Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Didn't seem to hurt them too much...until they overplayed their hand for the next decade.

No, Newt's cadre of fiscal conservatives weakened themselves by losing the "Gunfight at OK Corral" with Clinton. It was the break in the skin that allowed the Neocon infection, which had been just a skin disease, to invade their vital organs and take over the whole party.

Social libertarianism and fiscal conservatism are the anti-venom that keep the American right from turning into the full-scale authoritarian menace we saw in the 00's. As long as the Tea Party stays uncorrupted, they could be the agent that detoxifies the right.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

No, Newt's cadre of fiscal conservatives weakened themselves by losing the "Gunfight at OK Corral" with Clinton. It was the break in the skin that allowed the Neocon infection, which had been just a skin disease, to invade their vital organs and take over the whole party.

Social libertarianism and fiscal conservatism are the anti-venom that keep the American right from turning into the full-scale authoritarian menace we saw in the 00's. As long as the Tea Party stays uncorrupted, they could be the agent that detoxifies the right.

Depends on your definition of uncorrupted. Have you been noticing some of the complete loons that have been getting "tea party" endorsements?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Depends on your definition of uncorrupted. Have you been noticing some of the complete loons that have been getting "tea party" endorsements?

Well, there are loons who are pure as the driven snow ("Mr. Nader, white courtesy phone, please.").

The Tea Party will be a force for good or ill depending on who wields it. Right now it is part grassroots, part Fox astro-turf, but from the people around here who are into it (and there are A LOT), it appears to be attracting a lot of new blood into politics, and that's always a good thing. The fiscal conservatism instinct is healthy, since both major parties now use the public treasury as their spoils system. The nativism strain is painful to watch, but that's usually the price of populist movements and hopefully it can be contained by, oh I dunno, the Constitution. The religious fundamentalist accent is undeniable, but religious fervor per se is not destructive of liberty as long as it has an equal and opposite force to keep it in check. The obvious one in the TP is libertarianism. Objectivists are facile, but one thing about Randians: they think religion is for suckers.

So the future of the TP depends on to what degree they can be organized and by whom. If it's the Beck-Palin Entertainment Tonight crowd that's either an opportunity blown or a dangerous militarist time bomb. If it's Rand Paul and his Von Misean Troubadours, that's really interesting -- enough to be worth a look from the sane liberal-libertarians among us. If it's just the GOP establishment conning them into "no new taxes" and Goldman-Sachs trickle down, the way Obamamania became the handmaid of Bernanke's Wall Street criminals, that's, well, it's just more of the same in our second gilded age.

 

[joecct]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Steele's the sort of empty-headed time-server who's vice presidential timber!

(We had to suffer through Terry McAuliff. There is nothing quite like the face-palm despair of having a horrendous national party chair. You have my sympathy, and I hope he keeps his job forever.)

We have the de jure heads of each party in Kaine and Steele (sounds like a new TV show).

But who are the de facto heads of the Dems and GOP?? Obama and Palin or Newt?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Unfortunately I think you may be right. The Dems are prone to fracture and every Dem political leader has to figure out how to hold the center. Dean did it by reminding everybody the GOP are Wraiths. It was go his way or spend an eternity in the wilderness, and after the national nightmare of Bush everyone was listening. Clinton did it with revival tent charisma, snakeoil, and patronage -- the essence of Southern politics. Obama seems to be trying to do it by edict -- a Wilsonian Idealist strategy that is only as effective as his popularity.

I think you're reading far too much into the influence of one man. Things got better for the Dems during those years because people were tired of Neocon rule, not because the Dems' IQs suddenly jumped 20 points. Similarly, things are good for the GOP right now because the Dems are unpopular - goodness knows THAT's not because of a brilliant new GOP strategy or better leadership. The Dems were going to <strike>come together</strike> win a lot of elections during those years regardless of who was at the head of the party - and Dean rode the wave to Democratic Sainthood.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

I think you're reading far too much into the influence of one man. Things got better for the Dems during those years because people were tired of Neocon rule, not because the Dems' IQs suddenly jumped 20 points. Similarly, things are good for the GOP right now because the Dems are unpopular - goodness knows THAT's not because of a brilliant new GOP strategy or better leadership. The Dems were going to <strike>come together</strike> win a lot of elections during those years regardless of who was at the head of the party - and Dean rode the wave to Democratic Sainthood.

Hey, I come from the "social forces" school as much as anybody -- God bless Emile Durkheim -- but everything you say was bound to happen should have happened in 2004, but didn't.

 

[geezer]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Things got better for the Dems during those years because people were tired of Neocon rule

Now I'm even more confused on this term: I thought "neoconservatism" started with GW's presidency as a way of describing the philosophy of democratizing the Middle East by force, perhaps with a (less defining) dash of domestic "compassionate conservatism". What is it, actually?

 

[XYZ]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Hey, I come from the "social forces" school as much as anybody -- God bless Emile Durkheim -- but everything you say was bound to happen should have happened in 2004, but didn't.

True, though I think the hangover from 9/11 might have been the mitigating circumstance that delayed the reaction.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Now I'm even more confused on this term: I thought "neoconservatism" started with GW's presidency as a way of describing the philosophy of democratizing the Middle East by force, perhaps with a (less defining) dash of domestic "compassionate conservatism". What is it, actually?

A not horrible definition. The Middle East part is dead on. The "compassionate conservatism" piece, indeed, domestic policy in general, really has nothing to do with it. The only Neoconservative domestic policy initiative is the aggressive revival of the trope of American exceptionalism, used as a driver for their aims. They are also very supportive of corporate welfare when it's directed towards US (and foreign) defense and intel cartels.

The Neocons finally took power with Dubya, but they have been around for a long time. The rough timeline is sharp-elbowed, pro-Israel, Cold War Liberal intellectuals who lost their influence over foreign policy in the Democratic party after Kennedy, deserted to the Republicans in the 1970's, worked their way up through think tanks, founded their own in PNAC, and finally took power with Dubya. Within 2 years they had their Middle Eastern crusade, and within 6 they were discredited and disgraced.

They have a Trotskyite doctrine of an intellectual vanguard that keeps the rest of the populace in their place through noble lies*, while doing the thankless dirty work of empire building. It's all tied up in various elitist and conspiratorial ideologies, and from a distance it looks a lot like revolutionary communism, which is probably why they are so free throwing that term around for their enemies.

(* This is grounded in a thorough misunderstanding of Leo Strauss, who was an interesting ivory tower intellectual political theorist who unfortunately spawned a generation of vipers, much like Nietzsche was misunderstood in Germany)

 

[Rover]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

I think you're reading far too much into the influence of one man. Things got better for the Dems during those years because people were tired of Neocon rule, not because the Dems' IQs suddenly jumped 20 points. Similarly, things are good for the GOP right now because the Dems are unpopular - goodness knows THAT's not because of a brilliant new GOP strategy or better leadership. The Dems were going to <strike>come together</strike> win a lot of elections during those years regardless of who was at the head of the party - and Dean rode the wave to Democratic Sainthood.

Gotta disagree a bit here Lynah. The Dems had several huge problems that Dean overcame/bettered. A few of them were:

1) The idiotic Shrum/MacAuliff/etc idea that you should concentrate on the 20 or so states that will either give you 270 electoral votes or a Senate majority, and pour all of your resources in there while abandoning the other 30 states. What Dean correctly realized, and as a guy on the mailing list I recall the messages that were being sent out by the DNC - that the party would have a presence in every state. The more money they got, the more states they extended to. The reasoning is wise but previously unheeded by the Dems - there are Dem officeholders everywhere, including places like ID, ND, SD, etc so you need to support them if you plan on having them capture higher office. This is a plan Obama copyied well in the general election as Dems were making a play for Montana and Georgia for example.

2) Organizing via the web/social networking. This nixed a huge GOP advantage in getting likeminded peope together and out to the polls. It also tapped into small donor fundraising in a big way, thus negating another traditional GOP advantage - money.

3) Crushing Nader. Naderism and his fellow losers threating to split the party thus ensuring a decade of a fractionalized party. I recall Dean even having a debate with the moron and explaining how the world according to Ralphie was not a winning strategy. He also brought in a lot of the anti-war left with his clear and unambiguous stance against the war in Iraq long before such stances became popular.

So, from this Dem's standpoint he's by far the most important strategist the Dems have had in a generation. Better than Carville, Axelrod, etc. He really broke the mold of inept national campaign strategies that had plagued the party for eons.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Hey, I come from the "social forces" school as much as anybody -- God bless Emile Durkheim -- but everything you say was bound to happen should have happened in 2004, but didn't.

I don't see it that way at all - the national mood in 2004 was nothing like 2008.

I'm not trying to belittle Dean all that much. The guy on the surfboard does have to have talent and skill to stay upright - but that doesn't mean he deserves credit for creating the wave.

 

[geezer]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

(* This is grounded in a thorough misunderstanding of Leo Strauss, who was an interesting ivory tower intellectual political theorist who unfortunately spawned a generation of vipers, much like Nietzsche was misunderstood in Germany)

good stuff today. It is interesting how there is always a herd of radicals hanging around, ready to latch onto a fringe perception of some big name to further their agenda. I read recently of how Martin Luther was also hijacked postmortem in Germany. Some dozens or hundreds of books and pamphlets were printed in his name by radical groups that wanted to ride his coat tails. Some of these are still in print and disseminated by neo-nazis. Most of them were tamer stuff, but twisted his views into a "counter-reformation" against his original followers.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

I don't see it that way at all - the national mood in 2004 was nothing like 2008.

I had it in my mind to compare 2004 and 2006. It may be hindsight colored by subsequent continued erosion of support for the GOP, I'll admit, but I (mis?) remember Republicans as being widely distrusted and unpopular already in 2004.

One thing that has changed now, I hope, is the extraordinary mutual animosity of 2002-08 has receded. When Bush won re-election in 2004 half the country was ecstatic and half felt like the Republic was almost literally doomed. When Obama won in 2008, it was the same. But ramping up to the GOP coming very close to or even taking both houses this November, I'm not nearly as worried about it. I think (hope) we all grew up a bit after the political excesses of the last decade. The parties seem to behaving more responsibly as well. The opposition to Obama isn't OMG! Teh Kenyan Socialism!!1!, it's something approaching an intelligent analysis of budgetary and policies issues.

Maybe people are getting sick of the demagogues and are ready for some solid policy debates. Or maybe the pragmatists are waking up to the fact that they are about to share power, and that means they will be making compromises. You can't tell your constituents the other side is Satan if you plan on working with them.

 

[Bill]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

They have a Trotskyite doctrine of an intellectual vanguard that keeps the rest of the populace in their place through noble lies*, while doing the thankless dirty work of empire building. It's all tied up in various elitist and conspiratorial ideologies, and from a distance it looks a lot like revolutionary communism, which is probably why they are so free throwing that term around for their enemies.

Funny, that sounds like an apt description of the left, except perhaps you might have to substitute "state" for "empire".

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Funny, that sounds like an apt description of the left, except perhaps you might have to substitute "state" for "empire".

It's certainly the way some on the right view the left, and it's a favorite polemic. I've never seen the slightest evidence of it in real life, but if your point is that rhetoric always runs well out ahead of reality, that's probably fair.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

It's certainly the way some on the right view the left, and it's a favorite polemic. I've never seen the slightest evidence of it in real life, but if your point is that rhetoric always runs well out ahead of reality, that's probably fair.

An interesting exchange of views during which you've expressed your customary biases (cleverly). The "trope of American exceptionalism." Well, you and that genius in the WH are on the same wavelength there. There are tens of millions of people all around the globe free to worship as they please, speak as they please and generally make the decisions about their futures. All of this would have been denied them except for the United States.

Modesty is fine, in its place. But this denial of American exceptionalism has nothing to do with modesty. It has more to do with not trusting American--and by extension, her military, believing that America is only interested in what is good for America (as though that concern is unique or that what's good for America can't be good for anyone else). This rejection of American exceptionalism is best expressed by "no blood for oil," talk about your tropes.

I'm reading a book called "The Secret World of American Communism," which reveals in stark terms the extent to which the CPUSA was a wholly owned subsidiary of Moscow, despite denials from the American left that the party was just "democracy in a hurry."

Take the case of John Reed, whose efforts to start the party in America were lovingly idealized and portrayed by that lefty punk Warren Beatty in "Reds." Of course, it turns out Jack Reed was on the payroll of the Comintern to the tune of a million bucks (in the 20's!). It's much easier to be idealistic when you've got a million bucks from an unfriendly power rustling around in your jeans. For some reason Beatty chose to overlook the fact that Jack Reed was an agent of a foreign government in his film. Hmmmmm, I wonder why.

Despite the strenuous efforts of the left to discredit anti-Communism and advance the cause of anti-anti-Communism, the fact is there were Communists and they were taking orders from Moscow, and their principal organization was an effort by Moscow to undermine America. These facts are still being debated today. "Alger Hiss was framed," "The Rosenburgs were innocent," etc, etc. And the ideological heirs of those who defended CPUSA as an independent, albeit liberal, enterprise are making the same arguments today. The more things change. . .

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Hoo boy. Demint endorses O'Donnell in Delaware.

Still don't think she can win.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

An interesting exchange of views during which you've expressed your customary biases (cleverly). The "trope of American exceptionalism." Well, you and that genius in the WH are on the same wavelength there. There are tens of millions of people all around the globe free to worship as they please, speak as they please and generally make the decisions about their futures. All of this would have been denied them except for the United States.

I fear I will regret this, because sometimes when I've taken opponents at their word that they are arguing in sincerity I've gotten (IMHO) suckered*. But, here goes.

That's not what I mean by "American exceptionalism." Our values are splendid, and they deserve to be fought for. (Our values include many things both conservative and liberal.) It's also an imperfect world, so even if we diverge from those values from time to time, it's understandable -- it's a dirty world, and sometimes we have to do dirty things, so you won't find me being over-critical of say Nagasaki or Dresden.

But there is a limit to "my country, right or wrong." There's a point after which knee-jerk cheerleading for American actions is no longer in support of our values -- "America," at that point, is just wrapping paper -- what's inside is just somebody's agenda. The Alien and Sedition Acts, McCarthyism, FDR's court packing threat, Obama's shielding of CIA rendition to torturers; these are all over the line.

When our leadership is working against our values, we can and should oppose it. I know you agree with that, since you do it all the time -- it's just a difference in opinion between us as to what constitutes our fundamental values and their violation.

Although I really don't think we differ that much at heart. There's a lot of heat to arguments between mainstream left and right over values, but the amount of overlap is huge compared to, say, France or Russia, where left and right really are in enmity towards each other.

I think the main problem pairs of posters have is when x starts believing that because y holds one opinion, he's then responsible for an entire flotilla of opinions which x associates with that. y then gets justifiably offended that x makes assumptions about him, sticking him into some ridiculous box, and the spin into personal attacks commences.

(* I assume you have felt like this too, sometimes. The best bet, for an honest exchange, is probably to just keep giving the benefit of the doubt ad infinitum. There are only a couple posters who for me have lost that privilege forever, and I hope I'm not one for you, as you aren't one for me.)

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

I think the main problem pairs of posters have is when x starts believing that because y holds one opinion, he's then responsible for an entire flotilla of opinions which x associates with that. y then gets justifiably offended that x makes assumptions about him, sticking him into some ridiculous box, and the spin into personal attacks commences.

http://bash.org/?23396

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

http://bash.org/?23396

No Hitler?