a question for US Republicans

It will take a lot of exposure to Other Voices to get me to fully committ my vote to someone other than Bush, people who love the United States, who are truly patriotic, who have very valid points as to why they feel Bush isn't the right person for our country (and don't go into the usual "well, other countries don't like us now" thing I keep on hearing -- we're America, so we're always going to get other [envious] countries that dislike us). The thing that's changed about my political perspective since first landing onto ILX is that I'm not only now convinced there are actually other individuals out there who are like that, but actually know at least two of them, i.e. Anthony E. [yes, a "foreigner" *winks*] and JuliaA. I could definitely see myself hearing them out when it comes to political issues, and if I do end up casting my vote for Kerry [because, you know, "anyone but Bush" = Kerry now], it will be because of these two individuals.

I will never give up on being patriotic (perhaps "too much" for some of the people on this forum) or thinking that I live in the most incredibly awesome country on the planet {which isn't superiority, I swear, just a whole lot of gratitude and appreciation). I will never stop believing that we as Americans need to put our country first. So if you're going to get my vote down for Kerry & co., you the Average American have got to convince me that Kerry is better for America than Bush will ever be, that he'll do so much more for this country than Bush has.

Duane (hey, you're still alive! *wink*), I'm glad you're saying that "some [other countries] are more than okay". In fact, I'd love to hear from you that YOU think YOU live in the "most incredibly awesome country on the planet". I'm a big supporter of patriotism for a great many countries. (Yes, I've been to a few other countries. Mexico made me glad my family no longer comes from there, Canada took my breath away, and I'm actually surprised more Brits aren't super-patriotic.)

Roger that "i'm impressed" thing makes you kind of sound like Montgomery Burns.

i wouldnt go that far but it's pretty good

The only thing I can think of that would be worse for our country than four more years of Ashcroft, Rice, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld would be another large-scale terrorist attack; while putting Kerry into office can't guarantee safety from terrorists, it will CERTAINLY guarantee that his Cabinet won't be in power anymore.

OTM!

(Also an invasion by aliens susceptible to MacOS or a sudden ice age.)

Fuck Susan Sarandon / Tim Robbins / et al. I'd deport them. Let 'em go catch malaria with the REAL do-gooders.

i DO have something against ANYONE -- famous or otherwise -- speaking out when they don't know what the fuck they're talking about, or whining when they catch flack for it (see robbins again).

the not wholly incorrect predjudice of many right leaning Americans that those on the left side of the culture war are elitists.

oh, please. what do we call bush and his network of wealthy supporters and the lovely little affinity groups they form to keep power for themselves and only themselves? 'the heart and soul of working america?' if what republicans have been doing for the past 30 years or so isn't elitism, what is?

WHO GIVES A FUCK, LET 'EM KILL EACH OTHER OFF AND LET THE REST OF US GET ON W/ OUR LIVES.

OTM

right. it's unclear why we seem to think entertainers (who we - hello - listen to for their ideas and attitudes) sacrifice the free speech rights that we would not ourselves give up. the real issue is how much attention is paid to their opinions. it's fine if you think the media should ignore their political statements, but you're being inconsistent if you don't also ask the media to ignore them in every other respect. one criticism that i think has some validity is that it's mildly fascistic for people to be swayed by the opinions of celebrities, but i see no reason to differentiate entertainers' opinions from (some) politicians' opinions in this respect, when certain politicians become celebrities in the entertainment mold.

dee you're cool, just don't please think about voting for or against ANYONE just because you don't like some actor who is against or for him, who cares what they (or any of us here) think, what matters is what you think

Don't worry, though, I don't vote

vince gallo = an ignorant asshole.

it's that simple, no need to read more into it than that.

The thing that annoys me most is (see upthread) peaople wo say their country is the best (or most awesome) country and don't believe they are making a value judgemant about other nations - loving your country is different from thinking your country is the most worthy of being loved.

It's also clearly incorrect that the left side of the cultire war are elitists - at most *some* of them are.

It's just that the constant charecterisation of opposing views in an argument helps no-one. I doubt any leftists (not that you really have them in the USA) think people who support Bush are not worthy of life. And if I hear the phrase flip-flop used in relation to politics again I will lose it.

I don't get your dislike of Sean Penn. You've said you used to be a rabid rightie - messing up the SA left-leaning weekly papers, etc.. Your beliefs were (though way off-base in my view) tightly held - there's nothing wrong with that. Same with Penn. He's engaged with political thinking and the process, and he holds his views dear.

He was in Shanghai Surprise too, though.

"spiteful voting", though, is an offshoot of "tactical voting" and, if more than a just a bad joke, is v. silly.

I cackle madly and pump up the Lee Greenwood and toss darts at a Xeroxed photo of Osama Bin Laden, like any RIGHTEOUS VIGILANT AMERICAN would do, high fives all around, beer for my horses, etc.

we're America, so we're always going to get other [envious] countries that dislike us.

this sort of stuff is unanswerable really, also worrying. i don't quite understand it anyway: what is it to feel patriotic the whole time? if someone criticizes the fact that your country, for example, backed dictatorships all over latin america, are you unable to see they might have a point? or are they just jealous of your famously just and democratic society?

why not just love the world, guys?????????????????

What caused this was seeing lots of footage of Bush talking in the cinema yesterday, and thinking that I would be embarrassed if he led a political party I was voting for. But then I thought, maybe he has characteristics that appeal to his supporters, so that they actively like him rather than merely voting for him because he is not a homo liberal t-head-loving tax-n-spend Democrat. So Republicans - does he have characteristics that draw you to him, and what are they?

I mean no offense to anyone but why are the political opinions of Susan Sarandon so fucking important to this discussion?

i mean, christ, movies are the last & only place a liberal can make a million dollars (ok law too i guess) at least give us that, whiners.

Thanks for that link. It's a case against Bush many of whose points I've been mulling over. Bryk is essentially saying that instead of the whiggish liberal ancestry of traditional American conservatism this administration is an amalgam of cynical business special interests and idealist, even radical, universalist Jacobins set on converting the whole world, ready or not.

the Rove smear on McCain in 2000 was that he fathered a black child out of wedlock.

The Swift Boat Liars are really doing damage to Bush. John O'Neill is one of the lowest sacks of scum. Keep up the good work, scumbag.

I'm here at [Elitist New England University], and the privilege of some of the undergrads is flat out staggering, and a lot of people here can irritate me w/their sort of boilerplate pious lefty politics even though they live in a bubble world and most of 'em don't know shit about struggling to get by. Some of my colleagues thought I was a Republican for a while (even though I'm an activist partisan Dem) because I did tend to try and play devil's advocate as far as the cultural issues that influence people to vote GOP even though the economics isn't likely to benefit them.

But at the end of the day, my take is that a reaction against other people who aren't making or influencing policy is not a good rationale - maybe not even a valid one - to vote the way you do. Because.. I mean, there are always going to be some people on your side and some people on the other side that massively piss you off & who you think ought to leave on a shuttle to the sun. But if they piss you off and you resent them already why give 'em the power to make your voting choices for you? If you think Sean Penn is a real dick and vote Republican just to cancel his vote, well, you're letting this trivial matter of some actor being a dick affect a decision that is quite serious.

So, in my case, I'm not just voting Dem in order to cancel the vote of the latest asshole Republican who goes on the record trying to smear Kerry as "too French" or otherwise continuing this juvenile habit of gratuitous French-bashing. I'm not French myself but I've studied the language and culture and so on, and it's like, GROW UP people, this is just childish, embarrassing, pointless, and disingenous to boot, given the amount of business deals Halliburton was happy to do with French companies under Cheney's watch.

Personally speaking, as a "recovering" Republican, [snip]

Having read the rest of what you say, in what sense are you not a Republican?

Don't write this reaction off as being 'smug superior foreigners'. What's struck me is the utter instinctive derision towards Bush of people I know who normally take no sides in political discussions. This is so strong that I normally end up kinda half-defending him. And there's never been this reaction to any previous American president(Reagan a bit, yes, but not as strong).

So, are we missing something? Does he have some qualities that we're blinded to by cultural bias? What are they?

Again, I'm talking about personal qualities, not political views. Things like courage, intelligence, charm, clear thinker, decisiveness, etc.

Maybe an analogy would be with the way many Democrats or leftists feel towards Kerry - he is a bit rubbish, but he will do if the alternative is four more years of Bushco. Do Republicans see Bush as merely better than the Democrats, or does he have positive qualities?

To pick from Joe Kay's list, I think there are millions of undereducated Americans who pick up on charm and decisiveness and abhor Dems because they distrust overt displays of intelligence.

To pick from Joe Kay's list, I think there are millions of undereducated Americans who pick up on charm and decisiveness and abhor Dems because they distrust overt displays of intelligence.

Exactly. Huge public secret.

What might have been bigger mistakes? Misunderestimating repubs in '94?

basically, yes. More of a familiarity with the Congress, and with Washington in general, but on an insider-outsider distinction rather than necessarily a legislative-executive one.

Right. If you accept Lakoff's premise that we speak metaphorically in politics, you can't take what people say at face value.

thae article you linked to makes the most important point, something that a lot of republicans dont seem to understand now, which is that the republican party is radical at this point, the democrats conservative. as obvious as this may seem, its not obvious enough.

i think the real problem with having only two viable political parties is that it encourages binary thinking. i never understood the whole "hollywood liberal" tag because most of the "crtitique" emanating from that industry is vacuous and damaging. granted i probably was too credulous while reading "city of quartz", but LA (apologies to Ned, Spencer, et al.), seems like the most illiberal place in the US. no hollywood actors seem to have the balls to, instead of spouting platitudes about Iraq, move out of their gated mansions and actually live with others. and i never hear them complain about the serious class and racial divisions that exist in that city. all that being said, just because i think little of hollywood, and hollywood is considered liberal, doesnt mean i cant come up with my own vision of what it means to be liberal, and to follow it.

in regards to hollywood and elitism and power, whatever the political beliefs of hollywood, the nature of american popular filmmaking since griffith (with perhaps a few exceptions in the 70's) has always been to represent moderate, middle-class values. any pretensions towards radical critique are undermined at every stage, whether it be the financing, the shot-reverse shot technique, the need to draw clear good vs evil distinctions, the need to explore the psychology of the protagonist at the expense of larger social cconcerns, etc. so for all the liberalism of hollywood, the best they can do is remake "the manchurian candidate", which is "about" "evil" corporations, but more about Denzel (who does a very good job btw). IRL, those "evil" corpoartions can and do submit drafts of legislation to congress and to the president, and get to see those drafts become law.

anyway, to my way of thinking this whole focus on celebrities' political views is part and parcel of increasing income and wealth inequality in the USA (from reagan onwards). because of this gap, and policies that exacerbate it, we increasingly have an elite that has become more and more disconnected from the mass of ordinary americans. and i am not talking just about the obvious villains -- e.g., right-wingers and bushco supporters who don't give a fuck if the policies that they support fuck over everyone and everything else -- but even among the left-leaning elites (particularly those who go to great pains to differentiate themselves from democrats). among the latter, i've seen an amazing lack of comprehension of the practical realities of either implementing their pet policies or assuming that they can implement them the costs and effects of same. this isn't to say that such policies are BAD or WRONG-HEADED, merely that they are often divorced from american political realities (how will they get passed by congress, or implemented by the administrative agencies? how will the beneficiaries of such policies be informed that they ARE the beneficiaries, even in the face of deceitful or misleading propaganda to either convince them of the opposite or distract them altogether?)

anyway, that's what i think.

The "white-wine-sipping-volvo-driving-liberal-elite" bullshit is a just a smokescreen so that zillionares Bush & Cheney can look like they are down with Joe Sixpack. And it works! And it's pitiful! But they ARE evil geniuses. They make the fact that Kerry speaks French a negative! In what other country on the planet would speaking two languages be considered a negative!? It's unbelievable.

philistinism and know-nothing sells EVERYWHERE, ANYTIME. the particulars change, the impulse is hard-wired and eternal. read madame bovary some time. bushco has just re-invented the wheel and refined its features, is all.

well chris worked for tip o'neill so we know where he comes from.

the line above about dem-intelligence sums it up perfectly, the left thinks that somehow they have discovered enlightenment, likely they think it is through tireless effort on their parts. but being liberal is easy, you needn't say no to anything except for republicans, of course. kerry is bringing up health care and more big spending programs that government has no real interest in entering but it makes him look like he cares. his boondoggle is laughably priced at only 900 billion, but the little secret is that medicare is actually already in the red and it's the albatross around the future generations necks and you know maybe we should not expand it without an overhaul, means testing, consumer control, tort reform, etc. third party systems need to be examined and eliminated. kerry's aslo putting privatization of social security off the table, but he has not come up with an alternative.

the answer to the question is Bush isn't perfect, he spends too much money, he's too worried about social engineering(though clearly not to the extent of the democrats) but he's easy to read, you know where he stands and that is more acceptable than a guy like kerry who will take every position on every issue. and in spite of kerry's blather the economy has grown faster this year than in any year in the past 20 and while short term effects on the economy are hard to credit to any president his policies are clearly pro-business which is a good thing though clearly not to kerry. Just saw a dem ad about outsourcing, 6.5 million americans work for wholly owned subsidiaries of foreign companies while those outsourced number only in the thousands, seems liek the US is making out pretty good. Gene Sperling was praising the economy in 96 when clinton was running for office and it was still shedding jobs and growth was below 3% but now it's arthritic even though those benchmarks have all been esily surpassed. isn't Kerry's timidness frustrating to those on the left or is it comforting to know that he will be so paralyzed by indecision that nothing will ever get done, as was the case with clinton and granted gridlock is appealing but isn't everyone here clearly on the socialist end and hoping for 70% tax rates on the wealthy, free university education(colby cosh has a brilliant piece on how laughable this is"What we still have, though, is not only a system that subsidizes affluent people at the expense of many middle-class ones, but arguably a system that cross-subsidizes law, medicine, science, and engineering undergraduates at the expense of liberal-arts students. (One guess what kind of degree I have.)", universal healthcare, etc...kerry hasn't got the character to get any of this passed. Dean might have been a better champion for these issues but that would have required a bold step, maybe that isn't in the left yet. Other secrets that should get out, he says he'd have the fench and germans in Iraq if he were elected but they don't have the ability to project troosp in numbers needed. the mythical rapid response force will only number 60,000 and that is years off anyhow. nato is going to contribute 900 troops and 3 helicopters to afghanistan, total, whoa. kerry speaks french and bush speaks spanish, bush's spanish is obviously a political tool but the french are not popular so maybe he chose the wrong language, sign of the times.
i still say bush wins pretty easily, it's shaping up a lot like 1988. I thought Kerry was like Dole but now he's clearly more int he Dukakis vein.
huey lewis just endorsed kerry, how silly is that. the hollywood politics problem is a product of clinton, he was so in love with his own celebrity that he wanted to hobnob with stars so he invited them to the white house and then all of a sudden barbara streisand is showing up on larry king to talk middle east policy.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/photos/large/c4911.jpg

well chris worked for tip o'neill so we know where he comes from.

yeah, and he voted for W last time

Yeah, great -- that makes it wonderfully easy for me to not vote for him. Problem solved!

President Ronald Reagan cuts-in on a dance between Frank Sinatra and Nancy Reagan in this Feb. 6, 1981, file photo.

the only way of tearing down that system is by allowing for the legitimacy of third party ways and ideas, be that nader or perot or who ever is running the constituonal party...

it pisses me off when people shit on nader, not b/c i think that nader was nessc. good but the idea of nader is good. (that and he didnt cost the americans the election as much as a v. v. v. v. poorly run (ie ball dropped and bungled) gore campaign.

america is pluralistic, make it so.

people vote republican for a vareity of v. good and v. legitmate reasons, we need to keep that in mind.

it may not be the best system in the world -- but if the alternative is to end up like italy (with governments changing more often than some people change their underwear) or israel (where what governments do emerge being held hostage to tiny extremist parties), i'll stick to our system warts and all.

thomas frank is from kansas, like george w is from texas

In 1988 Frank began studying American history at the University of Chicago, from which he received a PhD in 1994. His dissertation later became THE CONQUEST OF COOL (University of Chicago Press, 1997), a book about the infatuation of certain branches of industry with counterculture in the 1960s.

Frank has contributed to publications like HARPER'S magazine, THE NATION, IN THESE TIMES, THE CHICAGO READER, and LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE. He wrote about strikes in Illinois and Michigan, the alarming power of what he called the "culture trust," the many corporate uses of the imagery of rebellion, and the rise of a new breed of hipster businessman. Interest in this last subject led him to write ONE MARKET UNDER GOD, a study of an idea that he called "market populism" — the notion that free markets do the will of the people — and its various manifestations among politicians, on Wall Street, in management theory, and elsewhere in American life.

Frank has also edited two anthologies of essays from THE BAFFLER: COMMODIFY YOUR DISSENT (coedited with Matt Weiland) and BOOB JUBILEE (coedited with David Mulcahey). The title of the latter refers to the "New Economy" madness of the 1990s.

George W. was born in Connecticut.

(ie i think that langston hughes was v. much from kansas)

anyway: my larger point is that given american political realities, it's a bit of a luxury to put everything on third parties down here. it's a luxury that few of us can afford, and stating that it's a luxury is just restating what i see to be the truth. and why is it right that the vast majority of american voters -- who are either democrats or republicans -- be held hostage to a minority of recalcitrants who won't compromise about anything? why would i want to invite weimar germany -- or modern-day israel -- into our system?

h or eisbar or any of the democrats on this thread
when was the last time you went to church ? when was the last time you listened to your local country station ? (two that come immedateily to mind)

heh.

there were good things about weimar berlin, i mean come on--dont you want yr own brecht ?

(question--how do we maintain a fludity of power, and a progressive attitude and not let it be taken over, how do we do weimar w/o the economic instablity and the collapse that leads to fascism ?)

weimar germany gave us hitler and the nazis, as well as bertolt brecht (who, brilliant artist though he may have been, fell in w/ another bunch of totalitarian punks).

i think that there is v. little discussion of genuine, brass tacks values and positions, respectful discourse of issues. (on both side).
but then frank can be a smarmy sob even when i agree w. him.

there was a second half to that post eisbar (why eisbar, btw)

why what?

i was bored w/ tad, i heard the old grauzone song "Eisbär" one night and i thought that that would be a good nom d'ilxor for me. besides, everyone knows that it's me.

the economy has grown faster this year than in any year in the past 20

This is one of those ridiculous statistics that drives me batty. And I know the Democrats would be quoting it too if it was in their interest. But it's meaningless without context: the economy always grows "fastest" when it's coming out of a recession (guess what was happening 20 years ago?). This is for the simple mathematical reason that when economic indicators have been low, even a small addition to them registers as a relatively large statistical uptick. If you add 5 to 5, you've got 100 percent growth! But you've still only got 10. Whereas, adding 5 to 20 only gives you 25 percent growth. But 25 is still way more than 10. So just saying the economy is growing "fast" doesn't, in itself, tell you very much about the big-picture state of the economy. Which, as the last two months of job data suggest, is anything but roaring.

I like Tom Frank. I think he's a smart guy, and, from the Harper's piece, I didn't get any great sense of condescension. But maybe I'm condescending too. I do know that I always grit my teeth at the whole "liberals don't go to church/don't understand or take seriously the concerns of 'middle Americans'/etc." This is partly because it suggests that liberals somehow aren't "middle Americans," which is such bullshit. I know plenty of middle-class Christians who listen to classic rock or country music and shop at Home Depot who have never voted Republican in their lives. But the teeth-gritting is also because I've lived in a part of the country where Christian conservative Republicans are the majority, and believe me, they aren't in the least little fucking bit concerned with whether they sufficiently "appreciate" or "understand" the concerns of people who don't think like them. They think those people are all going to hell, and the sooner the better. I'm not saying they deserve liberal-elitist scorn and sneering, if such a thing exists outside Anne Coulter's imagination, but they sure don't need to be encouraged either. They're encouraged enough already. If you disagree with the worldview of Christian conservativsm -- or modern conservatism in general -- then you'd better be ready to grapple with it, and be ready for a hard fight. Because they're not playing patty-cake, and they think "understanding" and "sensitivity" are for losers and pussies.

-- dan carville weiner August 16th, 2004 6:26 PM. (later)

DON IS TURNING INTO INSTAPUNDIT! ILX POLITIC NERDS UNITE TO STOP THIS HORRIBLE TRANSMOGRIFICATION!

this is an eccentric reading of history, like saying that Louis XVI gave us Robespierre and Napoleon.

Also, US Democrats in blaming left-winger for everything shocker. The Republicans will always be the better (more convincing) Republicans -- so Bush will win --, but some folks don't want to know that.

August 15, 2004
True Battlegrounds May Be Across the Sea
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 5:02 p.m. ET

NEW YORK (AP) -- When decision time comes this fall, the real swing votes in the 2004 presidential election may not come from Pennsylvania, Ohio or even the notorious Florida. The ultimate Bush-Kerry battleground may turn out to be somewhere more far-flung and unexpected -- Israel, Britain, even Indonesia.

And both political camps say they are getting ready for the fight, courting American voters who are living overseas and taking no chances that the expatriate vote will undermine them at the finish line.

Although an official census has never been taken, between 4 million and 10 million American citizens are believed to be living abroad. Those over 18 are entitled to have their absentee votes counted in the state where they last lived -- no matter how long ago that was. And many are planning to do just that.

``There's enormous interest abroad, because the whole of the world depends on the result,'' said Phyllis Earl, 72, who lives in Britain and has not voted in a U.S. election since 1956, two years after she moved overseas.

Overseas voters are considered particularly important this year. Polls suggest razor-thin margins in several battleground states, and votes coming in from abroad -- a score here, a dozen there -- could well tip the balance.

Contrary to widespread belief, it was more likely American voters in Israel, not Florida, who put George W. Bush in the White House four years ago -- a phenomenon that has Kerry's supporters in Israel vowing to do whatever it takes to make certain that doesn't happen again in November.

Kerry's sister Diana speaks several languages and has been using them all in campaign swings throughout Europe. Sharon Manitta, spokeswoman for the group Democrats Abroad, said Kerry supporters have been active in ``overseas outreach efforts'' in Europe, Indonesia, Mexico and even Iran. In 2000, the organization had 30 overseas chapters; now it has a presence in 73 countries -- including an Iraq chapter called ``Donkeys in the Desert.''

Bush, too, has advocates chasing the overseas vote on his behalf, according to Ryan King, deputy director of Republicans Abroad, which has chapters in 50 countries. Among those crossing the oceans for Bush this fall are former Vice President Dan Quayle and George P. Bush, son of the president's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

``Be an expatriate patriot,'' says an ad planned by Republicans Abroad that also quotes former President Ronald Reagan: ``We cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent.''

After Labor Day, Republicans Abroad also plans campaign ads on the president's behalf in the International Herald Tribune and in Stars and Stripes, a newspaper with wide distribution among the estimated 300,000 to 400,000 U.S. military personnel serving abroad.

Those who doubt that Americans living abroad could tip the balance in 2004 might consider this: Various chads aside, Al Gore received 202 more votes than George W. Bush on Election Day 2000 in Florida. Only after all the overseas votes were counted, including more than 12,000 from Israel alone, was Bush's election victory certified. The margin was 537 votes.

In 2000, according to King, Israel was one of the keys to Bush's success. No other foreign country's U.S. citizens contributed more to Bush's narrow Florida victory, he said.

Harvard Professor Gary King, co-compiler of a survey analyzing Florida's overseas vote in 2000, has no doubt that expatriate Americans gave Bush his victory four years ago. And while it's unclear whether the vote from Israel alone was enough to put Bush over the top, 185,000 U.S. citizens live there -- an undetermined number from Florida.

Mark Zober, chairman of Democrats Abroad in Israel, said he has no firm figures but estimates that roughly 100,000 Americans in Israel are eligible to vote in the upcoming U.S. election, and that roughly 14,000 were registered in 2000.

But how could Israeli Jews give Bush his margin of victory when Jewish Democrats outnumber Jewish Republicans by a wide margin in the United States? Both Zober and Ryan King think they know the answer.

Zober sees little doubt that the Jewish vote in New York state heavily favored Gore. But in the 2000 presidential election, Zober points out, it made no difference how Israeli immigrants from New York voted. All that mattered was how expatriates from Florida cast their ballots.

Israel is home to roughly 6,000 former Floridians -- expatriates who tend to be more conservative than Jewish voters in New York and many of whom voted for Bush in the last election, Zober said.

Additionally, he said in a telephone interview from his office in Tel Aviv, many Israeli-Americans who might have voted for Gore if they were living in the United States voted for Bush because they considered him an unflinching supporter of Israel.

Once in Israel, Zober said, Jewish voters are no longer guided by a presidential candidate's position on domestic issues. Instead, he said, they vote for whoever they think will serve Israel's interests. Even this year, Zober acknowledged, many American-Israelis are still inclined ``to vote for the devil they know instead of the one they don't.''

No statistics exist to predict definitively whether Americans in Israel will play such an important role this November. But Marc Zell, chairman of Republicans Abroad's Israel chapter, is taking no chances.

Zell said his group has about 150 volunteers who aggressively started registering potential Bush voters a few months ago. As the election nears, he said, they will be holding ``parlor sessions'' at their homes to discuss Bush's support for Israel and will probably take out pro-Bush ads in Israel's English-language newspapers.

The Democrat group, meanwhile, is hoping to show American-Israelis that their adopted home is no safer today than before the war in Iraq and that Kerry is no less a friend to Israel than Bush.

Israel is hardly the only country Bush and Kerry supporters are turning to for votes. Registration drives are under way in countries across Europe, Asia and Latin America. And in Britain, home to an estimated 224,000 American expatriates, voter interest is greater than ever, according to Democrats and Republicans alike.

Timothy Spangler, who heads Britain's branch of Republicans Abroad, said chief Bush political adviser Karl Rove has come to London on the president's behalf, as have Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. This fall, Republicans Abroad plans to take advantage of voter interest by sending representatives to register voters at businesses that employ many Americans.

Democrats in Britain are doing much the same thing, registering expatriates who have been living there for decades as nonvoters. Manitta said her group has set up a booth outside her local movie house in Salisbury, about 85 miles southwest of London, to register potential Kerry voters leaving Michael Moore's ``Fahrenheit 9-11''.

Earl, who moved to London in 1954, will vote this year for only the second time in her life -- not because she wants to, she says, but because she's afraid of what might happen if she doesn't cast her ballot against incumbents who she feels ``don't have the interest of the country at heart.''

``The situation is desperate,'' Earl said. ``For me, it reached a critical point. I just felt I had to vote.''

------

AP writers Laurie Copans in Jerusalem and Beth Gardiner in London contributed to this report.

------

On the Net:

Republicans Abroad: http://www.republicansabroad.org

Democrats Abroad: http://www.democratsabroad.org

Here's some general information for folks who seek useful information on the internet, or who at least aren't cokeheads or blowhard bullies:

http://www.google.com

Colin, you're basing this gross generalization upon what specific facts? The German post-war constitution is an interesting one to compare to the U.S. as they're both federal republics. The dangers inherent in 'balkanized' politics in parliamentary systems like Italy and Israel do push me toward a more conservative, stable system of government. If anything, the virtue of the two party system (and I'm not pigheaded enough to deny its many failing) lies in the necessity of both sides, should they desire to be successful, to put together various political points of view into a bloc. In countries where there is less necessity for spectrum-wide compromise, one finds myriad special interest parties peopled often by shrill, sophomoric, self-righteous fanatics. Germany's electoral system provides Bundestag votes, if I remember correctly, for any party that gains 5% of the vote but I cannot remember if that's nationally or within the component states. In any case, it's a clever compromise that allows them to say that they're not a two-party system while essentially relegating smaller parties to irrelevance or vassalage to the larger parties.

I don't think the FDP or the Greens would consider their position to be ones of vassalage to the CDU and SPD. Don't forget that the small parties tend to get the prestigious foreign affairs portfolio. From the 1960s to the 1980s the FDP revelled in its role as a kingmaker party.

Bundestag elections - 50% of seats filled by plurality voting in single seat consituencies. The other 50% are filled from party lists to reflect proportionality, subject to 5% quota. They've watered down the 5% quota in recent years, basically to allow the PDS to get into the Bundestag (the PDS only gets votes in the former East, where it polls respectably, but not enough to win it 5% over the whole country).

I suppose thar's why Clinton & Gore won 3 elections in a row and the conventional wisdom is that it's Kerry's race to lose?

That is, your question is stupid, because naming a country with "comperable ethnic and latitudinal diversity to the US" is a bit tricky, isn't it

exactly my point.

""That is, your question is stupid, because naming a country with "comperable ethnic and latitudinal diversity to the US" is a bit tricky, isn't it"

""That is, your question is stupid, because naming a country with "comperable ethnic and latitudinal diversity to the US" is a bit tricky, isn't it

"exactly my point."

Then your point is stupid. What's one thing got to do with the other?

OTM

that no one who favors a different political system for the U.S. really has any idea how it would play out because there is no model to compare it to. it could quite possible be more conservative.

I think it's fair to say that Gore ran a don't scare the horses campaign and that that's not necessarily who he is, but I'm not sure why that is relevant. Bush's 'compassionate conservatism' was not who he is either. I don't think it's fair to characterize Kerry's campaign that way, necessarily.

Gore lost the election -- if you let the other guy get close enough to cheat the rest of the way home, you didn't do enough to win.

Besides essentially winking at cheating, that's logically unsound because you're saying that Bush won because he got close enough to cheat. Gore ran a good campaign. His failure to win by a larger amount (which states, pray tell, would he have won by going to the left?) was a product not of ideology but of personal style.

His failure to win by a larger amount...

Oh lordy. Do you really go to bed believing this?

I think the new compromise 5% quota thing is that any party that wins X number of constituency seats is entitled to their propotional seats, even if they are less than 5% nationally. I think X is three. The PDS gets solid support in parts of the former DDR, so that suits them well.

FRANCE:
BTW I like the French system of two round voting in Presidential elections although that too has its dangers.

It's good political theatre, but it would be quicker, cheaper, and handier to just have an election where people ranked the candidates and where the lower candidates kept getting eliminated and their votes transferred until one candidate has 50% + 1 of the votes.

FOOTBALL:
I remember a political theory lecturer talking about how people in practice have the same kind of moronic tribal loyalty to parties that people have to football teams. He mentioned some mate of his who supported Communism and Spurs, both equally unquestioningly.

Whose horses has Kerry been scaring? He kept his mouth shut until the convention, and since then has spouted vaguely militaristic- patriotic-Christian rhetoric with near-zero political content. Call it "compassionate not-really-a-liberalism".

And what's relevent about this is something I've said before -- Bush ran his campaign to please swing voters, but made promises to the hard right (which is the core)of his party which he has kept, and can thus continue to count on right wing support. The Democrats run centrist campaigns while hissing "shut UP, you freaks! You'll blow it for us!" to their left wing (which used to be their core), and are then pissed that the hippies don't all fall in line every four years.

Also, no logical problem here, dude -- I'm defining "winner" as "declared winner", rather than "totally should have been the winner dude that's so unfair!"

Lewis Carroll's 1876 Election System

Incredulous dismissiveness always implies correctitude of course. Sure. I'm not going to say he would have had a substantially larger popular vote majority, but he certainly could have gone up to say 51-52% (the number I'm guessing Kerry gets), and given the number of states that were close, I think he could have flipped at least a few. For instance, he might have won Ohio if he had stuck around there at the end (though he might have lost Florida if he had done so).

I also like how you tossed in the concept of "latitudinal divsity" so I couldn't call you on the crypto-fascist implication that multi-racial societies can't have stable democracies without a winner-take-all system, but I'll call you on it anyway.

so you really believe that was my implication? I would think that 'latitudinal diversity' is the more objectionable of the two factors.

The Democrats run centrist campaigns while hissing "shut UP, you freaks! You'll blow it for us!" to their left wing (which used to be their core), and are then pissed that the hippies don't all fall in line every four years.

Who is the left wing and when was it the core?

no logical problem here, dude -- I'm defining "winner" as "declared winner", rather than "totally should have been the winner dude that's so unfair!"

No, you defined winner as far enough away that the other side can't cheat.

x-post: yes, it does.

Which thusly disqualifies you and anyone else of whining that Nader threw the election to Bush, doesn't it?

(Though one might think that throwing a bone 'to the left' might have helped out in Florida.)

Colo. Weighs Proportional Electoral Votes
1 hour, 29 minutes ago

DENVER - A plan to scrap the winner-take-all system of allocating electoral votes in Colorado is heading to the ballot in November.

If passed, Amendment 36 would make Colorado the first state to allocate electoral votes proportionately according to the popular vote, rather than giving a winner all of the state's electoral votes.

Secretary of State Donetta Davidson said Friday that supporters have gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the November ballot.

If the proposal had been in place four years ago, Democrat Al Gore would have earned enough electoral votes to go to the White House.

Only two other states do not have winner-take-all systems of casting electoral college votes. Nebraska and Maine give two votes to the winner of each state, and remaining votes are cast to show who won each congressional district.

Republican Gov. Bill Owens and Republican State Party Chairman Ted Halaby have criticized the Colorado proposal, saying it would lessen the state's clout in presidential elections. They warn that candidates will ignore the state and its nine electoral votes if the measure passes.

Julie Brown, campaign director for the Make Your Vote Count effort that supports the measure, dismissed their concerns.

"It begs the question on which is more important — a two-hour presidential stop at a tarmac at Denver International Airport or true representation by the voters."

Katy Atkinson, a spokeswoman for the opposing Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea, promised to challenge the measure if it passes and it is applied in this year's presidential race.

The proposal's backers want it to take effect immediately, before Colorado's electoral votes are cast in December.

"They are ripe for a court challenge on this," Atkinson said. "If this is a close race like the one four years ago, we could be thrown into a situation where we are the Florida of 2004. We'd be the laughing stock of the country. All those Florida jokes would be applied to Colorado."

State Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, tried unsuccessfully in 2001 to change Colorado's electoral system. He said the new ballot initiative is a good idea.

"It will give voters the unique opportunity to reform an outdated electoral system that disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of Colorado voters," he said.

Is it necessarily a good thing that Bush's stance on issues is transparent to the extent that his actions and statements are easy to second guess? Do intellectuals like Woodrow Wilson make bad presidents, or is something wrong with the system if there is no room for political debates to manifest the complexity of political issues?

Do ILX0rs have an opinion on the ranked voting that San Francisco is trying out in its city elections?

We are? I know we used to before district elections...

Democrats tend to try to have it both ways - blame Nader for Gore's loss, while arguing that it isn't Gore's fault he lost lefty votes.

Not at all. First, 'appealing to the left' - who do you think voted for Gore? But you're saying 'appealing more to the left,' I assume, including those not loyal to the Democratic party. Anyway, I believe that the 'arguments about Nader' that you refer to discuss what would have happened had Nader not been in the race. In that instance, I posit that a sufficient number of the 97,500 Nader voters in Florida would have voted for Gore to erase Bush's deemed 547-vote margin in the state, thereby delivering Gore the election. (and even without Florida, I think it possible that enough of the 22,000 Nader voters in NH could have erased Bush's 7K margin to give Gore the election, though obviously that's not a certainty the way Florida is). The argument you're responding to here refers to the actual race that included Nader. It states that Gore did not run a bad campaign and that he did not fail to run sufficiently to the left to win. Had he done more to appeal to the left, and had that appeal yielded returns on the left, he might well have lost votes on the right sufficient to erase that assistance.

As Gear said, it's the assumption that Nader voters had a duty - or were automatically going to - vote for Nader. If the Nader voters tipped the scales, then it's Gore's fault for not earning their votes. If earning their votes would have cost him the election (unlikely, the non-diehard Greens/Naderites would have switched over for very little) on the right, then it isn't Nader's fault.

Those votes weren't Gore's. Nader didn't steal them - Gore failed to earn them.

The Dem. argument tends to go that it's his fault for tipping the election to Bush (aside from any questions of electoral impropriety). You're saying that Gore wouldn't have gained from moving left (with Nader running), which invalidates the Dem arguments blaming him. Alternately, if Nader voters could have tipped the election back - it's Gore's fault for not courting them (and oftentimes alienating them).

Right, and his fault (in addition to telling lies about the diff b/w the parties and getting Eddie Vedder to tell people not to vote for Gore) was in running. How else was he going to do it?

You're saying that Gore wouldn't have gained from moving left (with Nader running), which invalidates the Dem arguments blaming him.

You keep saying that, but you don't say how it invalidates them. I'm saying that Gore would have no net gain from moving left. It's not Gore's fault for not courting them - he would have lost the election if he had.

If Gore couldn't have won the election by courting Nader voters, then it's not his fault, you can't blame him simply for being there.

Nader had no duty to sit out and support Gore. Nader voters had no duty to support Gore. If Nader voters would have tipped the election, then it is Gore's fault for failing to earn their votes. If they wouldn't, then it's no one's fault.

That's why your arguments blaming Nader are invalid they're set up on the assumption that Gore is to be held blameless, no matter what, and Nader is to receive all blame, simply for existing.

That's not an argument, it's a whine.

Michael, that's what I'm saying. If campaigning for Nader's votes would have cost Gore as many or more (which I consider doubtful), then you can't blame Nader and his supporters. They're not part of the equation. Gabbneb and Democrats in general argue from the assumption that Nader shouldn't have run, that he and his supporters had a duty to the DNC to aid the cause.

That assumption is bullshit to anyone outside of the Democratic Party.

So do naderites. They disculpate themselves for Bush's victory but say it was still worth Nader running. He either had an effect or he didn't. In as much as they're trying to bring the Dems to the left, they're (a) not very successful, and (b) marginalizing themselves to the practical advantage of the right. Good job.

I look forward to many more years of inefectual left of center bickering, Republican controlled Congresses, Presidencies, and Supreme Courts as the naderites hold their blithe, halo covered heads high and proud and pull the hems of their spotless garments up away from the dirt of real democratic politics.

Got that off of my chest. Milo you're still saying it's essentially better that Bush is there. The rest is pure sophistry.

Bush was bad enough to earn an effective vote against him. The Libertarians probably kept him from winning Oregon and New Mexico in 2000. He likely would have picked up another 10K votes in Florida from Libertarians, and maybe the same amount from Buchanan. Such pesky little facts.

He was an ineffective and incompetent Governor, and would have been an ineffective and incompetent President if 9/11 hadn't happened. Making him a brutally effective and incompetent President instead.

----

Michael, Gabbneb is the one saying that swinging Nader's voters would have ultimately had a negative benefit for Gore. Not me. If that's true, then it's not Gore's fault for failing to earn their votes. But it's not Nader's fault for running - you can't fault someone simply for participating in the democratic process. And if you could swing Nader's voters for a positive benefit, then it's Gore's fault for not doing so.

But the premise that Nader is deserving of blame simply for running is simply Democratics choosing to assign blame rather than take responsibility.

I feel that moving a little to the left slightly, throwing a bone to the progressives and disgruntled lefties (remember the lineup at shadow conventions in 2000? Jim Hightower, Paul Wellstone, Michael Moore, etc.), doing something to differentiate himself from GOP-lite, he would have gotten enough Nader votes to (at least) swing NH and Florida. If it hurt him in Tennessee, who cares, he didn't win there anyway.

And Michael, find where I ever said it's "essentially better" that Bush is anywhere. That's a really fun strawman to attack non-Dems with, but not true. If I've said anything, it's that it would have been "essentially better" for Gore to run a decent campaign and for people to quit blaming Nader.

But you are right Milo: Gore ran a mediocre campaign at best. Which is exactly why he lost.

And the other funny thing about this is that you will never find Democrats arguing that the only reason Clinton won in 1992 was because Perot entered the race--it's somehow Nader's fault that we got stuck with Bush but not Perot's fault that we got stuck with Clinton.

Of course. I'm irked by the people who voted for him.

You're still willfully ignoring the net part of my argument, and pretending that I'm talking about a duty that I never referred to. I'm speaking only of outcomes. I am saying that if enough Nader voters had voted for Gore without Gore's doing anything extra to earn their vote, Gore would have erased the deemed Bush margin. And I'm saying that would have happened had Nader not been on the ballot. I am not saying that Nader voters would have tipped the election under all circumstances, which assumes that Gore's vote total was a baseline that could not be reduced. Even if you assume that every single Florida Nader voter would vote for Gore if he 'earn'ed their votes - something I seriously doubt - whatever Gore would have done to get there would have lost him at least 100,000 on his right.

I'm not saying that Nader had a duty not to run. I am saying that if he had not run, Bush would not be President. Simple as that.

Bush was bad enough to earn an effective vote against him. The Libertarians probably kept him from winning Oregon and New Mexico in 2000. He likely would have picked up another 10K votes in Florida from Libertarians, and maybe the same amount from Buchanan. Such pesky little facts.

I was referring to Democrats, obviously. In the absence of Jeb's garbage, Gore would have won Florida even if the libertarians had voted for Bush - more than 20K Gore votes were invalidated. In that instance, he would still have won the election if he had lost OR and NM.

From a pre-election standpoint to Nader voters, there wasn't a big difference in the center-right rhetoric of Gore and the right-center rhetoric of Bush.

I agree with that. People who pay attention solely to rhetoric are uninformed morons.

So the left can blame Gore but they won't take any heat, eh? Doesn't quite sound equitable to me. On November 1, as the campaigns were on their last legs, knowing how the campaign had turned out, leftists of Green and other independent stripes went out and voted for their canididate in what would become one of the closest presidential elections in years. He hadn't moved enough to them and they certainly didn't move at all to him. George W. Bush, under the auspices of a conervative dominated Supreme Court, (whose majority he and most likely any of his Republican successors will endeavor to strngthen) won the Presidency.

I'm probably as full of it as the next Democrat in this world but the fact remains that a disunited left = Republicans. Have it your way.

Nice try. I've absolutely conceded that as a possibility (though not a certainty), including on ILX I believe. Though I've heard of studies (which I don't quite believe) that say Clinton would have won big without Perot.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1224096

Also, I think distancing himself from Clinton was designed to make Gore a better sell to both the left and right. Too bad it didn't work.

I should also have said that people who thought their rhetoric wasn't that different are morons.

again, why be irked with Nader voters? They just might think both sides are shit and I'm inclined to agree.

um, that is hyperbole.

They just might think both sides are shit and I'm inclined to agree. I'm not. I think that's a spoiled point of view that insists on perfection or nothing. According to that criterion we've never had a president worth anything at all and might as well change the constitution, which, considering the respect most of the hard fought amendments get nowdays, might easily lead to something far, far worse.

Nice try. Conceding--even in this post you seem to cling a qualifier--isn't nearly the same as arguing, especially in comparison to the vehemence that has been put to Naderites. Which is understandable, because the anti-Nader crowd has never been an argument of principle but one of outcome.

I'm just playing devil's advocate, mind you!

They didn't.

Nor am I ignoring the "net part" - I'm repeating it (and myself) over and over. If courting Nader voters would have cost Gore the election anyway, fine - no fault. If courting them would have given Gore the election - his fault. But under no scenario other than assigning blame simply for taking part can you blame Nader and his voters. Guess what, candidates and people not voting with you are part of democracy. Learn to work with them.

Again, the only way you can specifically lay blame on Nader (and by extension his supporters) in this is to blame him simply for taking part in the democratic process. Me, I don't like to buddy-up real close to anti-democratic thinking.

I'm not saying that Nader had a duty not to run. I am saying that if he had not run, Bush would not be President. Simple as that.
In which case you and I and pretty much everyone on Earth agree. But I've referred only to Democrats blaming Nader and his supporters, a group in which you chose to lump yourself.

---

So the left can blame Gore but they won't take any heat, eh? Doesn't quite sound equitable to me.
Gore ran his campaign. Gore chose who he wanted to appeal to. "The left" didn't run anything, so I fail to see how they can be responsible for Gore failing to appeal to 3% of them. (well, I guess if you called 20% of the nation "the left", Gore failed to appeal to ~15% of them)

He hadn't moved enough to them and they certainly didn't move at all to him
Again, that gets to claims of duty - voters have no duty to move toward a candidate, esp. a lesser of two evils in their eyes. Either a candidate gets their vote or he doesn't. The onus is on the candidate.

With a Democratic Pres. for only 8 of the last 24 years, and the encroaching right-wing majority which is the child of Nixon and Reagan, I feel fully entitled to worry a little bit about outcome. With Congress in the Republicans' hands, the institutions of the state will become increasingly right wing. How far must this country be dragged toward the hideous amalgam of jingoists, military socialists, expectant chiliasts, and un-patriotic corporate 'free-trade' hypocrites before you'll compromise for a change albeit small and incremental?

but it's also just uninformed about what what government actually does. do you people read the newspaper?

Conceding--even in this post you seem to cling a qualifier--isn't nearly the same as arguing, especially in comparison to the vehemence that has been put to Naderites. Which is understandable, because the anti-Nader crowd has never been an argument of principle but one of outcome.

Uh, when the facts are not in your favor, you concede them, you don't argue against yourself. No, the anti-Nader argument is not one of principle. That would be pointless - they don't agree. And we're not going to move left to accommodate them, though I can understand why someone on the right would hope we would. It's easier to appeal to what we have in common - an opposition to the right.

Either a candidate gets their vote or he doesn't. The onus is on the candidate.

Even if I were to agree, the voter is responsible for the outcome. A vote for a third party in America is a practical statement that it doesn't matter to the voter who wins.

The uptick in his popular vote totals doesn't say much - turnout was greater in 2000 than in 1996, and 1992 had Perot's strongest run, which took a number of votes away from Clinton (one study I saw showed that Perot voters were split on down-ticket races).

He probably should have unveiled his new persona before the convention and the Economist's view of what constitutes 'appealing to the left' probably differs from most people actually, you know, on the left.

But there was still no duty on the part of Nader or his supporters to aid the Democrats.

You guys have a right to just go out and vote for Bush too. That doesn't mean I will agree with your politics whomever you vote for.

I definitely blame Gore's strategists after the election, but not before.

Of course. But don't turn around and say that you "argued" that "the only reason Clinton won was because Perot" was in the race. You merely conceded that as a fact laden with qualifiers. It's hardly the same thing, which is why I made my comment in the beginning. No one expects a Democrat to bring any passion to the room when discussing Ross Perot, because that would invalidate things such as James Carville's genius.

Michael, I'm 'blaming' Gore for not winning, and only doing that as a response to Nader-blame. I'm certainly not blaming him, his supporters or anyone who didn't directly back Bush for what Bush has done. The Democratic machine and candidates/pols post-911 will get a heaping helping of aiding Bush, though. I'm still pissed off by the 2002 midterms in Texas.

(We could make this into some kind of infinite regression)

Did you see the thing on the Daily Show about this?

is everyone happy w/ this now?

I don't think there's any conclusive way of knowing, and feel the same about Nader's run. Both Perot and Nader have been convenient scapegoats for Bush and Gore partisans.

No, seriously, the number of votes that Nader got in Ohio, if transferred to Gore, would still not have given him the state.

(I only read the Harper's section.)(I think I get pissed off when I feel like bias is being dressed up as logic.)

you don't think there's a conclusive way to know whether 1 in 200 of Florida Nader voters would have voted for Gore had Nader not been on the ballot?

Do we?

I don't know what you mean. If you're asking whether i think that US society is capable of moving to the left, I think that it will do so over the next 20 years, assuming that we can maintain a world-class, knowledge-based economy - the Democrats are gaining supporters as the knowledge class swells, aided (net, I think) by its dispersal from the North to the South. But the left we're moving towards isn't going to be a European left. And at the moment, I think that the US voting base is just about evenly split.

wasn't that the point of Clinton's speech at DNC? Maybe he should write a book, er...

regardless of the implication that liberals vote against their own economic interest (which I have yet to see proved), why would it be illegitimate in a republic to define one's interest in other than strictly personal economic terms. It might, in fact, be patriotic not to do so.

Basically I'm querying your anti-voting-for-Nader thing. At some point do you think the US will transcend the one-two-party system?

Not with absolute certainty. But it seems extremely likely that they would have voted for Gore had they voted.

Arguing hypotheticals like the Perot factor or the Nader factor in hindsight always strikes me as a pointless, convenient way of scapegoating because it obscures more relevant issues.

Much of the U.S. culture is imbedded in individualism, which anchors the way Americans tend to view economic matters. That's why "personal economic terms" tend to be less collectivist here--uprooting that aspect of American culture would require a vast shift, although many argue the shift began long ago.

Or, more properly, hstencil, a third party amalgamated from previous third parties.

Regarding your exchange with ENRQ, I'd like to point out that I feel my interests would be better served by both keeping the Republicans out of office and changing the Democratic party from within.

A public employees union claimed Monday that it has uncovered widespread fraud in the Ralph Nader campaign's effort to gather enough signatures to qualify for Oregon's ballot.

ENRQ,

How much does someone who pulls under 5% deserve? Up to 5% of the political coverage?

-- Michael White (mwwhites...), August 17th, 2004.

This is the problem isn't it? It's chicken and egg -- if you say they'll get 5%, and give them minimal coverage, then 5% they'll get.

I've always voted because I'm a stubborn asshole - and this November so I can vote against a new Cowboys stadium. If I didn't get some small pleasure out of voting against the two parties, I wouldn't bother.

Michael, your assumption is that a) voting is a "citizen's duty" and b) that non-voting is a sign of ignorance. We ain't got mandatory voting, so the citizen's duty crap can take a flier, and people are making a perfectly rational choice to not vote. You look at two wealthy guys with no relation to or interest in the issues that face normal people and you say "fuck it." It's not necessarily a view I agree with, but there's no reason it's not a valid choice.

The problem you and stence seem to have is refusing to believe that it's possible for someone to dislike both parties. Goes back to the 'duty' thing - people left of center have no duty to vote Democrat. If the Democratic party wants their votes, it can campaign for them. Obviously it doesn't.

Not to mention self-fulfilling.

x-post: I take it Michael White isn't familiar with Chicago or Illinois politics. Try living here and not being 'cynical'.

We ain't got mandatory voting, so the citizen's duty crap can take a flier, and people are making a perfectly rational choice to not vote.

justifies all sorts of "antisocial" behavior. It's not mandatory to take showers, either, but it sure smells a lot nicer if you do.

Let me clarify my point. 'Citizen's duty' for me is not a legal duty but a personal, moral, perhaps even spiritual duty to be in and of this world and, excuse my rather unfashionable patriotism, because, all said and done, I'm still rooting for this republic and for its promise both to U.S. citizens and to democracy generally however hard the long road.

Non-voting is no more a sign of ignorance in my experience than voting is. I'll judge that on a case by case basis.

Blowhard bully.

True, except by reputation. Being cynical won't change anything. Participating in politics may not change anything either but it stands a better chance than standing on the sidelines sneering.

Voting isn't going to change that. Certainly not for lefties - if the Democrats are guaranteed your vote, why serve your wants or interests? They just have to remain the slightly lesser of two evils and they're set.

(Which is why George Bush has been the perfect thing to happen to Democrats this year - he's bad enough to get people to buy into the lesser of two evils schtick again.)

And stence, you're right, it justifies all sorts of things you may not like or I may not like. It's not a citizen's duty to shower, either. If you want to say "it sure would be nice of y'all to vote" cool - but calling it a citizen's duty to vote for someone they dislike or disagree with is a different issue.

Non-voting is no more a sign of ignorance in my experience than voting is. I'll judge that on a case by case basis.
It's ironic that you accused me of being condescending about non-voters and then say this.

I don't know anyone who doesn't vote out of ignorance - disllusionment, cynicism, and apathy, yes. I know of many more who vote out of ignorance (cf. "Saddam was behind 9/11!!!!").

xpost - Colin, please, give it up.

x-post: Cry me a motherfucking river.

I don't know anyone who doesn't vote out of ignorance - disllusionment, cynicism, and apathy, yes. I know of many more who vote out of ignorance (cf. "Saddam was behind 9/11!!!!").

I mostly agree.

"Or the two parties don't represent their interests but they're constantly told that voting third party is equivalent to voting for Bush or that it's hopeless and meaningless and you're a bad person etc. that they just don't vote at all."

as should've been obvious.

Colin, what's with the dick talk? Is that really germane?

x-post: it's not obvious at all, and I can't make your offending statement scan when I read it together with this last quote from Milo's (because of your refernece to "never having heard any arguments").

Which is to say that I think you meant to diss all arguments for non-voting when you said what you said, but you don't want to now. Whatever.

That's crap. If you wanted to say it's a citizen's duty to vote and let the chips fall where they may, that's closer to being coherent and acceptable. But what you really seem to be saying is it's a left-of-center citizen's duty to vote for the Democrat.

I don't accept that. If it's a citizen's duty you should be fine with them voting for whomever they please - but you're not.

Conceivably no party but the 'Michael White for God-Emperor' party would truly represent my interests. Where is it acceptable for you to compromise with other, different interests? (BTW, the MWGE party is run by crazy people)

Yeah, but only if you think 'participating in politics' = voting.

Kerry OTMFM. I said it in another thread - voting is the least involved you can possibly be in the political process without ignoring it completely.

I can't speak for hstencil and I think were getting to the gist of all of this. I would suggest to a left-of-center voter in this Presidential election that it would be more useful, more productive, or even, by far the lesser of evils, to vote to defeat the Republican candidate, which in all probability would only occur through a victroy for the Democrat. I might make the same argument regarding a senatorial race as well. The less national the office, the less I care if you vote tactically.

I would say to the Greens who, BTW, are dominant in my district in S.F., that that is always the best place to start. If they can successfully govern at that level, then why not the city? If they can do the city and county, then why not the assembly? If they can do the assembly, than why not the governor's office, or Congress, or the Senate, or the White House. I doubt you guys would vote for them then 'cause of all the compromises thay would ahve had to make on their way to power.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, and I'll readily concede that in an ideal world Clinton should have done, and Kerry should be proposing, more, but are you going to deny that the former didn't twice (at least?) raise the minimum wage and that the latter has proposed doing so again, and that a majority of Republicans oppose both efforts? Your position appears to be that if the minimum wage is not going to be raised to what you deem to be a 'living wage', you are indifferent as to whether it should be raised at all.

"antisocial" behavior

hey, this ain't England

DNC band-aid proposal - nothing too offensive to the people paying for campaigns, doubtful to pass anyway, but a bone to the liberals.

Clinton didn't pass two increases? vWhy should we seek your vote when you give up so easily?

(I never said the Democrats should seek my vote. I live in a red state and wouldn't vote for one unless we can get Paul Wellstone reincarnated or Jim Hightower runs.)

Kerry voted for welfare reform, for Bushwar, for the PATRIOT act, openly opposes same-sex marriage, wants to increase military spending. Worst of all is his proud membership in the DLC. I wouldn't cross the street to spit on a DLC politician. (Wellstone failed on the Patriot Act and DOMA, though he criticized himself for the latter and never got a chance to on the former)

Kerry is, realistically, probably more liberal than either Clinton or Gore. That doesn't make him a progressive or a populist of Wellstone's caliber and commitment.

Blount, that's crap. "Liberals+centrists" don't run the party anymore, the center-right does. They've been running to the center for two decades, scared of the liberal label and losing funding, and have accomplished very little.

But I do know that under the last Democratic presidency, I saw a decline in real wages, an increase in hours worked, the income gap, a spike in consumer debt, the tech bubble, welfare reform, minimal minimum-wage increases, DOMA, civil liberties rollbacks, Iraqi sanctions, inaction on Rwanda, no headway in universal healthcare and if I wanted to write it all out or actually look at the '90s probably a couple dozen more issues that should give anyone left-of-center pause before jumping on a DLC-candidate's bandwagon.

That was in the DLC memos from the past several years as well.

1.

2.

"What activists like Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration: the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." Warms your heart, don't it?

Today, the DLC is not merely the favored club of Al Gore and Joe Lieberman. It's also at the center of a web of think tanks, lobbying groups, and electoral activity designed to create a new-model Democratic Party. This new party favors Wall Street-approved free trade pacts, privatization of public services, school "choice," business-friendly regulatory "reforms," and other planks of the Republican Party's economic platform. The DLC-tied Progressive Policy Institute has become the prime Democratic exponent of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce line on globalization: free trade good, protests bad.

x-post: you gotta also love the 'elitist'. Hey, screw those elitist unions and people who want to do elitist things like send their children to public school!

That's a bit easy on him - in those two years, did we see anything of note happen? It was his honeymoon - where was gays in the military reform? Healthcare (even a band-aid)? The guy ran by going back to Arkansas to kill a retarded black man! We all know that a big chunk of Americans support Dubya because he gives the appearance of knowing what he wants - manly-man crap. Clinton never had that. Maybe NASCAR dads would be more willing to support a liberal agenda if it was done with anything but hesistancy and concessions.

(But then, I'm dreaming of a Democratic Party that hadn't decided to make yuppies its base.)

decline in real wages, an increase in hours worked, the income gap, a spike in consumer debt, the tech bubble How attributable are these really to Clinton? These are macro-economic trends that didn't arise suddenly and aren't going to get solved lickety-split.

welfare reform Orwellian, isn't it. I thought this and DOMA probably the most demagogic bullshit they put out there. Don't hate on hstencil, but that is any Presidential candidate licking some white, male, Southern electorate ass right there.

Iraqi sanctions I supported them but felt for the authority and reputation of the U.N. and the welfare of Iraqis, Saddam should be removed from power. The motives, timing, execution, and venality of the Bush regime's war in Iraq have had an effect exactly the opposite to the further strengthening of 50 year old multinational security arrangements that I was hoping for.

inaction on Rwanda I agree and point out that neither France, belgium, Britain, S.A., nor anyone else did anything. We should all be ashamed of ourselves. I will say that the region's likely to fall into a multinational war again soon.

no headway in universal healthcare I'm inclined to think that had the Clintons moved a little to the center we might have universality or some other core principle of real national helath care accepted. Once you get a foot in the door it's hard to get it back out and I would have taken any forward progress. Truman wanted UHC and we're still fighting...

LBJ may have been elected in 1964 as a 'liberal' compared to Goldwater but, lord love all the great stuff he did for the 'Great Society', that guy was a notorious red-baiting asshole for most of his time in the Senate. Kennedy may have qualified as 'liberal' in '60, but he was close enough to the center to give Nixon a real run. Jimmy 'born again' Carter didn't run as a liberal. Remember as well that Eisenhower, Nixon, and 1984 Reagan ran to the center. Reagan lost the nomination in '76 and won the presidency in '80 as a 'conservative' but he's in rare company.

Maybe NASCAR dads would be more willing to support a liberal agenda if it was done with anything but hesistancy and concessions. This is so OTFM, my head could explode.

How attributable are these really to Clinton? These are macro-economic trends that didn't arise suddenly and aren't going to get solved lickety-split.
They're attributable to Clinton in that he did little or nothing to stop, solve or ease them. No one's asked that the income-gap or declining real wages or living wage be solved or instituted overnight. I certainly didn't ask for anything of the sort. But there were eight years of 'prosperity' and popularity to do some good.

We blame Bush for his economic follies, but people left of center have a tendency to glassy-eyed and slack-jawed remembering the halcyon days of Clinton. Too bad those days weren't so wonderful for a whole lot of people.

I supported them but felt for the authority and reputation of the U.N. and the welfare of Iraqis, Saddam should be removed from power.
The UN was just doing what the US pushed it to do in regard to sanctions - if we had said stop they would have stopped. I consider it unconscionable to continue punishing an oppressed nation for more than a decade for the crimes of its oppressor (and our former ally).

[quote]I'm inclined to think that had the Clintons moved a little to the center we might have universality or some other core principle of real national helath care accepted.[/quote]
The centrism and corporate-beneficient programs of the Clinton plan are a big reason it failed - heresy to the right and uninteresting to the left. It scares me that Kucinich was the only Democrat with a viable plan for universal healthcare that attempts eliminates the waste and greed of the medical industry this election.

You're basically right on all those elections - that's why I referred to Democrats in general running and accomplishing a liberal agenda. (Though LBJ's red-baiting doesn't disqualify him as a liberal - Bobby Kennedy had some history there) There's also a lot of truth to saying that Tricky Dick was more liberal with domestic programs than any of those who followed. It's been that willingness to let the conservatives push and push and push ever rightward that changed the national conversation. Can you imagine Bush warning us of the military-industrial complex in his farewell speech?

Michael OTM there - I never said outmanly them (I even called it crap, IIRC), if manly means jingoism and race/gender-baiting and so on. There has to be a reason it's so easy to portray a moderate lib like Kerry as a weak-kneed weak-willed flip-flopper, when they could never make that stick against someone like Wellstone or even Obama. The strength of convictions, etc. etc.

(* -- i don't even count zell miller -- arguably the most conservative democratic officeholder -- as a democrat anymore. but he'll be gone soon enough.)

The "rightward drift of the country" is highly debatable, and if you think the Republicans have a lock on irrational viciousness then you're observance over the past decade is one of partisan blindness.

That said, your latter comments ring true--really, can you apply the inverse to the Democrats too? You can believe in reformation or overhaul of the many entitlements without harming the "working class" or the poor? You can demand fairness and freedom and civil liberties for all classes instead of only your constituencies. You can demand fiscal responsibility not only in budgeting but in spending projections. You can embrace the military without being an appeaser. You can demand meaningful tax reform without simply dragging out the cliched class warfare. If there was a Democrat (or a Republican) like this, I'd vote for him or her.

But there's not a choice like that. There are few Republicans who are revolted by the party's rimjob of the religious right. There are few Republicans who are concerned with true fiscal sanity. There are few Republicans who will put their careers on the line for anything other than poll-tested bullshit. There are few Democrats who are budget hawks. There are few Democrats who value individual liberty more than groups. There are few Democrats who advocate tax reform, let alone concrete solutions to looming budgetary problems created by the entitlement system. There were days in my youth where I thought there was a choice but I realized 15 years ago that it was all idealistic hope. I once was a US Republican and proud of it, but today I recoil at the thought. The many things that once disgusted me about Democrats are now embroiled in Republicans.

say "hello" to one, right here. it's one of the reasons why i liked howard dean so much (who is also a budget hawk).

There are few Democrats who value individual liberty more than groups.

i think that i do quite nicely on that count, too. to the point where dubya's dad would call me a "card-carrying member of the ACLU." if by "individual liberty" you mean "laissez-faire capitalism w/ little-to-no governmental oversight," however, then by that definition i would fail (as would practically every democrat).

There are few Democrats who advocate tax reform, let alone concrete solutions to looming budgetary problems created by the entitlement system.

i advocate both. you might not like how i would reform the tax system, the deficit, or entitlements, but that's different than saying that i do not advocate such policies at all.

i also trust that i am not alone among ILXor dems -- let alone non-ILXor dems -- in at least some of the foregoing.

The ACLU is nice, yeah. Great. Now let's move on to other civil liberties, such as gun control, a "neutral" position the ACLU has never explained away with much credibility. Or how about we move along to property rights--I'm not talking about "little to no governmental oversight", I'm talking about the explosion of federal agency power over property rights over the past 15 years and reasonable reform, reform that doesn't have lobby groups essentially writing federal code in order to sustain power or voting blocks. The impetus for federal reform on any level is almost non-existent in Congress.

As for tax reform or any of the other issues I've noted, I'm sure lots of people around here and in the Democratic (and Republican) party are advocates in one way or another. It's just that when the rubber hits the road, the compromise almost always involves more federal power. No one's alone in having ideas on how to fix things; they're just alone when it comes to acting on them.

For a thorough run down of what I mean by encroaching federal agencies, my advice is that you take a look at books such as these:

Death of Common Sense
Lost Rights: the Destruction of American Liberty
Freedom in Chains: the Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen
Feeling Your Pain
Terrorism and Tyranny
The Bush Betrayal

I have a few of these and would be happy to loan them to anyone on ILX. Sure, it's easy to go overboard worrying about the Imperialist Federal Government boogeyman, but in truth most people are totally ignorant of agency power until it bites them in the ass. And some of us can speak from personal experience on this matter.

The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

(emphasis mine)

If only gun rights had a large and powerful (maybe even as powerful as the ACLU!) organization that would fight for them...

On one hand this organization is uncompromising in its support of other Constitutional rights, but when it comes to guns it takes a...neutral postion--they consider the 2nd Amendment as a collective right and not an individual right ("Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.") Again, it's surprising that the ACLU would make a collectivist interpretation of the Constitution rather than an individual one, and that's the sticking point for me. (I also note that the ACLU's position on the matter has changed over the years--they lobbied for gun control in the 70s, for example.)

Above: Milo, chillin

hasn't that been the SC's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment since, like, the 30s or something? Apologies if I'm wrong, I'm not so up on either side of the debate.

Oh, good lord. No, that's not the least bit problematic.

As they say, the Constitution itself takes a collectivist interpretation, per the standing law and USSC decisions.

It's wrong to say that the ACLU is 'individualist' in orientation (by American libertarian standards) anyway. Civil libertarianism is as much a 'collectivist' belief (the most rights for the most people) as an 'individualist' belief.

Yeah. But the SC's interpretation of things isn't a predictable arbiter of how the ACLU views other amendments--they've challenged the SC many times on First Amendment issues, for example.

It's wrong to say that the ACLU is 'individualist' in orientation (by American libertarian standards) anyway. Civil libertarianism is as much a 'collectivist' belief (the most rights for the most people) as an 'individualist' belief.

I don't understand this point Milo--does the "most rights for most people" mean that most rights trump the rights for those in the minority?

a good book about the shift rightwards in middle america? any books similar that i should read? there are intimations, above, that it is condescending to its subject, i hope not, thats what puts me off a lot of political books.

are there any republicans left on ilx? have you read the book? what did you think?

a) working class middle america votes against its own economic interests

b) economically, there is little to choose between dems and republicans, and the dems need to move further to the left, economically

if b) is the case, then a) doesnt really follow, as theres not enough of a difference for a) to come into play?

although i guess frank doesnt mean the dems need to differentiate more from the republicans, re: the economy, but that they need to focus more on that, and forget the values/morals stuff

so, are working class middle americans misled/foolish in voting against their own interest, or, is there an implcit economic consensus (3rd way managerial politicism?) between mainstream left and right, that actually makes it unimportant, come ballot box time, leaving values/morals as the primary engine?

his main one is Moral Politics: How Liberals & Conservatives Think, which goes into great depth, which he revamped in 2001 just after GWB took office.

He put out a distilled version of this book last year, called Don't Think of an Elephant, which was designed to be more of a quick, working handbook.

I think some of them are fully aware that they're voting against their own benefits in the long run, but that they've continually be told & retold that these other issues matter more. People in America vote on narratives, more than facts. to paraphrase a comment from jon stewart, dudes kissin' matters more than, say, massively fucking up a war...

1) gays a-marryin'
2) The Great Stem Cell Holocaust

if b) is the case, then a) doesnt really follow, as theres not enough of a difference for a) to come into play?

I think you might have really hit on something here. I get the sence that the perception in much of middle America is "Yeah, the Republicans aren't so great economically, but what the hell are the Democrats going to do any differently?" And that's why they vote Republican - at least they have the right "values" or whatever. This is partly the Democrats fault - they haven't been able to come up with enough convincing, catchy economic rhetoric. Saying "jobs" over and over again isn't going to convince anyone whether your W or Kerry. That really IS condescending - any idiot knows the government can't just make jobs appear out of thin air.

It might also be a matter of middle Americans favoring the general principle of lower taxes in theory, even if, in practice, this doesn't amount to much for the middle class under Bush. But here again I think the Dems could do more to sell people on the SERVICES government provides and the link between that and the taxes they pay - most people in fact want those services.

2. or, what is it, in america, that makes the left 'left'?

3. when was the last time, or, who was the last person, perhaps, to be seen as a strong character on the left, on economic issues? would this kind of character have been union-affiliated? (presumably many people quite far to the left in the unions, would be in no way liberals, necessarily?) presumably this is a byproduct of deindustrialization and the decline of organized labor?

4. the binary opposition in america is conservative/liberal (the terms themselves very telling?), rather than conservative/socialist(or similar). this is more pronounced now, but how has this changed over time? has it changed over time?

this isnt really a question for republicans anymore, i suppose, more a question for americans in general

one could argue this is the case in europe as well, to a lesser degree, except minusing the cultural right is much weaker, perhaps due to religion being less powerful/emotive, politically. of course, europe is much less far to the right, economically, but deregulation also plays along in europe too)

union workers filled this role, but there aren't any really central figures(Hoffa III?) like there once was.

Lakoff makes the case that the neocons figured out that union-types were pretty conservative culturally & in their home life, and so they tailored their language to appeal to a more socially conservative type.

It should be pointed out that the methods of communication and campaigning matters a great deal more than any actual policy.

You can craft a pretty convincing narrative around a candidate such that attention won't be paid to the fact that said candidate hasn't really put forth any policies, e.g. Guvner Ahnuld. Policy requires analysis(e.g. time & attention), narratives are more instinctive.

"Who would you rather have a beer with?"

"Every nation has its war party. It is not the party of democracy. It is the party of autocracy. It seeks to dominate absolutely. It is commercial, imperialistic, ruthless. It tolerates no opposition…. If there is no sufficient reason for war, the war party will make war on one pretext, then invent another." - Robert La Follette, 1917

la follette's speech denouncing the wilson admin for dragging the nation into WW1 is one of the all-time greats.

the republican party was def the more 'principled' of the two parties until the reagan/goldwater right took over, but i doubt there's any way to get it back from the loons.

The poor, Sir, who are the ones called upon to rot in the trenches, have no organized power, have no press to voice their will upon this question of peace or war; but, oh, Mr. President, at some time they will be heard. I hope and I believe they will be heard in an orderly and a peaceful way. I think they may be heard from before long. I think, Sir, if we take this step, when the people today who are staggering under the burden of supporting families at the present prices of the necessaries of life find those prices multiplied, when they are raised 100 percent, or 200 percent, as they will be quickly, aye, sir, when beyond that those who pay taxes come to have their taxes doubled and again doubled to pay the interest on the nontaxable bonds held by Morgan and his combinations, which have been issued to meet this war, there will come an awakening; they will have their day and they will be heard. It will be as certain and as inevitable as the return of the tides, and as resistless, too. . . .

McCain asswhooping