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.

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