For many years, Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-SC) was one of my favorite U.S. Senators and would have made a great President. Hollings was a strong and consistent voice in the Senate for a strong national defense, fiscal responsibility and the need to protect the interests of working Americans. Despite his retirement from politics, Hollings is trying to wake up his fellow Americans about the dangers of free trade and the loss of our industrial capacity. Here are a couple of paragraphs from an essay by former Senator Hollings from American Prospect Online about what is needed to make the United States competitive again, protect our manufacturing base and remain a world power.
Hollings writes: "First, we need to stop financing the elimination of jobs. Tax benefits for offshore production must end. Royalty deductions allowed for offshore activities must be eliminated, and offshore tax havens must be closed down. Next, we need an assistant attorney general to enforce our trade laws and agreements. Currently, enforcement is left to the injured party. It takes corporate America years to jump the legal hurdles. At the end, the president, under his authority for the nation’s security, cancels the court order against the trade violation. Rather than waste time and money, corporate America moves offshore. Trade policy is set by a dozen departments and agencies. Policy should be reconstituted in a Department of Trade and Commerce with the secretary acting as a czar. Then trade treaties can be negotiated for the good of the U.S. economy, instead of for the good of the transnational. The department’s International Trade Administration, finding a dumping violation, should also determine the penalty. The International Trade Commission should be eliminated. Custom agents charged with drug enforcement and homeland security are hard-pressed to stop trade transshipments. We need 1,000 more Customs agents. We need more funding for research in physical and mathematical sciences and engineering; more funding for the Manufactures Extension Partnership Act and the Advanced Technology Program. The list of materials critical to our national defense should be enforced. H1-B Visas should be repealed, and the United States should give notice of withdrawal from the World Trade Organization."
"Finally, competition in world trade today is not for profit, but market share. The closed markets of Japan, South Korea, and China enable exports at cost with the necessary profit being made up in the closed domestic market. A Lexus selling for $33,000 in the United States sells for $47,000 in Japan. Corporate America’s rush to produce for profit in China is a losing game for the nation. Countries winning market share will come to control the market, which is happening now with automotive production in the United States. This production capacity furnished the tanks and planes for WWII. Akio Morita, founder of Sony Corporation, admonished Third World countries to develop a manufacturing capacity to become a nation-state. He then cautioned: 'That world power that loses its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power.' The United States must stop so-called free trade agreements merely to protect offshore production -- and start trading, opening up closed markets, and rebuilding the country."
To read the complete article by Fritz Hollings on American Prospect Online go to http://tinyurl.com/mkxwq Let's hope that the American people will make their voice heard and demand that our spineless leaders take action to protect U.S. jobs and industries.
Harold Meyerson had a thought provoking column in the March 22 edition of the Washington Post which points out some frightening trends http://tinyurl.com/mb3wx In his column, Meyerson cites a Princeton economist Alan Blinder who estimates that outsourcing may cost us 42 to 56 million jobs. Meyerson also points out, "The threat of globalization and the reality of de-unionization have combined to make the raise, for most Americans, a thing of the past. Between 2001 and 2004, median household income inched up by a meager 1.6 percent, even as productivity was expanding at a robust 11.7 percent. The broadly shared prosperity that characterized our economy in the three decades following World War II is now dead as a dodo." If job loss and stagnation continue thanks to the Bush-Clinton free trade policies, populism is going to have more electoral appeal than ever.
New Democrats who are basically Republican-lite on economics are going to be rejected and even a lot of middle class social progressives are going to be worrying less abortion and gay issues and more about matters of personal economic survival. Likewise, a lot of socially conservative middle and working class voters are going to return to their populist traditions and cast ballots more on the basis of economic issues especially if many Democrats are willing to stress economic populism and move center on the social issues. That's why a combination of economic populism and social moderation might be the wave of the future for Democrats.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Sunday, March 19, 2006
The party of unlimited government
Michael Hayes, a professor of political science at Colgate University, has another insightful column on Democrats.US http://tinyurl.com/rdazk. Dr. Hayes makes an excellent point that Democrats can and should be the party of government activitism but all too often are seen instead as the party of "unlimited government." With a growing concentration of power in Washington which has taken place under Republican rule, a case can be made that the Republican Party has become "the party of unlimited government." The Bush Administration and the Republican Congressional leadership have certainly lost all credibility on financial matters and Democrats have the opportunity now to emerge as the party of fiscal responsibility. Still, there are lingering perceptions about Democrats and the role of government that need to be addressed if we are to again become the majority party.
Government plays a critical role, however, we need to keep in mind that its powers can be abused and that this important institution exists to serve the public. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi helped to perpetuate stereotypes about our party favoring "unlimited government" when she opposed efforts in Congress to discourage municipalities from using eminent domain to take private homes for economic development following last year's Supreme Court ruling which affirmed such practices. A more appropriate response to the court ruling came from fellow California Democrat Maxine Waters Representative Waters joined in sponsoring legislation to ban federal Community Development Block Grant funds from any city that fails to prohibit such seizures of private homes for private development purposes "It's like undermining motherhood and apple pie," Waters was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle. "I mean, people's homes and their land — it's very important, and it should be protected by government, not taken for somebody else's private use." http://tinyurl.com/et5y7 A knee jerk opposition by Democrats on matters such as experimenting with school vouchers, charter schools or faith based initiatives can leave the impression that we are more focused on catering to narrow constituencies rather than meeting educational challenges or social services needs in a creative manner.
Democrats also must take the lead in reinventing goverment to make it more efficient and customer oriented. For example, there is no reason that government agencies cannot be open more flexible hours to serve the public. One of the 12 points of the U.S. House Blue Dog Coalition is to instill greater accountability in federal agencies. The Blue Dog plan would require agencies to put their fiscal houses in order. According to the non-partisan Government Accounting Office, 16 of 23 major federal agencies cannot issue a simple audit of their books, and the federal government cannot account for $24.5 billion it spent in 2003. The Blue Dogs have proposed a budget freeze for any agency that cannot properly balance its books.I can think of two Democratic leaders from the past who point the way to how Democrats can support activist and efficient government. The late Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, a traditonal New Deal Democrat, often admonished his colleagues that "to be a liberal,” he advised, “one does not have to be a wastrel. We must, in fact, be thrifty if we are to be really humane.” Democrats need to be leading efforts to make government work effectively to provide services and enforce regualtions to protect workers and consumers. During his long Senate career, the late Senator William Proxmire was a strong believer in activist government and yet a zealous opponent of bureaucratic waste. Proxmire introduced the "Golden Fleece" awards which exposed wasteful practices in goverment. Proxmire noted that "highlighting specific, single wasteful expenditures is more effective than simply complaining in a general way about government waste." Given the lack of fiscal responsibility and abuse of power by the Republicans, Democrats have the opportunity to make the case that with proper leadership our government can be more responsive to public needs.
* Catholic Bishops reaffirm opposition to gay marriage
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has reaffirmed their opposition to same sex marriage and civil unions as well as endorsing a constitutional amendment to ban legal recognition of same sex unions. I happen to be a Protestant, but do have a great deal of respect for Catholic social teaching. The Bishop's statement can be viewed at http//tinyurl.com/ny8d confirms that opposition to gay marriage is not limited to evangelical Christians. What I liked especially about the Bishop's resolution was that it did stress the importance of opposing "unjust discrimination, harassment and abuse" against gays and lesbians. We certainly need to protect the basic civil rights of all citizens, however, there are some matters in which we must place the stability of the family unit which is so critical to a stable society first. I would point out that gay marriage is far from the only threat to the traditional family. It would be great to see the Conference of Catholic Bishops and other groups concerned about the family to put far more emphasis on repealing "no fault" divorce laws which have done so much damage to our social fabric in the last thirty years or so.
The reality is that gay unions would further confuse the primary purpose of state recognition of marriage which is to create a stable environment for the rearing of children. Countries like the Netherlands which have approved same sex marriage have increasingly prevalant cohabitation (morality aside - a very bad trend for children) and birth rates at lower levels than needed to replace the current population. One reasonable alternative to gay marriage and civil unions was recently proposed in the Colorado Legislature by Senator Shawn Mitchell. Now let me make it clear that Senator Mitchell is gasp..a Republican who also belongs to the Mormon Chuch (like our own U.S. Senate leader Harry Reid), but I am all in favor of borrowing good ideas regardless of which side of the aisle they come from. SB Bill 166 would establish “reciprocal beneficiary agreements” in Colorado for any adults in the same household not eligible for marriage, including mother-daughter households, grandfather-grandson households, same-sex households, or relatives of any relationship. The agreements could apply to property-sharing rights, decision-making powers over funerals and insurance. Of course, the reciprocal beneficiary agreements proposal is not acceptable to the hard-line social left that wants nothing less than gay marriage or social ultra-conservatives like the Concerned Women for America (see link http://tinyurl.com/hcpv3 ) and the Family Research Institute. All too often the extremists on both sides of the spectrum have a vested interest in perpetuating the culture wars. Democrats need to look for ways to heal the red-blue divisions which isn't be helped by the support of gay marriage by our party leaders in places like New York and California. The last thing that we need is another divisive social issue to further split core Democratic constituencies and alienate swing voters.
* Democrats and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Gun control has been a major stumbling block to Democrats in Middle America. Any Democratic candidate who advocates gun control is going to be shut out of large areas of the South, Great Plains the West and rural areas of even a number of "blue" states. Millions of votes could be placed back into the Democratic or undecided column if progressive activists would just shut up about demanding gun control laws. There is no relationship between gun ownership and violent crime. Even Michael Moore noted in his documentary, "Bowling for Columbine" that Canada has a much higher rate of gun ownership than the United States and yet has a far lower crime rate. The problem of crime and violence is socio-cultural in roots and is certainly not caused by widespread citizen ownership of firearms which often deters criminal activity.
Fortunately, a growing number of Democratic activists and candidates are recognizing that supporting gun rights is good politics and public policy. Amendment II Democrats have launched a national campaign to encourage pro-gun Democratic activists to pass resolutions at the state and local party organization level affirming support of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. See link http://tinyurl.com/zlzeh
Democratic candidates are increasingly seeking and winning the National Rifle Association endorsement. The laterst NRA endorsement went to Capri Cafaro, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Ohio's 13th District. The following is from the Morning Journal (03/18/06).
''I've been a long-time supporter of the Second Amendment and sportsmen's rights,'' said Cafaro. ''There's nothing more American than protecting individuals' freedom.'' Although the NRA has long been seen as a Republican-leaning organization, Cafaro noted that she joins Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Niles, and gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland, D-Lisbon, who also were supported by the NRA.Cafaro said she opposed measures like the federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, and supported carrying concealed weapons laws, such as the law that took effect in Ohio in 2004. She said that ensuring citizens have firearms to protect themselves and keeping guns away from convicted criminals is the key to protecting areas such as Lorain, which suffered a wave of gun-related violence last year.'' "If you're a law-abiding citizen, and you're in a neighborhood that has a history of violent crime, you want the opportunity to defend yourself,'' she said. See link to Morning Journal article at http://tinyurl.com/f2fpv It's time for the Democratic Party to affirm the Second Amendment.
Government plays a critical role, however, we need to keep in mind that its powers can be abused and that this important institution exists to serve the public. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi helped to perpetuate stereotypes about our party favoring "unlimited government" when she opposed efforts in Congress to discourage municipalities from using eminent domain to take private homes for economic development following last year's Supreme Court ruling which affirmed such practices. A more appropriate response to the court ruling came from fellow California Democrat Maxine Waters Representative Waters joined in sponsoring legislation to ban federal Community Development Block Grant funds from any city that fails to prohibit such seizures of private homes for private development purposes "It's like undermining motherhood and apple pie," Waters was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle. "I mean, people's homes and their land — it's very important, and it should be protected by government, not taken for somebody else's private use." http://tinyurl.com/et5y7 A knee jerk opposition by Democrats on matters such as experimenting with school vouchers, charter schools or faith based initiatives can leave the impression that we are more focused on catering to narrow constituencies rather than meeting educational challenges or social services needs in a creative manner.
Democrats also must take the lead in reinventing goverment to make it more efficient and customer oriented. For example, there is no reason that government agencies cannot be open more flexible hours to serve the public. One of the 12 points of the U.S. House Blue Dog Coalition is to instill greater accountability in federal agencies. The Blue Dog plan would require agencies to put their fiscal houses in order. According to the non-partisan Government Accounting Office, 16 of 23 major federal agencies cannot issue a simple audit of their books, and the federal government cannot account for $24.5 billion it spent in 2003. The Blue Dogs have proposed a budget freeze for any agency that cannot properly balance its books.I can think of two Democratic leaders from the past who point the way to how Democrats can support activist and efficient government. The late Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, a traditonal New Deal Democrat, often admonished his colleagues that "to be a liberal,” he advised, “one does not have to be a wastrel. We must, in fact, be thrifty if we are to be really humane.” Democrats need to be leading efforts to make government work effectively to provide services and enforce regualtions to protect workers and consumers. During his long Senate career, the late Senator William Proxmire was a strong believer in activist government and yet a zealous opponent of bureaucratic waste. Proxmire introduced the "Golden Fleece" awards which exposed wasteful practices in goverment. Proxmire noted that "highlighting specific, single wasteful expenditures is more effective than simply complaining in a general way about government waste." Given the lack of fiscal responsibility and abuse of power by the Republicans, Democrats have the opportunity to make the case that with proper leadership our government can be more responsive to public needs.
* Catholic Bishops reaffirm opposition to gay marriage
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has reaffirmed their opposition to same sex marriage and civil unions as well as endorsing a constitutional amendment to ban legal recognition of same sex unions. I happen to be a Protestant, but do have a great deal of respect for Catholic social teaching. The Bishop's statement can be viewed at http//tinyurl.com/ny8d confirms that opposition to gay marriage is not limited to evangelical Christians. What I liked especially about the Bishop's resolution was that it did stress the importance of opposing "unjust discrimination, harassment and abuse" against gays and lesbians. We certainly need to protect the basic civil rights of all citizens, however, there are some matters in which we must place the stability of the family unit which is so critical to a stable society first. I would point out that gay marriage is far from the only threat to the traditional family. It would be great to see the Conference of Catholic Bishops and other groups concerned about the family to put far more emphasis on repealing "no fault" divorce laws which have done so much damage to our social fabric in the last thirty years or so.
The reality is that gay unions would further confuse the primary purpose of state recognition of marriage which is to create a stable environment for the rearing of children. Countries like the Netherlands which have approved same sex marriage have increasingly prevalant cohabitation (morality aside - a very bad trend for children) and birth rates at lower levels than needed to replace the current population. One reasonable alternative to gay marriage and civil unions was recently proposed in the Colorado Legislature by Senator Shawn Mitchell. Now let me make it clear that Senator Mitchell is gasp..a Republican who also belongs to the Mormon Chuch (like our own U.S. Senate leader Harry Reid), but I am all in favor of borrowing good ideas regardless of which side of the aisle they come from. SB Bill 166 would establish “reciprocal beneficiary agreements” in Colorado for any adults in the same household not eligible for marriage, including mother-daughter households, grandfather-grandson households, same-sex households, or relatives of any relationship. The agreements could apply to property-sharing rights, decision-making powers over funerals and insurance. Of course, the reciprocal beneficiary agreements proposal is not acceptable to the hard-line social left that wants nothing less than gay marriage or social ultra-conservatives like the Concerned Women for America (see link http://tinyurl.com/hcpv3 ) and the Family Research Institute. All too often the extremists on both sides of the spectrum have a vested interest in perpetuating the culture wars. Democrats need to look for ways to heal the red-blue divisions which isn't be helped by the support of gay marriage by our party leaders in places like New York and California. The last thing that we need is another divisive social issue to further split core Democratic constituencies and alienate swing voters.
* Democrats and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Gun control has been a major stumbling block to Democrats in Middle America. Any Democratic candidate who advocates gun control is going to be shut out of large areas of the South, Great Plains the West and rural areas of even a number of "blue" states. Millions of votes could be placed back into the Democratic or undecided column if progressive activists would just shut up about demanding gun control laws. There is no relationship between gun ownership and violent crime. Even Michael Moore noted in his documentary, "Bowling for Columbine" that Canada has a much higher rate of gun ownership than the United States and yet has a far lower crime rate. The problem of crime and violence is socio-cultural in roots and is certainly not caused by widespread citizen ownership of firearms which often deters criminal activity.
Fortunately, a growing number of Democratic activists and candidates are recognizing that supporting gun rights is good politics and public policy. Amendment II Democrats have launched a national campaign to encourage pro-gun Democratic activists to pass resolutions at the state and local party organization level affirming support of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. See link http://tinyurl.com/zlzeh
Democratic candidates are increasingly seeking and winning the National Rifle Association endorsement. The laterst NRA endorsement went to Capri Cafaro, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Ohio's 13th District. The following is from the Morning Journal (03/18/06).
''I've been a long-time supporter of the Second Amendment and sportsmen's rights,'' said Cafaro. ''There's nothing more American than protecting individuals' freedom.'' Although the NRA has long been seen as a Republican-leaning organization, Cafaro noted that she joins Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Niles, and gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland, D-Lisbon, who also were supported by the NRA.Cafaro said she opposed measures like the federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, and supported carrying concealed weapons laws, such as the law that took effect in Ohio in 2004. She said that ensuring citizens have firearms to protect themselves and keeping guns away from convicted criminals is the key to protecting areas such as Lorain, which suffered a wave of gun-related violence last year.'' "If you're a law-abiding citizen, and you're in a neighborhood that has a history of violent crime, you want the opportunity to defend yourself,'' she said. See link to Morning Journal article at http://tinyurl.com/f2fpv It's time for the Democratic Party to affirm the Second Amendment.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Record trade deficit proves free trade policies have failed
Dchand writes in his post tonight on the Blue Dog Blog
http://www.bluedogdemocrat.org/blog , "free trade is good for everyone, period." Yeah, right. America had a trade deficit of 725.76 billion during 2005 in no small part due to free trade policies.
First of all, let me explain where I am coming from in terms of basic values. Unlike many politically correct Democrats and big business Republicans, I am a nationalist. I regard myself as an American first rather than a "citizen of the world." I can understand why "citizens of the world" especially of the wealthier variety might favor free trade. But I can't fathom how any working or middle class American could support our current trade policies which have led to a loss of jobs and income stagnation for the low and middle end of wage scale in America.
The proponents of free trade always paint a picture that is all or nothing - wide open trade with no protection for critical industries or no international trade whatsoever. This is a false choice. Trade that flows both ways and is reasonably balanced benefits everyone. The reality is that trade agreements which fail to incorporate labor and environmental standards place American workers at a tremdendous competitive disadvantage. Since the U.S. entered into NAFTA, GAAT and the WTO, jobs paying a living wage have been leaving America at a unprecented rate. Of course, we were all supposed to get good paying, high-tech jobs to replace the old manufacturing jobs, but since it has been learned that even the computer jobs can be moved overseas. A lot of the same folks who think free trade is the best thing since sliced bread also love outsourcing which threatens the livelihoods of America's office workers and even skilled professionals.
Our current trade deficit is simply not sustainable. Warren Buffett has called the trade deficit America's greatest economic problem even more critical than the national debt.Buffett has proposed a system of import-export certificates which would bring trade into balance.http://tinyurl.com/m23dg Yes, Buffett's proposal amounts to a tariff and there is absolutely nothing wrong with tariffs. At one time, tariffs were the primary source of revenue for the federal government.
Yes, international trade is desirable but not wide open free trade policies which have created a massive trade deficit. It is critical that America continues to have a steel industry, automobile industry and that we can make our defense components if nothing more than to protect our national security interests. Sure, it's great that Kia is building a plant in Georgia but the jobs created by this Korean company are a drop in the bucket compared to the jobs lost through free trade. And the profits go to back to Korea rather than staying in America.
Americans across the political spectrum are becoming disillusioned with free trade. The DLC favors free trade because their big money contributors want such policies. I like the DLC position on some issues but definitely have to part company with them on the issue of trade.
In my view, it has been a disaster for Democrats to embrace the "Republican lite" free trade agenda. Bill Clinton helped Democrats lose Congress in 1994 by his support of free trade treaties which basically told working class Americans to drop dead. A lot of these voters became aligned with the Republican Party on the basis of social values as they recognized neither party would uphold their economic interests. Democrats need to support fair trade and economic nationalism.
http://www.bluedogdemocrat.org/blog , "free trade is good for everyone, period." Yeah, right. America had a trade deficit of 725.76 billion during 2005 in no small part due to free trade policies.
First of all, let me explain where I am coming from in terms of basic values. Unlike many politically correct Democrats and big business Republicans, I am a nationalist. I regard myself as an American first rather than a "citizen of the world." I can understand why "citizens of the world" especially of the wealthier variety might favor free trade. But I can't fathom how any working or middle class American could support our current trade policies which have led to a loss of jobs and income stagnation for the low and middle end of wage scale in America.
The proponents of free trade always paint a picture that is all or nothing - wide open trade with no protection for critical industries or no international trade whatsoever. This is a false choice. Trade that flows both ways and is reasonably balanced benefits everyone. The reality is that trade agreements which fail to incorporate labor and environmental standards place American workers at a tremdendous competitive disadvantage. Since the U.S. entered into NAFTA, GAAT and the WTO, jobs paying a living wage have been leaving America at a unprecented rate. Of course, we were all supposed to get good paying, high-tech jobs to replace the old manufacturing jobs, but since it has been learned that even the computer jobs can be moved overseas. A lot of the same folks who think free trade is the best thing since sliced bread also love outsourcing which threatens the livelihoods of America's office workers and even skilled professionals.
Our current trade deficit is simply not sustainable. Warren Buffett has called the trade deficit America's greatest economic problem even more critical than the national debt.Buffett has proposed a system of import-export certificates which would bring trade into balance.http://tinyurl.com/m23dg Yes, Buffett's proposal amounts to a tariff and there is absolutely nothing wrong with tariffs. At one time, tariffs were the primary source of revenue for the federal government.
Yes, international trade is desirable but not wide open free trade policies which have created a massive trade deficit. It is critical that America continues to have a steel industry, automobile industry and that we can make our defense components if nothing more than to protect our national security interests. Sure, it's great that Kia is building a plant in Georgia but the jobs created by this Korean company are a drop in the bucket compared to the jobs lost through free trade. And the profits go to back to Korea rather than staying in America.
Americans across the political spectrum are becoming disillusioned with free trade. The DLC favors free trade because their big money contributors want such policies. I like the DLC position on some issues but definitely have to part company with them on the issue of trade.
In my view, it has been a disaster for Democrats to embrace the "Republican lite" free trade agenda. Bill Clinton helped Democrats lose Congress in 1994 by his support of free trade treaties which basically told working class Americans to drop dead. A lot of these voters became aligned with the Republican Party on the basis of social values as they recognized neither party would uphold their economic interests. Democrats need to support fair trade and economic nationalism.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Why Democrats need more pro-life Senators
Michael Hayes, a political science professor at Colgate University, makes a compelling argument for the election of more pro-life Democrats to Congress in a essay featured on Democrats.US. Here are a few paragraphs from the column which explains why ending the partisan polarization on abortion is so critical.
In recent weeks, however, progressive columnists and bloggers have begun to question the wisdom of nominating Casey to oppose Santorum. Casey, like his father, is unequivocally pro-life, which makes him unappealing to pro-choice Democrats who, it should be noted, provide a major source of campaign funds. Perhaps because he is pro-life, Casey recently took a public position in favor of the Alito Supreme Court nomination, saying that the objections raised against Alito were insufficient to warrant a no vote. Although Casey’s support for Alito was both qualified and reluctant, it nevertheless pitted him against Senate Democrats, who overwhelmingly opposed Alito’s nomination. A Casey win over Santorum in Pennsylvania would be good for the Democratic Party, however. The Democrats desperately need to shed their image as the pro-abortion party. Because this is such a high-profile race, and Casey is so strongly identified as pro-life, a Casey victory would show voters across the country that it is possible to be both a strong Democrat and pro-life.
The Democrats’ image as a pro-abortion party reflects their failure to behave like a real political party on this issue. American political parties have historically been moderate and inclusive, aggregating a wide variety of interests, offering at least something to almost all groups, and presenting themselves as speaking for all the people rather than for any one narrow interest. In so doing, the parties integrate interest groups into broad coalitions that are necessarily concerned with winning elections. When an interest group is fully integrated into a party’s coalition, it recognizes the need to temper its more extreme goals, subordinating its narrow objectives to the broader interest of the party in winning elections.
Above all, the intensely partisan nature of the contemporary abortion issue hampers the development of good public policy by taking the abortion issue out of the normal process of bargaining and compromise that characterizes other issues. Where one party is pro-life and the other is pro-choice, there is no arena in which the two contending sides are forced to sit down and work out their differences. Rather, both sides cling to extreme positions, raising the stakes in presidential and congressional elections to unhealthy levels. Thus the nation would be better served on the abortion issue by a Democratic coalition that combined both pro-life and pro-choice elements. See full article at http://tinyurl.com/kw6dy
In recent weeks, however, progressive columnists and bloggers have begun to question the wisdom of nominating Casey to oppose Santorum. Casey, like his father, is unequivocally pro-life, which makes him unappealing to pro-choice Democrats who, it should be noted, provide a major source of campaign funds. Perhaps because he is pro-life, Casey recently took a public position in favor of the Alito Supreme Court nomination, saying that the objections raised against Alito were insufficient to warrant a no vote. Although Casey’s support for Alito was both qualified and reluctant, it nevertheless pitted him against Senate Democrats, who overwhelmingly opposed Alito’s nomination. A Casey win over Santorum in Pennsylvania would be good for the Democratic Party, however. The Democrats desperately need to shed their image as the pro-abortion party. Because this is such a high-profile race, and Casey is so strongly identified as pro-life, a Casey victory would show voters across the country that it is possible to be both a strong Democrat and pro-life.
The Democrats’ image as a pro-abortion party reflects their failure to behave like a real political party on this issue. American political parties have historically been moderate and inclusive, aggregating a wide variety of interests, offering at least something to almost all groups, and presenting themselves as speaking for all the people rather than for any one narrow interest. In so doing, the parties integrate interest groups into broad coalitions that are necessarily concerned with winning elections. When an interest group is fully integrated into a party’s coalition, it recognizes the need to temper its more extreme goals, subordinating its narrow objectives to the broader interest of the party in winning elections.
Above all, the intensely partisan nature of the contemporary abortion issue hampers the development of good public policy by taking the abortion issue out of the normal process of bargaining and compromise that characterizes other issues. Where one party is pro-life and the other is pro-choice, there is no arena in which the two contending sides are forced to sit down and work out their differences. Rather, both sides cling to extreme positions, raising the stakes in presidential and congressional elections to unhealthy levels. Thus the nation would be better served on the abortion issue by a Democratic coalition that combined both pro-life and pro-choice elements. See full article at http://tinyurl.com/kw6dy
Friday, March 10, 2006
Predatory pricing laws protect consumers
The Florida Times-Union reports that a front group for Wal-Mart known as the Coalition for Lower Gas Prices is pushing for repeal of a state law banning the practice of predatory pricing by gasoline retailers. http://tinyurl.com/phx4q A visit to the web site for the Coalition indicated a similar effort has been launched in Wisconsin to rescind a similar state law. Predatory pricing laws protect consumers because they help to assure fair competition. A huge corporation like Wal-Mart has the capability to destroy competitors by pricing certain products below cost and is then is free to raise prices once they control the market. Florida Governor Jeb Bush endorsed the Wal-Mart sponsored legislation introduced by State Senator Nancy Argenziano as an attempt to bring "the forces of the free market" to provide relief to Floridians at the gasoline pump. I agree that if enacted the law might temporarily give Florida residents a break from higher gas prices but what about the long term when a few gasoline retailers are able to destroy their competitors and dominate the market ? Of course, big business and free market idealogues like the Cato Insitute will argue that any government regulation is bad and predatory pricing laws hurt consumers. If the big business lobbies get their way, consumers are likely to pay less for a while and then have little choice but to accept higher prices later. http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/
Welcome Blue Dog Blog !
I would like to welcome the Blue Dog Blog to the blogosphere. This new blog is the result of a long time discussion with the Blue Dog Moderate Yahoo Group for a stronger web presence to make the voice of moderate and conservative Democrats heard. I plan to contribute to Blue Dog Blog from time to time and hope that other mainstream Democratic bloggers will consider doing so as well. Check out the Blue Dog Blog at http://bluedogdemocrat.org/blog/.
The DLC, the Moveonners and the Blue Dogs: Which direction for Democrats ?
The Democratic Leadership Council has some great policy ideas at times and I agree with the basic premise of their political strategy that Democrats must appeal to the vital center by stressing concern about national security and mainstream social values. I have no problem with adopting good ideas regardless of where they come from - the DLC or the Moveonner wing. That being said, I do strongly disagree with the DLC's continued support of free trade and alliance with big business interests generally. My vision for the Democratic Party is one of moderation on social issues (with an open door to a variety of social views) and economic populism.
Aligning ourselves with the Moveonner wing would have its problems as well. Modern day progressive Democrats are often out of touch with or contemptuous of mainstream values especially anything having to do with the traditional family, religious faith or patriotism. I can find a great deal of common ground with progressives in terms of an activist role by government, economic policy and support for organized labor, but find many would prefer to stress differences over a few social issues.
As for Blue Dogs, I think that many of us in the grassroots who indentify ourselves with the coalition are socially conservative to moderate combined with populist economic views. There are differing schools of thought among Blue Dogs though. Some Blue Dogs are of a more libertarian, Jeffersonian Democrat bent and others may be conservative or centrist across the board. Blue Dogs may be descendants of New Deal Democrats, Dixiecrats, Scoop Jackson Democrats, Prairie Populists and a number of other variations. Blue Dogs are diverse in terms of geography, socio-economic backgrounds, religion and race. Being a Blue Dog may represent more of a state of mind than any one political philosophy. Basically, we all agree that Democrats need to learn from past failures and find a way to connect with red America.
Welcome Blue Dog Blog !
I would like to welcome the Blue Dog Blog to the blogosphere. This new blog is the result of a long time discussion with the Blue Dog Moderate Yahoo Group for a stronger web presence to make the voice of moderate and conservative Democrats heard. I plan to contribute to Blue Dog Blog from time to time and hope that other mainstream Democratic bloggers will consider doing so as well. Check out the Blue Dog Blog at http://bluedogdemocrat.org/blog/.
The DLC, the Moveonners and the Blue Dogs: Which direction for Democrats ?
The Democratic Leadership Council has some great policy ideas at times and I agree with the basic premise of their political strategy that Democrats must appeal to the vital center by stressing concern about national security and mainstream social values. I have no problem with adopting good ideas regardless of where they come from - the DLC or the Moveonner wing. That being said, I do strongly disagree with the DLC's continued support of free trade and alliance with big business interests generally. My vision for the Democratic Party is one of moderation on social issues (with an open door to a variety of social views) and economic populism.
Aligning ourselves with the Moveonner wing would have its problems as well. Modern day progressive Democrats are often out of touch with or contemptuous of mainstream values especially anything having to do with the traditional family, religious faith or patriotism. I can find a great deal of common ground with progressives in terms of an activist role by government, economic policy and support for organized labor, but find many would prefer to stress differences over a few social issues.
As for Blue Dogs, I think that many of us in the grassroots who indentify ourselves with the coalition are socially conservative to moderate combined with populist economic views. There are differing schools of thought among Blue Dogs though. Some Blue Dogs are of a more libertarian, Jeffersonian Democrat bent and others may be conservative or centrist across the board. Blue Dogs may be descendants of New Deal Democrats, Dixiecrats, Scoop Jackson Democrats, Prairie Populists and a number of other variations. Blue Dogs are diverse in terms of geography, socio-economic backgrounds, religion and race. Being a Blue Dog may represent more of a state of mind than any one political philosophy. Basically, we all agree that Democrats need to learn from past failures and find a way to connect with red America.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
How Democrats can take the lead on national security
I strongly differ with Andrew Sullivan on the issue of same sex marriage, but do admire his intellect. Sullivan has a column in the UK Sunday Times which is a must read for every concerned Democrat. The openly gay columnist shows some remarkably straight thinking in terms of some critical issues and U.S. voter opinion. Sullivan does manage to fit in some elitist condescension toward populist "xenophobes." I don't think that most of us who are concerned about illegal immigration are xenophobes but at least Sullivan gets it right that the American public will not stand for more double talk about our insecure borders. He points out the Bush Administration's failures and how Democrats could now take the lead of national security issues. Here is the strategy that Sullivan advocates: "Could a Democrat outmanoeuvre Bush? Think of this as a possible campaign platform: get our troops out of Iraq and Arabs out of our ports. Stop the corporate power structure from depressing American wages and enforce real border control. Invest in energy independence and get the oil from Canada. Bring our boys home and keep our borders safe." Sullivan suggests (in somewhat more crude terms) with that approach we could say the heck with the Saudis and their Bush friends. See link to the Sunday Times column at http://tinyurl.com/lsq9k.
Michelman may be spoiler in Pennsylvania Senate race
Here is some sickening news from Pennsylvania. The Pittsburgh News-Gazette reports that NAARL founder Kate Michelman is considering a independent candidacy for U.S. Senator in Pennsylvania. Michelman's goal is clearly to undermine the campaign of pro-life and pro-gun rights Democrat Bob Casey who currently has a decisive lead over incumbent Republican Senator Rick Santorum in all polls. The grinch who would steal the Senate seat from Casey would no doubt prefer a right-wing Republican over a centrist Democrat with some traditional social values. Sadly, Kate "The Grinch" Michelman could quite possibly pull enough left of center Democratic votes away from Casey to re-elect Rick Santorum to the Senate. If that happens it will be a real tragedy as Bob Casey is one of the most solid mainstream Democrats in public life and a rising star in the party. And Karl Rove will no doubt thank Michelman for her "in kind" contribution to the Republican Party.
Is the evangelical Christian alliance with Republicans weakening ?
Check out this link to a Washington Monthly article about evangelical Christians leaving the Republican Party http://tinyurl.com/omn5u. A growing number of evangelicals are figuring out that the GOP could care less about moral values and really worships at the altar of big business. The question is can the Democratic Party win them over and of course, many of the rabid social left secular types don't even want to try.
Michelman may be spoiler in Pennsylvania Senate race
Here is some sickening news from Pennsylvania. The Pittsburgh News-Gazette reports that NAARL founder Kate Michelman is considering a independent candidacy for U.S. Senator in Pennsylvania. Michelman's goal is clearly to undermine the campaign of pro-life and pro-gun rights Democrat Bob Casey who currently has a decisive lead over incumbent Republican Senator Rick Santorum in all polls. The grinch who would steal the Senate seat from Casey would no doubt prefer a right-wing Republican over a centrist Democrat with some traditional social values. Sadly, Kate "The Grinch" Michelman could quite possibly pull enough left of center Democratic votes away from Casey to re-elect Rick Santorum to the Senate. If that happens it will be a real tragedy as Bob Casey is one of the most solid mainstream Democrats in public life and a rising star in the party. And Karl Rove will no doubt thank Michelman for her "in kind" contribution to the Republican Party.
Is the evangelical Christian alliance with Republicans weakening ?
Check out this link to a Washington Monthly article about evangelical Christians leaving the Republican Party http://tinyurl.com/omn5u. A growing number of evangelicals are figuring out that the GOP could care less about moral values and really worships at the altar of big business. The question is can the Democratic Party win them over and of course, many of the rabid social left secular types don't even want to try.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Finding the mainstream on abortion
South Dakota and Mississippi are states that appear to be on the verge of enacting laws that will ban abortion except to save the life of the mother. Since abortion rights has been the law of the land since Roe v. Wade, implementation of these proposed state laws are an obvious challenge to the 1973 ruling widely viewed as vulnerable due to the rightward shift of the U.S. Supreme Court. For many years, I have advocated more restrictive abortion laws. In general, my views lean far more in the pro-life direction than in support of the pro-choice position. Still, I am concerned that the rigid insistence of pro-life activists that no exceptions be granted in cases of rape and incest is likely put right-to-lifers in the same kind of unreasonable appearing stance as pro-choice activists who have vigorously defended late term abortion. Just as the pro-choicers have been caught looking ridiculous in advocating the infanticide of partial birth abortion, pro-lifers are likely to scare the daylights out of many women not to mention fathers and husbands who can imagine their wife or daughter experiencing the trauma of a sexual assault and then being compelled to carry a rapist's child to term.
The reality is that most Americans are still mildly pro-choice, but also happen to favor more restrictive laws on abortion. A significant block of individuals are probably equally turned off by pro-choice and pro-life extremism. A majority of Americans favor legal first trimester abortions while opposing government funding of the procedure, late term abortion and supporting parental notification. Perhaps in time, public opinion will shift further in the direction of favoring greater protection of the unborn but has yet to become a reality. Even a reversal of Roe v. Wade is unlikely to make abortion illegal in most states. Attempts to pass laws prohibiting abortion that would in effect require a woman to carry the child of a rapist simply will not pass the test of public support even in most red states. Believe me, there will be a backlash against efforts to pass such restrictive abortion laws that could overshadow much of the progress that has been made in moving public opinion in a more pro-life direction. Absolutism may work fine in the realm of moral theology but politics and law making sometimes requires compromise and common sense. A civilized society has the right to establish moral guidelines and to make reasonable exceptions to those rules as well. The pro-life movement might want to keep in mind that changing hearts and minds is more likely to acheive the desired result of discouraging abortion than just passing laws.
News Update: Baptist Press reports that the Mississippi House of Representatives has passed a bill banning abortion which includes rape and incest exceptions as well as saving the life of the mother. The original Mississippi House bill did not contain the rape and incest exceptions . Some pro-life leaders will continue to urge Mississippi State Senators to pass a different version of the bill excluding the rape and incest provisions. If that happens, the conflicting language would then have to be resolved in a House-Senate conference committee. See BP Press article at http://tinyurl.com/h6wqv
Democrats and Illegal Immigration
Creators Syndicate columnist Farah Harrop wrote an excellent column a few months ago calling for the revival of the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party - something that is certainly needed in an era of concern about national security and the threat of terrorism. Harrop has just given some more valuable advice to Democrats which needs to be heeded. Democrats are missing a golden opportunity to gain support from working families concerned about the impact of illegal immigration on national security, wages and public services. The politically correct left fails to distinguish between legal immigration and the invasion of illegal aliens - this is insanity and must not be accepted if we are survive as a nation. Democrats should oppose the cheap labor lobby which is driving down already low wages for unskilled workers.
See link to Harrop column at http://tinyurl.com/ofjg6
The Republican health care plan = Don't get sick !
The Democratic Leadership Council points out the deceitful and mean spirited attempts of the Bush Administration to destroy access to health care for America's workers. I am so sick and hearing Republican propaganda about how health savings accounts and high deductible insurance policies are the solution to America's health care crisis. If anything, health savings accounts will undermine the insurance concept of spreading around the risk and take young, healthy and upscale individuals out of the group insurance pool.
Bush and the Republican leadership could care less about the health and well-being of America's working families. See link to the DLC New Dem Dispatch article: http://tinyurl.com/js2vx.
The Progressive Policy Insitute also has some excellent ideas in the New Dem Dispatch concerning how to improve our health care system at http://tinyurl.com/g2thg.
Are Democrats becoming more religion friendly ?
World Magazine, an evangelical-oriented news publication, put their spin on Democrats and religious voters on the front cover this week. Democrats and evangelical Christians need to talk more often.Taking a hard-line secularist approach certainly has not worked well for Democrats. A generation ago, Democrats had both evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics solidly in our corner. The defection of religious voters was a significant factor in losing majority party status. And I think that the cause of Christianity is probably weakened in the long run by being so closely identified with only one political party or ideology. In too many evangelical churches today, one might get the idea that you must embrace Republicanism to become a Christian. Link to the World Magazine article http://tinyurl.com/n5ls3
The reality is that most Americans are still mildly pro-choice, but also happen to favor more restrictive laws on abortion. A significant block of individuals are probably equally turned off by pro-choice and pro-life extremism. A majority of Americans favor legal first trimester abortions while opposing government funding of the procedure, late term abortion and supporting parental notification. Perhaps in time, public opinion will shift further in the direction of favoring greater protection of the unborn but has yet to become a reality. Even a reversal of Roe v. Wade is unlikely to make abortion illegal in most states. Attempts to pass laws prohibiting abortion that would in effect require a woman to carry the child of a rapist simply will not pass the test of public support even in most red states. Believe me, there will be a backlash against efforts to pass such restrictive abortion laws that could overshadow much of the progress that has been made in moving public opinion in a more pro-life direction. Absolutism may work fine in the realm of moral theology but politics and law making sometimes requires compromise and common sense. A civilized society has the right to establish moral guidelines and to make reasonable exceptions to those rules as well. The pro-life movement might want to keep in mind that changing hearts and minds is more likely to acheive the desired result of discouraging abortion than just passing laws.
News Update: Baptist Press reports that the Mississippi House of Representatives has passed a bill banning abortion which includes rape and incest exceptions as well as saving the life of the mother. The original Mississippi House bill did not contain the rape and incest exceptions . Some pro-life leaders will continue to urge Mississippi State Senators to pass a different version of the bill excluding the rape and incest provisions. If that happens, the conflicting language would then have to be resolved in a House-Senate conference committee. See BP Press article at http://tinyurl.com/h6wqv
Democrats and Illegal Immigration
Creators Syndicate columnist Farah Harrop wrote an excellent column a few months ago calling for the revival of the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party - something that is certainly needed in an era of concern about national security and the threat of terrorism. Harrop has just given some more valuable advice to Democrats which needs to be heeded. Democrats are missing a golden opportunity to gain support from working families concerned about the impact of illegal immigration on national security, wages and public services. The politically correct left fails to distinguish between legal immigration and the invasion of illegal aliens - this is insanity and must not be accepted if we are survive as a nation. Democrats should oppose the cheap labor lobby which is driving down already low wages for unskilled workers.
See link to Harrop column at http://tinyurl.com/ofjg6
The Republican health care plan = Don't get sick !
The Democratic Leadership Council points out the deceitful and mean spirited attempts of the Bush Administration to destroy access to health care for America's workers. I am so sick and hearing Republican propaganda about how health savings accounts and high deductible insurance policies are the solution to America's health care crisis. If anything, health savings accounts will undermine the insurance concept of spreading around the risk and take young, healthy and upscale individuals out of the group insurance pool.
Bush and the Republican leadership could care less about the health and well-being of America's working families. See link to the DLC New Dem Dispatch article: http://tinyurl.com/js2vx.
The Progressive Policy Insitute also has some excellent ideas in the New Dem Dispatch concerning how to improve our health care system at http://tinyurl.com/g2thg.
Are Democrats becoming more religion friendly ?
World Magazine, an evangelical-oriented news publication, put their spin on Democrats and religious voters on the front cover this week. Democrats and evangelical Christians need to talk more often.Taking a hard-line secularist approach certainly has not worked well for Democrats. A generation ago, Democrats had both evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics solidly in our corner. The defection of religious voters was a significant factor in losing majority party status. And I think that the cause of Christianity is probably weakened in the long run by being so closely identified with only one political party or ideology. In too many evangelical churches today, one might get the idea that you must embrace Republicanism to become a Christian. Link to the World Magazine article http://tinyurl.com/n5ls3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
