Open Letter to the Democratic Party

[tongodeon]

Democrats held Congress for 40 years, but by 1994 the American public had had enough. 1994 was the year of the Republican Revolution. Riding a wave of Democratic dissatisfaction, Republicans picked up 54 seats in the House and eight seats in the Senate. The Contract with America avoided hot-button issues and made appealing centrist promises:

Comments

[occlupanid]

i keep hearing phrases like "don't push extreme policies" and "govern from the center", but what's distressing about that is where "center" is nowadays, republicans having so buried the needle to make the desire to have enough money for a functioning governement or any checks on development 'extreme' policies. Your letter is mostly concerned with lockstep creation of reality-bubbles, which is supervalid, but i'd really like some concrete examples (from somebody, not necessarily you) of what 'extreme' policies people are fretting endlessly about. Universal Health Care? Ending wars? Putting a stopper on rampant destruction of the environment that's become so commonplace we don't even remember what open spaces looked like? I'm laying this not just on you, but all the columnists and pundits and bloggers out there who say this stuff.

[tongodeon]

i keep hearing phrases like "don't push extreme policies" and "govern from the center"
i'd really like some concrete examples (from somebody, not necessarily you) of what 'extreme' policies people are fretting endlessly about.The definition of "extreme" politics is whatever the voting public thinks is extreme. To a voting bloc in the 1600s, not crushing witches under large stones is an extreme position. And the definition of "leader" is someone who can persuade the center to be shifted. Someone who is able to approach the public and explain why burning witches might not be such a good plan anymore. I supported Obama because I think he has an exceptional ability to explain his policies in an intelligent and persuasive way, and because I think his plans are innovative. The key is that you can't just do what Republicans did and flex your power to pass whatever you want to pass. You have to get the public on board and you have to make sure it's a good enough idea that you can keep them on board

[talldean]

I'm really curious at what medical professionals thought of Obama and McCain's plans, but strangely, that never entered the debates near as I remember.

They're mad as hatters.

[mononeuron]

> what medical professionals thought of Obama and McCain's plans

My sister's an RN for a large medical industry chain.

She expects immigrant hoardes washing over our shores, stealing bed from decent, hard-working Americans, draining our coffers, and slurping social services until the country is bankrupt. (She's never seen a debt clock.)

(http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/)

She's terrified of the whole mess-o-Dems invading Washington, fearful of losing her 401(k), dealing with huge and complex procedure approval proceses, and upset at mandatory overtime, excessive patient loads and little influence over the medical process improvement opportunites about which she can speak authoritatively.

Same, Same, Only Different.

[agentelrond]

What he said.

Nice start, but...

[drieuxster]

The real challenge is what can the GOP do to clean itself up, sober up, and sort out what positions it really holds.

How much of what you can the 'Contract With America' was well known to be merely 'code phrases', and that the inevitable progression to the 'K Street Project' was merely the logical consequences of the very simple "NixonLand" strategies that fueled the "southern strategy" that brought america the 1968 and 1972 elections. The contectual framework that gave us Reagan running against Ford in the 1976 Season. The last real time that there was a thot about running a contested presidential primary.

So why should we be begging the Democrats to play nice?

[talldean]

My subset of wonkiness is the gun debate. I'm pro gun, and very pro Obama/anti-new-Republicans. 1/3rd of gun owners agreed with my side in this election, but the vast, vast, vast majority of gun bloggers have now went crazy overboard with hate for Obama.

If the Democrats touch the issue, they lose a lot of influence in those states they just picked up. If they leave it dead, and stop poking the bear, they can make more gains in formerly Republican states...

The problem being that the newly acquired Democratic seats are very, very junior in the party, and the very, very senior folks - Obama, Reid, and Pelosi - have all been on the gun ban bandwagon in the recent past.

[tongodeon]

Exactly. In Nevada we were told to emphasize that "Barack Obama will not take your guns". I've got a $100 bet with billzunderman that they won't do it, or anything like it.

The seniority thing would be a bigger problem but Obama, Reid, and Pelosi aren't idiots. This isn't rocket science. Rural voters value their guns, and if you'd like to keep the rural districts you'll need to not piss them off.

I think that, if anything, the Democrats are going to make this a state's rights issue which is a fancy way of saying "we can't actually pass the legislation but we'll let individual cities and states do it". See also: marijuana legalization, euthanasia, gay marriage (and gay marriage bans). All divisive and radioactive wedge issues, so the people in the federal government let the states take care of those issues.

[talldean]

"Barack Obama will not take your guns"

I am literally ecstatic to hear that that was a talking point. I think the Democrats would have won in 2004 had they pushed that line, and meant it.

States rights, I can live with. I think it's logically crap, since "Freedom of Speech" is a national right, but I'll take what I can get.

[tongodeon]

States rights, I can live with. I think it's logically crap

Yeah, in some cases it's BS. If the nineteenth amendment were repealed so that voting for women could become a states' rights issue I'm sure a bunch of people would rightly call foul.