Wretchard has an excellent post on how the Democratic party, even while desperately struggling to regain its footing after a decade of devestating defeats, refuses to consider the unthinkable.
In a memorandum distributed by the New Democractic Network, Rosenberg summarized what he thought to be the salient components of the conservative revolution. The Democratic Party had in its way, suffered a private and political 9/11 -- an asymmetrical assault from the right -- due Rosenberg believed, to four reasons.1. The Republican/conservative alliance has built a superior information-age political machine.
2. As an intellectually-based movement born when the Republicans were a true minority Party, their infrastructure is built on a foundation on the need to persuade.
3. 9/11 gave the Republicans an opening that they have adroitly exploited.
4. Bush’s brand of conservatism has had a particularly big impact in the South.
5. The new Republican momentum with Hispanics is a grave threat.From a superficial point of view, Rosenberg's analysis fits all the facts he cares to acknowledge. But it begs the question of whether conservative ideas have succeeded, at least in part, because they were more consonant with reality than the 'progressive' ideas of the Left. It is not my intention to prove the superiority of one ideology over the other; simply to point out that the very possibility is excluded from Rosenberg's analysis; and by excluding the possibility that Conservative ascendance might be due to a careful selection of 'correct' positions into their portfolio, the NDN is really assuming what must be proved.
The Democrats refuse to acknowledge that they may be faltering simply because their positions do not resonate with reality. The 20th century was dominated by leftist experiments, all of which were miserable failures. If Democrats are crass power-seekers, they'd do well to recognize this sea-change -- and if they genuinely want to help humanity, doubly so.
Here is a related article. It's biased, to be sure, and the author defines himself as a "critic" of the Right... but it's worth reading.
Mark: I think it's disingenuous for Greider to characterize the changes as "rolling back the 20th century". That's his own perspective on it, with many negative connotations, not ours. The idea that "movement conservatives envision a restored society in which the prevailing values and power relationships resemble the America that existed around 1900" is absurd. Many things affect power structures other than the government. The economy is far more open and free now than it was on 1900, and that difference alone negates his fears about reversing federal power. (I haven't read the whole article yet; it's long.)
And I think it's disingenuous of you to characterize the Democratic party as, either currently or in the past, not wanting to genuinely help humanity.
There are clearly differences between Democrats and Republicans in opinion, approach, and overall ideology... but I would never doubt their overall committment to doing what they think is best for the country specifically and the world in general.
Whose counting error is that: "due, Rosenberg believed, to four reasons," after which come five. If it's Wretchard's, well, let it pass. If it's Rosenberg's, then it's yet another reason the Democrats are falling off the map.
"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our main weapon is surprise and fear -- two main weapons. Fear, surprise, and a fanatical dedication to the pope -- three main weapons." (from Monty Python)
FWP: It looks like Wretchard's.
Mark: Do you really think Bill and Hillary are as concerned with the American people as they are with themselves?
I don't know what they think... and neither do you.
I do know, however, that they're not as influential in the party as they once were.
I also have no reason to believe that they care any more or, especially, any less about the American people as any other politician.. of either the Republican or Democratic variety. Politicians always take care of themselves first. The Clintons are no different in that regard.
Take for instance Hillary now referancing God, prayer and faith based initiatives within her speaking engagements. She, in all accords is the same person running on the same ticket but is now attempting to capture that specifec segment of the population that so heavily bought into Bush's ideology. I am deeply questioning her own perceived ideology shift. Or is it just slick marketing?
Why is it that all the democrats I know are either rich business men (millionaires) or rich drug and drunk addicts (I mean movie stars)?
That represents middle America? Political b.s., that is what I call it. As far as hillary being religious, just check her comments before she found out religious people vote. Democrats are going to go the way of the independant party if they do not get rid of some seriously flawed ted kennedy mentality.
Well Eric... I don't know if you're criticizing Hillary for that or not, so I'll respond in two ways:
- If you are criticizing her for that: Welcome to politics and presidential elections. It never fails, though, that both the Left and the Right criticize each other for these shifts in marketing and rhetoric... in spite of the fact that they all do it when it's politically expedient to do so.
- If you aren't criticizing her for this: It's obvious. She's positioning herself to be a viable presidential candidate.
Everybody else lies so why can't I mentality. Great positioning for a Presidential candidate
I'm not saying it is.
I'm saying that you cannot criticize *only* one side for doing it when, in fact, they *both* do it.
Isn't it about time we required more from a candidate? I do not know about you but I am sick and tired of the lesser of two evils mentality as well. Let's get some viable candidates out there. I'll stand behind a republican or democrat who is at least willing to do and act what he (or she) says.
Randy said: "Why is it that all the democrats I know are either rich business men (millionaires) or rich drug and drunk addicts (I mean movie stars)?
That represents middle America? Political b.s., that is what I call it."
You've obviously never gotten to know any of the Democrats in states that are not in New England or on the west coast.
I live in Wisconsin.. a state with a very close divide between Democrats and Republicans. Many Democrats I know from my area are indistinguishable from their Republican neighbors and friends. They're Christian (mostly), they earn a living, and many even live in fairly rural areas. They're nice people who help each other out in times of need... and they're very patriotic.
If the only Democrats you see are rich businessmen and rich drug/alcohol addicts, maybe you're not looking for anything else. Look for something, and you'll usually find it. Want to find an unsavory Democrat? You'll find one. Want to find a cold-hearted Republican? You'll find one. Want to find an area where the people themselves are more valuable than their political affiliation? You'll find such an area.
Randy said: "Isn't it about time we required more from a candidate? I do not know about you but I am sick and tired of the lesser of two evils mentality as well. Let's get some viable candidates out there. I'll stand behind a republican or democrat who is at least willing to do and act what he (or she) says."
I agree.. 100%.
I never said that I support Hillary Clinton For President. Since there's no incumbent in 2008, I look forward to evaluating the candidates from both parties.
The comment was aimed at the press. If I stepped on any other toes I totally apologize. In my haste to want people involved in politics, whatever their opinion, I occasionally overstate myself. I apologize. There are many democrats and many republicans. To categorize either in totality is wrong.
Not a problem, Randy. Thank you for the clarification.
Mark and Randy: I agree that there are many well-meaning, honorable Democrats... but why don't any of them run for office? Why do we get Clintons and Kerrys and Deans and Sharptons and Kuciniches and so forth? Hm.
I don't know. Why does anyone run for office? Because they want to, would be my guess.