My Side Is Wrong/Their Side Is Right

California and its "Massachusetts Lite" Dem-ruled-for-ages government (Willie Brown was well known long before he became Mayor of San Francisco) only have themselves to blame. They're just experiencing there in slower motion what New York City faced in the 1970s and what that city and New York State face again now.

California already drove many of us out along with business by too-high taxes. An increase now is self-destructive.

Government employees have no right to continue to expect to live well and be in a constantly growing employment environment. (Just wait until the time comes to correct the mistakes made about government retirees. They have no right to live well at the risk of bankrupting civilians.)

OK, Patrick I'll bite. A little.... BTW: thanks for the post it's a great exercise to remind us all that the other side does have something useful to offer while our side is not always right. It's easy to lose sight of this....

I like the Republicans because of their party unity. The party leaders can whip their elected officials to toe the party line.

I dislike the Democrats because there are too many dissenting opinions and no cohesive "game plan" to get things done.... because they're trying to figure out what they want to do.

There should be a healthy balance between these two.

If I start rattling off all the specific policies issues I dislike about "my side" the Dems, I'd be here a couple hours.

I'm generally a liberal, but side with conservatives on a few issues:

I am solidly behind funding the space program for the sheer purpose of exploration.

I do not support a government bail-out of the home loan crisis.

I support tort reform.

DLS, I don't think you quite understood the purpose of this particular exercise. Try reading Patricks column again.

I would condemn the democrats in general for their lack of spine in letting the Bush administration roll over them during their worst exploits. Also I would condemn the Clinton administration for it's lack of action during the Rwanda genocide.

I would praise the Bush administration for their work in combating disease and poverty in Africa, specifically the money spent in fighting HIV/Aids there.

I can read. It's not I who needs advice. He's angry about California but the issue isn't quite as he describes it or implies it is, or should be. No need to below 101 level on this. arrgh

I love this topic, but I have a hard time picking "my side" to criticize. I'm backing Bob Barr, but I'm not technically a Libertarian. I'm a registered independent and apostate Republican. But with that in mind, I can criticize Barr easily enough.

Bob Barr's foreign policy goes too far too fast, even if it starts off in the right direction. He wants to pull out of Afghanistan before we've even begun finishing the job there. I appreciate his determination to get out of Iraq, but we need to redeploy our forces sensibly to finish striking at the Taliban and AQ in that region. I also agree with him on the need to have fewer foreign bases, but think he would likely go way too far on that in the unlikely event that he was elected.

His tax position is too cloudy. I interviewed his son on Thursday, and they don't like the current tax system but don't have a real solution... just a hodgepodge of comments on flat taxes, VATs, consumption taxes, etc.

He also needs a realistic way of trimming the fat out of the federal pie without calling for wholesale elimination of huge sections of the government which will never get past Congress or the voters. In short, many of his goals are laudable in theory, but impossible in practice.

The best timing for this, especially the "positive" side of this, would be at Christmas. I remember a Seattle-area talk radio host who took the time to commend Washington State's Dem governor Lowry (who looked as well as had the reputation among so many as Rodney Dangerfield) at Christmas one year.

The Republicans are cynical and cruel toward the people when they don't pay for their current spending but leave it to further generations while they enrich many among themselves by engaging in deficit spending while borrowing to pay for it.

The Democrats still stand tall on the shoulders of those who won the greatest post-World-War battles of all in this country with the Civil Rights Revolution and related women's rights and gay rights, etc. winnings. Despite how the Sixties deteriorated, by 1965 they could be proud.

"I'm backing Bob Barr, but I'm not technically a Libertarian."

That party (capital L) does not define or establish any "official" version of American libertarianism in this country (the political philosophy itself is the core or heart of all that is American and is not restricted to that party's preferences), so don't worry.

The political philosophy (the essence of being American) is frequently the object of lies and slander by its many critics (principally on the Left, which has become coercive and interventionist since the late nineteenth century, same as the word "liberal" has changed its meaning in the USA) and the party is frequenty the object of similar attacks, but the party and the word "libertarianism" does draw a bunch of people about whom vagueness is only one of the faults they exhibit.

It would be better to fracture the Republican Party and enable many Republicans and GOP-leaners who are libertarian form their own party separate from the traditionalist, cultural, or authoritarian conservatives (not limited to the Religious Right but more like what you'd see if the GOP were taken over and run by the Heritage Foundation). (Amitai Etzioni was correct when distinguishing among the conservative Americans between Whigs [libertarians or "economic conservatives," mainly] and Tories [the authoritarian or traditionalist crowd].)

I dislike the Democrats for not balancing the Budget.

I dislike the GOP for not balancing the budget.

I dislike the Democrats for not showing fiscal responsiblity and forcing Bush to balance the budget.

I dislike the Republicans for not balancing the budget and spending insanely.

I dislike the democrats for not wanting to drill.

I dislike the republicans for not wanting to invest in Alternatives.

I dislike the Democrats.

I dislike the Republicans.

I suggest that if someone is running for reelection.......vote him out. Lets do our own version of term limits.

et al, most everything others said

also, I would like to see the mfgs of the koolaid and the tin foil hats brought to justice. Enough is enough

dr.e

Gosh, this is a hard one. I find myself generally agreeing with Neocon, but probably for different reasons. In terms of full disclosure about my POV, I'm not very ideological. I don't support one party or another as a matter of course. I support ideas and policy, not party. In balance, and especially on the presidential level, my voting history is more Republican than Democrat. In my voting lifetime (dating from 1972) I have voted Democratic a total of three times -- and two of the three were the first two chances I got, which is to say back when I was young, idealistic, and pretty sure Nixon really was a crook in the first case -- and pissed off that he got pardoned in the second. That being said, I am a tentative Obamacon. That is to say that if the election was tomorrow, I'd vote for Obama. But I reserve the right to change my mind.

Independent of that, and irrespective of the candidates, I am now in favor of better government efficiency rather than smaller or larger government per se. In that respect I guess you could say that I am naturally at odds with both parties, while not in line with any alternative. If anything, in terms of general philosophy I think I have more in line with what are currently called Blue Dog Democrats than anything else. But the operative words there are (lack of) "anything else".

More specifically I think government plays an important role, but it cannot and should not attempt to replace the market. IMO, its place is to stimulate and regulate the market, not replace it. But by the same token I think there is ample evidence that the market is not capable of regulating itself. Also, it is obvious at least to me that the market is not capable of dealing with its own externalities in any meaningful way either. For those reasons I am not in favor of "reducing government to the size where it could be drowned in a bathtub". Reagan's approach was to attempt to make government lean and mean. Bush's approach was to make it dysfunctional. Big difference.

Considering all that, I think I approach the question of "My Side Is Wrong/Their Side Is Right" in a different way than most. I don't feel like I have a "side" in the classical left/right sense of the word. But lacking a side in the classical sense should not be confused with lacking a moral and/or logical center. I believe I am on firm ground there. Rather, I question the moral and/or logical centers of the classical left/right divide.

With that as a preamble, boy do I have an endless series of complaints, lol! How should I organize them -- chronologically or in terms of their importance to me?

Okay, never mind. Let me just throw some stuff out...

I was against the invasion of Iraq not in terms of its relative necessity, but in terms of its timing. It is my opinion that Bush pulled the trigger too quickly, and sacrificed greatly in terms of international goodwill. I believe he could have played his hand much better than he did.

I believe Bush should have better prepared for the occupation phase better. MUCH better. Nuff said about that.

I believe Bush should have canned Rumsfeld way before he did, and I seriously criticize the Republican congress for that (not so much McCain though -- he was on board on that score well before most of his contemporaries).

I criticize the Republican congress for dragging their feet on lobbying reform and campaign finance transparency prior to the 2006 elections, and I criticize the Democratic congress for dragging their feet afterwards. IMO, this was a Very Big Deal, and both parties failed the grade.

I criticize the far left for not recognizing the power of faith. Granted, faith has been abused, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I criticize the legislative branch in general for not providing a better check on the executive branch. Likewise, I criticize the executive branch for making it such an issue. And I criticize the legislative branch again for allowing the executive branch to run roughshod over them. It goes without saying that this is a partisan issue. But it should not be exclusively that. There are more fundamental principles at stake than partisanship. And that, I think, weighs most heavily on my disappointment. I expected so much more from the GOP in the last 7 years or so.

Anyway, that's the first level of my complaints, lol!

I vote about 80% Dem, 20% Repub, so I guess my job is to whack on the Dems some here.

1) The Democrats should continue fighting to guarantee a woman's legal right to an abortion, but actively work to lower the number of abortions that occur. This is not done my attacking the women or trying to prove them wrong, but by increasing use of contraception and adoption. It's okay to legally guarantee a right you wished no one used.

2) The Democrats should remember more often that government should not do everything that is worth doing.

3) The Republicans might be more at fault, as has been debated here, but the Democrats too are still stealing from our children to pay for what we want today. Stop it.

4) Most importantly, though this applies to both parties equally, you are sacrificing governance to try to win at politics. Stop it.

I voted for Arnold but generally support Democrats, so...

Democrats are terrible at managing their party. They seem to be more reactive than proactive. When was the last time a budget got passed anywhere near on time when Democrats were in control?

The Democrats are also far too willing to see government as the solution to people's problems, rather than as a tool to provide people assistance in solving their own problems. The current housing mess is an example - while it makes sense to provide some incentive to prevent foreclosures, providing government backing for bad loans seems like rewarding bad behavior.

Additionally, the Democrats are far too willing to look for someone or something to blame, rather than accepting that sometimes bad things happen. Malpractice suits are one example that have always bugged me - doctors will invariably make mistakes (who doesn't?) but such a mistake should not automatically mean millions of dollars for the victim, yet Democrats have resisted any legislation that would limit damages.

As to the Republicans, one thing they do very well is to rebound by rallying around a core set of proposals that are in general sensible and worth implementing. In 1994 they had the contract with America, which avoided the more fringe issues and focused on popular agenda items, and they actually implemented a good chunk of it. Today the party is fractured into fiscal conservatives and social conservatives so it will be harder for them to re-unify, but if/when they do I'm sure it will be based on a set of proposals on which the full party and mainstream America can generally agree on.

I vote Democratic pretty close to 100% of the time. That's my bias. Here's my take on Patrick's offer:

The Democratic Party is too beholden to protectionists. I support free trade enthusiastically, even if I believe we need better environmental and labor standards.

The Democratic Party is too afraid of its own shadow. That's changed a bit in the last few years, but the party still plays defense on its ideas too much.

The Republican Party I like lasted from 1854 to about 1872. Then it became a corporate party with little or no social conscience.

But if I have to pick a few things I admire about Republicans it's their optimism, confidence, and libertarian streak on a few issues. I also support their globalist economic framework overall.

Naturally, no individual is perfect. Certainly, no political party is perfect.

Like Elrod, I think the Democrats have been afraid of their own shadow. Where's the healthcare reform? Who's the spokesman for budgetary restraint? To say nothing of the timidity on the wars.

However, we've had eight years of Republican leadership. And now even "nominal" Republicans find incredibly easy to come up with a long list of complaints about Republican leadership. That's because Republican leadership has been a disaster for our country.

Republicans are awesome at politics. Terrible at policy, but incredible at swift-boating. I think their discipline is simply amazing--even though it now seems like they're walking in lockstep over a cliff. Undoubtedly they hope their skills at politics (what should we call it this time--messiah-boating? celebrity-boating?) will bail them out.

I am more conservative than not...but not American conservative. My partner is a party-line Democrat, from a hard-core Democratic family stretching back to FDR. Our political conversations are thus somewhat fractious...especially if I say anything positive about Bush Jr. Things will be thrown. :)

I dislike the Republican party for its sometimes veiled racism, its sometimes not veiled homophobia, and its general distaste for environmental issues and public health care.

The Democratic party has not always been great on these issues, but are generally better than Republicans.

In political/strategic terms, I simply cannot rise to Patrick's challenge. I thought maybe I could say I admire the Democrat's for openess to voices and perspectives . . . but really, they are incoherent and undisciplined as a party.

This election tosses those stereotypes on their head though:
Obama is the most disciplined, focused Democrat I have ever seen.
McCain is the most undisciplined, unfocused Republican I have ever seen.

Great idea, Patrick. The responses have been fascinating to read.

GeorgeSorwell said: "(what should we call it this time--messiah-boating? celebrity-boating?)"

Hahahahahahaha...

"Proper inflation of your tires-boating"?

; )