Comments on: Knee-Capping: Why the Club for Growth Does It (And Why It Will Never Work)

By: senor

senor — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:06:30 +0000

Polimom;
Just to follow up on our very learned and pleasant correspondence
yesterday:
a new Quinnipiac poll came out today which showed a majority of
respondents opposed to gay marriage, but in favor of civil unions.
This was reported on MSNBC by a Washington Post reporter (whose name
escapes me) with a straight face as proof that a majority of people
support gay marriage. I guess no one has told gay activists that
marriage and civil unions are the same thing.
Someday, after we are long dead, historians will publish learned tomes
on the early days of the Obama administration trying to explain how
the media treated him with such extreme paternalism and nobody noticed
or cared. The question from the New York Times reporter about what
has enchanted him in his first 100 days was, I think, absolutely
perfect. Obama is our minstrel-in-chief. He gets dressed to the
nines, trotted out every day just like Mr. Bones (without the cane),
shows his teeth, does his song and dance, and everybody is breathless
about how smart he is and how good he makes them feel. I have never
seen a President insulted as much by the people who claim to love him.

Senor

By: CStanley

CStanley — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:51:48 +0000

StevefromNY- No, I didn't mean to imply that Obama's stance on abortion solely defines him. I used that example because I see him as being pretty completly on the left side of that issue. You're right to name some counterexamples (I disagree on the degree of centrism there, perhaps, but I certainly realize that many, many, people on the left find him lacking in his resolve to cut back our military commitments and end the war on drugs.)

But overall I do define him as a liberal, mainly on economic issues and then the one social issue that I find important, abortion. Even on economics I realize some will argue my point- he's certainly willing to reward and collude with the bankers and Wall Street investors, while complaining that he doesn't like doing it. But he is definitely no DLC Bill Clinton type on the economic issues, and I don't believe that's strictly because of the current economic crisis.

By: senor

senor — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:39:48 +0000

I do agree with you absolutely. It is a mark of the decline of a
culture in the inability to hold civil discourse. It's everywhere
today: on the blogs, in the papers, on the cable sites. It makes me
want to puke. I didn't mean to sound like I was particularly picking
on Specter. I think every member of Congress would do what he did if
they thought their re-election was at stake.

By: Polimom

Polimom — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:30:10 +0000

Thanks, senor, for your thoughtful response. It gives a great deal of insight into where you're coming from, more generally. I suspect there are people right here on this site with whom you'd agree sometimes, and with whom you'd also disagree. One of the hallmarks of a moderate, though (in my personal view) is someone who can reasonably discuss various issues, and process other views honestly and open-mindedly.

One of the things you said struck me: "I
worry that there is nothing anymore that everybody, across the board,
can agree is good, or wrong in our culture, that everything is somehow
relative. "

I don't know that that's ever been true, to be honest. Even the Founders disagreed, sometimes profoundly, on what our priorities should be, and how we should pursue them.

Which brings me to Specter. It may very well be true that he is being nothing but a jaded, selfish opportunist. But it may also be that he, like you, has a variety of views which don't fit neatly into an ideology. I don't know that such a position (positions?) necessarily indicate a moderate, but it's a fair way to look at someone, I think.

By: StevefromNY

StevefromNY — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:29:44 +0000

Obama is not a centrist?

Is he Liberal?

He is pro death penalty, pro war on drugs, pro military (he will never, imo, cut the military by 25-50% that it should be cut--at present: 14x the spending of #2, China).

He is no Liberal.

For some, it seems, one's position on the abortion issue is the sole component of one's placement on the political spectrum.

By: senor

senor — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:51:06 +0000

That's a good question. I consider myself moderate on some issues,
i.e. keeping the social issues out of court, for example. I consider
myself fairly liberal on some issues: I don't believe public money
should be spent on religious schools, for example. I believe if you
buy a gun, you should register it, just like a car. I applaud Barack
Obama for attempting to change things with Cuba and Latin America (I
just wish he would go further and lift the embargo. Hell, I think he
ought to offer Cuba statehood. Tell the Castros they can stay in
power with no changes to the government structure. The way I figure
it, Cuba at its worst is better than California and Massachussetts).
and I think that if the government owns something, like Amtrak or the
National Parks, it should keep them up. I am conservative mainly in
tht I believe that the more power the government has, the less freedom
the individual has, though I don't consider myself a libertarian. I
worry that there is nothing anymore that everybody, across the board,
can agree is good, or wrong in our culture, that everything is somehow
relative. I believe that it is awfully easy to try to legalize, or
constitutionalize every political argument, which works against the
very basis of a democratic society, which is compromise. The one
single thing that depresses me about the current situation is that
under Reagan and both Bushes, it has been amply demonstrated that the
American people really do not want small government. None of the
three of them were fiscal conservatives, so that now, whoever is
elected in Washington, it's merely a case of which direction the size
of government is going to grow in. It's no wonder the Republican
Party has only 21% identification: there is no need for it. I know
I've rambled, but did this answer your question a little bit? It has
gotten to where I have absolutely no faith in any elected official to
show any integrity, and no faith in the American people to care.
Arlen Specter is nothing special; he's just another whore.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:43:31 +0000

Re your other comment, senor- judicial vs. legislative is a separate axis to consider- I'm giving my assessment of the best legislative centrist approach to abortion. That doesn't mean that I agree with allowing the courts to bypass the legislatures- but there doesn't seem to be that much we can do about that at this point.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:41:10 +0000

Senor- you may not realize that I'm a conservative, so I agree with your assessment of Obama's position on abortion. I was not arguing that Obama is a centrist anyway- it seems more and more apparent to me that his ideology is left wing but he uses moderate rhetoric and makes people on the opposing side feel that they are being given a fair hearing. I haven't seen much evidence that anything changes once he hears people out though, and when people do this to me in my personal life I find it extremely grating. I'd prefer that people just let their firm position be known rather than pay lip service to listening to mine.

By: Polimom

Polimom — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:23:36 +0000

This is a great discussion — made more so, for me, by the addition of some voices I'm not familiar with.

senor — I'm curious. Do you consider yourself a moderate?

By: senor

senor — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:01:41 +0000

You realize, of course, that our fearless leader is in no way a
“centrist” as you define him. He believes that the right to abortion
is so fundamental that none of your compromises listed below would
apply. Keep a watch out for his health bill: see if it doesn't
require insurance companies to cover abortions. But hey, the
Democrats are the party of moderation.

By: senor

senor — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:01:14 +0000

I disagree. A true centrist position on abortion would be one where
the courts stay out of it and either let the states decide what their
policy is, or let congress. Good luck with that. In virtually every
one of these social issues, the last thing any elected official wants
to do is take responsibility for taking a position. They want the
courts to take the onus off of them, which automatically destroys the
chance of any compromise. Hence the partial birth bill that was
finally signed by Bush. did you know that our sitting VP voted for
it, then turned around and criticized the Supreme Court when they
found it constitutional? What does that tell you? The real bottom
line is that I don't care what any state or even the Fed. govt does on
any of these issues as long as they recognize them as political
issues, not constitutional ones. The culture wars, to the extent that
they exist, are almost wholly the creation of the court system.
Everyone of these state actions against gay marriage is in reality a
preemptive strike against the courts, because they cannot be trusted
to avoid trying to settle any political dispute. The Democrats use
the right words of moderation, but when the rubber hits the road,
they don't want to compromise on anything.. And the American people
don't want the responsibility of making decisions, not when you can
get a court to do it for you. This is a standard started by that
great Democratic President, James Buchanan, who in April 1861 declared
that it was illegal for a state to secede from the union... but just
as illegal for the union to do anything about it. The only poll that
shows gays in the military with a 77% favorable rating was conducted
by the Human Rights Campaign, hardly an objective measure. As for gay
marriage, despite what Frank Rich misreports, and John Meacham, for
that matter, support has never surpassed 35%. But hey, so what? As
for the South as a colony, it really doesn't matter who does the
colonizing. We're the Solid South again, different party this time,
same result. And because we're homophobes, antiwoman, bigots and
holocaust deniers, we must be silenced. So we will be. And the
corporate media will keep telling us how moderate the Democrats are.
Works for me. I'm a native of Middle Tennessee who now lives in the
Florida panhandle.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:57:05 +0000

Agreed, Hemm.

By: HemmD

HemmD — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:35:24 +0000

CS
I agree about Specter completely. We could easily have used Leiberman in Specter's stead. (I really hate that guy)

And you're right, real bi-partisanship has been blown away by ideologues from both sides. Health care, I've heard, is one of the reasons Specter jumped. I didn't follow that story line, but if so, we will get some kind of compromise. It may just be the kind you alluded to.

Here's how things change. The GOP needs to drop its rhetoric about medical socialism and provide real ideas for health care. They need to make their real concerns cogent and public. As example, the Repubs can't just say its too expensive, they need to say how to make it cheaper and more efficient. Something is going to pass, it's up to the Repubs to contribute to that change.

The Dems, for their part, need to demonstrate that even with a majority, they are willing to talk about those concerns. Obama has said he is open to any good ideas. Call him on it. Find out if he's just another politician or if he's serious, but do that with a plan, an idea, or a realistic fear.

If the GOP fails to admit that something has to be done, they'll never be taken seriously. Real Compromise starts when bogus rhetoric stops. If your side drops the pretense and the Dems do not, I'll be right beside you calling BS. So will many more from the center.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:58:50 +0000

Hemm, I understand the problem of endless debate too (you and I would filibuster the heck out of each other!)

But I still think you're missing my point (or maybe you get it but you're talking around the edges of it.) It's that there are two distinct ways to compromise, and which method prevails depends on whether the moderates in Congress are really motivated by what's best for the country (plus, if they're smart enough to understand the policies well and figure out ways to blend the two ideological approaches) or if they are completely self serving.

And I realize you might be saying that even so, moderate voters have to accept some of the horse trading just like you and I have to accept some things from politicians on our side of the divide.

But I rarely see moderates even noting the difference, and when I see a guy like Specter held up as an example of a moderate, I get so irritated because he's the kind of politician that NO one should really support (at least from what I see- I honestly don't know the ins and outs of his whole record, and obviously some PA voters think he's done a good job for them although I'd say even that might be only a perception on their part because of the incumbent advantage and his high fundraising numbers which enable him to drown out competitors- or has allowed that until now.)

The kind of principled bipartisan approach that I'm talking about was evident in the recent attempt at immigration reform. There was a real attempt to figure out what the objections were on all sides, to ignore those on the extremes who would never be persuaded to compromise, and to create a policy that made sense and was achievable. Of course, it failed- and my point is that if more moderate voters would vocally support those kinds of efforts, then the extremists would lose their hold on things. As it is now, the people on the extreme right on the issue of immigration feel that their position has been vindicated and so we've lost the chance to do meaningful reform.

Similarly on abortion- although I'm about as conservative as you can get on that issue, I understand that my way probably could never prevail politically and so I would support people who really do want to create policy to make abortion rare (rather than just paying lip service to that stance.)

On healthcare, well, the Dems have the right to claim a mandate on that I think, so I believe it's inevitable that we'll get some sort of nationalized system. But a bipartisan approach that recognized that mandate would also address conservative concerns more seriously about how the care will be rationed (addressing, for instance, the doctor shortage which is going to become critical once we expand the demand for services.) There definitely are things that could help moderate conservatives buy into the ideas- but the Democrats are no more likely to offer those things than the GOP is to accept the buy in. It definitely takes two to tango, but for quite some time now I haven't seen either party even stepping up to the dance floor.

By: ottovbvs

ottovbvs — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:26:29 +0000

The presumption the Democrats are going to over reach is highly speculative. Sure they are going to have some slip ups but nothing surely on the scale of starting two pre-emptive wars the consequences of which have been awful, or driving the economy onto the rocks. In fact the dominant characteristics of the democrats at present are pragmatism, caution and a willingness learn from mistakes they made in earlier times. So maybe they will screw up but I wouldn't hold your breath. The other expectation that is an article of faith amongst conservatives is that Obama's economic initiatives are all going to end in failure. I find this notion highly unlikely. His economic team of Summers, Geithner, Orzag, Romer et al with ex officio member Bernanke is extraordinarily able. If they can't get us out of this recession no one can. Certainly spending freezes and more tax cuts for the wealthiest wouldn't. To me there is no doubt that by next spring the economy will be on the mend and by 2012 will be humming along very strongly. And Obama and the democrats will get the credit with appropriate electoral benefits. Conversely, they will use this to destroy the gop as the party of no and economic and managerial incompetence. The base are in total denial about this of course but they are in total denial about a lot of things. Polarisation and southern strategies let the Morlocks out of the basement and now they've taken over the house. As of now I don't see how the Republican party evicts them.

By: HemmD

HemmD — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:07:12 +0000

CS

Sorry for the delay, my Windows Vista did what it does best...

"I'm not naive enough to think otherwise, Hemm- I just vastly prefer that the compromises and coalition bridging involves some common sense approach toward a better law, not a bunch of self serving shysters who make deals for their personal benefit."

I did not mean that you suffered from naivete. You and I merely have the luxury of holding these guys to our personal "litmus tests." As I've said before, I have serious problems with Obama's decision to keep some of the NSA wiretap laws. I'm sure you voted for Bush but disliked some things he did. We are forced to weigh the "whole package" of a candidate, and if he strays too far from our ideals, we boot 'em.

I'm not sure these guys can maintain that same luxury and get anything done. The only way they can govern and make no allowance for other views is if they are dictators. And even then, the real world makes even them relent ideology for practically. Red China had to allow some capitalism if it wished to trade in world markets.

We tout the checks and balances to limit government, but what those checks also do is demand that politicians compromise in order to govern at all. If you and I were politicians, we would do nothing but debate and the country would go to heck in a hand basket. Our politicians must compromise to attain any of their goals.

Our jobs are simple, we watch "the total package closely," and if the guy crosses our personal "litmus test," we boot em out and vote in the next guy; we then watch that guy like a hawk, all the while knowing that no one will follow our tenets exactly. If the guy lives outside our district, we don't even get that satisfaction of the boot. It's all very frustrating except that it has worked for 220 years.

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:46:46 +0000

I think Larison reads the situation correctly: There is no substantial constituency for fiscal conservationism. Low taxes maybe, but most people want the government to do more.

By: appleblossom

appleblossom — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:44:00 +0000

mpower, if the centre is more libertarian as you say it is, how come the actual Libertarian Party is so small?

By: mpower

mpower — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:21:59 +0000

“…when will the moderates who don’t care for the Democratic base but who find the GOP repulsive form a viable third party movement to stand as the opposition?”

This is the most interesting and important question, so naturally it is ignored by two-party political hacks.

The moderate center of the US political spectrum is growing, and out-growing the two-party system. The center is increasingly Libertarian (social liberals, fiscal conservatives). Neither Dems nor the GOP can “win” the center majority as each party makes the mistake of gravitating towards their right/left extremes. The majority, moderate, Libertarian center is already building towards a viable third party, one that will likely marginalize the GOP even further, as there is little appeal for a GOP that can't exercise power and has effectively become the evangelical/bible party. That dog don't hunt in the USA at a national level. On the other hand, Dems are losing many in their base – those that realize the implications of debasing the $USDollar, propping-up a corrupt/bankrupt financial system, and enriching party donors regardless of criminal collusion. The US cannot spend it's way out of these massive, systemic failures yet the Democratic machine is trying to do exactly that… and they are quickly losing the independents and many in their base because of it.

Forget the GOP and the Left. America's real political power is building in the middle… it simply doesn't have a name, yet.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:48:25 +0000

I'm not naive enough to think otherwise, Hemm- I just vastly prefer that the compromises and coalition bridging involves some common sense approach toward a better law, not a bunch of self serving shysters who make deals for their personal benefit.

Watching sausage being made isn't pretty but the results are usually palatable and that's why we look the other way. But if the sausage makers are putting garbage and toxic waste into the casings, it's something we ought to force ourselves to look at and call a stop to it.