Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Loyal Opposition

Posted by Moderate January 10, 2012 at 2:34 p.m.

Unsolicited Advice for Democrats

I was performing my daily review of news in several different sources and I came upon an op-ed by David Brooks in the NYTs. I thought it a good thought piece.

Democrats take heed if you cannot come up with a platform that does not hold the middle and upper middle class guilty for all forms of transgressions with associated punishment in the form of tax increases or benefits cuts it may be time once again for a new centrist party to emerge. Government is not evil but at times it falls into the hands of evil people!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/opinion/brooks-where-are-the-liberals.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

Comments

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

  1. beatrice (anonymous) says…

    Whatever the Democrats do, it is time for a new centrist party to emerge anyway. However, too many on the right are so far to the right now that it would be hard to determine exactly what constitutes a centrist. Obama is, by and large, a centrist that leans left, as was Clinton. Right now, in the Republican camp, a right leaning centrist like Jon Huntsman doesn't stand a chance, just because he isn't far enough to the right.

    I don't think government is evil or even that it necessarily falls into evil hands. Rather, government agencies are lazy. They start to spend, then spend more if given the chance instead of looking at how to spend what they have most effectively. Part of the problem is the habit of getting an annual budget where if you don't use up the funds before the end of a fiscal year then the department loses that money and may have their budget cut accordingly the next year. Can you imagine any government department trying not to use up their budgeted funds before the end of a year? I can't either. There is no incentive to save taxpayers' money. That is something that would be nice to fix. But how?

    1. Moderate (anonymous) replies…

      Hi, as far as government is concerned - it is a thing and not evil. Whether what it does is evil depends on where you sit on our political spectrum as discussed below.

    2. Liberty275 (anonymous) replies…

      "it is time for a new centrist party to emerge anyway"

      We are emerging. We are libertarians.

  2. Fossick (anonymous) says…

    John Huntsman doesn't stand a chance because, despite the best efforts of Democrats, no one has ever heard of him. Left-leaning centrists like Romney and right-leaning Centrist like Gingrich have every opportunity to win the GOP nomination.

    Unfortunately, one of them will.

    1. beatrice (anonymous) replies…

      Romney is not a left-leaning centrist. He is absolutely right-leaning. Gingrich is no centrist at all.

      One of them will win the nomination, but neither will ever be president.

      1. Fossick (anonymous) replies…

        I hope neither of them is ever president.

        But don't let the new, conservative Romney fool you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMcjJE...

        He's simply whatever he thinks he needs to be to get elected.

  3. meggers (anonymous) says…

    "Democrats take heed if you cannot come up with a platform that does not hold the middle and upper middle class guilty for all forms of transgressions with associated punishment in the form of tax increases or benefits cuts..."

    If that were actually happening, you might have a point.

    1. Moderate (anonymous) replies…

      I am glad it is not - yet. All too many on here are calling for it. I realize that this hot spot does not represent the Democratic Party although many on here think they do. Just shooting at those who do.

      Mr. Brooks has a broader thought. What do you think of that?

  4. Moderate (anonymous) says…

    beatrice (anonymous) replies…

    Romney is not a left-leaning centrist. He is absolutely right-leaning. Gingrich is no centrist at all.

    Moderate Responds:

    Where people perceive where other people sit on the spectrum from left to right frequently relates to where they sit. I perceive that Mr. Romney is slightly left of center as seen by Republicans. I can see that Democrats would see him as you do.

    We really do not even have a common definition for left and right. Makes conversation very dangerous.

    1. beatrice (anonymous) replies…

      We certainly do not have a common definition for left and right, and for a reason. Lots of people don't fit neatly in the box. I know some liberals who are strongly against abortion rights, and some conservatives who are in favor of gay marriage.

      If you only looked at what Mitt Romney's platform is -- cut corporate taxes, don't cut defense spending, against abortion and gay marriage, against a national healthcare system that he brags about being successful in his own state, American exceptionalism devined by an almighty power, etc... -- it is pretty clear that it is a platform right of center. Maybe not the center among Republicans, but nationally, it is right of center.

      I don't think he would necessarily make a bad President. If he wins the nomination, I'll listen to what he has to say outside of just speaking to a Republican base. If he is elected, I would wish him well (getting a bit ahead of the nominating process, of course).

      Maybe a blog on what qualifies as center is in order. For instance, since polls show most Americans believe women should have access to an abortion, does support of Roe v. Wade make one a centrist? What other issues could be looked at?

      1. Fossick (anonymous) replies…

        "against abortion and gay marriage, against a national healthcare system that he brags about being successful in his own state..."

        But he was for all of them before he was against them. That makes Romney a squish. He's not right of center, he's a man who governed left of center and is now talking right of center.

        1. Agnostick (anonymous) replies…

          And who would you say is *not* a "squish," Fossick? You throw stones, but that's about it. Ever carry one?

          1. Fossick (anonymous) replies…

            Passed a few, I suppose.

            Daniel Patrick Moynihan was not a squish, nor was Ted Kennedy. Tom Coburn is not a squish, Hillary is not a squish. Need a bigger list?

            If a person has been on both sides of all the major contemporary issues at some point in his adult life, one of two things is true: Either he believes in nothing but his will to power, or he has Alzheimers. And I don't think Mitt has Alzheimers.

            1. Agnostick (anonymous) replies…

              I guess some are "squish," yes--but others can, and do, study and issue, and then take a different approach. I don't think Newt falls into that category, and you're probably right about Mitt.

  5. verity (anonymous) says…

    I think that many of the comments on the Brooks piece are much more insightful than the piece itself. Brooks bases his opinions on some false premises---like Obama picked a fight by using recess appointments. As pointed out, congress picked that fight by denying his appointments.

    "Mr Brooks . . . great fault is that he also is a committed conservative and so uniformly rephrases the issues to meet some of his conservative ground rules... The net results are contradictions or eviscerations of meaning. The US public is liberal , but also easily deceived."

    Mr Brooks seems to regularly give Democrats advice on how to win. As he is a self-proclaimed conservative, isn't that in itself a little suspicious?

  6. Moderate (anonymous) says…

    Absolutely, Mr. Brooks see this through his own prism. We all see it through our own prism.

    I might observe that the issue over appointments can be viewed from a constitutional perspective where the Congress has veto power over an appointment as well as from an executive position that the boss should be able to pick his own team. IMHO the Republican position could be that his appointments are too liberal and need to be (from their perspective) more centrist.

    1. verity (anonymous) replies…

      "IMHO the Republican position could be that his appointments are too liberal . . ."

      Yes, true that, but probably more importantly they're obstructionists and want to deny the President the ability to govern.

      I completely agree that Democrats and/or liberals need to change the way we do things. I just don't think that Brooks is giving the best advice. First off, we have to quit letting the right (I don't like that term, but don't know what else to use) define us. They have made liberal, progressive, elite, left and even moderate into pejoratives and we have allowed it. People have become afraid to call themselves liberal. As one of the commenters (on Brooks article) said---Democrats have been given the label "tax and spend" while the Republicans supposedly are conservative in their spending. But look at our history over the past 30 years.

      We have also allowed the right to define what our agenda is---I could go on and on but I have other things to do. I am just so weary of the ceaseless right-left, liberal-conservative fight with the name-calling and misinformation. As another one of the commenters said---and I paraphrase---it's not whether big or small government is good, it's what government does. It needs to be the size it needs to be to do it's job.

      I am tired right now and I hope these comments do not come across as being argumentative or in your face. It is my desire to discuss and I believe the discussion you have started is vitally important.

      1. Moderate (anonymous) replies…

        They do not. It would be nice if we could argue issues and policy as opposed to "talking points" That said I hold both parties and their strong supporters for the fact that we avoid issues and po9licies.

        If we found compromise on what we want done and by what institutions we might be able to define the role of government and the size of each individuals responsibility to it

  7. Moderate (anonymous) says…

    Bea Says: If you only looked at what Mitt Romney's platform is -- cut corporate taxes, don't cut defense spending, against abortion and gay marriage, against a national healthcare system that he brags about being successful in his own state, American exceptionalism devined by an almighty power, etc... -- it is pretty clear that it is a platform right of center.

    Moderate Opines: And how do you know that the points you made our litmus tests for the majority. They may be for you. As you point our people hold complex positions.

    Last adjudication of left right suggested that liberals are about a third, conservatives are about a third and independents (me) are the rest. The numbers vary but nobody suggests that any group has a majority.

    Maybe my center is where the center is? Maybe Mr. Romney ' center is the center. The absolutely certainty that one’s own position is the majority is IMHO a part of the horrible discord in this country.

    1. beatrice (anonymous) replies…

      George, haven't you said in the past the you most often vote a straight Republican ticket? How does that put you in the center? Not trying to pick a fight, but from where I stand you are absolutely not a centrist or a moderate.

    2. Fossick (anonymous) replies…

      I'm not remotely a moderate, but I think Romney's "center" of 2008 is probably the center. It will allow abortions in hard cases but would ban them in most. It would cut spending but not too much. It would limit welfare but not allow anyone to starve. It would regulate corporations but give plenty of leeway when the economy is in the dumper. It wants government to protect but not necessarily to direct. It loves and hates taxes at the same time. It is to the left of 2012 Romney and to the right of most people on this forum.

      But the truth is that most people don't really think these things through, so 'center' is a concept that measures apathy and satisfaction. It also changes decade to decade. It is not, IMO, something to aspire to. It just is.

      1. Agnostick (anonymous) replies…

        One possible version of the "center" might be described in this fashion:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_way

        Really, what is so bad about your first paragraph?

        1. Fossick (anonymous) replies…

          Nothing bad about it. I just don't think it's worth aspiring to.

          My problem with Romney is not that he's "centrist" or liberal - I have plenty of respect for honest liberals even though I disagree with them. Pat Moynihan was actually one of my favorite senators. My problem is that he's a power-seeker.* As Shakespeare's Caesar said about the lean and hungry look of Cassius, "such men are dangerous."

          * I know, they all are. but there are degrees.

  8. jayhawkinsf (anonymous) says…

    Taking a "snapshot" doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. It's widely known that during the primary season, Democrats go far to the left and Republicans lean just as far to the right. Both sides pander to the extremists within their party but then know that moving to the middle is the only way to win a general election.
    This is not a year that Democrats are engaging in a primary process. There is little need for Obama to pander to the extremists within his party and he can freely move to the center, knowing that those very extreme leftists have nowhere else to go.
    Republicans are now in that process of pandering to the extreme right. However, it's not just probable but in fact very likely that once a presumptive nominee emerges, that person will move towards the center for the same reason the Democrats move towards the center. It's the only way to win. The extremism of the right will soon shift towards the center. Just wait.

  9. verity (anonymous) says…

    I pose a question:

    Is it imperative that we label everything and everybody? Why can't we just talk about policy? Most people don't fit in a box and we do an injustice to ourselves and our country when we take such strident stands based on what we see as being "liberal" or "conservative." It there any other way to frame the debate? OK, that was more than one question.

    And, dammit, I agree with jayhawkinsf again. Next thing we'll be holding hands and singing Kumbaya and that will make the troll's heads explode. I just wish we could use words that are more descriptive and not so loaded. As Mr Lippencott said---we all see through our own prism and left, center and right mean different things to all of us.

  10. Agnostick (anonymous) says…

    Newt a "centrist?" If that's true, then Joe McCarthy was a socialist.

    1. Fossick (anonymous) replies…

      One should never equate partisanship with principle. Newt is "nuanced' on immigration, has supported (and opposed stem) cell research, has supported taxpayer funding of some abortions, supports (or supported) Cap and Trade. He even describes himself as a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican." You might remember that guy. He was the Progressive Party candidate in 1912. Newt has also said that Newt thinks FDR was "the greatest practitioner of self-government" of the 20th Century.

      The beauty of Newt is that he's guaranteed to oppose anything so long as a Democrat proposes it. On the flip side, he will support nearly anything - even ideas associated with Democrats - if a Republican proposes it. But that's Newt's guiding principle, it's not policy, it's power.

  11. Moderate (anonymous) says…

    beatrice (anonymous) replies…

    George, haven't you said in the past the you most often vote a straight Republican ticket?"

    Moderate Responds:

    Where did you get that idea Bea?? I have posted that I voted for Mr. Obama, Mr. Holland and Mrs. Boyda among other Democrats. I even voted against Mr. Goldwater - remember that. In fact I voted for Mr. Wilder, the first Black governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia since reconstruction.

    Sorry Bea, my position is not straight party line. If it were I would be arguing for reducing taxes on the rich - and you know well I have been arguing the opposite even to the “left” of Mr. Obama (pre Reagan and not just 4%). In fact I advocate for a wealth tax to redress the years of preferential tax treatment.

    Like you pointed out Bea, we all have our own litmus test and have to pick a party - probably based on the one closet to most of the issues we consider important – even if some of their positions are contrary to our views (we only get two choices).

    Are we reverting to the very partisan Bea? I guess you do not want us exuviating moderates influencing your platform any more than Mr. Koch wants us to influence the Republican platform

    Are we reverting to the very partisian Bea?

  12. beatrice (anonymous) says…

    George, not trying to be partisan at all. I am repeating something I recall you saying in one of our conversations, which is that you tend to vote a straight Republican ticket. I apologize if my memory is wrong.

    1. Moderate (anonymous) replies…

      Hi Bea, It is hap0pening to me more and more frequently as I age.

  13. snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…

    Dear disappointed progressives, please vote for Nader. He's your only hope.

    1. Fossick (anonymous) replies…

      Help us Obi-Wan-Ralph?

  14. TheSychophant (anonymous) says…

    Descriptions of political viewpoints such as left, right and center have lost their utility in post-modern politics. What I am concerned with whether there are any politicians left who believe that "We the people" is the only legitimate hallmark of American Democracy.

Reply 33 comments from Thesychophant Fossick Agnostick Moderate Snap_pop_no_crackle and 6 others

Marketplace

Drury Place at Alvamar 785-841-6845

Find more businesses on Marketplace

Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services