On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 07:11:03 -0500, "Nathan Newman" wrote: > >>> It's not socialism >> >>-it's rhetoric. What have they done to advance any of these goals >>-with the public? > > Gephardt travelled around the country all of last year speaking in > communities all over talking about this agenda, trying to elect > people who support it. Same with Daschle and other Dem Senate > leaders- which helped lead to the small gains in the House and the > five Senate gains for Dems. > > This agenda was coordinated with the unions and other progressive > groups in turning out the vote through direct mail, TV ads and > phone outreach. That's all about advancing these goals with the > public. well, if democrats are all about building support for an ideological agenda with *voters,* then karl rove won't have too much work to do in the next election! there seems to be an underlying assumption among ideologs of all hues that *elections* should be waged on ideological grounds -- that being "correct" is better than winning. and while i suspect ideology does motivate *some* voters in casting their votes, this doesn't seem to be the case across the board. all kinds of things motivate voters at the polls and winners put together the kinds of electoral coalitions that triggers their voter's motivations. perhaps the clinton legacy is that people have come to think of governance and campaign slogans as the same. winning elections is one thing; governance is entirely different. you shouldn't expect them to be the same. > The present political situation is just confirming for me that > facts don't matter when folks are committed blindly to ideology. > Bush is killing labor with executive orders, seeking to help bust > the airline unions by blocking their strikes, party-line votes are > repealing ergo standards implemented by Clinton, and party-line > votes are resisting Bush's massive tax giveaways to the wealthy. > > But still, folks keep up the silly statements that there is no real > difference between the parties and the Dems just give in to the > opposition, even when the evidence is exactly the opposite. well, i don't think there is much difference between the two parties, either, but i am pretty mercenary. At 16:46:30 -0000, "Justin Schwartz" added: > > Something must be wrong with your argument. If the Dems are so left > wing, how come their product is so right wing? You blame the GOP. I > don't believe it. I mean, I blame them too. i blame the voters, who seem to have other things on their minds than what politicos would have them think! damn public keeps thinking for themselves, and they just need to stop it!!! there are a lot of factors here, all of which have complicated the political environment. it used to be easier to build a general consensus when communities were small, the media was oligarchic, and people believed that government actually mattered (in their daily lives). and i do believe the public *has* the government it actually deserves... > But I don't excuplate the Dems. They had Congress up to 1994; they > had the presidency in 1977-80 and through the 80s, and the country > is, as John Mitchell promised, so far to the right you wouldn't > recognize it. This despite the fact that _public opinion_ is not > significantly to the right, and indeed on many matters, notably > race and sexual orientation (though not capitsl punishment) is to > the left, well to the left, of where it used to be. the problem is, even if they are, do they *think* of themselves as such? if the country is not conservative, then it seems awfully cautious to me... > One thing about your argument. The Dixiecrats you talk about, most > of them, or their equivalents today, are Repug now, john breaux, mary landreau (not that i want to make nathan's argument for him)? bob graham? zell miller? hmmm, democrats need these senators to gain control of the senate. and they *are* still conservative democrats in the house (although redistricting may eliminate the rest of them). > while there are no real liberal REpugs anymore, no Lindsays or > Rockefellers or Weickers. hmmm, lincoln chafee? ms. collins (sorry, i forgot her first name)? > No, our sitautions are different. We have to argue against the > mainstream view that There Is No Alternative, maintained, for > example, by you. Since almost everyone agrees with you, you have no > reason other than mental gymnastics to argue with us. well, my momma always told me you could do anything you wanted, if you were willing to make the sacrifices required to achieve your goals. and i suspect that is true. there *is* an alternative, as ralph nader points out, but it *does* have a high cost. you *can* build a more progressive political party that is competitive in elections *if* you are willing to forego 5-6 (presidential) election cycles. that ought to be enough time for conservatives to ruin the country. but the cost is that democrats are on the verge of gaining all three federal "houses," the senate, the house and the white house. only a fool would suggest otherwise. 2000 was close, closer than winners want to admit, and no one knows how this thing will turn. seems like an extraordinary political price to pay. only you can decide if it is worth it... ac ''' (0 0) ----oOO----(_)---------- | the geek shall | | inherit the earth | -----------------oOO---- |__|__| || || ooO Ooo ------------------------------------------------------------ FREE EMAIL from AUSI at http://ausi.com