Democratic (Party) Direction

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.

i agree, and the first bit there has already been going on for some time now, but it hasn't been that well publicized or repeated, e.g. the fact that it's been Dem folks who've been struggling for more VA funding, like the ones who pointed out the billion dollar shortfalls earlier this year(or last) that had to be funded at the last minute.

while "incompetence" isn't necessarily _the_ tipping point, it helps to point out what happens when your opponents currently running things have no idea what the fuck they're doing, which tends to be the result of what happens when folks who profess both a hatred of and no belief in government actually have to, y'know, govern n' shit.

I agree with your idea, generally, but I think that one thing the Democrat's must do is stop demonizing government. I'm not talking about being pro-tax, I'm talking about civics and responsibility; i.e. you get what you pay for. I want lower federal taxes, cheap gas, cheap clothes, cheap software and cheap retail. I don't want to pay for anything.

We should be asking the question, what is a "right-sized" government and what should it do, and what are it's limits. The big government conversation has been pretty asenine to date, and the Democrats are paying dearly for continuing to fumble the subject.

"The era of Big Government is over. Now, about my Universal Health care plan. Hey, what's this Newt guy doing up my ass?"

Here's what gets me. Democrats have proposed tax cuts in the past, but nobody noticed. We did not neutralize the Republicans.

Neutralize. Dems keep using that word. I do not think it means, what they think it means.

I don't want to pay for anything.

ding ding ding. this is the important bit. we've lived in relative comfort & prosperity for like 60 years, and not had to care shit about civic life, except for very brief exceptions. it's always left to others.

my greater question is, what is the inherent problem in the calcium buckets of sluiced-up wiring sitting atop our shoulders that things had to get this bad before people gave a fuck again? was it just due to the fact that as a culture or as a species we tend not remember the bad stuff and thus are doomed to forever repeat it as farce?

are we forever saddled with having to slog thru massive seas of economic shit life every century or so? do the israelites need to get fucked over every few generations to remember Yahweh? do we need to be squatting in post-apocalyptic yurts, fighting off radscorpions and using bottlecaps for currency before we realize, "hey, you know, maybe there IS such a thing as society. We should try it"?

I think it would be great if we could expose the current crop of Republicans for the tribalists and anarchists they are. Here's to civilization! Here's to stability and prosperity! There's a way to make this argument without sounding like you're advocating for the supremacy of centralized government, like the post WWII socialists they keep trying to paint us as.

and you're still saying limited federal government without clarifying that. Would you want a state by state FBI or CIA? would you want an agency that actually figures out how to prevent diseases from breaking out? would you want an agency that makes sure that the steak at the local supermarket is edible? would you want an agency that actually figures out who's dumping PVC into the river? would you want an infrastructure to protect the patent on the new cool thing you just built and are trying to sell? Would you want an agency insuring your bank? would you want an agency to make sure that your kids or your neighbors kids can get a student loan to go to school? would you want an agency insuring that that company that gave your kid that loan doesn't go belly up? would you want an agency to make sure that the companies that you've invested your 401K in aren't lying or completely fucking over everybody else?

and still, using terms like "limited" still don't work unless you always view any kind of government as inherently bad. just think! we'd be able to get across town in no time if it weren't for these consarned stoplights! it's akin to saying the best surgeons in the world never enter an operating room, since they'd be doing the least they could do.

but, you have hit on something with your mention commonality, or identification. it's how arguments like "i don't trust the government" come into play, positing the government as a them(true for the Soviet Union) but not an us(for a representative democracy).

Still, at what point do you stop caring about others? you care about your family, sure. and the folks next door, right? they're part of you. what about your neighbor's kid? what about your cousin's girlfriend? What about the folks 5 miles away? 30?

at what point does it go from us to them?

and at what point do we agree that we do have a commons? that we have a shared resource that we all should give a fuck about?

if somebody like Formosa Plastics was across the river in kentucky, on the opposite side from your ohio house, what happens if their agency set up to prevent Formosa Plastics from dumping shit into the river has been completely tapped out?

Kingfish is right, though. You have to think about the consequences and the reality of the matter. Imagine the clownshow in DC brought to your state capitol. There's a lot of corruption and a lot of private interests pushing there weight around in Washington. Imagine that same weight being thrown around in Columbus and St. Paul.

see: FL, TX, CA

1. The sort-of "this is why the Dems are getting crushed" argument relies on a false premise, as the country is very closely divided, and by most accounts, Dems actually won the last two presidential elections. Not only that, but the talking point I keep hearing from both sides is that the dmes would completely take ove congress this fall if it weren't for all the crazy gerrymandering of the last ten years.

2. I think the alternative energy talking point is a HUGE winner. There are so many technologies out there that are getting very close to providing us with energy independence that it's not just a rhetorical argument anymore. I think the best way to phrase it would be:

"We have spent just about $400 billion in Iraq in the last four years. Ask anyone involved in energy research what they could come up with if they had $400 billion. They'd tell you you'd be driving a car right now that ran on shit and landfill."

I don't know, but where I live (NJ) it seems like local governments are rife with problems of their own: corruption, patronage, machine politics, pay-to-play, cozy backroom deals, lack of transparency, lack of an effective media watchdog, lack of voter attention. I think there's something to be said for having all the clowns in one place so that we can keep an eye on them.

It's not realistic to expect that there will be an effective media watchdog presence in every county and town in the country, making sure that officials don't abuse the perquisites of their office. I often feel like I know more about what's going on in Washington than about whats happening in my own city hall.

What do we learn from that lesson?

okay, good, a concrete example. let's go with this.

two things:

1) fuck yeah, i completely agree, earmarks are fucked and example of what should be prohibited or at least greatly codified as to not be so abused

2.) specific examples are far better to talk about than just the empty monikers. so in this case, wasteful expenditure = BAD govt, right. no argument there.

i'm not trying to be antagonistic towards you(i try to hold that for two other posters and that new guy who's an asshole on ILG and dissed Fallout). I'm trying to get at why folks on here or elsewhere use nebulous language when talking about this kinda thing, that there's a difference between "big" government and "bad" government. it's a difference between realizing that government is a tool.

resonating on a local level than on a national level, and that many people feel the same way.

thing is, part of this is what i'm going on about, that we're currently living at the end result of a cycle where most of what wasn't immediate was ignored and left for others to do.