Amitai Etzioni has an absolutely brilliant piece in The Christian Science Monitor on the Democrats vision problem. While the Democrats are looking for the right messenger (enter Wesley Clark’s empty uniform candidacy), they’re ignoring their fundamental problem – they have no message:
Is the party for or against the war in Iraq? Opposed to all tax cuts or only some of them? Which healthcare or drug- benefits plan does it favor? How do the Democrats figure on saving Medicare?
One major reason the Democrats’ collective voice is so muffled is that they’ve bought into a comforting illusion that the problem is not the message but the messenger.
Democratic leaders hold that if they just had their own Fox TV network, a liberal Rush Limbaugh, or a pollster as talented as Frank Luntz, then their message would take the country by storm. Al Gore is trying to launch a liberal cable TV news network, and various fat cats, including Jon Sinton, CEO of AnShell Media, are reported to be raising money for one liberal network or another. Al Franken’s new book blames the Democrats’ election losses on the media, which he claims have been taken over by conservatives.
Of course the idea that the media is conservative only makes sense if the media consists solely of talk radio and FoxNews, and not The Washington Post, The New York Times, the LA Times, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the 3 major networks, CNN, and NPR, all of whom tend to spout the Democratic Party line on their editorial pages on any given day. It also ignores the fact that the media industry is one of the Democrat’s bread-and-butter contributers, and the fact that a vast majority of news reporters, editors, and personalities are Democrats. However, that’s another issues. As Etzioni continues:
The reason liberal messages are not resonating isn’t because they’re unheard, but because they’re out of touch with the majority of Americans. In 2000, the proportion of Americans who identified themselves as liberals – including those who see themselves as “slightly liberal” – amounted to only 1 in 5. And that was no fluke. Since 1972, National Elections Studies polls show Americans labeling themselves liberal have never topped 23 percent.
The reason why the Democrats are losing and will lose in 2004 is that they have no message. Even The New York Times is noting the lack of substance coming from the Democrats on key issues:
With the future of America’s postwar occupation of Iraq looking longer by the day, the political debate over the issue has taken on new urgency. As American soldiers continue to die and the cost to American taxpayers continues to mount, the Democratic presidential candidates have started to sense that Iraq could turn into a liability for President Bush’s re-election campaign. Unfortunately, they have so far been mostly jockeying to produce the best sound bite about who was the first and loudest to denounce Mr. Bush’s flawed policy. They need to do better.
In utter words, as I like to say “petulance is not policy.” The Democrats have yet to say what they would do for Iraq, and that is simply unacceptable. If they think that the American electorate is going to buy the Democratic line that we should pull out of Iraq and put the ineffective, corrupt, and cowardly UN in our place they have another thing coming. Polls have shown that the UN has never been more unpopular with the American public. Those same polls are showing a groundswell of sentiment against Europe because of their position in regards to humanitarian relief in Iraq.
The Democrats have one shot at winning, and that’s if Iraq crumbles and takes the US economy with it. Despite the best efforts of people like Ted Kennedy to bring this scenario about, it just isn’t going to happen. The terrorists in Iraq aren’t holding back, they’re hitting us with everything they have, and the best they can do is kill a few targets of opportunity here and there. As the Iraqi people are assuming more and more responsibility for their own security the security situation will stabilize.
The fact is that the core of the Demcratic messages is “we hate Bush” and that’s it. The Democrats are not putting anything resembling a viable alternative on the table for key issues of national security. Even on the economy the only things that are certain is that the Democrats would raise taxes on someone and try to resurrect the failed HillaryCare system of 1994 in spite of the fact that any such system would be unacceptable to the American electorate.
The Democrats may eventually come around and start putting policies on the table – but by that time the damage will have been done. The Democrats think that if they scream their views loud enough people will listen – what they’ll find is that the problem isn’t that their message is getting across, is that it is and the American electorate simply doesn’t like what it sees.
Better no definitive partisan position on an issue than a position with no substance. 🙂
I’m looking forward to watching W. explain the war during the debates. Also stem cells, Kyoto, the anthrax attacks, Osama Dead or Alive, “Bring ’em on”, the deficit, unemployment, arsenic levels in drinking water, OSHA standards, EPA rollbacks, and the Patriot Act.
JR, I’m looking forward to the debates for the same exact reason.
The average American knows that the war was brilliantly done, the recovery will take time, “Bring ’em On” was the right move, Osama is probably dead and certainly not doing much, the Deficit will fix itself, unemployment is dropping, the arsenic, OSHA and EPA flaps were deceitful Dem spin from the word go, and that Kyoto was a sham.
Bush fits more substance in a weekly radio address than the Nine Dwarves manage together during an entire debate.
What’s always interesting is that surveys of political profiles consistently show that the majority of Americans lean left. Perhaps this is due to the broadness of the survey answers, such as “I support more funding for education.” Nonetheless, the country’s electorate is considerably left of what our nation’s political representation would indicate. Part of the reason why conservatives have such a strong following with their “biased and proud of it” talk radio and Fox News outlets is that they’ve hyped themselves as a minority who has been battered-bloody by a cruel and oppressive majority. For the same group to turn around and say the almighty and controlling opposition has no chance of being successful in American politics from this day forward is another typical GOP contradiction.
Republicans are getting the edge in a country that’s fairly evenly divided. The biggest reason is demographics, which is evident by looking at the 2000 county-by-county map and seeing that Democratic strength occupies only about 20% of the nation, even though that 20% represents 45% or more of the nation’s voters. Democratic strength is centrallized, putting them at a demographic disadvantage and empowering the Republicans as a result. Furthermore, the GOP has built an effective coalition of disparate interests…more notably including the religious fundamentalists and the robber barons. With the religious fundamentalists on board in full force and willing to overlook the platform of plutocracy many would otherwise not support, the Republicans are a rock-solid force that occupies a very high percentage of the population and can run on a radical right-wing platform and still win. Many of the dolts I work with are earning less than $20,000 a year, have their noses to the trough in one way or another, yet still vote Republican because “they can’t support abortion.” As long as such absent-minded voters can be persuaded into shooting their own feet off based on this issue, the Republicans will continue to win. However, they are consistently pushing the envelope (such as reinventing the term “welfare mamas” to include the full-time working poor as a justification to exclude them from a tax cut) and waging full-scale war on a group that represents a paradoxically large segment of your constituency isn’t the brightest idea.
Mitch, your blind allegiance to the GOP line is not shared by the majority of voters. The fact is that most people are not likely to give Bush a pass on the things you find so irrelevant (even though some issues, such as the deficit, were strangely the most important items on the GOP platform back in 1995, back when deficits were far smaller than they are now). Judging from the sentiment I’ve overheard in the past few months, Bush is about as popular as AIDS with nearly anybody who pays the slightest attention to what’s going on around them. Even self-proclaimed lifelong Republicans have told me they hope one of these Democrats can unseat Bush because “we gotta get that son of a bitch out of there.” Of course, things are entirely different in the South, where Bush’s approval ratings can be expected to soar even higher with every hundred layoffs and every American soldier brought home in a bodybag. Either way, your overconfidence does not seem to hold up well to the situation in the real-world where Bush’s job performance is becoming an increasingly obvious disaster.
…Even if Bush’s approval rating has jumped back up to 50 percent not too long ago? Don’t bash Bush, when the subject is, “do the Dems have a platform or a leader.” This is a valid subject.
The dems have been hurting for both, you can read about the frustration at the Democratic Underground message board. they aren’t shy about it either. It’s helped that a few candidates have surfaced that they can rally around.
But a platform based on Bush bashing is not a platform I would want to run on or vote for. It needs more substance thaqn that to appeal to the masses.
Name callin gduring elections gets old. If the party faithfuls don’t relaize that the average American tunes out that type of rhetoric, then hthey have to learn a little bit about their fellow citizens.
The Dems have been searching for a dynamic, charismatic leader for their party and they have been attempting to redefine their platform or even shall we say define A platform. That’s why they were so devestated when Wellstone died. Many of the old dems like Kennedy have been hurting the dems cause with their rhethoric than helping it. While fundamental dems may still clap their hands when Kenedy opens his mouth, those that are being realistic about the coming election whince (sp?)
Instapundit had a link to Mother Earth news that had an article on how the Dems have started to *shift* their focus on gun control to be more pro gun than in th epast. They are looking to find a platform that they can live with and yet that same platform must appeal to those of us who are the swing voters.
If the dems want to win they need to appeal to a wider audience and curb the radicals. They need a charismatic leader who knows how to play to a wider audience than simply the loopy left as the extremists are sometimes known.
If that means the dems turn more centrist and the fringe migrate to the green party…is that really such a bad thing? Can the Dems come up with a platform and a candidate that will attract more people than it alienates.
That will be the key to any Dem strategy.
Osama is probably dead
Probably dead? Don’t you read the news? He just released another tape!
Now, he’s almost certainly no threat, but the fact that we didn’t bother to go get him betrays the real reasons we started this fake “war on terror” – not to catch terrorists but to make the Middle East the 51st state.
Emma, there’s a very good reason why the Democrats don’t have a proactive unified front to run on. Given the magnitude of financial crisis they will be inheriting from the people who engineered it, the only realistic platform they can run is an unpopular one….a platform of short-term sacrifice for long-term salvation. George Bush is sabotaging government…and doing it with a smile on his face because he knows the peasants won’t be able to resist taking bite after bite of the poisoned apples of tax cuts he’s serving on a silver platter.
Thus, the Democrats first line of defense would have to be revoking tax cuts, which in effect would be taking money out of the pockets of American voters. Necessary, but not popular, and a potential suppressant to the economy. When it comes down to it, I don’t suspect most Americans can comprehend the consequences of doing nothing with our impending financial meltdown, and at the end of the day, will fight to protect their $300 a year tax cut over the livelihoods of their children and grandchildren. Spelling this fact out is not likely to yield an abundance of votes.
Some of the Democrats running do have an ambitious health care agenda, which is becoming all the more vital to our nation’s short-term and long-term economy, but in order to hype that, they have to be the Grinches that stole tax cuts first. Democrats run on platforms of empowering government to make things better (or at least trying to). Republicans run on platforms of sabotaging government. After four years of Republican-dominated government working double overtime to achieve their aforementioned goal, the Democrats need to take two steps back for every one step forward, which makes their message hard to sell. Thus far, most have merely avoided the message instead of trying to sell it.
Recent polls indicate that most Americans now believe that invading Iraq was a mistake. Hundreds of dead American soldiers and tens of billions of dollars later next November, it’s hard to imagine that these figures will change to Bush’s favor, especially considering the entire mission was based on a premise known to be false. The “loony radicals” in the Democratic party you speak of are only at fault for not being aggressive enough in their dissent (or lack of dissent) when this foolish mission was undertaken. The wishful thinking of neocons that everything will be perfectly swell in Iraq next year at this time is much more of a gamble than the “loony left Dems” explaining in strongly-worded terms that it isn’t.
And losing their liberal base to the Greens would be a disaster for the Dems. There is only so much room in the center, but everyone is racing to appeal to the center. The Democrats recent problem is that their coalitions aren’t as solid as those of the GOP. The Dems have unions and minorites. The GOP has the military, religious fundamentalists, robber barons, and “gimme my tax cut” big-shot wannabe yuppies. Taking out all these groups from both party’s bases and the center is alot smaller than I think you’re giving it credit for. Al Gore recognized this difficult dynamic when he ran his awkward 2000 campaign simultaneously running on a platform of centrism and populism. If the Democrats run as centrists, they show only marginal differences with the GOP and most of those will come on social issues such as abortion rights, gay rights, gun restrictions and the usual issues that will make the party appealing on Long Island, but deplored in Little Rock. Without Little Rock, the Democrats can’t with. On the other hand, if the Democrats run as “people versus the powerful” populists crusading for even-handed taxation and saving jobs for American workers while playing down the social issues, they’ll probably pick up some of those Little Rock votes, but won’t provide a platform identifiable to Long Island. Without Long Island, The Democrats can’t win.
A party that has no base has no soul, and I think the main reason why third parties who fight to “represent the center” always end up falling up apart is because the center isn’t clearly defined. Socially conservative rural residents who oppose abortion but want to keep their paper mill job might consider themselves “centrist”, but can they co-exist in the same party as socially liberal but wealthy suburbanites who also call themselves “centrist” but want entirely different things? This is the inherent conflict for the Dems whenever someone says they should “move to the center”, and I’m curious what sort of platform would you suggest the Democrats embrace to pick up that middle ground, and what platform you suggest they distance themselves from as they move to the center.
Audio tapes can easily be faked. The fact that there is no video evidence that bin Laden is alive shows that he’s either dead or severely injured.
Furthermore, rather than jumping to conclusions that there’s some conspiracy, how about looking at the real world first. Assuming bin Laden is alive, he is moving constantly. He is in an area that is exceptionally mountainous, so its not at all clear that spy aircraft or satellites would detect him. He is only communicating via couriers, which means that electronic surveillance is useless. He is quite likely to be in Pakistan, where US forces aren’t allowed to enter. (Unless you’d like to start a major diplomatic incident with a country that’s barely stable and armed with nuclear weapons.)
This is why the Democrats can’t be trusted to treat the war on terrorism seriously. When confronted with a real question their initial reaction is to A: blame the United States and B: spin some idiotic conspiracy theory to justify the first.
When there are real fanatics out there trying to kill every man, woman, and child in the country we don’t need people who think that the real enemy is our own government in charge.
Jay, you’re “America can do no wrong” hubris is ultimately scarier than most threats of terrorism. While America’s intentions may not be as fundamentally vile as those trying to kill us, the power we yield and choose to employ against those who “aren’t with us” ultimately puts the US in a position to cause much graver threat to the stability of the world than most terrorists, barring nuclear attack. You will obviously never see eye to eye with people who are objective enough to recognize the faults of American policy rather than simply being flag-waving puppets, so this debate is ultimately futile. At the end of the day, the appalling tactics often used by this country for personal gain simple “teach ’em a lesson” bravado will put more people into the “Blame America First” crowd, no matter how often you tell them they should merely be loyal minions to the will of a few elected officials making the controversial decisions.
To say something like “Audio tapes can easily be faked. The fact that there is no video evidence that bin Laden is alive shows that he’s either dead or severely injured” ignores the point. Well, actually, it contradicts a fact and ignores a point.
Osama bin Laden is not dead. He ain’t healthy, either. In all probability, he’s hiding in a bunker somewhere hooked to a dialysis machine. that doesn’t mean his organization is inactive. The last time before 9/11 that al Qaeda hit the US on our soil was 1993, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t active in the interim. We’ve had increased activity in the Phillipines (and now we have Marines there, too). The Saudis were hit hard in Riyadh. We’ve got increased recruiting for the group, and that’s not even mentioning the unaffiliated partisans in Iraq that have cars, bombs and delusions of grandeur and martyrdom.
And Jay, you’re absolutely off-base to write “when there are real fanatics out there trying to kill every man, woman, and child in the country we don’t need people who think that the real enemy is our own government in charge.” As I recall, not only is the government an extension of the citizenry and not an independent entity in our system, but it’s completely ignorant to assume that a party that tries to prevent the over 50,000 occupational and work-related deaths each year, improve the distribution of health care, enforce the EXISTING environmental standards, create corporate accountability and maintain friendly relations with our traditional allies is unconcerned with the welfare of the population.
That’s not “conservatism with attitude.” That’s “rhetoric without substance.” And it would be funny if it weren’t so damn pathetic.
And these comments only serve to prove my point – the left interprets any defense of America as being “a flag-waving puppet” and is simply unprepared to deal with critical issues of national security. A party that considers the GOP to be a greater threat than al-Qaeda has a sense of priorities that are so skewed as to be nearly pathological.
Sorry Mark,
I happen to agree with trickle down economics. During the 10 years of Dem rule we never could get ahead. No matter haow hard we worked no matter what we did. We couldn’t be consumers becasue we were busy being survivors. Every time we found a way to make a few extra bucks the federal government was there with it’s hand out ready to take it away. Now? with very little change in our circumstance, (If anything our situation places us in even more expensive living conditions that before.) we are able to be consumers and go out and actually purchase items to improve our life.
This is an interesting little tidbit. I work for a company that makes OEM components for the construction market. We are the leader in our segment and are extremely sucessful and have been so for the last 50-60 years. But from 1992 til Clinton left office we had a rate of approx. 50% of achieving our bonus requirements. Before that we hadn’t missed a bonus in 10 years. During the 90’s even though everyone said it was a *wonderful* economy….it wasn’t. It was an inflated economy based on dot com boomers, ventures built on air…Companies like Enron that milked their employees. (I know the dems would love to pin events like Enron on the Repubs…but the truth is that they were uncovered on the repub watch, yet they flourished unhindered on the dem watch.)
The normal indicator of a healthy economy were all over the place during the dems reign. It wasn’t healthy and it wasn’t consistant. Now since the repubs have been back in power the building indicators have stayed up no matter how dire the dems would like to paint the economy. the dot coms went bust and now that people are a little more aware hopefully false and inflated business ventures will not be able affect the economy to such a degree. We have achieved our bonus levels every year since the repubs come on line.
Building has not dropped to the devastating levels that they were predicting. I had to laugh at the pundits confusion and race to cover their rear ends. They came up with all kinds of excuses to cover up why they had made such bad calls.
Don’t blame the lack of coordination and purpose fo the Dems on the Repubs, becasue that is the chickens*t way out. Blame it on someone else.
The Dems need direction leadership, and a platform. They will not find it by pointing fingers at anyone else. They will only find it if they take the time and effort to mold themselves into a cohesive saleable unit.
In a way I can see the Clintonistas, and the Deannyboppers being as decisive of an element to the dem party as Buchcanan and Perot were to the Independant party. When the Indies had a chance to rally around and use Jesse’s momentum, they found they couldn’t gel into a unit and party. The same conditions exist in the dem party right now. Lack of focus, a disparity of beleifs and t great need to sell yourselfs to a public that is hungary for a candidate that can actually represent what they want and need rather than the old tired party line.
No, don’t blame the Repubs for the dems failings. Because if you do the dems will never see themselves clear to mount any type of solid campaign.
Oh and Mark?
Forget that health care line….most Americans are beginning to understand how much of a bogus system socialized healthcare really is. With the reports coming out of Canada about how worthless the system is, and that the Canadians are coming to America for quality care.
Not to mention the debacle that is Frances socialized health care system. I won’t even go into the reports from that sector.
No, if the dems run on that platform, they will not have a leg to stand on. Because socialized medicine is being shown to be a bust.
Like I said, if the dems want to survive the are going to have to decide whether they want votes or they want idealogoy.
I can tell you what the centrists do want. But I cannot tell you want is best for the dems.
They don’t want extremist views. If you want to march for peace, fine, but keep out of my face and be respectful of it.
If you beleive abortion is evil, fine. But don’t go killing people because of it.
We are not socialist or communist, so stop trying to make us into one. We are working people, some make more than others, but we want to keep as much of what we earn as we can. If we need to help out our neighbors when there are hard times fine. But that belongs at the local level,not into some federal bucket where it can be siphoned off and not go to where we don’t want it to.
Just as outrage over the donations to the red cross after 911 influenced people’s compassion so does socialist policies and programs at the government level. The abuses and misuses and misdirections of funds of these programs on the federal level dissuade people from supporting them.
The constitution is not something that can be rewritten on whim.
Extreme beliefs on gun rights turn us off. We believe that Americans have the right to guns, yet we believe with that right we must take responsibility for that right. We also do not want to be tagged and watched in order to exercise that right.
A right under duress is not a right.
We believe in consequences. If you exercise free speech and I disagree with you and I no longer purchase your music or watch your movies and make a statement I disagree with your views. Tough luck take it in the pocketbook. No one ever said I had to mix politics and pleasure.
You can take political correctness and place it on a slow boat to China. Stop being so sensitive. Use logic and commonsense rather than emotions in your dealings.
If we need to go to war we will, we may not like it, but we realize that there will be circumstances where diplomatic solutions fail.
partisan politics turn us off.
Large beaucratic government that constantly makes demands on our pocket books turns us off. Govenment was meant to be a managable tool for taking care of the states combined needs.
The states are soveriegn enities and as such they hold the power, not the federal government. First state THEN federal. That should always be the route of power.
We do not mind those of a different sexual orientation than ours, but keep it out of our face and do not expect special consideration because your choices. Sex belongs in the bedroom. Tolerance is one thing, but teaching and recruiting is another entirely. It is not appropriate, please refrain. Again moderation of behavior and expections of special compensation.
Moderation is the key to most indies, regardless of social and economic standing. They dislike extremism.
Now as far as I’m concerned? I would really like to see a politian who makes the Supreme court rule on the legality of the federal income tax. Because frankly my dear, the evidence is mounting against the IRS….
Disclaimer: I cannot read other indies minds, but from the many I have been able to speak with, the key word was moderation. So any of the points I have made about may or may not reflect others points of view. They are a collection of views I had run across.
P.s. Mark if the Dems do make revoking the tax cuts the first line of action…they stand to lose a whole segment of centrist voters. We’d rather see you cut government fat instead. Take wage cut senators…..stop the viscoisity of catsup type testing…stop maintaining special spas for the elite congressmen and senators. Get rid of a few government limos. how them serve tuna salad at state functions instead of caviar….
How’s that for a start?
“During the 90’s even though everyone said it was a *wonderful* economy….it wasn’t. It was an inflated economy based on dot com boomers, ventures built on air…Companies like Enron that milked their employees.”
The proof is in the pudding, Emma. I’d suggest walking around some shopping malls or downtown areas, and compare how they looked four years ago to the way they do today.
I visited downtown Minneapolis last night. I hadn’t been there since fall of 2000- and I could tell we’re in an economic downturn. Three years ago I could hardly find an empty storefront or section in an office building. Instead, the ground levels seemed practically abandoned. Just walking around the Empire Mall in Sioux Falls made me notice the same thing- in the late 90’s, there wasn’t a bare storefront to be seen. Now, nearly a third of the stalls in the mall are empty.
Not to mention, unemployment is up from it’s previous levels. In the 90’s, we talked about how easy it was to get a job… anyone who wanted one could have one. Some of us were even thinking of postponing college to go out and work. Today, we’re trying to figure out how much grad school we’re going to need just to stay afloat.
Damn I miss the Clinton years. Those were great times.
Then maybe you should check out Mankato or Owatonna…the burst of new business is phenomenal. Go to Maple Grove and check out the new stores and building there.
What you are experiencing is more of a moving of markets rather than a depression of markets.
Old Navy or Caribou coffe in Mankato 4-5 years ago?????? It was unthinkable. Now we have that and more.
Check along interstate 35 at the new motels and the Harley dealers, the new Fleet Farm and the new restaurants, how about all those new HOM stores and Gander Mountain? Both have built numerous new locations across the twin cities.
Teh Mega mall has been taking business from other malls such as the Nicollet Mall, the Burnsville mall for a while. Now I’ve noticed a slight resurgence in the Burnsville mall. I think folks are back to a little bit closer and smaller as a preferance.
Enclosed malls have been on the decline for decades. strip malls and traditional downtowns are back big time.
Owatonna’s Mall basically declined to the point in th e90’s that the only thing there was a restaurant, a movie theater, a drug store, video store and a workout gym. The local insurance giant took over the mall in it’s expansion and now uses the bulk of it for office space.
But visit downtown Owatonna and you will find a thriving district complete with shoe and clothing stores, restuarants, craft stores, dollar stores, hardware stores, florists, businesses of all shapes and sizes. Only a very few of the store fronts sit empty.
Don’t be fooled by only narrow markets. I’ve been getting the building market indicators broken down and explained to me by management for the last 10 years…Those are some of the major indicators of how the economy is going… And they do not indicate the same story you would like the world to believe.
Minneapolis has always been either in decline or about to decline….for the last twentyfive years I’ve been hearing about Minneapolis’s downtown decline…how th ebusiness are moving to the fringe communities…what can we do about renewel..etc. etc.
You are simply echoing reports of conditions that have existed for decades.
All enclosed malls are having trouble, they are an expensive location for stores to operate. And when the benefits of being in an enclosed mall ibecome less than the cost of operation you will see a regular influx and exodus of businesses. It’s not new, and it’s not unusal.
Both the Willmar mall and th eOwatonna mall met their doom not on th eRepub watch, but on the dem watch. So it will happen irregardless of which party is in power.
Falsely inflated economy such as was experienced during th Clinton years cannot be maintained long term…if in doubt check out the fate of the dot coms…eventually supply and demand will catch up and firm footing of a business is what will carry the day. The jobs are still around, they will not just *fall* into your laps. But just like generations before you, you will have to *work* to get your position in life.
The really dangerous legacy that the false economy of the 90’s elft behind is an entire generation who do not understand the concept of nothing comes easy, or that you have to exert yourself to suceed. Too many of the young ones beleieve that it will simply come to you because of a few years of inflated economy. The reality has always been a bit more complex than that.
The sad fact is the bubble must burst. It always has and it always will.
Emma, it’s somewhat amusing and ironic that you profess that the Democrats have a destructively misguided electoral approach considering that the “centrist” third parties you celebrate have suffered far more bruising and embarrassing defeats in the last four years than the Democrats. When you proclaim a united front of centrists who swing elections one way or another, you seem to forget Tim Penny’s poll numbers dropping from 37 percent to 16 percent in a matter of a couple weeks back in 2000. You seem to forget the brawls and shouting matches of the Reform Party back in 2000, both in Minnesota and nationwide that eventually caused the party to split.
I stand by my previously claim that a very high percentage of so-called centrists represent a mushy middle, with little interest in politics and nothing even approaching a consistent message. Even centrists who are engaged in the political process are all over the political map. Pat Buchanan, Ariana Huffington, Jesse Ventura and Donald Trump all run as independents, but how much do they have in common?
I think you seriously overestimate the number of people who fit your rigid profile of “centrists”. Very few people I know who identify themselves as moderates believe in trickle-down economics. Even some Republicans I know think the idea is an abomination. Take a look at the numbers who approved of Bush’s most recent budget busting tax cuts….the highest I saw was 32%. Most seem to have learned the lesson after the first 26 attempts that trickle-down economics is guaranteed to fail. With that said, you may still be right, as I alluded to earlier, that the Democrats running on a platform of revoking those tax cuts will be a losing strategy. However, my guess is that voters potential dislike to the idea of rolling back tax cuts would be the product of the same narrow-minded gluttony that prompted support for the original tax cuts more so than a recognition of success for the moronic and destructive trickle-down theory. Most Americans have no interest in seeing millionaires get $40,000 tax cuts, but they’re often willing to overlook it if a $400 check shows up in their mailbox.
Even beyond the tax cut issue, I have never talked to two “centrists” who think alike on social issues….enter my Little Rock vs. Long Island dynamic again. One centrist wants zero immigration and to kill all gay people. The guy a few miles down the road wants an open immigration policy and the legal recognition of gay marriages. It’s not hard to see why a collaboration of independent third-party types always seem to break into fist fights considering their fundamental disparities of ideology.
As for your comments about cutting government fat, that has long been a promise of many politicians who have either solved the problem already or never will. The examples you cited as being “first steps” to be taken before gargantuan tax giveaways are rolled back is kind of like thinking you’re gonna take a magazine back to the newsstand and use the refund to buy a Dodge Viper.
Lastly, it’s hard to even know how to comment on your statements that the late 90’s Clinton-era economy was all imagined. You are correct that a certain level of “irrational exuberance” artificially propped up the stock market and overall economy for a while, but you’re suggesting more than that…..that times were tougher in the late 90s than they are now. I suspect you’ll find precious few who would agree with that assessment, and those that do only need to be shown quarterly GDP growth rates, unemployment rates, consumer spending figures and percentage of disposal income to be embarrassed into submission. During any period, there are some groups who don’t share the success of the majority. Hog farmers certainly weren’t rolling in the money in 1998 and 1999. Neither was the now-flourishing oil industry for that matter. And certainly typewriter manufacturers fell on hard times during the 90’s. On the other hand, farmers were thriving in the late 70s, when the rest of the economy was in a serious funk. To use your own personal example as a case study on why the Clinton era was an economic disaster zone is at best silly and at worst egomaniacal.
Emma, it’s somewhat amusing and ironic that you profess that the Democrats have a destructively misguided electoral approach considering that the “centrist” third parties you celebrate have suffered far more bruising and embarrassing defeats in the last four years than the Democrats. When you proclaim a united front of centrists who swing elections one way or another, you seem to forget Tim Penny’s poll numbers dropping from 37 percent to 16 percent in a matter of a couple weeks back in 2000. You seem to forget the brawls and shouting matches of the Reform Party back in 2000, both in Minnesota and nationwide that eventually caused the party to split.
I stand by my previously claim that a very high percentage of so-called centrists represent a mushy middle, with little interest in politics and nothing even approaching a consistent message. Even centrists who are engaged in the political process are all over the political map. Pat Buchanan, Ariana Huffington, Jesse Ventura and Donald Trump all run as independents, but how much do they have in common?
I think you seriously overestimate the number of people who fit your rigid profile of “centrists”. Very few people I know who identify themselves as moderates believe in trickle-down economics. Even some Republicans I know think the idea is an abomination. Take a look at the numbers who approved of Bush’s most recent budget busting tax cuts….the highest I saw was 32%. Most seem to have learned the lesson after the first 26 attempts that trickle-down economics is guaranteed to fail. With that said, you may still be right, as I alluded to earlier, that the Democrats running on a platform of revoking those tax cuts will be a losing strategy. However, my guess is that voters potential dislike to the idea of rolling back tax cuts would be the product of the same narrow-minded gluttony that prompted support for the original tax cuts more so than a recognition of success for the moronic and destructive trickle-down theory. Most Americans have no interest in seeing millionaires get $40,000 tax cuts, but they’re often willing to overlook it if a $400 check shows up in their mailbox.
Even beyond the tax cut issue, I have never talked to two “centrists” who think alike on social issues….enter my Little Rock vs. Long Island dynamic again. One centrist wants zero immigration and to kill all gay people. The guy a few miles down the road wants an open immigration policy and the legal recognition of gay marriages. It’s not hard to see why a collaboration of independent third-party types always seem to break into fist fights considering their fundamental disparities of ideology.
As for your comments about cutting government fat, that has long been a promise of many politicians who have either solved the problem already or never will. The examples you cited as being “first steps” to be taken before gargantuan tax giveaways are rolled back is kind of like thinking you’re gonna take a magazine back to the newsstand and use the refund to buy a Dodge Viper.
Lastly, it’s hard to even know how to comment on your statements that the late 90’s Clinton-era economy was all imagined. You are correct that a certain level of “irrational exuberance” artificially propped up the stock market and overall economy for a while, but you’re suggesting more than that…..that times were tougher in the late 90s than they are now. I suspect you’ll find precious few who would agree with that assessment, and those that do only need to be shown quarterly GDP growth rates, unemployment rates, consumer spending figures and percentage of disposal income to be embarrassed into submission. During any period, there are some groups who don’t share the success of the majority. Hog farmers certainly weren’t rolling in the money in 1998 and 1999. Neither was the now-flourishing oil industry for that matter. And certainly typewriter manufacturers fell on hard times during the 90’s. On the other hand, farmers were thriving in the late 70s, when the rest of the economy was in a serious funk. To use your own personal example as a case study on why the Clinton era was an economic disaster zone is at best silly and at worst egomaniacal.
Emma, I’m also afraid the fairy tale that so many people are living in regarding to health care is on its final leg. All the talk of the perils of “socialized medicine” yet all of the horror stories we heard about our health care system’s meltdown has happened under corporate socialized medicine otherwise known as HMO’s. As a result, we pay twice as much per capita compared to any other country in the world and have the fewest people covered.
Your perspective is one spoken from a position of comfort and privilege. Since you have health care coverage yourself, the crisis we’re in the midst of is merely an “other guy problem”….much like paying for the consequences of the latest doomed experiment in trickle-down economics will be a “future generations problem”. Either way…not your problem. The problem is, it could become one very soon. You mentioned how the company you worked for was almost bankrupted during those depressed Clinton years (you know, the dark era of the longest period of economic expansion in American history). The next time the rest of the country is experiencing unprecedented good times, your company could be wiped out of existence and leave you unemployed. At that point, you could easily join the ranks of the uninsured, a group that is growing by three million per year and is likely to grow even faster with double-digit rate growth every year. Ultimately, it often takes the harsh lessons of the real world to educate people about certain problems and health care is right at the top of this category. FOr this reason, the “centrists” who would otherwise toe the anti-socialized medicine line will certainly become more inclined to recognize the fact that we need some serious changes in health care or we’re gonna bankrupt our economy. The days of downplaying the rising ranks of the uninsured are coming to a close….now that it’s starting to affect people who live in the suburbs.
1. Centrists and Indies are not the same thing. An Indie may be centrist or they may not be. The key to being a centrist is more of moderation, reigning in emotionalism and addressing the issues not the emotions. They vote for the person not a party.
Indie’s can be from one end of the spectrum to the other. It can be anyone who doesn’t feel comfortable in one of the 2 major parties. They do not always vote for the person only, they may vote a hodgepodge of issues only and they may or may not vote based on emotionalism.
2. The split in the reform party is exactly why I can speak about what I see going on in the Dems. If I can see symptoms of what is happening, it’s probably because I’ve seen it happen elsewhere. The Dems have a much tighter organisation and a longer history than the Reform party so the effects aren’t as tramatic. But the relationships and the turf battles between the Deannyboppers and the Clintonistas is reminiscent of the Buchanan/Perot and the Ventura battles.
3. My comments on where to start, which I could have written so that it would be a bit clearer, is that of a change in mindset. Rather than have the mindset of the senators and congressmen as privilegded elite. They need to accpet of mindset of minimalization and thrift. Although I suppose I might be able to buy a Ferrari with how much they spend on caviar and champagne in a year… ^.~
4. Now as far as the bancrupt joke you cracked…at the worst my company retains an ROS of that most companies would kill to have. When our company has a bad year, it’s still a good year for most other companies. But if you want to understand how the 90’s were not as rosy as everyone wants us to believe…Check with Granite Falls Minnesota. During the 90’s Granite Falls experienced the closure of both of their main manufacturing facilities. One of those facility was where I worked before I came to where I am now. When Clinton cut all the resupply programs and left the military to fall into disrepair, it affected our business, we were in the business of government supply, amongest other things. Eventually the contracts just dried up and we had to look for business elsewhere. I left before the final sale of that company and it’s eventual closure. My father-in-law ended up accepting an early retirement when the factory he worked for closed it’s door when it relocated the factory in Mexico.
Now not only did those militry cuts hurt the resupply industry, the military families were living on substandard wages. I have a brother-in-law that is a lifer in the air force. Thank heavens his wife has an excellant career, because if they attempted to maintain the same lifestyle on his salary they wouldn’t be able to afford half as good a life.
Another company in the southeast sector (the indusrty belt along 35) Power Team had been a once triving business for decades, a spin off of OTC. Closed it’s doors and incorporated its business with another factory in Illinois. Their building which had been standing empty since they closed is now being remodled into a huge Fleet Farm.
Truth Hardware closed their die operations in the Twin Cities (Twin Tool) in a move to avoid unprofitable operations. They also also closed down operations of one of the Allen Stevens facilities that they had purchased out east in an attempt to avoid unprofitable operations.
I know of 3 other factories first hand above and beyond those I have listed that closed their doors during the 90’s and left people out of a job.
Hmmm…comfort and privledge….yep, I sure have had one hell of a good run at that…my eldest daughter was born prematurly and we only had enough insurance to cover 1000 dollars of the bill. MA stepped in to help us out because it had been a major emergency. But even after we had help, my daughters medical bills were not paid off until she was 7 years old. My sister lived most of her life without insurance, her first husband was a farmer and she worked as a receptionest for a realtor. They never avoided the doctor, but they were more reponsible with when they would go in. They always paid their own way. I actually would prefer to pay my own way, because the amount of money I spend on insurance is not even close to the amount of money the dostors charge me for visits. I would actually save money if I dropped insurance and paid as I went.
The abuses of medical care come about when people do not have to take responsibility for their own actions.
Go in for every little twinge and hoarse throat? Run up your insurance? Fine…you don’t have to pay for it!…But they don’t look at what they are paying in premiums. Even if you have a job, you need to pay a part of your insurance. It’s not free. You may think it is, but check your pay stub…how may thousands do you spend on premiums? How much each year do you actually use your insurance? So you spend less than a thousand dollars? So, you pay a minimum of maybe 250 deductable and then another 20 percent of the remainder…another 150 to equal 400 dollars out of a 1000 worth of charges. Say you pay an additional 900 dollars a year deducted out of your pay check to cover the premiums that the company doesn’t cover….You just paid 1300 dollars out of your own pocket to cover 1000 dollars of care.
So…as far as I can see, it makes much more sense to me, to pay may way as I go and bankroll the extra 300 dollars I’d save by paying direct. This also saves a company money on my insurance which would directly to the companies bottom line and make it a more profiable venture for the company.
I dislike HMOs and think they are bad business programs. and I applaude the doctors who have broken from the HMOs, insurance and government programs to provide affordable quality care to customers who wish to be responsible for their own bills and pay with cash.
Surprisingly much like homeschooling, this trend of doctors breaking away is starting to pick up steam.
Now, as far as socialized medicine? Remember…I ended up having to use MA at the age of 19 when a pregnancy went south…We still ended up paying another 7 years even after we received help. If we hadn’t have had help it would have probably added another 2 years on to the payments. Would I have wanted to have the entire bill gone and not to have worried about it? Heck yea, I’m not nuts or anything. But it was a bill I had incurred and it was my responsibility to deal with it. The help was nice, but could we have managed without it? Yes, if it is important enough, we would have found a way.
I disagree with socialized medicine and socialized schools. I fully back the efforts by individuals to break away from these behemoths and take responsibilty back into their own hands for their health, education and monetary responsibility.
Emma, I previously stated that you are at odds with most of the “centrists” who you align yourself with by endorsing the long-failed experiments in trickle-down economics. That statement is debatable. But I can say without reservation that your theory about health insurance being a sham is way, way, way out of the mainstream and I hope for your sake that you don’t share the same views about car insurance and homeowner’s insurance. But if you really feel that an employer-financed health insurance policy is a liability to you, I’m sure your employer will only be too happy to drop your coverage and allow you to join the glamorous world of the lucky tens of millions without health care coverage….like my 19-year-old friend who just got treated for cervical cancer and now gets to start her young life with thousands of dollars of extra bills. However, if you do so and gamble that you’ll have continued good health until you qualify for Medicare (which you may also oppose), I wouldn’t recommend suggesting your theory of health insurance futility with other “centrists” because they’ll probably look at you like you just got off a spaceship.
In regards to Owatonna, I grew up only 30 miles from the town (as embarrassing as it is to admit) and I seem to remember their layoffs coming in 2001, which happened during the recession. I’m not 100% sure of the Granite Falls plant closings, but I’m pretty sure they happened in 2000 or 2001 as well. I suppose they could have happened before that, but I think you’re playing loose with the facts to convenience your argument.
But you’re right that factories did close in the 90s. The gas chamber door has been held open for the American working class for decades now, and current trade agreements passed in the 90s accelerated that process. Nonetheless, I can assure you that we didn’t lose 2.7 million manufacturing jobs during the entire Clinton Presidency like we have in three years since 2000. When companies are making money, as the vast majority of them did in the 90’s, they had little reason to lower operating costs the way they do know in a recessed economy where few are making money. I would also advise you not to bring up the bruising Clinton-era economy when talking to fellow centrists since the vast majority of people were flourishing during those years….as every shred of documented evidence proves. I’d also advise you to be less cocky about the status of your employment and the indispensibility of your company. I’ve known plenty of people who thought their company could bounce bullets off their chest and were rewarded with a pink slip a few years or even months later. EVERYBODY is vulnerable in the 21st century business climate.
As far as military cuts, had Bush-41 been re-elected, the cuts would have been nearly as substantial. There was simply no need to maintain a Cold War-era military force capable of taking on half the world at once. I agree that we probably cut a little too much, particularly with soldier pay, but the main reason soldier pay couldn’t be raised was because a disproportionately Republican Congressional delegation (such as Trent Lott) was so busy draining the military budget by acquiring pork-barrel projects for their home districts, leaving little money for soldier pay increases during a time of shrinking budgets. Sure, the military cutbacks hurt, but does that mean the government should prop them up on the public nickle any more than it should mean typewriter manufacturers should avoid laying off their 1975-era workforce even though nobody’s buying typewriters anymore?
Sorry Mark,
Power Team closed 2001, notification was Dec of 2000 and rationalization for the closure took place on the Dems watch. I just finished talking with a prior employee to confirm dates.
Both Victor and Pluess in Granite Falls were in the 90’s. I had family and friends affected. My father in law was forced to take early retirement and some friends lost jobs for both spouses in many families.
I know that it probably does hurt to acknowledge that the economy wasn’t as bright as people would like to believe it was. That’s probably why I have as much trouble with empathy for the dems. They refuse to *see* more than what will fit with their version of events.
My position on insurance is my own. That does not mean that I went out and have canceled all my policies…In fact legally I am required to carry insurance regardless of wether or not I ever use it. I can have car insurance, house insurance an multitude of other insurance and never in my life file a claim. Add up how much money I have spent on premiums as opposed to how much money I have paid out for services or repairs.
It doesn’t even come close.
Question? Do you wear eyeglasses? Do you have eye insurance? How about braces for your teeth? do you carry insurance for that? Why or why not?
Why carry insurance that you do not need?
The world has become increasingly dependant on insurance and social programs that *appear* to have bottomless fiscal pockets. Taht is a bad poicy to have, abuses run rampant. Consumers abuse the programs, hospitals, medical supply and drug companies abuse the system.
Normal markets will adjust themselves to the markets abilities. Today markets that are covered by insurance and social programs adjust themselves to what the programs and policies can afford to pay…not the consumer. Therefore the market will keep skyrocketing out of control. As long as the cash cow is there the market will milk it. That leaves the people with out insurance or a scoial program unable to afford services whose costs are based on pocketbooks much deeper.
The solution isn’t to add more deep pockets, its to bring the health market back into the consumer level, not the beaucratic level.
Now I also know you do not read my posts becasue your comment about your young friend totally ignores the statement I made about have been hit with monsterous health care bills at the age of 19. It took us 7 years to pay those off. So I understand expensive critical care, and yet, even understanding that aspect, I maintain my postion.
I have to go for now. I didn’t spell check this so forgive typos and mispellings.
Emma, nobody considers December 2000, when PowerTeam closed, to be part of the “90’s economy”. It was obvious to everyone that the longest period of unfettered economic expansion in American history was coming to an end by December 2000. Why is it that you don’t hold the GOP Congress accountable for PowerTeam layoffs instead of just Clinton? Seems like you guys are tremendously inconsistent in your distribution of praise or scorn on the President versus the Congress.
I stand corrected on Granite Falls, but I talked to a woman in 2002 who moved from there and she made it sound like the layoffs had just happened. What years were the Granite Falls closings specifically? Just curious. Either way, the economic situation of Granite Falls is hardly indicative of the entire nation’s financial condition. The mid-to-late 1980s was a classic example of that. Most working-class communities and farm towns throughout Middle America and the South faced their worst economic situation since the Great Depression, yet the economy still saw growth overall because the coastal power centers seemed to benefit from our misfortune.
Whatever the case, Emma, I’m through trying to defend the overall vibrancy of the 90s era economy, which is a matter of record. If you choose to publicly humiliate yourself by regurgitating the premise that we’re better off economically now than those dreaded Clinton years of unprecedented prosperity, I can’t stop you….but I doubt you’ll find too many people willing to take that bait.
The prevalence of cancer in Americans today is more than one in three….and that’s just one of many ailments you’re gambling you’ll never get if you defer health insurance. And I did read your story about the health care bills you paid following a pregnancy when you were 19. What I don’t understand is why you think that’s honorable. Do you think every 19 year-old should be forced to pay back seven years worth of crushing medical bills rather than doing something productive with their money? Would our economy be better off if this were the case?
The concept Americans would be better off if we didn’t have health insurance is so radical it hardly merits serious discussion, but one point you brought up that is worth analyzing is your accurate assessment that the market is thrown out of whack and prices artificially inflate when insurance companies or Medicare or another government program cover medical bills rather than sick patients directly. This is certainly true, but common sense says that the alternative would result in more sick people avoiding going to the doctor, fewer qualified people going into medicine, and a collapse of the American medical industry and its much heralded “research genius that makes our quality of care so much greater than the rest of the world” due to non-existent revenue. I don’t really think we have too serious of a problem of Americans scheduling an appointment to go to the doctor if they sneeze. On the contrary, there are far too many people who resist going to the doctor out of fear and/or stubbornness. Your “health insurance be damned” premise would further discourage people from seeking necessary medical treatment, shortening their life and reducing their productivity…and possibly turning a SARS-style virus into an undetected, all-out plague.
Also ironic is that you cite the “middleman” as distorting market forces and lifting prices for health care treatment, yet you go on record as opposing “socialized education”, which I assume means an endorsement for vouchers. Vouchers would be as bad for private school tuition at the elementary and high school levels and financial aid has been for private colleges….driving tuition rates into the stratosphere since government will be footing the bill and thus reducing cost-accountability on the part of private schools. Be careful what you wish for Emma. It just might come true.
Perhaps someday you’ll be among the fast-rising 43 million lucky duckies who don’t have health insurance. If you get a serious and costly disease at that point, I hope you would at least have the integrity to request some sort of euthenasia for yourself, so you won’t force your family to foot the bill for your ideological opposition to health insurance.
1. You are totaly ingnoring the fact that Power Team’s rationalization was not based on just the year 2000 books…that was the year they sat down and said enough!
The rationalization was based on a number of past years. I’m not sure how many, if it was the last 3-5 years or longer. I’d have to go bug my co-worker again.
A company doesn’t close a multi-million dollar business that has survived in one form or another since the 1920-30’s based on the poor performance of just one year.
If you believe that a company will do that, then I have water front property in Arizona for you. ^.^
2. As far as the years with Granite, I will be seeing my father in law this weekend at our 25 th wedding anniversay party so I will ask him. I can’t remember exactly. I think one closed 4 years after I left and the other closed 6 years after I left. I’m not positive though.
3.Personally for myself and those I speak with, yes, things are much better than during the Clinton years. Regional economics are a portion of the equation, but not all. I still maintain that the forecasts that I receive in my monthly business reports tell a much better picture than what you would like to paint. My business is national/global and it is controlled by one of the main economic indicators. So economic trends show up early in our numbers. So I will stand behind my statements regardless or what you may think of them. Now next year they are predicting a downturn. Check out the Forbes report on mortgages. An interesting tidbit on that is that while the interest rate will go up and the number of mortages go down, If I remember the article correctly, the number of new houses will go up? But last year they were also predicting gloom and doom on those numbers and we never did see the losses that they predicted. It actually was a really good year. Good enough for a 10% bonus.
4.A few years back the notion of home schooling was ridiculed and it was a small but growing option to government education. Now today it has made broad leaps and advances. It’s becoming a viable alternative to traditional choices. Now we are at a very similar juncture with medicine. There has been a movement by health care providers, doctors, nurses, therapists who have left the traditional medical establishment to provide quality services at a fair price to patients who do not have insurance or government coverage. These new pratices, are also encouraging customers to use their services without insurance. In fact they refuse to accept anything other than cash for services rendered. It’s a healthy alternative to assembly line medical care.
Just like home schooling this movement in health care will have critics and those that will “look at you like you just got off a spaceship”.
But if the trend goes along the same route as home schooling then it will prove the critics wrong by providing quality health care to those who wish to pay for their own medical costs.
Does that mean that there is not a role for insurance to play in critical care of major dieases and conditions? of course not, we will always need some type of a system to handle the leviathans of medical care. But it will be for the exception, not the rule.
Rather than allowing the leviathans to drag the entire industry into ruin, or hand the industry over to a beaucratic, red tape, inefficent governmental sytem of smokestack management. how about attempting something sensible?
As far as my mentioning that situation that I found myself in at 19 was to reassure you that I have experienced that aspect of debt in association with health care, so that you cannot accuse me of speaking of something I had never experienced. I’ve experienced all levels, no insurance, insurance and government help. I’ve met the challenge of expensive critical care so I can understand the situation from that vantage point.
It’s not hairbrained, it’s not a spaceship concept, it’s a grass roots movement in an effort to solve a problem that will only get worse if we hand it over to the government.
And here I thought the dems liked to claim the high ground on grass roots movements….