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?