The Chinese, for example, have now taken the lead in wind turbine technology, and we may become dependent on them, according to the NYT. Because the Senate is dysfunctional, we are going to let the Chinese eat our lunch here?

Troglodyte Senators from States with lots of wind are content to let this happen?

Jingoism, alive and well on left-wing blogs.

Remind me why we want the US to be preeminent? So that we can put the heel of our military and economic boot on everybody else? make sure the rest of the world is our slave? Maintain global wealth inequality, prevent the formation of democracy, advance global warming at a breakneck pace?

You can't fix stupid....The Democrats must steamroll our legislative agenda through Congress for the good of the country, our children and our future...forget about the Republicans - they will be left in the dust and locked in the past.

I'm sorry, but the US is too stupid to continue to lead. Stupid, dishonest, and short-sighted (only concerned with today's profits, today's tax rates, and today's stock price).

silly Steve - of course Republicans know we can be positioned to compete globally without economic or social investments. If anyone surpasses us, we'll just bomb them. Geez.

I am proud of my country and happy when it excels, but I am not obsessed with rankings and don't think other people, liberal or conservative, should be either. When we lead the way and provide a constructive example for others -- which we often have -- that's splendid. When we can learn from others (Canadian bank regulation, everybody's health care system), let's do it already. The prosperity and stability of other countries is overwhelmingly a good thing for us, no matter where we rank in the various league standings.

Horseshit...

just read Lessig over at the Nation.

First of all, I have to offer congratulations to a rabbit that has taught itself to type; that's an extraordinary accomplishment. That said, you'll need to work on your reading, because you have managed to read "liberalism" yet see, "military dictatorship". This is a side effect of the carrot diet that dieticians obviously did not forsee. Maybe there's a disconnect between the way the United States actually operates, and the way progressives would like to see it operate, but few if any true progressives envision a U.S.A. that uses its military strength simply to get its own way.

Anyway, what I wanted to say before I was distracted was that I'm getting tired of reading that Republicans are opposed to "big government". How did that become a truism, like the "liberal media"? Republican administrations of the past have not reduced the size of government in any way, meaningful or meaningless, and it underwent a gargantuan expansion under Bush with the addition of DHS. Perhaps the Republicans who have a vested interest in growing this fable mean they are opposed to government interference in, say, the business and financial sectors, which would be true - Republicans are interested in dismantling every regulatory mechanism that restricts banks and business conglomerates from becoming autonomous predators, under the smokescreen that it restricts competitiveness.

How'd that work out, do you think? The redolent-of-rubbish suggestion the Republicans are against big government, either in physical size or power, is nonsense and should be exposed as such at every opportunity.

To bad we have an inept democratic congress that has been clueless, gutless and spineless.

"Voters can decide whether to look forward or backward."

For a large portion of the country 'backward' looks like home. Decades of teaching creationism, segregation, and overt suspicion of education past the 8th grade, has bred an electorate ill equipped to enter the 21st Century, let alone compete in it.

E.J. Dionne is a marvel! He has hit upon the lodestone narrative that could make the democrats, whose propects are terrible right now, competitive in the mid-terms. The democrats,frustratingly, are unable to weave narratives. Republicans own that sort of thing. But taking the disparate (and good) policies that are Health Care Reform, Regulatory Reform, Energy Reform, etc. and knitting them together into a narrative quilt of "America First!" could radically the electoral landscape this fall.

That last should read: "radically CHANGE". Edit feature, please! ;-)

This is hardly news.

One of the greatest advantages the US has today, which directly affects -- even determines -- its economic and military strength, is its pre-eminence in basic and applied scientific and technological research. And how was this brought about politically? In large part by appealing to international and ideological competition, by funding lots of basic research via the military, even by building domestic infrastructure in the name of national security! Consider that it's the "National Interstate and Defense Highway System."

Tribalism rules. And if it gets us centrally funded health care, or an increase in education spending, I say, USA! USA! USA!

The Republicans are right, because being a third-world country with a first-rate military worked out so well for the USSR.

Tribalism rules. And if it gets us centrally funded health care, or an increase in education spending, I say, USA! USA! USA!

Yep, same here.

Jingoism exists, rabbit. We can tut-tut about it and let the Republicans destroy everything good in our lives (and fuck up the planet too), or we can channel it into productive ends.

JFK and LBJ did this same thing. The "Great Society" rhetoric sounded a lot like this, and it led to some damn good progressive change.

Sorry, I'm an American GOODNESS liberal. As in, it's about goddamn time we set about making this country as GOOD a place for the average person to live as any of a dozen or more other countries that trounce us in quality of life. The juvenile obsession with "greatness" i.e. imperial dominion, is one of the main roadblocks in the way of this goal. Encouraging the continuance of this mindset is guaranteed to be counterproductive.

Suddenly, Obama's approach is not about old-fashioned Democratic spending. It's about patriotism, competing successfully, investing to maintain American economic leadership.

Why "suddenly"? It's always been about "patriotism, competing successfully, investing to maintain American economic leadership"; and the unspoken truth is that the Replicant policies are unpatriotic and anti-America. Call the barstids what they are: America-haters.

Vote Republican

When second best is just good enough.

Holy crap, this sounds like a real narrative. It's an actual emotional appeal, not a set of policy prescriptions. It sets the Ds apart from the Rs in terms of disposition instead of prescription.

This is exactly what the Democratic message should be. It's just as abstract as "big government" or whatever, but it presents an operating assumption behind any political/policy decision. It hits the gut.

When looking at the a la carte menu of policy choices, we need to ask first:

Is this going to make us more competitive? Who cares about big government vs. small government.

...the rest is details. Details that most people are too busy to think about.

Republicans may prefer to avoid this argument

The Republican philosophy at its most fundamental level is that the health of the nation and the health of its citizens (economic as well as literal) are separate, distinct, and even mutually exclusionary.

The thugs have been saying forever that doing away with the minimum wage is patriotic. Are they about to have company or are the dems not serious about maintaining, er make that achieving, economic preeminence? Just sayin...

Republicans are satisfied with this, because their goal is [strike]to prevent "big government,"[/strike] benefiting the super-rich, not position the United States for a competitive future.

Fixed.

C'mon, Steve, don't reinforce bogus Republican frames even ironically. Republicans were just fine with so-called "big government" -- and big spending -- during the Bush era, as long as big government policy favored the super-rich.

Note that this narrative gets stronger when you consider how the Republicans are now running away from the military (see DADT hearings, for example).

Raise the flag. Cheap applause.

"The fact that his agenda has totally failed this year is the best thing that could have happened to this country. I thank God every day that this is going down the tubes, that that Massachusetts election happened. Not that God had anything to do with it. That's just the person I thank."

Rush "Fear Change" Limbaugh after the President's State of the Union address, filling the ears of more than 14 million conservative God-fearing traditionalist listeners a week.

For conservatives, there apparently can be no compromise about the future of the US. They refuse to allow Liberalism to prepare us to move into the future on the same scale as other advancing countries who aren't waiting around to see what we do first. I can understand that conservatives are scared we will loose the roots of our nation or our traditions but that isn't any excuse to balk at advancing the future of this nation.

The right wreaks of fear of change. Conservatives only want to maintain the status-quo of what they have right now: baracading themselves behind thick walls of financial security, behind the steel of huge commuter vehicles, and build personal million dollar sancuaries in a gated communities right off the golf course, as it is written in the Bible that they should do (yes, sarcasm).

Conservatives aren't about the future, they are about Right Now. And it doesn't matter that the US stands at critical cross-roads in so many issues, or that Obama is trying to address the needs of tomorrow while repairing the deeds of the last administration. It only matters that he is available for criticism by a party and half a nation that is doing nothing for this nation BUT criticize. No wonder Limbaugh is their diety these days, what has he used his national venue for, except to keep churning our domestic strife and keep active the mantra of Fear Change.

Liberalism is failing and our nation's forward progress is failing and the leadership we have in Washington to support our young fresh leader are all old and stuck in their ruts, D and R alike.

Liberalism is in serious trouble. Too many insipid brainwashed voters in 2010 will show it, but not as strongly as they will in 2012.

Note that this narrative gets stronger when you consider how the Republicans are now running away from the military (see DADT hearings, for example). Posted by: TonyB on February 4, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Not enough. The work at military posts to advance the war is keeping people in jobs. You should see the size of single-person commuter vehicles down here in AL. Southern boys don't drive no piss-ant car.

While the economy is running slow, and private sector jobs are yet to recover, the business of war is doing very well. AL being rather a reddish state, they best not be biting the hand that feeds them.

"Every major power on the planet offers universal health care to its citizens -- except us."

I have often wondered why this fact is so un-persuasive to Americans. Is it our xenophobia (we're not France)? Partly, I suppose, but I think Americans really DO NOT trust our government and how much of that is due to the "Great Communicator" or how much is due to our historical nature as rebels and anti-establishment "mountain men" -- those are interesting questions.

Oh, and never underestimate the stupidity AND cupidity of the American electorate.

Fear Change; that's a good post.

I'm sure Republicans will be glad to tell us how the Free Market Fairy is going to make all these things happen better here than in those socialist furrin countries. Just ignore the fact that it hasn't done that in the thirty years since Reagan enshrined the Free Market Fairy as the embodiment of all that is good in America.

Can anyone who reads these comments please describe in some detail or point me to a Republican and/or Conservative document that defines exactly what the definition of "big government" is?

Can anyone who reads these comments please describe in some detail or point me to a Republican and/or Conservative document that defines exactly how the George W. Bush administration and the Republican congress worked effectively to make "big government" smaller?