>I guess I'm not so impressed with rhetorical commitment. I prefer looking
>at what folks do, not what they say. And when you look at actually
>existing policy and votes by Democrats, there is no evidence of rightward
>drift and, in fact, good evidence that the average Democratic officeholder
>is more liberal than the typical one back in 1972.
>
>So give me gobbledygook and good votes over rhetoric and not so much.
Who were the Humphrey and Hawkins that sponsored that full-employment legislation? SWPers? Who was voting to expand the U.S. welfare state in the 1960s and 1970? And who was it who promised to end welfare as we know it - and did?
And why is rhetoric so unimportant? It sets the tone and boundaries for what can be talked about, and what can't. No prominent Dem today would ever talk about the gov as employer of last resort - it doesn't exist an idea to be taken seriously. And who can ever vote on a proposal that's never made, because it can't be taken seriously?
Doug