Democratic (Party) Direction

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060531/nyw075.html?.v=52

Dixie Chicks Become First Female Group Ever To Have Three Albums Debut In Top Slot

...remember when they were, careerwise, left for dead because they, gasp, made public statements against Bush?

certainly. i try to put just as much effort into the smarm and snark categories as well. it's hard work making sure each post contains such multitudes.

remember when they were, careerwise, left for dead because they, gasp, made public statements against Bush?

does anybody have access to their 2003 sales figures? folks like al franken have mentioned that they lost concert attendance and top 40 country airplay, but ended up selling more in the end.

you set up Friedman as the antithesis of Keynes for a reason, as if Friedman's theories it toto were comparably inferior (something that is decidedly NOT a universal academic conclusion.) In fact, I'd venture to guess that it's the same kneejerk application of Keynesian ideas that get socialism attached to his work.

Also, the Chicks battled cries of sellout long before Maines shot her mouth of at Bush. Their career is alive and well, although saying that they are making up popularity on AAA or pop isn't quite accurate. They don't chart well in either of those formats.

Talk about an over-reaction.

But that's beside the point. Cunga, on principle, I agree with you that we should meet civilly and exchange ideas ernestly, but frankly, I've heard that bullshit before and I think your post is so far off in the areas of comprhension and civility, that I don't have to treat it with respect.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0530-31.htm

"Today in Washington, positions that are way to the right of where the American public stands are regularly called 'centrist' or 'mainstream. That's no accident - it is a deliberate strategy employed by Big Money interests that run the Establishment to effectively marginalize the vast majority of the population from its own political debate and political system....

"Paul Krugman says we can see that in today's Washington 'A Democrat is considered centrist to the extent that he does what Mr. Lieberman does: lends his support to Republican talking points, even if those talking points don't correspond at all to what most of the public wants or believes.'"

http://edstrong.blog-city.com/paul_krugman_talkshow_joelieberman_lies_with_the_right.htm

Oh wait, that's all of us. Luckily, I'm not a blogger. I post on an internet chat board.

Furthermore, dude was linking to a Krugman article about Lieberman (posted on a *gasp* web log), which seems pretty relevent to the subject of this thread.

"chart" "formats"

-- Fluffy Bear (el.jeffe.bonanz...), May 31st, 2006 4:50 PM. , without merely linking to yet another blog.

gabbneb there are definitely pop radio stations and pop charts.

gabbneb and o. nate, we all agree that the Democratic party needs to appeal to a broad spectrum of Americans, but my main argument is not that the party needs to go left in order to do that, but that this concept of "centrism" that many Democrats have mythologised is dogmatic and reactionary, as evidenced by the tone-deaf (and irrelevant) Lieberman, who I believe has done more damage to the party than your Sen. Kennedy's and your '60's and your McGoverns.

Also, the Dixie Chicks are doing smashingly, arent they? At least in record sales. Haven't they been playing to mostly sold-out shows?

gentlemen, gentlemen, let us remember that we arere wanking over politickin' here. let us not devolve into discourse more suited to the other side of the aisle. Can we agree to just refer to it as "Top 40"(or somesuch) and leave it as that?

and i'm still linkin' to Krugman & news articles, since the shit can be relevant.

top 10 of the current Billboard top 200: Chix, High School Musical OST, American Idol, Angels and Airwaves, RHCP, Rascal Flatts, Don Omar, WWE: Wreckless Intent, Tool, Carrie Underwood

can you name a radio station that plays all 10?

sure, but that's a format characterized by an audience that doesn't much listen to the radio

Well, I think there's smart centrism and then there's dumb centrism. Dumb centrism means triangulating to the midpoint between the GOP position and the standard liberal Dem position. That's mindless and robotic and probably won't get anybody elected who's not already running in a safe district. Centrism is not some mathematical problem of finding the midpoint of the political spectrum, such that if the GOP moves to the right then the center also moves to the right. It doesn't matter so much what the GOP does (except on a case-by-case basis, when it might be smart politically for someone running against a GOP opponent to try and neutralize them or even get to their right on a particular issue (only if it makes smart policy sense or is harmless, of course) for short-term tactical reasons) but what the voters think. And strategically, being centrist means finding a position that still makes good policy sense (or is at least an improvement over the status quo ante) and is also palatable to enough voters to make the thing politically possible. This has to be done on a case-by-case basis. At least that's how I see it from a campaign perspective. Then there's another kind of centrism, assuming you get elected, which is the process centrism - ie., how you're going to work with people across the aisle. When you're living in a 51-49 country, centrism of this kind is probably a necessity if you're going to get much done.

i agree with this, but i think that calling it "centrism" shifts it more into the mechanical process/framing. i see it akin to some lazy media report of he said/she said/"the truth is somewhere in the middle".

I think that there should be a better name, and there probably is, but I can't think of it right now. Something akin to the difference between the mean & the median.

(for example)

I think you've pretty much nailed the process side of a lot of politicking and diplomacy and that's just fine by me. This is what good liberals and consevatives do too, not just centrists. These processes are reactive ones, however. It doesn't seem very proactive. To lead, persuade, direct conventional wisdom.

It seems like you're mistaking the tool for the task.

The candidates that win are the ones that make people feel good about themselves and their country.

Amen to that. Liberals can do that. Conservatives can do that. What does that have to do with centrism? People also like authenticity. I'm not saying one is opposed to the other, but I fail to see how playing to the "middle" is the way to go. I still think it's undynamic and flat, and I don't think it really means anything outside of proccess.

The main argument against centrism though, is the effect it has on the electorate - since the British Labour Party reinvented itself in 1997 as "New Labour", abandoning its key Socialist beliefs and embracing the centre ground, it has won 3 successive general elections - but voter turnout has dropped from 71.29% to just 61.36% in 2005. Perhaps the UK electorate feels powerless as all the main parties rush to the "centre ground".

- from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism

It belies the fact that, for example, the "far left" doesn't really exist anymore; there ain't folks of any consequence calling for full scale marxist-leninist-maoist communism, except for like that one mousey chick and her creepy sidekick who you'd see wandering around campus. But we've all see how the far right sure as shit is still kicking(we're talking full-on theocratic/billionaire/"torture the evildoers in the name of Righteousness"/ban Plan-B types).

Hell, if I was going for a better word, i'd start with "pragmatist" and head from there.

Yeah, i understand what you're saying. I just think that calls for "centrism" as manifested in most political talky circles is either confused by some(joeleeb) or deliberately misrepresented by others seeking a club to bash those who hold popular beliefs("how do you ever expect to get elected by not appealing to Mainstream Americans(tm)?").

Of course, that's what it comes down to, innit? the difference between how the current fucked american political dialogue functions(or not) vs what most folks actually believe. But one affects the other, so you get weird Heisenberg results when you start hunting for answers.

for example, see the aforementioned difference between folks who self-identify as "Liberals"(TM) vs folks who actually hold left-leaning beliefs(e.g. contraception is a good thing, public education is a good thing, giving a fuck about that company down the road dumping PVC and polybrominated diphenylethers into the river is a good thing).

and i don't even want to get into the strawman bullshit that goes on, examples of which pop up on this thread.

but, yeah, maybe this is just a few hundred words of Lt. Colonel Obvious wanking over semantics.

I like that. What we need is a Schrodinger.

In other words, if what appeals to me is lower federal taxes, a stronger defense, and less federal government intrusion in my life, why are those ideas necessarily conservative? I think that Democrats can spin themselves into all those areas with at least as much credibility as the Republicans have by coming up with novel, pragmatic solutions. Deficit hawkism would resonate with me, it would be easy to trump the Republicans on a variety of defense/war issues, and really, even without that stupid canard of "reproductive freedom" there seems to be room for Democrats to become the party of freedom.

also, what do you mean by less federal taxes? payroll? sales tax? capital gains? property?

what is termed by a stronger defense? the massive appropriation of treasury funds into private contractors or pentagon wish-list projects held over from 20 years ago? would we give a fuck about the education and health of those who'd serve in this defense? is adequately funding local CDC efforts part of a national defense?

would a stronger defense involve the vesting of all power into a single human figurehead, allowing them to violate 800 years of anglo-american common law depending on their whim that day as some hold? would a stronger defense involve the eternal imprisonment and torturing of suspected threats as some hold? would it include establish a country as the pre-eminent superpower forever?

or would developing national energy infrastructure so that we wouldn't have to send a few hundred thousand guys galivanting around? would a stronger defense involve better education of citizens? how is this defense to be paid for? is citizenship just for suckers?

i'm not trying to be a momusian gadfly by being overly persnicketty in word, but a phrase "stronger defense" means very different things to different people.

While those positions are generally considered conservative, it's hard to explain why, I guess - other than history and accepted usage. I'm not sure if the Dems could really persuade someone who has that set of positions as you stated them though. Perhaps their best shot would be to try and find out why you take those positions - ie., what are your real underlying concerns, what makes you think federal taxes should be lower, defense stronger, and the federal government less intrusive? For instance, on the tax issue, I'm guessing you probably wouldn't want federal taxes to be lower if that only meant that state and local taxes would have to be higher in order to close the gap. Or maybe you would, I don't know. And on the defense issue, I'm guessing that you are equation stronger defense with higher military spending - but perhaps the Dems could convince you that we could actually be safer in a world with lower military spending? As far as federal intrusion goes, I'm not sure what you mean - perhaps things like NSA wiretapping? If so, then it seems like the Dems are the party for you.

xposts

i mean, if they were able just to come out and talk about this shit (and _keep at it_), there wouldn't be this much vexation. like just saying, "torture is bad, it doesn't work and only the weak do it" or "we were betrayed by those in power who we trusted, now we're broke, some of us have lost family members due to this shit, and everybody hates us."

And again, the tenacity part is central. Dick Durbin apologizng for shit he didn't say is unacceptable.