 'one size fits all' panacea to this problem is on the horizon only government, state and local, efforts can coax us all, corporations and individuals, towards restraint and alternatives. It is our responsibilty to the future of our country and our species to make this effort. The sociopathic mindset of partying in extremis while our country slides towards third economic strata and the environment exponentially degrades in anticipation of unavoidable catastrophe or rapture must be unrelentingly exposed as the depravity that it is. The energy old guard has encouraged and profited handsomely from this mindset.

The time has come to ask what we ALL can do for our country and those that can do more, MUST do more, whether they want to or not.

Stefan,

There's a New Yorker article about this? Okay, I completely concede. Apparently everybody knew about this but me. Nonetheless, I was completely ignorant about this and used the forms interchangibly without ever so much as a conscious thought.

Nevertheless, it is not solely a Republican slur. It can't be, because that's not where I got it from. I don't have cable, so I didn't get it from Fox News, and I don't listen to talk radio. Though I must have picked it up from somebody I suppose.

"This attitude is what I've come to think of as Kaus-ism."

Kaus is indeed the preeminent backlash liberal, and wanker.

But even on the issues with which I am sympathetic to the views of certain conservatives - school choice, for instance, and um...um...okay I can't think of any others - I don't have a lick of confidence in their intellectual honesty, or their competence and fairness in making policy. If we did allow the right to rewrite education policy nationally, we would have convicted rapists and hustlers and probably Haliburton running our schools.

That's the thing about Mickey (and the rest of the ones left): he not only can't acknowledge that the right is to no small extent wrong on almost all matters of policy, as well as mean-spirited (and that mean-spirited is bad), but that they don't mean what they say (when they say the right thing), and that they're wholly, completely incompetent.

I like pudding

the more arabs killing each other, the better.

Nads, another quibble: Kurds and Iranians aren't Arabs, so there weren't any Arabs killing each other during the Iran-Iraq war or the anti-Kurd genocide.

On "Democrat Party": it's obviously a slur, ChiSox, and it's not silly. It's hard to find anything analogous, but it's similar to the way "Jap" or "homo" works.

Two possible solutions:

1. Retaliate asymmetrically. Start calling the Republicans the "Bush Party".

2. Adopt the moniker ourselves, and wear it as a badge of pride. Hope this works the way "queer" has.

Anyone? Thoughts?

Jay is a perfect example of what the GOP has become. (It began, Kevin, in 1968 with the "Southern strategy," when the party consciously decided to embrace its fringe elements. It really settled in with Reagan's election in 1980: people who were then longtime members of the party called the new converts "scary.") At one time - before the humiliation in 1964 - these people were on the fringes, the sort of people who drove around in old cars with Bible verses painted on them (to go with their "Strom Thurmond for President" and "Get U.S. out of the U.N." bumper stickers) - but they've slowly become the true face of the party. There are Senators now who have the same sorts of beliefs.

As America continues its decline into irrelevance, I expect this kind of nuttiness to grow, not diminish.

Yes, of course, brooksfoe. It's an obvious slur...why, exactly? What is obviously offensive or rude about the use of Democrat as an adjective?

In fact, can you name one other word that is standard for self-description by a group when used as a noun, yet is considered offensive when used as an adjective? 'Jap', to take one of your examples, is equally offensive when used as a noun or adjective. Come on...just name one other such word.

Given Stefan's cite, apparently Republican pundits use the word deliberately, so it's considered rude. That's fine, I'll avoid the word now on. However, I am not a Republican pundit, or any other type of Republican, so it's news to me. And if you step back and approach this without the knowledge of that history, it's not at all obvious why the term is offensive.

Anyways, I asked my hardcore Lamont campaign volunteer friend out of curiosity, and she thought it was no big deal, though she also said I do have some goofy political views. Anyways, I call bullshit on this 'everybody who uses the term is a Republican shill' nonsense. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Believe that I am if you want, though. Seems freaking paranoid to me.

As America continues its decline into irrelevance, I expect this kind of nuttiness to grow, not diminish.
Posted by: Alek Hidell on August 2, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

Indeed -- US politics are now almost a mirror image of politics in Russia until very recently (remember Zhirinovsky's "antics"?), and in Serbia to this day

ChiSox:

can you name one other word that is standard for self-description by a group when used as a noun, yet is considered offensive when used as an adjective?

How about "Jew"?

bad Jim,

You're right. I'm not doing too well here. Still, I'd argue that the use of 'Jew' as a slur is a lot better known than 'Democrat'. I won't try to argue it's not a slur anymore, as I haven't since that New Yorker article was cited, but it's not obvious.

I still think the whole thing is strange. Can't people just get offended by my ideas than my grammar instead? I'm more used to that.

no, your the divider

Beauty Jay
But, I think your the divider

For all those who consider the Lamont-Lieberman tussle a sign the Democrats are headed to the "loony left," how do they explain the party's unity in the larger state of Pennsylvania for Bob Casey, who is opposed to what is seemingly the biggest litmus test among national Democrats:"Thou shalt steadfastly support abortion rights (oops, make that 'a woman's right to choose' -- we can't really say the 'A' word)"?

bad Jim: that's the perfect example.

I'm not sure why the English language works this way, and certainly "Democrat" as an adjective is a lot less offensive than "Jew". But the connotation is there. Of course, to any thinking person, this kind of language does more to denigrate the person who uses it than the object of the slur; but a lot of people don't do a lot of thinking.

The intent, I think, is to take Republican voters from a place where they think of Democrats as legitimate Americans with different views, to a place where they think of them as some kind of alien and inferior being who taint everything they touch with the stench of anti-Americanism. That's why "Jew" as an adjective is such a good analogy.

And, ChiSox, I'm not sure who you thinks is saying "everyone who uses it is a Republican shill", but I don't think that's the point. I think the point is just to recognize and think about the word usage.

Added to that, of course, is that it's simply polite to refer to people or groups by the names they themselves choose to be known by. You'd think it rude, for example, if we all started calling you "Dodger Fan." Now, there's nothing inherently offensive about being a Dodgers fan (OK, some may disagree), but it would still be annoying to you, it would still be a sign of disrespect.

Jay is a sad example of a Republican who hasn't awakened yet, as I did. I voted for Ford, Reagan twice, and Bush the Elder, once. Then I began to see the Republican Party for all its lunacy and viciousness.

The subtle but very real appeals to racial prejudice--which built the Republican Party in the South.

The alliance with the Neo-Confederates.

The war against science and the embrace of creationist insanity.

The alliance with the Dominionists who want to replace our republic with a theocracy.

The incessant class war the Republicans have waged against the poor and working classes, while proclaiming that it is the Democrats who are somehow waging class war when they demand tax fairness and social justice.

The ranting ugliness of right wing media, with the ravings of far right hate radio leading the way.

The disgusting worship of this loathsome boob in the White House, an addled mental incompetent, who in 2000 was the least qualified candidate for president since William Jennings Bryan in 1896.

The refusal to recognize that Bush is a monstrous, life-long screw up who has been saved from his disasters by powerful, monied interests and cronies.

The Stalin-like attacks on anyone who dares to disagree with them, and the savage hatred of homosexuals.

And now, according to Santorum, the state has the right to police our bedrooms to make sure we are having only "procreative sex". According to Brownback, women should go back into the home and restore "traditional values". And Robertson, Falwell, DeLay, and Dobson want to declare America a "Christian Nation", which presumably excludes non-Christians (like me) from being considered a "real American."

Jay, is there any sin, any crime, any form of incompetence on the part of the Republicans you AREN'T willing to defend? The torture? The rendition of prisoners to places like Uzbekistan, where prisoners are sometimes tortured with boiling water? The utter screw-ups in Iraq, and Cheney's manipulation of the intelligence that got us there? Katrina? The monster deficits? The national debt crisis? The K-Street project corruption? The bribes? ANYTHING AT ALL?

I remember a time when Republicans used to give a damn about decency, honor, and America's future. I sure as hell don't see many of those kinds of Republicans now.

Is it worthwhile to respond to trolls like A.H.? It seems to be a waste of intellectual talent and precious time to debunk them. There are plenty of interesting and substantial comments on a large number of issues that need a thorough vetting.

It seems that dialogue with the trolls only encourages them and I don't see how the trolls contribute anything of value. Is it sport to tryst with trolls?

brooksfoe, that may well be the intent when Republicans use it. But as with probably most slurs, there's nothing inherently offensive about the word. Therefore it's the history of use, and the associated intent, that matters, and I was ignorant of this apparently well-known history, which is why the whole thing mystified me. I just don't think you can reason your way analytically or entymologically to the conclusion that 'Democrat' is offensive. I'll avoid its use from now on.

As for the Republican shill part, hopeless pedant said:

The only people who say "Democrat party" or otherwise use Democrat as an adjective are Republicans trying to annoy us.

So some people at least do think this. I'm fine with people attacking me over my views but this is the first time I've been attacked for a slur, on or off the internet, which is why I'm defensive. In any case, I'm finished with it. If people want to think I'm another moniker for Al, whatever.

Just saw Stefan's comment. Now we're in territory I know, baseball. If I were called a Dodger fan, I would be deeply offended. Same as if I were called a Dodgers fan. But if I were a fan of the Dodgers, those usages would be completely interchangible. I have never heard of a fan of a team being offended by that sort of usage, and I've been a fanatical baseball fan all my life. Dodger fan, Yankee fan, Brewer fan, etc., I've never heard of anyone caring about that usage. I think I use them all interchangibly; I'm from Wisconsin, and I'm certain I say 'Brewer fan'. I've never been called on it.

'White Sox' isn't a good example, as it's inherently plural and the singular is rarely used in any context. However, I'm a fan of the Green Bay Packers, and I would never notice if I were referred to as a Packer or Packers fan. I'm sure both happen; I never notice. And I've never heard of anyone caring.

I think your own example proves my point, that it's not inherently (or by analogy) obvious that Democrat is offensive when used as an adjective. It's offensive because that's the way it's been used by the Republicans. And it's probably grammatically offensive.

Yeah, but ChiSox, nothing in language is inherent. Language is usage. What I'm wondering is what exactly it was in "Democrat Party" that Gingrich and Luntz find such a useful tool of mind control. I still think it's part of a process of stigmatization, in which the political process is repainted not as a conversation but as a struggle between two inimical groups, where the other is the out-group and every idea or proposal or politician belonging to that group is then tainted. So I think there is some buried semantic content there in the substitution of a noun as an adjective.

Just think about how the statement "He is a Communist" sounded in, say, 1880, and how it sounded in 1955. In 1880 it was a statement of belief in certain principles or practices, like "He is a humanist" or "He is a vegetarian" (or a Christian, for that matter). By 1955 it had become an essentializing term of denigration, like "He is a pederast" or "He is a racist". The term "liberal", in the mouth of contemporary conservatives, has a similar ring.

kandis
The term "troll" - it seems to me - is a play on a fisherman's lure.
Nonsense calculated to be offensive is spewed to elicit outrage. Although an antisocial behaviour, it is certainly common ; especially on this blog.
That said, taking the bait is only significant if the discussion is derailed.
They do, however, help keep people alert to false logic. Citing references is another way some semblance of honest conversation. And, of course, bloggers who reference their blogs score extra points. Discussion can migrate to another space where a topic can be worried to death.
Does responding to trollery encourage them ?
Foo. Not much encouragement ( if any ) seems necessary. More makes no significant difference.

I would like to return to two things Jay said above. One is the meme that Reagan is responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union.

Jay said:

"Reagan was:

Largely responsible for the demise of the cold war, ending a lot of fear among 'ordinary people'."

Rewriting history. I don’t know how old you are, but I am 60 and lived during the 80s. There is no one person or group of people that can take full credit.

To the extent any one person CAN take credit, it is Gorbachev, who realized that the Soviet Union couldn’t continue on its course. He pushed for glasnost’ (publishing is the translation, but I think transparency describes the spirit better) and perestroika (rebuilding). He pushed the old guard into moving toward a more truly representative government.

Many other forces were in play and had been. For one thing, when Lenin took over, he decided to go for 100% literacy and ensuring that all citizens would at least have a high school education. That alone began to undermine the Soviet government, because when people can read, they can read outside the Party lines and they begin to think for themselves.

The Communists were not popular even in Russia, much less in the satellites, or even in Ukraine and Belarus, where there is a long shared history and close to identical languages. Consider Solzhenitzyn or Sakharov.

Also, there was a very active underground publishing system, called samizdat (sam, self, and izdat, publishing). These were paperbacks published on cheap paper, typeset by hand, and spread as I said, underground. The samizdati loathed the Communists. I know. I minored in Russian, and in my first library job back late 60s early 70s I cataloged some of these publications.

The Communists were actively HATED in the satellite countries. I sing in a choir which has traveled in Europe. We were in Hungary and Yugoslavia in 1988. Believe me, the folks in those countries had no use for the Communists. In fact, the Russian soldiers stationed there could not leave their bases alone or they wouldn’t survive. They always had to travel in groups of 2 or more. The locals told us this.

Also consider Solidarity and Lech Walesa. There is another man who can claim a great deal of credit.

Another thing Jay said:

"The WWW was a by-product of the technolgy boom. The microchip developed by Steve Wosniak and silicon wafers were a huge result of that R7D money."

The Internet was originally a government operation. DARPAnet (Defense Department) started in the 70s, maybe even late 60s, was the earliest "Internet". Al Gore as a senator pushed for funding to make the Internet available to the public for the cost of a hookup of some sort.

The World Wide Web wouldn’t be possible without the backbone. I’m not saying that Wosniak et al didn’t also play into it. But the idea that it was entirely a private enterprise effort is ludicrous.

Google has decided to digitize books and make them available on the Web. They will only be available in toto for free if they are in the public domain. If still under copyright, you would be able to see the table of contents and perhaps a chapter. You would have to pay to see the rest of the book.

Jay, where do you think they are getting the book collections? Hint: not from private enterprise. There is one large private collection that I know of, Linda Hall in Kansas City.

But where are the large book collections? In libraries, particularly university libraries. So who is Google contracting with to digitize these books? University libraries. They’re starting off with the University of Michigan, and Harvard and Stanford and one other large university library which I don’t recall right now after U Mich. In fact, Jay, Google Scholar is based mostly if not entirely on university libraries’ journal holdings.

You worship the “market” and private enterprise. I don’t. Private enterprise is capable of great things but so is the public sphere. Both have to be run competently. Both need sufficient funds. Both need a certain amount of oversight. And the areas where they operate best are different.

It's too late to belabor the grammatical point (sorry, I had a TV date with my elderly mother, Mozart, Morgan Spurlock, The Daily Show & Colbert Report).

In general, though, the use of a noun as an adjective, when there's a common adjectival form available, tends to sound rough, as in abrasive. "Boy" and "Girl" are two more examples, though too sexualized to be convincing.

Nads said that Jay is racist trash and has no credibility. While I disagree with many of the points Jay has made here, I do not believe he is a racist; he is a human being and not trash, and he seems to sincerely believe what he posts here, so in that sense he is credible, and I don't think that Nads is behing helpful in this discussion by bringing in accusations of racism.

There are many sincere and ethical ways to look at the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. One can see justice and injustice in a lot of ways, and it's not legitimate to accuse someone of racism just because they see justice in the plight of Israel, or because they see justice in the plight of the Palestinians.

Yeah, but ChiSox, nothing in language is inherent. Language is usage. What I'm wondering is what exactly it was in "Democrat Party" that Gingrich and Luntz find such a useful tool of mind control.

As Stefan said, the purpose of the usage is simply to make a show of disrespect. There's nothing more to it.

It is the smallness of their hearts on full display.

Uh, Kevin, I'm not sure you're aware of this, but George Bush is going to leave the White House at the end of 2008. I'm having a hard time seeing how that makes him the greatest threat to the Republic since Henry Wallace.

Some good points, Kevin, but imho you missed to draw an obvious conclusion from these insights:
"The neolibs didn't win every single battle — no faction ever does — but they sure won a lot of them.

At the same time, the Republican Party abandoned the (in hindsight) relatively pragmatic conservatism of Ronald Reagan and became crazed reactionaries"

Do you think this is a mere coincidence or isn't this a cause and effect relationship?
The neolibs covered many of the former exclusively republican political standpoints,especially welfare reform. so they forced the GOP to seek their voters further to the right. Doesn't this necessarily lead to the conclusion that a centrist Dem policy makes the GOP go radical? Since we know now how this works out, wouldn't it be very reasonable to pursuit a more left wing policy, in order to give more moderate Republicans a chance to gain strength against the extremists?

Bless you, Joel Rubenstein. You said exactly what I was going to, but with the civility that these days I find difficult to summon.

Democratic Party ideals and platforms have perfectly reflected the ideals and desires of the majority of Americans for 74 years now. What's changed is the GOP's adoption of underhanded electoral tactics.

As for centrism, John Dean points out that as a Goldwater - Goldwater! - republican, his positions are now LEFT of "center" not because his positions have changed, but because the wingnuts have dragged the "center" into John Birch territory.

Hey, just a quick clarification? Which attitude being called Kaus-ism?

"Why should anyone even moderately left of center spend more than a few minutes a week worrying about a barely detectable liberal drift in the Democratic Party?"

Well, since you know them better, KD, why don't you ask the tools at the DLC why they worry about just this thing? oh, and Hillary too.

One can see justice and injustice in a lot of ways, and it's not legitimate to accuse someone of racism just because they see justice in the plight of Israel, or because they see justice in the plight of the Palestinians.

Okay, but is it okay to accuse someone of being a genocidist when he advocates the wiping out of every single Muslim on the planet, like Jay did?!

mich:

"Kaus-ism" from context appears to be conventional DLC-style centrist democratic wisdom -- only articulated so stridently that it appears reactionary in form.

All the hand-wringing by Lieberman about how the Democrats have been hijacked by frothing leftist Kossack ideologues would be a good example. Whether or not there's a grain of truth to it, Lieberman articulates it stridently, as if he were a poor, pure martyr on the altar of Sensible Bipartisanship.

Another example would be Mickey Kaus' strident attempts to triangulate a position on immigration reform that can cop some of that dee-licious racial resentment the Republicans are so fond of gobbling up. Again -- it's not so much whether or not a centrist position on immigration is a good thing -- it's an unhealthy lust for the right-wing mojo on it.

Attacking Howard Dean -- that Rockefeller Republican in antiwar drag -- as a "left wing extremist" -- when done by so-called centrist Democrats -- is another example.

In other words -- it's using rather heated and unbalanced rhetoric to trash the left in the interest of moderation. Which is, in itself, a contradiction in terms.

And this is why most genuinely sensible people consider Mickey Kaus at best an amusing clown ...

Bob

Thomas wrote, "is it okay to accuse someone of being a genocidist when he advocates the wiping out of every single Muslim on the planet, like Jay did?!" I just re-read every comment posted here by Jay, and, while I disagree with many of his points, I did not find anywhere anything suggesting mass extermination of Muslims. There is no basis in these comments for suggesting that Jay is a racist or that Jay is an advocate of genocide.

There is no basis in these comments for suggesting that Jay is a racist or that Jay is an advocate of genocide.

Joel, there is basis for this in other threads:

maunga, mulsim bitch. Having knowledge, as you profess Sallem to have, hardly means that it is balanced or right. You're a confused puppet of the cockroaches that illegally occupy the land of Israel. The civilized community, that doesn't include you, needs to eliminate the cockroach infestation that has plagued Israel and most of the middle east. Then, maybe the destruction will cease.

Posted by: Jay on July 16, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_07/009179.php#921859

and

"What if the last muslim is killed but even then the second coming does not occur"

Still a good day.

Posted by: Jay on July 23, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_07/009221.php#926565

The ignorance of history the rightwing trolls on this site display is utterly appalling. For starters, according to them, Reagan apparently started (and ended!) the cold War, even though he wans't president during either event, and Jimmy Carter caused inflation even though Gerald Ford ran on a WIN "Whip Inflation Now" platform.

The stupidity of American Hawk, Jay, Al, as nauseum, is reflective of the stupidity of their leaders. And the fact all these morons have combined forces to run our country means we are fucked. Nice job, guys. See you in hell.

Still in denial. It's amazing that the left is still saying that their message is not being heard after a record turnout of voters and a hugely divisive campaign in '04.
You're message is being heard, people are not buying it.
Posted by: Jay on August 2, 2006 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

Jay is a romantic conservative dreamer who sees the world in the most convienient ways that fit his worldview. In short he is a conservative believer. And woe, WOE be to anyone who challenges Jay's beliefs.

To walk around the world we live in and sincerely believe that liberal viewpoints are widely heard in America is a form of delusion that we have previously only seen in totalitarian regimes like Maoist China, Stalin's Russia or Fanco's Spain.
Jay must believe it because if it is not true his entire world falls apart.

And this is why in the end we will either convert or defeat all the Jays in America, because reality does not suffer fools gladly.

PS- it was bitterly funny to see in the media list he gave, outlets that allow ann coulter and the most netorious right wing hate voices access.
Oh Yea Jay.

Alek Hidell wrote: Jay is a perfect example of what the GOP has become.

Yes. The Republican Party has become the party of ignorant, vicious, bloodthirsty, weak-minded, brownshirt bigots who lick the boots of the ultra-rich neofascist corporate-feudalist elites, live in a corporate-manufactured political fantasy world of one-dimensional cartoon comic book stereotypes and phony history, and slavishly regurgitate scripted, programmed lies that are spoon-fed to them by the Republican propaganda machine.

People like Jay and Don P ("GOP").

Meanwhile Kevin bends over backwards to recite scripted, programmed GOP lies about how the dominance of the Democratic Party by the "loony left" was and is a threat to America.

In other words -- it's using rather heated and unbalanced rhetoric to trash the left in the interest of moderation. Which is, in itself, a contradiction in terms.
And this is why most genuinely sensible people consider Mickey Kaus at best an amusing clown ...
Bob
Posted by: rmck1 on August 3, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

I love it. I LOVE IT. Deadly accurate and to the point.
My hope is that by this time next year KAUSISM has entered the Oxford dictionary as a synonym for dispicable reactionary rhetoric in the name of centrism.

"Don't try and KAUS the issue.
"There you go, Kaussing up the issue again
"Clinton's attack on the NYT cease fire editorial was Kausism in action.

Google has decided to digitize books and make them available on the Web. They will only be available in toto for free if they are in the public domain. If still under copyright, you would be able to see the table of contents and perhaps a chapter. You would have to pay to see the rest of the book.

Jay, where do you think they are getting the book collections? Hint: not from private enterprise. There is one large private collection that I know of, Linda Hall in Kansas City.

But where are the large book collections? In libraries, particularly university libraries. So who is Google contracting with to digitize these books? University libraries. They’re starting off with the University of Michigan, and Harvard and Stanford and one other large university library which I don’t recall right now after U Mich.

Just to clarify, I believe that "other" library Google contracted with is not from a university at all, but the New York Public Library. (I copy edit at a daily newspaper, and recall putting this story onto our pages last year when the news was announced.)

The fact is that the calculated, and very expensively implemented, corporate gangster strategy of demonizing the traditional populist-humanist policies of the Democratic Party as "loony-lefty" was not only NOT "necessary for the health of both the party and the country", it set the stage for all the destructive actions of the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II administrations, the destruction of American democracy, the complete supremacy of the military-industrial-petroleum complex and its belligerent and viciously anti-human imperialism, the ongoing destruction of the very capacity of the Earth (a.k.a. "the environment") to support life, and the neo-fascist corporate feudalist government that we have today.

I hope that becomes part of the Green platform.

Joel,

In addition to the selections provided by trex (good job, trex!) Jay also said in a previous thread that he "might not mind" if the "jihadists" targeted and killed "us" as in the sort of liberals who post here at Washington Monthly.

I do admire the moderation of your sentiments thought, Joel, and basically agree that in this forum we should be judged by what we say and that alone.

Jay is a particularly mercurial sort prone to outbursts that I'm suspect he doesn't deep-down believe. But he is notably slow at retracting his more egregious remarks.

Just for the record: some of my more egregious statements are said only to anger many of you. I do a lot of tongue-in-cheek posting which may not be the right thing to do. While I disagree with them, I do have a lot of respect for many of the more thoughtful liberal posters here.

I do appreciate your moderate position Joel and even though I am definitely conservative, I believe America works best when compromises are made more moderate tones and positions are realized.

Thanks Bob. :-)

"Democrat Party" is perfectly gramattical, as every speaker of the England language knows.

So the valiant struggles against the nutroots were victorious in the '70's and the 80's, so there's no need to continue them now. Move along, nothing to see here...
Kevin, you write this on the same day Stu Rothenberg writes that Lieberman might get his ass handed to him so bad he might rethink his refusal to run as a Repub. Bring it the f*** on!!! I'd love to see you guys watching wall to wall Supreme Court picks going up from a 51-49 Senate, with all the Joementum coming from Conneticutt's Republican Senior Senator.

Yeah, the 21 percent of Connecticut voters who are Republican would sweep Flipperman to a blazing victory if he ran on the Republican ticket. Tomorrow, sun rises in west!

Just for the record: some of my more egregious statements are said only to anger many of you. I do a lot of tongue-in-cheek posting which may not be the right thing to do.

Thanks for letting us know, Jay. We'll try harder to laugh at jokes about murdering billions of people for their religious views. I don't know why we have these two-by-fours up our butts about that stuff.

Thanks for not making fun of the way I spelled Connecticut - also let me point out that Rothenberg didn't accuse Smokin' Joe of contemplating the switchero, just that he has to "think outside the current box" if present trends continue. I, for one, stand ready to welcome Joe to the party of sobriety against the party of cut and run. We Repubs look for converts, you libs look for heretics.

"Thinking outside of the box" not including graciously accepting that the voters want to see his sorry ass go, huh? Never thought I'd see the day when Alan Dixon was held up as a model of how to step aside with dignity.

Feel free to welcome Joe to the party of sobriety (American Hawk must not have gotten the memo last night), but you won't be welcoming him as the Republican senator from Connecticut. You don't know very much about Connecticut, do you, even apart from the little spelling problem?

I know enough about New England to be sure Joe could teach Linc Chafee how to be a better Repub. That'll be the first assignment we give him.

That'll be the first assignment we give him....

...when he's elected on the Republican ticket by the 21 percent of Connecticut voters who are Republicans. Clap harder! Harder for Tinkerbell!

Meanwhile, over at the Club for Growth, they haven't heard about the conversion theme and are busy burning "liberal" Republicans at the stake. Better get on that. Centrism is the new black, haven't you heard?

When the Club for Growth gangstas add up to a pimple on the ass of the nutroots I'll agree you have an argument. I still think the 21% of die-hard Repubs, the 40% independents and the large portion of the Dems that will cross-over could give you another moral victory like you've had with Hackett and Busby.

Hell, the Club for Growth comment was just snark you deserved in response to your laughable "we convert" bleat.

Now then. The "large portion of Dems" and all "40% of independents" who will cross over to vote for Joe on a Republican ticket, you say?

Nope, you know nothing about Connecticut, but your naivete is charming. If you want something badly enough, it's almost like it being true, isn't it?! Never stop believing, minion!

shorty, the lefts policies have led to just as many deaths over the years, so it's really not the deaths that weigh heavily on you, it's the perception.

Those statements are made to further expose your hypocrisy.

Ah, Jay-Jay, you had to go and wipe out any positive effect of your admission that a "joking" advocacy of genocide might not be that funny:

I do a lot of tongue-in-cheek posting which may not be the right thing to do.

...by turning around and squealing, "But the left! But liberals!"

For a second we thought you had a moral compass and a little personal responsibility. We won't make that mistake again.