Democratic (Party) Direction

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.

- from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/opinion/07tues1.html

i'm not saying that we will, i'm saying that our culture is fucked because they don't and we don't.

civic life has been fucked in this country since the war ended and the automobile became the dominant part of how we started building housing.

i'm saying that humans beings(or rather, people in groups, not nec. individual humans) are fucking stupid and have to be fucked over before they learn a goddamn thing, only to forget it a generation or two later.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/w1nt3rmut3/ep3605-kuni.jpg

"...People who live in glass dude ranches should not question the patriotism of real soldiers who fought and bled for this country on a real battlefield.�

Incidentally, (apropos of nothing and not really related to this thread) did anyone see the report that one of the aggro recruiters in Fahrenheit
9/11 was uh, just killed by a bomb in Iraq?

it'd be nice if the Democratic Party could get a little ahead of the curve here (Lamont upset notwithstanding)