More Signs of Trouble for 2010

Mr Gaston - a fair but depressing post. I wonder what suggestions you can make for Democrats to "act strategically"? Nuke the public option? Slow walk the climate bill? Hold off on another - obviously needed - stimulus? At what cost to our country? Obama has done everything he can to act strategically (offending gay folk, environmentalists and people appalled by Bush's assault on the Constitution which so far Obama has basically supported).

But the man had to actually do something risky and concrete at some point didn't he? Save the world or else and all that? I adore President Clinton and think you all did a magnificent job governing in a brutal environment, but this post does show that you were in that administration.

We are not in those times. Although I agree that there are some good races happening for Governor out there and losing VA will hurt, but Republicans are discredited and ridiculous figures for the most part, especially the leadership. I'd bet that Americans want muscular, brave leadership, someone who is not afraid to stand up for themselves, not someone who will roll over and show their bellies at the first growl. I'll take bets on Obama's discipline in the face of this rather than panicking. Even President Clinton said he wasn't worried about the Republicans right now, that ignoring them is a fine idea. Too much of that "strategic" stuff only makes people respect us less.

I hope we as Democrats have finally learned this, I think Obama has. I spoke with my very right wing relatives in PA last week who told me they grudgingly respect Obama for taking on FOX, and these people are borderline teabaggers. I'd bet they aren't alone, although you'd never know it from he nitwitism of beltway CW on this.

Here is yet another time where I am glad not to be an elected official. We have Americans screaming for help with employment, health care reform that means something, movement on climate change in poll after poll and yet when someone actually gets in there and makes it happen, they balk. All of a sudden they remember that change is scary. Well boo frigging hoo.

PS That blind fear of change impulse - even after yelling for it - reminds me of what happened to our TNR community on Talkback. Everyone abused the TNR staff mercilessly for years to change the website and the minute it happens, everyone ran away in terror.

Ack!

WandreyCer - this is in regard to your second post (I agree with everything you said in the first one). Like you, I have also been thinking about the remarkable shrinkage in Talkback posts. I have three theories, the third of which overlaps with yours. 1) Like Gresham's Law in economics, in which bad money drives out good, seeing George Walton's verbose, self-indulgent, loopy posts immediately following each article acts as a deterrent to posters who might feel obligated to respond in some way. 2) When TNR 3.0 came on line, for some reason I was unable to post and had to struggle to get a new password and get on (maybe you noticed my absence). It is possible that other less persistent would-be posters just gave up.
3) The new website is truly magnificent, and it might have overwhelmed some folks, whether or not they "ran away in terror". I'd like to hear other people's theories, along with any ideas for a resuscitation. I miss the feisty give-and take and, at times, as it is earned, the resulting camaraderie.

JackR - is there a better human than you on earth? Great to see you. I have old off-line email lists and I'm about to fire one up and kick some booty.

I have heard the same about George's post. It surprises me because I'm so relentless at ignoring, its second nature. This is the benefit of being a working mother of a five year old boy in New York City, I'm cold blooded in what I pay attention to. You all are too diligent, fair. If I don't want to read someone, I must say I'm great at it - anyone can be. It does help. Help thy neighbor and cultivate cold bloodedness!

Jack,

The first thing I was thinking was exactly yours too. Amen.

Wandrey,

I might also add that this is an off-election year, so there is considerably less adrenaline in the blogosphere.

WandreCer - speaking off-line email lists, I was planning a trip to New York (since cancelled) and wondering how I might get your email address without either of us having to publish ours (I even asked Ken). Maybe peek at Corinne's and my website:

wandrey, I now wait for there to be at least 4 posts on a thread before I open it, because generally anything less will likely be narcissistic walton having an argument with himself. I was curious once on one thread that had 20 posts, Walton had 8 of them. I copied all of them onto Word and did a word count, Walton had over 75% of the writing, add to that people who responded to his baiting and it was like 85% of the thread. I have asked for an ignore feature here, and if there was one I promise traffic will pick up greatly. As it is now I spend much less time on TNR.

If Obama can pass most of his agenda (especially health care) his first two year, I am not too worried about any Republican resurgence. It is highly unlikely they will retake congress and they will simply filibuster everything Obama does until his re-election, at which point enough Americans will sour on the Republican to return an effective governing majority back to the Democrats.

What will they run on in 2012? I don't see the NO platform being very effective.

Wandrey - it's Love-Works.org

Lieberman begs to be rabbit punched, does he not?

Yo everyone!

I feel bad for George, I don't like picking on anyone - as I know most people here don't either, but just seeing how much he helped scurry everyone away, I'm glad I said something. I miss this smarty pants crew (thanks for the reminder dylan about this being an off year). Maybe George can please make his posts shorter and fewer now?

JackR - contact Ken, I would love to see you. Looking up at the above list though, I'd say just about anyone on it has my email so what the heck: JC1496@columbia.edu

Several points.

1. Its nice to see some clear thought on the changing dynamic rather than the sophisticated snark we were getting.
2. There is no paradox (between rising numbers of conservatives and declining Republican party affiliation). The Republican brand name is badly damaged but conservative principles are not.
3. Yes, I know that Democrats believe that unless they take immediate action on several fronts the world as we know it will collapse, but the political reality is that if they want to stay in office they will have to prioritize (that is a Good Thing). I submit that if Democrats believe in global warming half as much as they claim then they should immediately abandon the second stimulus. Republicans love tax cuts and Democrats love new spending, but the independents hate deficits. They should also pass some watered down health care law and declare victory. That way they can muster the rest of their political capital for the sake of $5 a gallon gas and a $200 a month heating oil premiums.

Wandrey,

Yes, it's too bad that the adrenaline level went down. Here in SF, people have moved on and look at you funny if you try to bring up a point about the proposed policy effects on campaign strategy. It is bad precisely because off-year victories tend to go the way of senior and party base opinion, which spells disaster for same-sex marriage in Maine. And though we got burned by invading Utonians (and their smear campaigns) in California last year, I see little in the way of gay rights mobilization here to bring attention to the impending tragedy 3000 miles away on your shore. Please tell me that if they're not talking back on TNR, the East Coasters are out and charged in the streets.

On the TNR talkback issue, speaking as a token conservative who only occasionally checks in, all I know is that there was a long stretch during which none of my posts showed up. I assumed that the website did not like dissent, but perhaps they were technical problems?

These days I'm less interested in TNR because sophisticated snark is still snark. I've demoted it from the category of being an honest seeker of the truth.

Its nice to see you jib - and of course you're right. When have Republicans hated spending again ;)?

Dylan - dude, you've got my vote - Utonians! Brilliant!

Hi Wandrey,

Yes, I believe I was waiting for one progressive deficit to name one policy of Obama's that they didn't like on the grounds that it increased the deficit. Bush policies I opposed: Plan D, most discretionary spending, and the war in Iraq (since I'm an isolationist). Still waiting for a progressive to list even one.

First, a comment on the website changes. I am admittedly a glop with computers, but the change has not been a plus in my view. Harder to operate and to post.

Second, a comment on Mr. Walton. He has a perspective, and apparently time on his hands. I find his "literary" approach difficult to follow, and tedious. If he wants my attention, he needs to alter his communication method, but that's up to him.

Finally, the Galston article. I think the liberals would do well to re-think what constitutes a "conservative". They pay too much attention to the entertainment and "red meat" crowd, and are too ready to associate conservatism with bigotry and neandertholism (is that a word?). There are lots of conservatives --including moi-- who aren't against gays, ecology, etc., etc., etc. Call us traditionalists, gradualists, fiscal tightwads, whatever.

Conservatives like me are only mildly critical of the stimulus package. Too much pork, and too much of the old liberal wish list, but we know that McCain would have had a similar package. Good for him! As for health care, there is a positive conservative position -- you could find it here in some articles and comments--the big difference being an emphasis on cost-containment as opposed to a liberal emphasis on expanding coverage. As for environmental issues, there is some skcepticism on the political content of "accepted" science and some resistance to
taking a punch unless all others are taking one too.

So What's happening? The liberals have their usual 20% of the public, but a much higher share of the congressional population (particularly in the Senate) than usual. They have long-repressed priorities. As usual, their priorities are very different from those of the public at large. And they think (know?) it may never get better. So they go for it, whether or not it serves their mid-term election interests. Lottsa luck!

The ongoing screw-up with availability and delivery of H1N1 vaccine is just the latest
example of this Administration's lack of, and disdain for, implementation and management
of its own programs and decisions. So is the health care fiasco, with Reid and Obama
once again going in opposite directions--aren't they allowed to talk to each other? And
history will long remember the President's leisurely conduct of a debating salon, inter-
spersed with fund-raising and just plain fun, while American soldiers were dying by the
dozens in Afghanistan (and Afghan civilians by the hundreds, but hey, you can't make
an omelet...). When are they going to learn that governing is not just sitting around
and mulling the great issues, but deciding on a course of action and then dirtying your
hands to see that it is taken, and succeeds?

Hey Isernoff, you're like the Republicans I grew up with in my family. I agree with you alot. It really is too bad you folks have zero power in your party. To me, it's not that liberals don't pay attention, is that moderate Republicans don't seem to. You all have been wiped off the face of the earth.

Dylan, I thought alot about your dilemma - off year politics being an actual detriment to civil rights. I'm heartbroken over Maine, I wish there was something I could do, any suggestions please do let me know.

Been reading about Olsen's case to the Supreme Court, weirdness. But you never know, it may set the stage for something later on if we're lucky.

Wandrey,

This late in the game? Not sure. You could phone bank, although I find the returns of that method of outreach to be on par with attempting to spark fire by rubbing rocks together. Network with the Protect Maine Equality campaign (http://www.protectmaineequality.org) and see what they might suggest. Human Rights Campaign are lackluster, truth be told, but they might have something with muscle on this round, who knows. My way of letting off steam is by taking the talking points from the Yes on 1 campaign's commercials and following them to their (il)logical conclusions by writing a short story that speaks to such narratives: it's about how gay marriage came to America long before Columbus or ever Erikson came ashore, and thus it must be taught in a historical context in school.

I mean, what does it mean to "teach homosexual marriage to children"? What would it look like? And why do conservatives suddenly care about schools?

mlottman, if the government asks the vaccine manufacturers how long it will take them to come up with the requisite number of shots, and the manufacturers say X, and the government tells the people, it will be X, and then we get to X and suddenly the manufacturers say, oh, it's taking much longer to grow than we thought, so it'll be X-plus-three-months, how is that the administration's screw-up?

Other than, perhaps, trusting what the vaccine company dude said, when they asked him.

black:

Wandrey, I now wait for there to be at least 4 posts on a thread before I open it, because generally anything less will likely be narcissistic walton having an argument with himself.

gw:

My friend is just pulling your leg. We both have our job to do in here. My function is to deconstruct all the psuedo-intellectual bullshit tautologies of the mainstream media and his is to do a word count to make sure I meet my word quota each week.

Truly, the guy would lay down his life for me.

Aside to wandrey,

Gosh, thanks for attributing my presense in here to the Big Scurry. That was my true aim, of course. But starting with this thread it looks like I'll have to start all over again....

Sigh. The CIA doesn't pay me enough to endure this humorless shit.

gw

Galston and jib join in advising "fiscal restraint," because people think the government is doing "too much." Piffle. People would be pleased as punch if the jobs picture were better. Fiscal restraint is part of what has kept unemployment high. Obama is in the same position as FDR was. He buys Keynesian stimulus as a general matter, but even a Democrat-dominated Washington is too nervous about deficits, and so we do half measures. FDR responded more dramatically to that pressure than Obama has, reigning in spending, just as Galston suggests, which caused a "mini-depression" on the way to eventual recovery and led conservatives to pronounce FDR's policies a failure. Of course, to the extent they failed, it was because they were too conservative! Anyway, that's the cw as I basically understand it. If folks like Galston think that it's wrong, they should explain how. Because, otherwise, it sounds like he's advocating that, in order for Democrats to succeed, they should bow to pressure that would have them do exactly the wrong thing.

So, what do you do when the public is basically wrong, or, at least, ill-informed? I do not believe that fiscal restraint is attractive to people beause they know anything about macroeconomics. They -- by which I mean the public at large -- don't know how big a deficit we can tolerate. They don't understand that we can in fact tolerate big deficits in times like these without risking inflation, and they're fuzzy on the entire stimulus concept.

No, they like "fiscal restraint," because it's got that word "restraint" in it. It sounds moderate, and moderation is used as a substitute for wisdom when people don't actually know what they're talking about. But moderation is a moving target, determined by arbitrarily fixed poles that change from time to time. It's an unreliable intellectual shortcut, because sometimes -- in fact, often -- one side has a better argument than the other, and the middle ground can be the worst of both worlds. As Chait put in his perfect column on this point, "splitting the baby is actually a bad thing" -- that's the whole point of the story.

Anyway, I haven't answered my question yet: In response to Galston's numbers, what do we do? Well, here's a thought: Commit to making government work. Commit to achieving results. Commit to policies that will achieve results, and reject those that won't. Be clear and forceful in defense of such policies. Win the argument, because you will be right and will earn trust with honesty. All easier said than done of course. But, if Democrats take the Galston approach of backing down on their policy priorities when they have a Democrat in the White House and majorities in both houses, then the voters are just as likely to punish Democrats, and Obama, for doing too little, rather than too much. All that chatter is shallow. If it seems that we're going in the right direction generally, then people will feel good about how things are going generally. No polls required. Just get 'er done.

On climate, by the way, I think that part of the problem may be that the problem seems too big, and nobody in a decision-making capacity is talking realistically and systematically about what it would take to fix it. The climate bills under discussion won't cut it. This issue awaits a much better sales pitch than Gore's.

Dylan - if you're still out there. you sound heartbroken. Me too.

Here! To the contrary--polls are looking better, we must have hope. During the lively Halloween festivities tomorrow night in the Castro, I will dress as Hot Buttered Lobster, joining hands with a longshoreman, and the two of us make sure the Castro rememebers The Maine!

A longshoreman! May the ghosts of Harry Bridges and Katherine Graham making out together be with you (if solidarity by way of heterosexual motifs is also welcome)!

Those mother-loving breeder ghosts bet their asses their welcome. Come aboard, matey!