February 22, 2006
From the desk of Jane Galt:Is the left out of ideas?
That gets batted around every so often, and it (understandably) enrages liberals. And yet, it seems to me that there's a kernel of truth there. Not in the literal sense: liberals do not vote Green or Democrat just because they like the logos. But the left, as a movement, does not have any very coherent Big Idea that it can sell. The Movement doesn't agree on much, except that it hates George Bush. Orwell to the contrary, hate does not sell particularly well in American politics.1 Fear . . . now, fear sells. But only if it's at least quasi-believable, which, to the vast swath of the American public, "George Bush is planning to lynch minorities and put everyone else in illegal detention camps" doesn't. Fear only works if the majority of American voters believe that whatever they are supposed to fear will happen to them, not some comfortably anonymous nobody in a far-off state.
Conservatives have a few things that pretty much all of them can agree on: the lower taxes are, the better; government programmes and regulations often create more problems than they solve; keep your damn hands off our guns. Pretty much everyone from the Libertarians to James Dobson and Co. can get behind this platform, and sell it to the American public. You can even add "The US military should be able to kick the [expletive deleted] of anyone who threatens us in any way" and keep all but the most hard-core Libertarians. I'm sure there are a couple of other things you could throw in, and still get a platform that is reasonably large, coherent, and agreeable to not only pretty much the entire conservative movement, but a fair number of moderates besides. There are lots--LOTS--of things that the conservatives disagree on, from gay marriage to flag burning. But there are enough that the conservative movement can craft a mission statement and sell it to America.
What's the liberal Big Idea? Raise taxes? I'd say pretty much all the liberals I know are for that . . . but raising taxes, even "raising taxes on the rich", is not an ends, but a means, unless you're the kind of emotional toddler who wants to take other people's things away just because you can't have them. And the left (into which I throw moderate Democrats, just as I'll throw moderate Republicans on the right) does not agree what it wants to do with the taxes it raises. The DLC types (and swing voters) want to close the budget deficit in a (IMHO futile) attempt to build the Clinton legacy. The left-liberals want a big government health care programme, and other sorts of Great Society style social programmes. The far left wants . . . ohhh, a lot of things, but they're not going to get any of them, so that hardly seems relevant.
Kerry tried to gloss over this issue by promising both things, but this promise made no sense, and the American public, who are not quite the drooling morons that frustrated centre-left journalists like to imagine, could tell that it made no sense. He tried to paper over huge differences over Iraq by waffling like mad on whether he was for or against it, which only succeeded in alienating some moderates. Commentators at the time blamed Kerry, and while some of his straddles were pointless, and nonsensical2, I suspect many more of them were institutional; Kerry was simply unable to take a coherent position on many issues because doing so would alienate one or the other of the party's major interest groups.
The positions he did take were wonkish, replete with technical detailery designed to obscure the costs or the decidedly modest benefits such programs would produce. 99% of the people who read all of these wonderful plans on his website had already decided to vote for Mr Kerry, and 99% of the rest were journalists like me who had to read them so that we could summarise his campaign platform in 200 words. And I, who have read them, can testify that they were tedious and completely immune to the kind of easy sound-biteization that makes for a good campaign. That left Kerry with "I've served in Vietnam, and George Bush sucks weasels!" which was a lot less compelling than it undoubtedly sounded when his campaign advisors were brainstorming it. When he did talk about policy, it came out as "I'm going to do a lot of good stuff. To be sure, I can't tell you what it is, because that would take too long. But it'll be good, I promise." Except for health care, which I suspect sounded to anyone who already has insurance like an expensive boondoggle, his plans were modest tinkering that would, at best, produce largely undetectable results. So, for that matter, were Mr Bush's tax cuts, which produced modest economic benefits, if any. But tax cuts sounded big. Better pre-K education didn't.
Democrats have been blaming the candidates: the wooden Gore, the hapless Kerry. But it seems to me that the problem is that the fissures on the left are so deep that it takes a political genius like Clinton, who zeroed in on symbolic wedge issues with the daring precision of a World War II ace, to cover over them long enough to get elected. Neither Gore nor Kerry were particularly good candidates, to be sure, but it's not like George Bush is a stunning rhetorician or a dazzling political strategist. His main skills (and weaknesses) lie in dogged determination and keen administrative abilities. Yet he defeated Al Gore, who should have walked all over Bush, given that he was running as the incumbent's successor in the sunset year of America's longest postwar economic expansion. Kerry couldn't beat Bush even though the guy had been caught in bed with a naked economic recession, suffered through a subsequent jobless recovery, and got the country into an enormously expensive, and prolonged, conflict in Iraq. Is that really a problem of the candidates, or the party?
The left used to have a Big Idea: The free market doesn't work, so the government will fix it. The social democrats disagreed with the Socialists and the Scoop Jackson democrats about how much fixing was necessary, but they all agreed on a basic premise, and could sell that simple message to the public. Then, after fifty years or so, people noticed that the government didn't seem to work any better than the free market . . . worse, actually, in a lot of cases . . . and it was awfully expensive and surly. Conservatives stepped in with their Big Idea: the government screws things up, so let's leave more stuff up to individuals, which, if nothing else, will be a lot cheaper. Obviously, liberals disagree with this . . . but they have not come up with a Big, Easily Sellable, Idea With Obvious Policy Prescriptions to replace it. Some of them have just kept repeating the old Big Idea, which it seems to me that fewer and fewer people believe, as the US continues to pull ahead of its economic peers. Others have focused on coming up with lots of little ideas . . . but those take up too much time and energy to attract voters. Gore tried to whang up anger against pharmaceutical companies, and Kerry tried to stoke anger against Bush, as replacement. But in politics, there's just no replacement for the Big Idea.
1 Negative ads work, of course. But they work by telling the audience something specific about the opposing candidate that they did not previously know (often because it is not true). Few candidates get elected on the platform of "My opponent is a big, fat poopyhead"--not even when that opponent is James Earl Carter.
2 My favourite moment in the debates came at the "town hall" style one, where Kerry told a pro-life questioner that while he personally agreed with her that abortion was murder, he couldn't legislate his morality. Pro-choice readers should substitute the words "lynching" for "abortion" and see if this position would overcome their reluctance to vote for a Dixiecrat3.
3 No, I am not comparing abortion to lynching. I'm simply pointing out that if you think abortion is murder, being told that someone agrees with you that it is murder--i.e., the deliberate taking of a human life, but has no plans to do anything about it because that would be "legislating his personal morality" is unlikely to endear him to you as a candidate.
Posted by Jane Galt at February 22, 2006 12:00 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksAn excellent post in so many ways, not the least of which is your footnote about Kerry's remark on abortion. Really well put. I too thought this was a telling moment in the campaign, and when a friend told me how 'brilliant' Kerry was, I reminded her of that qoute. W may be a plodding thinker, but I believe he thinks through issues carefully and would never make such a glib and illogical statement.
Excellent post!
My only quibble is to point out that the current batch of Republicans seem to swinging far, far away from the "less is more" philosophy. Steel tarriffs, sugar quotas, farm subsidies, a truly embarrasing pharma plan, etc. I realize that, in some cases, the Bush admin is simply perpetuating legacy issues, but they actually seem to be proud of what they are doing.
I think that, secretly, a lot of the current Republicans want the U.S. to be Singapore. (In the short run, they will settle for getting re-elected).
Doug (A Republican)
My quibble is that Clinton was not artful. 43% in 92 and 49% in 96. Perot did in the Republicans. And neither party has learned what that meant.
I absolutely agree with the previous poster about the Kerry quote. That was exceptionally insightful.
Interestingly enough, as a Democrat myself, I have no interest in raising taxes. My interest is a little fiscal responsibility, which includes not lowering taxes and then spending more. At this point I feel the democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility (even you only credit Clinton with not using the surplus to build the "[I can't remember the quote and I can't find it quickly on the site but it was something like the William Jefferson Clinton Memorial think-tank for nice stuff and the like]" . Unfortunately, a little fiscal responsibility requires a little bit of tax "raising" right now...even you admit that Jane.
Essentially the problem is that Dems say, "We want to do this little program, and this little program, and this little program, and these three huge programs..." without any cohesive way to pay for any of them. Or, even if they do have a solid plan of how to finance it, who the hell wants to read all about it? Ick.
In the meantime the current the Republican plan seems to be lower taxes irresponsibly (you talked about that yourself Jane), pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and, when all that fails and we have terrible deficits, we're going to scare you with a three year old terror warning. That, compounded with the desire to appease social conservatives scares the crap out of me.
You’re right, the Democrats are no longer the party of big ideas. Big the Republican’s big ideas are terrible ones. I personally would prefer no ideas to bad ones. That’s why I’m voting for Democrats in the midterm elections.
(I also live in New York City so it wouldn’t matter if I voted for Republicans since they’re not getting elected anyway).
I think I hurt myself laughing at your end notes. I think the Left could construct a position as coherent as the Right's without alienating too much of their constituency. Universal health care, protect the environment, protect people from rapacious businesses. I think the problem they run into is more that there is greater suspicion of government power now. A number of people look at the government and don't see FDR trying to pull the U.S. out of Depression, they see Patty and Selma at the DMV.
Another Republican "Big Idea" is "Let the voters and their elected representatives control government policy, not activist Federal judges."
I'm not sure the Democrats really understand just how popular that one is with voters.
One of the things that interests me about Kate's post (though I myself don't have much time for the present crop of Republicans' penchant for drunken-sailor style spending) is the way it points up that *both* parties are essentially fearmongering.
Are the Republicans exploiting the terror attacks and the possibility of more of them for all they're worth? Most definitely! But the Democrats have been telling the country, for years now, that if Republicans get elected, they're going to destroy the economy, wreck the health care infrastructure, take the vote from women, and turn the country into Iran with a cross instead of a crescent. There is a strong current of fearmongering in Democratic politics today.
Now, that may work in some parts of the country, but most people know some Republicans, and most of them are reasonable, ordinary folk. Scaring voters with someone outside the country works a lot better than scaring them with their fellow citizens.
Jack,
Perot might have cost Bush the 1992 election, but he didn't cost Dole the election in 1996. Clinton had 250 of the 270 votes he needed from states he would have won even if 100% of Perot voters had voted for Dole instead. He also had a large enough margin in Pennsylvania (with 23 electoral votes -- more than enough to win the national election) that he would have won that state too provided that either (a) 1 out of 20 Perot voters voted for him instead of Dole or (b) 17% of Perot voters had stayed home instead of voting for either candidate. Given that most of Perot's support came from people who disliked both candidates and people who were otherwise disinclined to vote at all, it seems certain that one or both conditions would have applied. Ergo, it is virtually certain that Perot wasn't a deciding factor in 1996.
Absolutely agreed cwp. Although I'm not scared of REPUBLICANS per se (some of my best friends...oh hell, you know). However, what if the Democrats fearmongering is actually correct? I have to say Alito kind of scares the bejeezus outa me (Roberts not so much), the Deficits make me exceptionally nervous, and I think the mess in Iraq made things less safe. What if my fear is justified?
However, what if the Democrats fearmongering is actually correct?
It doesn't matter if it is correct, it just matters if you can convince people it is correct. Given that Republicans have controlled the government for five years and we're doing just fine, it is hard to convince the average person that Republican control of the government will inevitably lead to dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria, etc.
Maybe Alito scares you. I assure you he bores almost everybody else. :)
The danger of using the other major party as your target of fear mongering is that they most likely will win at some point and it is highly unlikely that your predictions of utter doom will come true.
The worse part for the Dems fear mongering is that they have borne out the past domestic fear mongering of the Republicans. However much you like McCarthy et al. there really were lots of communists in Hollywood and the State Department, Jimmy Carter really couldn't be trusted with national security, Welfare did lead to horrible social consequences, and we now have gay marriage with quick progress toward polygamy.
The problem that the left has is that they fear monger about things that are just simply unbelievable. If Libertarians controlled the government and cut back social spending, peopel would not be dying in the streets by the millions, nor would we see some feminist dystopian future ala Handmaid's Tale if the socons win.
But then, any party that wants to take people's money because they know how to spend it better, know how to raise your children better, know how to care for your parents/grandparents better, doesn't believe in prisons, police, or self defence just isn't going to get people on side.
It is notable how carefully Jane had to phrase her comment on a conservative position on the size of government. Bush and the Republicans in Congress seem politcally astute to me and they clearly have chosen not to run on smaller government. Nor is cutting taxes without cutting spending a real policy option. Finally Bush promised to extend the ban on assault weapons in his 2000 campaign.
On the flip side, it is not at all clear to me that there is significant conservative disagreement on gay marriage. Republicans in general seem quite happy to run on it. Likewise flag-burning. Maybe Jane disagrees with the Republican base on this, but I have seen no sign the base is splintered on those issues.
In terms of unifying themes for the parties, I would offer up the environment and abortion. Likewise, I think the parties differ on how to handle the health care mess. The conservative position is to control demand by reducing the moral hazard of insurance. The liberal emphasis would be on using government more (e.g. the federal government negotiating drug prices). Degree of concern for the views of other countries could also differentiate many liberals from conservatives.
In general, though, I do think the scope of policy differences has become smaller.
Tom
To satisfy the Randian apologists for selfishness apparently so prevalent amongst us, perhaps we Americans should give NO government a test drive. Yup. Dissolve the whole enterprise. After all, Somalia seems still to exist on the map and by the accounts of the few journalists willing to brave the ordered chaos of Mogadishu, there are some "bold" capitalists and confident warlords who are doing just fine out of it.
Nothing beats a bout of real anarchy to make folks of all political persuasions pine for the predictable but ordered waste of the rule of law by a benign if indifferent central authority.
I was taking your post seriously (sorta) until you described Bush as having "keen administrative abilities."
Then I started laughing and quit reading.
I do like to read new and stimulating ideas but I ask for some relation to reality.
"A number of people look at the government and don't see FDR trying to pull the U.S. out of Depression, they see Patty and Selma at the DMV."
And some of us see FDR trying and failing to pull the U.S. out of Depression. And Patty and Selma at the DMV. And a whole lot more.
Hmmm... I don't think the fear mongering has been truly that misplaced.
In 2000, I feared that GWB tax giveaways would destroy our country's fiscal situation. In 2003 I fearde GWB's insistence on invading Iraq would end in disaster. Those fears have come true, and then some.
At this point, the "Big Idea" that Democrats (and all reasonable people, if that's not being redundant) should be stopping the bleeding caused by Bush and the Republican congress/senate.
As a Bush supporter, I tend to believe in his 'keen administrative abilities.' [I am not being facetious.] I have a few in mind, but I sure would like to hear Jane's thoughts on that one.
As for the left's big idea, here's my (idealized) version: "Let's use the government to help out the little guy." Whether or not this actually happens is a different story.
The left isn't out of ideas, just go listen or read them talking amongst themselves.
In fact, their only problem is that they're not left/progressive enough to motivate that 10.5% of their base that's just been sitting home not voting because they're not inspired.
"..Conservatives have a few things that pretty much all of them can agree on: the lower taxes are, the better; government programmes and regulations often create more problems than they solve; keep your damn hands off our guns."
Who let PJ O'Rourke in here tonight, huh?
"In 2000, I feared that GWB tax giveaways would destroy our country's fiscal situation. In 2003 I fearde GWB's insistence on invading Iraq would end in disaster. Those fears have come true, and then some."
How is our financial situation "destroyed"? The economy has been surprisingly strong, particularly given the mess that Clinton left (the bubble, Enron, etc.).
And as for the invasion of Iraq ending in disaster, it obviously hasn't ended yet (isn't that a key liberal complaint?). So far, it's going as well as any reasonable person might expect - the Iraqis are getting a chance to build a future and to leave their children better lives and more hope than in any other country in the region. There's a lot of work still to be done, and it could still go wrong, but progress is being made. Do you really begrudge the Iraqis (and others in the region) a chance at a better life?
Wallster's overall "big idea" is pretty much what Jane said - "let's all hate Bush!"
I don't see how Iraq could be considered a disaster. It has exceded my expectations in most respects. I didn't expect the insurgency to be so strong at this point. Everything else is as good or better than I expected. We could be doing a better job managing reconstruction money and have programs that get coalition and Iraqi's working side-by-side on projects more.
Ann says this recovery-expansion has been surprisingly strong. Where do you get your data from. Real gdp this recovery has increased only about two -thirds of the historic norm. Yeah, we had to give up the great era of peace and prosperity under Clinton.
The Republicans new idea is the same one they have had since the new deal -- big government does not work.
but every economic standard shows that the period 1950 -1980 was one of the greatest era of prosperity and well being in economic history.
the republicans have run on the same platform since 1980 that there tax cuts would generate greater prosperity. But it just has not worked.
In the supposed Reagan boom real gdp growth was about the historic norm and I've already shown that under bush is has been decidedly subpar.
all the republicans have acheived since 1980 is to shift the US from the worlds largest creditor to the worlds largest debtor.
the democrats do not need a new idea, all they need is to contiinue implementing the ones that created the greatest prosperity in history.
Just to cite some facts, even though I know you will never be influenced by them.
the "supply -side" or trickle down tax cuts were suppose to generate greater investments and savings.
but nonresidential fixed investment --- capital spending -- peaked at 14% of gdp under Carter.
It fell throughout the Reagan admin and bottomed at 10% of GDP just before Clinton took office.
It rebounded to 13% of gdp under clinton before falling back to under 10% under Bush II.
On the other side, the personal savings rate was 15% before Reagan implemented supply-side tax cuts targeted at increasing savings. But the personal savings rate is now negative.
If these are how the great repubulican ideas work, heaven help us.
OK, Spencer, let's approach this from my viewpoint. I am paying more in taxes and seeing more of my tax money spent on things that don't impact me or appear to benefit me at all. Is it too much to ask for government to be held accountable for results?
The failed welfare policies created generations of people who think that government's main job is to care for them as opposed to enabling them to care for themselves. Drugs on the streets, illegal handguns, high murder rates among big-city teenage males, feelings of victimization and entitlement, etc. were all made much worse by the previous welfare policies.
Repubs big idea: people help themselves.
Dems big idea: government helps people.
There's a basic dichotomy there in that it's a zero sum game. (Increasing one decreases the other and vice versa.) Most people (me included) support a bit of both, but for me as well as for most libertarian types, I lean more to people helping themselves. Where you fall on this spectrum can aid in identifying whether you are a liberal or conservative, and how much of one.
The economic period between 1950-1980 was quite, good, but that is almost solely because of the 1950-1970 portion. 1970-1980 cannot under any reasonable analysis be considered a good economic period.
The supply side argument was not that a decrease in tax rates would increase the savings rate, it was that by increasing the value of work individuals would work more.
What they do with additional funds after they are earned is another question.
I have several really close friends that are feverish Dem supporters. By close, I mean that we're close enough that we talk about taxes and what strategies to employ to lower them as much as possible.
Now, they rail against the tax cuts. And yet they try to reduce their taxes as much as possible.
I never get that. I don't mean to cry hipocrisy. I would think that the basic GOP message would appeal to them. After all, they are trying to reduce their taxes. Why not vote for the party that (at least nominally) is supposed to reduce them (and yes, expenditures too, but we know how that one went)? ? ?
Actually, real gdp growth was almost exactly the same in the 1970s as in the 1980s. employment growth was actually stronger in the 1970s then in the 1980s
This is fun.
average real per capita income growth;
1960-1980 == 2.9%
1980-1992 = 1.7% (Reagan- Bush I)
1993-2000 =2.9% (clinton)
2001 - 2004 = 0.8% (bush II)
Rex -- You claim you are paying more in taxes,
How do you manage that? I mean, t the Republican have been cutting tax rates sharply for years.
Didn't you get ypur tax cut?
Rex, the only President to reduce the size of government was Clinton. Moreover, while republican politician after politican makes speech after speech about welfare queens and in support of the argument you are making, President Clinton actually did something about it. He actually reformed welfare and massively cut the welfare role.
clinton did what you claim you want government to do.
Name me one republican that has actually done something to cut welfare. If they did they would lose their ability to rant and rave and fool people like you about it.
In 1993 Milton Freedman wrote an interesting article about how it was not just government taxes and spending that impacted the economy.
He used the number of pages in the Federal Registery to demonstrate how government rules and regulation keep growing and have a big
indirect impact on the economy.
I just updated his study and the number of pages in the Federal registery has been growing at a 10% rate under Bush II -- nearly double the long term record.
I guess this is just another republican idea of how to give the american people more freedom and get the government off their backs.
spencer,
"Name me one republican that has actually done something to cut welfare. If they did they would lose their ability to rant and rave and fool people like you about it."
Remember, Clinton only signed the welfare reform bill after vetoing it once. The impetus was the success at the poll of the "Contract w/America".
But, if you are trying to say that a Dem has done a better job implementing a GOP agenda than many GOP leaders, you might be right. But, then you are agreeing that cutting gvt is the right way to go, but arguing only about who is better at doing it.
Are you saying than that the left does has one idea? "We'll implement the right's ideas better" ?
So here is the problem as I see it.
Democratic Platform: If You Give A Man A Fish, You Feed Him For a Day!
Republican Platform: Stay the Hell Away from My Fish!
What I think most reasonable people would like to see: Teach A Man To Fish and You'll Feed Him for a Year.
This is compunded by the following problems.
Real Democratic Platform: Well, you can't have all my fish, but maybe if I give you some money you'll go away.
Real Republican Platform: Here is a whole bunch of my fish, and now I'm going to bitch about it.
Of course we still can't manage to teach any of these people to fish. Just like on Survivor.
Any thoughts?
The left has plenty of big ideas, all of which violate individual rights. Individual liberty is the founding idea of this nation, not the bullying of the unpopular that is the basis of majoritarian democracy. This is the source of their trouble.
At least half of the electorate is confused about this, which is why our attempts to export liberal democracy are so clumsy: we cannot promote freedom by promoting democracy, which has no defense against, for example, the establishment of an Islamic state by democratic vote.
Kate,
I have to say Alito kind of scares the bejeezus outa me
To paraphrase Herb Gardner, in general you need better nightmares.
Another way to look at this, though, is to congratulate you--if your life is going so splendid that Alito is the biggest of your worries... then I guess 99.999999% of the world would love to trade places with you!
What I mean is that I can acknowledge that, even though I vote for GOP candidates, they have often been disappointing in action and have not lived up to what they claim to they will do as far as reducing taxes and spending. But, at least that is the prommise. No one else is making that promise, so what do you do?
What I don't get is when Dem supporters will try to reduce their taxes while voting for their Candidates. It just doesn't make sense...
Dearest Jane:
The left may be out of ideas, or at least ones that resonate with the public, but it does nothing to slow down their taste for recycling bad ideas into ones that are worse by comparison. Yet, and this is no great surprise, the right fails to capitalize in the manner in which a unified body ought.
It's not that the Dems don't have ideas it's just that they're stuck in the 60's. More big gov't nanny statism and identity politics from the 60's. Like the big 3 they need to figure out why America ain't buying.
'Name me one republican that has actually done something to cut welfare. '
Bill Weld and George Pataki for 2.
joshK -- it is not who is doing a better job of cutting govt, it is about who is being honest,
the republicans keep running on the same idea of cutting govt and not doing anything about it.
At least the democrats are honest and are not treating people like you as suckers while the big wigs line their pockets and leave the rest of us to pick up the bill.
Most of the Democrats I know (and I used to count myself as one) seem to vote with their emotions and not their logic. They see people dying in a war, they want to stop the war. It doesn't matter if stopping the war will cause more people to die indirectly, they can't see those people, hence no or at least less, guilt.
Same for welfare, "Look at all those people out of work and starving to death, don't you want to help them? Don't you have compassion?" It doesn't matter that the current welfare system may just make things worse.
Another example is nuclear power. Most democrat's objections boil down to the fact that nuclear waste is a big bad bogeyman and we should be scared and do our best to never look under the bed. However, examining the facts hasn't really occurred to them. They have righteous indignation on their side, who needs facts?
One of the best examples? Economics. Try to get the average democratic candidate to explain even something like the broken window fallacy and you'll get a blank stare. (I have no data on the average republican candidate as I've never had the opportunity to sit and chat with them or seen such a question asked in an interview.)
Having the facts gets in the way of emotional superiority. Democrats seem to feel a lot of empathy and want to do something to help. Even if that something doesn't really help they can still feel as though they are doing something to better the world. That is a powerful feeling. I liken the response to someone baking you a casserole when a spouse dies. It really doesn't help, it really isn't related, but it allows the other person to feel as though they are doing something to help.
Kirk Parker --
I never said Alito was the scariest thing ever. I just used him as an example. There are dozens of things which scare me more than Alito, starting with airplane take-offs (I don't mind the flying, just the take-off), rats, and going right up through our government outing an active CIA operative because they were pissed at her husband (if that did indeed happen).
> going right up through our government outing an active CIA operative because they were pissed at her husband (if that did indeed happen).
How about outing active intelligence or covert operations?
Is the outrage at harming secret operations or going after a political opponent (if that's what actually happened)?
MarkS,
Facts, or dearth of them, apparently hasn't stopped you from tarring leftists / Democrats / liberals with a bunch of psychobabble.
What's you're preferred response in the case of death ? The ultimate realist approach of, "Tough sh**, we all die sometime," or something more realistically productive like offering to sleep over in the widow's bed - she'll be cold, after all, sleeping alone like that.
As for Jane's question of the day, big ideas like racial equality have much of the hard work in the past. I acknowledge that we liberals don't have nifty idea-bites to rouse the faithful (or attract the uncommited), but the world's not a nifty idea-bite place.
Save my guns might swing the votes, but does it really address any real problem we face today ?
Cheers,
The problem with the Left is that having been the dominant ideology of the 20th century they now represent the established institutions they built during their ascendancy . Now they are the true political conservatives. They fight to maintain the status quo in social security, education, labor law, etc. They can't offer truly new ideas because any new idea will destroy some existing institution on which they rely for their power base. As a result they are conceptually paralyzed. Any new idea will gore someone's ox.
The Left can't get traction because few people in the 21st century really believe that just because something worked in 1950 it will work 2010. Heck look at Social Security. It is the official position of the democratic party that the same basic program laid down in 1935 will continue to work until 2035 and beyond. Right.
We go through cycles were different parts of the political spectrum represent the innovative, pro-change part of the polity during different eras. Republicans were the progressives (in the true sense of the word) from 1860-1925 and democrats were the conservatives. Then the Democrats became the progressives from 1925-1975 when it switched back over to the Republicans. In every era, the conservative party holds the least power and has the least impact on policy and history.
Rofe,
I wasn't trying to say that empathy is bad, or that wanting to do something about things we perceive as problems is bad, but that often it is the case that logic and facts do not come into the equation.
My preferred response to death on a personal level has nothing to do with how we should attempt to run the country. Just because I may believe it is productive to bake a casserole for a friend who is going through something horrible doesn't mean that I think it's a good idea for the government to provide a casserole to everyone who is in a bad situation.
I brought up everything I did because I don't think Democrats are out of ideas. I think they have plenty of ideas. The problem is that a well reasoned policy does not easily spring from those ideas and that the party does a bad job of explaining itself. My opinion is that the average democrat is motivated by emotion rather than logic. I could easily adjust that statement to say that the average person is motivated more be emotion than logic and would have few experts disagree. I apologize if that's psychobabble.
Shannon Love gets it exactly right.
The conservatives today really are the "liberals" and the true liberals or progressives today are the "conservatives".
I mean, which is more progressive: school vouchers or supporting the teachers' union?
Spencer cherry-picks some numbers and concludes that, golly gee, life has gone to hell under Bush and weren't things dandy in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
Post WWII the US was in an unprecedented relative position of economic power. Karl Marx could have been president and the economy would have grown, relatively, very nicely. However, by 1960 even JFK advocated tax cuts to stimulate the economy. However, between the Vietnam War, "Great Society" programs and, by the 70s, huge inflation and out of control union strikes, the economy became a joke. Nixon did nothing to improve it. Carter did little or nothing as well and by 1980 major economists (Lester Thurow at MIT) were beginning to claim Japan was about to PERMANENTLY eclipse us in economic power. When Reagan came on the scene Volker was (rightly) tightening the money supply such that the prime rate shortly hit 21%. Not exactly an "entrepreneurial" or "growth" environment, no? Yeah, big wonder growth suffered while that process played out.
Reagan's tax cuts and optimistic leadership, combined with deregulation, decreasing union obstruction and the rapid growth of technology laid a foundation for low inflation and high productivity. It didn't hurt that the Soviets were imploding.
Anyone who lived through those eras knows how drastically things improved from the 70s to the 80s. Bush 1, unfortunately, did nothing to build on the momentum and stupidly agreed to higher marginal taxes. By the time Clinton came into office, momentum in technology was occurring so rapidly that, by just not doing harm, the economy continued to rapidly expand.
By cutting defense spending significantly, yes, the deficit was eliminated. Clinton was the beneficiary of many economic and financial trends he, happily, didn't interfere with. To compare the hand Clinton was dealt with the one Bush 2 immediately had to manage is ludicrous. The stock market collapse, the dot-com melt down, the 9/11 disaster, the ensuing shock to business and, lately, the quadrupling of oil prices are, by themselves, extraordinarily challenging events.
To have 5% unemployment after all of this chaos is mostly a testament to the resilience of our total economic system. But comparing Bush economic performance to Clinton, using whatever numbers you want, is ludicrous. Every administration gets handed a plethora of good and bad political and economic events beyond their control. Even if you despise Clinton, personally, you have to give him credit for not doing much to upset a powerful, positive, economic trend. Despise Bush all you want but his performance, given the adversity he's had to deal with, is pretty darn good. And to leave out those facts and just toss out one set of numbers convenient to your case is intellectual dishonesty at its worst.
I have to say Alito kind of scares the bejeezus outa me
Yeah, more conservative votes on cases like Kelo and Raich will usher in a new era of totalitarianism!
(and just to be completely clear, that was sarcasm)
Spencer, where are you getting those figs? If I go to the BEA and get the latest spreadsheet of real GDP growth (chained 2000 dollars), and divide the figures found there by the latest population estimates from the Census Bureau, I get real GDP growth 2001-2004 of 1.3%. That's the lowest number I could come up with for Bush.
And that's what your figures do: deliberately come up with the lowest possible figure by cherry-picking the dates. After all, it makes no sense to credit Mr Bush for the 2001 recession, which started before he took office; that year would be more properly credited to Mr Clinton, just as 1980 should go to Carter, and 1993 to Bush I. Shifting those dates just one year would, as I'm sure you well know, dramatically shift your results, getting two recessions that were not of their making off Republican books, and crediting Bush I rather than Clinton with the 1993 recovery. If we adjust the time frame to account for legislative and fiscal lag, Bush is within spitting distance of Clinton: 2.2% for the C-man, v. 2.08% for Bush.
Such comparisons are, in my opinion, pretty completely stupid, since the president has very little actual effect on the economy. But it makes a lot more sense than comparing different-sized time periods (20 years, 12 years, 8 years, and 4 years . . . it's like a pattern-recognition test on the SAT!) with cherry-picked start dates that benefit your fellow. I also have no idea where you're getting your data, since the best I could do on per-capita income was 2.4% for Clinton.
2 trillion in federal spending, US brands image tarnished, all to invade a nation that did not have wmd, did not attack us on 911, with the net result of a bloody civil war.
Bad enough, but then approve a port management deal to a a nation whose ruling family has actual links to bin laden and has actually aided in the proliferation of Pakistani nuclear technology. Your admiration in unwavering! Truly amazing.
Shannon - great observation. I get a kick out of calling my liberal friends "reactionaries." Drives them nuts because they think of themselves as progressives but all they do is defend the failed and failing programs of the last century.
Not that Republican conservatives are the real progressives. The Left's Big Idea has always been that justice demands a redistribution of wealth. The Right tries to stop that, irrespective of whether the hands of the wealth holders earned that wealth or not. That neither view serves justice is what compels me to favor libertarianism.
jag -- show me the data-- I keep seeing the argument you make, but I never see it in the data. Why not??? Or you claiming the facts I presented are wrong??
I'm not cherry picking data. I showing the core data on standards of living and the investment trends behind them. The Republican economic policies have not worked. All they have achieved is to turn the US into the world's largest debtor.
Show be some facts that demonstrate I am wrong.
I omitted the 1950s in my comparisons to avoid the bias you are fasely accusing me of. By 1960 the post ww II trends you are talking about were over.
What data better demonstrates our economic well-being then per capita real income?
Oh for heaven's sake, I don't have a problem with conservative justices. Please note I did not say, "ROBERTS and Alito scare me" I said ALITO scares me. In many ways I prefer moderately conservative justices. And let me point out that as many problems as I...A DEMOCRAT...have with Kelo, the reasoning was solid and I understand how they came to the conclusions they did based on the case in front of them.
I don't like Alito because HE LIED TO THE CONGRESS regarding recusing himself from "any cases involving the Vanguard companies."
He specifically stated in his congressional questioniare that, "I do not believe that conflicts of interest relating to my financial interests are likely to arise. I would, however, disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies."
In 2002 a case came before Alito where Vanguard was a NAMED defendant. At the time Alito owned pieces of 17 Vanguard funds worth somewhere between 390K and 975K. He did not recuse himself and he ruled in Vanguard's favor.
If the guy would lie to get a job then he does not respect the judicial branch of government and I reiterate that it scares the bejeezus out of me that he's now on the Supreme Court. A Justice should respect the concept that even the look of improrpiety is bad for that Justice. I find his lack of judgement in this matter (and others...if you really care about my opinions then go to my blog and send me an email so we don't use of Jane's bandwidth) deeply disturbing.
Jane -- read what I said -- I said per capita real income data. I will be glad to send you the spreadsheet where I did the calculations.
OK, if you want we can make the comparisons for GDP.
Now I will admit that using income data makes the comparison worse because income growth has been less then gdp growth this cycle.
I wonder why?
But it will not negate the basic trends I show.
Actually, Jane your original artilce was very good and I pretty much agree with all of it. the only thing worse then the Republicans are the current Democratic leadership-- and they deserve what you said about them.
I was going to pass on and not make a comment until I read someones bull blaming the poor economy under bush on clinton. And I could not pass that up.
I'm a semi retired business economistss\ that spent most of my career being deliberately apolitical. I'm a numbers guy and just assumed that all politicians tried to add 2 +2 to get 5. It didn't make much difference if they were dems or reps. But then this administration came in and tried to claim 2 + 2 = 55.
I'm like Krugman, I am driven bull shit by this administration's lies. Remember, he use to be a rebublican and worked in the Reagan White House. .
Moreover, I just get tired of all the crap I see from the right wing. I could support most of the policies they advocate, but I just get so tired of being lied to about the results of their policies that just ever once and awhile
I try to put some facts in (what should be ) the debate.
The level of ignorance about the economy and the impact of economic policy I see here and elsewhere is just plain appalling. And, yes the left is also guilty, but I just do not catch them misstating the facts like the right does.
Kate -- have you bothered to familiarize yourself with the Vanguard case, or are you just mouthing the near-lies of MoveOn and Kennedy?
Vanguard had no meaningful financial interest or role in the case. They were a 3rd party caught in a fight between two other parties. Vanguard was involved because they held that money that was in dispute between the two other parties. Vanguard was involved to the extent that a party was trying to get a court order to instruct Vanguard who to pay the funds over to.
So your (and Kennedy's, and MoveOn's) attempt to smear Alito by prattling about how much money he had in Vanguard's mutual funds and then using the phrase (albeit technically true) "ruled in Vanguard's favor", falls flat on its face.
"per capita income" generally refers to national income; if you want to discuss personal income, you talk about household income, or wages and salaries. At least, in my little corner of the econ/finance biz, you do. At which point, of course, we have to discuss median, mean and mode; I'm not really that concerned whether Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have seen their incomes fall (not that they have).
If you'll go to the BLS's compensation trends page, you'll see that while household income has stalled, compensation most assuredly hasn't; it's grown from $21 an hour when Clinton left office to about $26 an hour now--a shift of bigger magnitude than that which took place under the whole of the Clinton administration, when compensation rose from $18 an hour to about $21 an hour. (Although this is complicated by inflation, and a switch in the statistical methods of the BLS, the latter does not seem to have affected the raw numbers very much, and the former is not large enough to swamp the effect.) Wage growth has been sluggish under Bush, because benefits growth has been extremely rapid. (And also, I mote, because the labour market remains weak.) So while households are not getting cash income, they are in fact consuming more; they're just consuming in the form of leisure and health care.
Jane --If you go to BEA and look at the personal income data you will find it includes employer contributions for fringe benefits.
Technically, income is suppose to equal production, they are two sides of the same coin.
QM. The actual facts of the case are irrelivent. Please follow the logic:
1) Alito says, will not judge any cases involving Vanguard.
2) Judged a case involving Vanguard (which, by the way lead, to a pointless appeal causing the government to spend additional money on judges and the like.)
It is irrelevant what the case was about, who was involved or anything else. He said he would recuse himself and he didn't. Judges should be above reproach and they should do what they say. Period.
And, BTW, got most of my facts from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/10/AR2005111002188.html
Some from the Economist, and the actual language from Boston.com.
spencer,
I don't think you want to try to pretend that the left doesn't lie. It's ignorance of fundamental economics and abuse of data are fundamental to their platform. I think to most people here, the fact that standard of livings are increasing along median and mean w/GDP. The left is much more concerned that the rich are getting richer.
When the left denies that there is a problem with Social Security, I'm not even sure where to start... Sure, you can argue about the best way to fix it, but to deny the problem - let alone the injustice of a system that has the working poor contributing to Bill Gate's retirement benefits! That's just leftist fundamentalist religious fury.
Spencer - You wanted the name of one Republican that cut welfare. Newt Gingrich. Bill Clinton vetoed until he couldn't anymore. (BTW I think Clinton was a fairly good president.)
Rofe said "Save my guns might swing the votes, but does it really address any real problem we face today ?"
Well, yes, actually. Crime is always a problem, and possession of guns by the population has a general depressing effect on crime. So does locking up (or killing) criminals.
Kate -
You say very explicitly that Alito LIED, and give the following quote:
"I would, however, disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies."
Could you clarify the timing? After this quote, you talked about a past case. Was your quote from Alito's congressional questionnaire for an earlier confirmation, before 2002?
I'm not saying that this shouldn't be investigated or discussed. But if Alito in 2005 said something about what he planned to do in the future, I don't see how you can say that he LIED, even if you feel that something he did in 2002 was inconsistent with what he said that he would do later.
Spencer -
hearing about your background makes some of your posts a bit clearer. You're always quoting specific, but very limited, statistics and claiming that just one or two numbers can prove broad points about tax policies and political philosophies. What about what Jane and jag pointed out, on the importance of starting conditions, timing, and taking the general circumstances into accout?
Ann,
Sorry I didn't make that clear. Alito wrote that he would recuse himself from Vanguard cases in 1990. In 2002 he went back on that. Ergo, he lied.
Ann, He's a judge. Therefore I hold him to a much higher standard than I would a friend who says, "ew, I'm never marrying a short guy..." and then does. Or even a politican who says, "read my lips, no new taxes" and then raises taxes. I bind him to what he says and when he does the opposite I view it as a lie.
Kate - You have an interesting idea of the word "lie".
If you say something in an interview about what you would expect to do given a circumstance, and then ten years something vaguely similar but a little different comes up, then you do whatever makes sense at the time, does that retroactively make it a lie?
To make that an *actual* lie, you have to (1) establish that what you did later violated the *reason* you made the promise, (2) establish that you knew at the time you made the promise that at some time in the future you would choose to violate that promise.
I think that it's pretty easy to see in this case that (a) the purpose of the question/promise was that Alito should not have a conflict of interest regarding his Vanguard holdings, (b) Vanguard had no stake in the outcome, (c) Alito's holdings would be unaffected by the outcome, (d) Alito's decision had no effect, direct or indirect, on his holdings. (e) There was therefore no actual conflict of interest in Alito's hearing the case.
So there is clearly no *real* conflict of interest. But let's accept for the moment a premise that there *might* be an apparent conflict of interest.
Then, to call it a lie, you have to go back to the hearing and say, did Alito know at the time he made the statement about recusal that this kind of incident might occur? In my opinion, obviously not.
Now, as far as a "broken promise", it *might* be considered so. But I believe that this is more like one of those things that happen in couples or families, where one person promises X, the other person hears Y, and then they argue later about whether Z is covered. A guy promises his wife not to go to any strip clubs, then ends up ten years later taking in a naked stage show in Vegas, for example. Not the same thing he promised, but arguably a violation.
Doesn't make it a lie.
Kate,
I'm personally involved with an organization that tries to teach people to "fish."
Some of the problems with teaching people to fish are (1) some people take a lot of personal attention from a teacher to learn, and (2) some people don't have much of an incentive to learn to fish.
There HAS to be an incentive. Fish or starve, especially if there are children in the family, is somewhat harsh (but not without historical precedent, to wit, the Jamestown Colony) but effective. What lesser incentives exist? There must be some, but I can't think of any offhand. At least there is now an incentive to get off welfare, because there is a definite time limit.
The teaching part is more problematic. Schools generally do an adequate job, with the high achievers doing well no matter how poor the teachers are and the low achievers not doing well with poor and adequate teachers. (Middle achievers do okay with adequate teachers.) In the public schools, excellent teachers are needed to teach low achievers, and there is a real dearth of excellent teachers. In the private agency I support, we have a range of adequate to excellent teachers, but we make up for any lack in teaching qualifications by doing all tutoring on a one on one basis. Even with that, progress is slow, but we work with the "hard to teach" adult population that hasn't managed to learn under any of the usual programs, which range from learning in schools as kids to taking GED classes or adult ed classes as adults. It takes a lot of work, but we make progress.
Jane,
you've already identified the emerging new Big Idea (tm) for the Democrats, "Government is the problem." That's right, to be successful, the Democrats are going to channel the man who liberalized abortion in California: Ronald Reagan.
Look again at that Republican Platform you outlined, and then ask yourself how well the last five years have measured up: Government's gotten bigger, three years on we stil haven't kicked keister in Iraq, the right-wing punditry is saying the president listening to your phone calls is a good thing.
Now look at the emerging "left" postions: pro-gay marriage("get the government out of the bedroom"), pro-abortion("the government should leave young women alone"), anti-wiretapping ("the government shouldn't be listening in"), out-of-Iraq ("the government blew it, let's stop throwing good money and lives away.").
Moreover, if one takes the Unlce Milty viewpoint that it's the size of government expenditure that matters, not whether the money comes from taxes or bond sales, then Democrats can even out-Reagan the Republicans on tax-and-spend issues.
Have the Democrats repackaged this in convenient sound bites? heck no. But the next election that really matters for these Big Ideas is still over two years away, which is plenty of time to sort this out and find a standard bearer. Who, in 1978, would have predicted Reagan's "Get the government off our backs" would be the defining idea for the next three decades?
Twill00 --
That's your opinion. Mine is different.
Rex --
I think that's admerable.
Josh K -- social security is only in trouble if you accept the administration economic forecast in the base case they use. But the economic forecast essentially assumes that all the economic policies of the Bush administration will fail and that trend real gdp growth will
slow to about one half of the historic long term trend.
Interestingly, the same Bush administration forecast they use in their budget documents they assume that we will have near record real gdp growth forever.
Who are you going to believe?
See what I mean.
Umm... I'll let some of you in on a little secret, Presidents don't have that much/any impact on GDP growth in the short term.
spencer,
SS (and Medicare) are in trouble simply based on our current demographics. Unless we let in 100m 25yr old immigrants.
Again, I think you have to swallow really hard to prentend that this elephant isn't in the room.
I'm not sure there necessarily is a way out of this. There are just massive accrued debts staring us in the face. And, Bush certainly did a lousy job of pushing a solution.
Jane -- the first 1980s recession was in 1979 under Carter. There was only one recession under Reagan. I'll be glad to use any starting date you propose. It will not change the long term trends.
The basic fact is that the Republican policies have had no significant impact on economic growth
while creating massive foreign debt.
I'm not trying to claim that Clinton policies had anything to do with the 1990s boom. It was due almost completely to technological break throughts that massively lowered the cost of using the new technology. Tax policy played essentially no role in the capital spending boom. The only thing Clinton did was the intelligent policy of geting out of the way and letting it happen. Note, that in the late 1990s almost one-half of the savings to finance the boom came from abroad and the government surplus.
Typically, over 100% of business fixd investment is financed out of corporate savings.
I think people are missing the point of Jane's original post. It's not whether the Right's ideas are superior to the Left's. It's that the Right has a few clear messages they can sell to voters, and the Left does not. They have a lot of little messages that don't coalesce well. Get a message that doesn't have the word 'Bush' in it anywhere, and there are a lot of people ready to listen.
Re; "Then, after fifty years or so, people noticed that the government didn't seem to work any better than the free market . . . "
Bullseye!
Name me one republican that has actually done something to cut welfare
Newt Gingrich.
Also, the 1996 welfare reform act was written by Republicans, and passed by 227 out of 233 Republican Representatives and 53 out of 53 Republican Senators.
For some bizarre reason, Clinton is given credit for the bill, even though he didn't like it, spoke against it, and only signed it because Congress had passed it with a veto-proof majority.
josh K -- I did not, nor did you say anthing about medicare in your previous comment.
You said social security,
and I replied to your comment about social security.
So don't accuse me of saying something I did not say.
I'm not sure I can agree that the Democrats fearmongering didn't sink in because "things are just fine" under Republicans. As an independent, I don't think things are fine. My major concerns:
- More absolute Executive power with no checks and balances. More secrecy and "trust me" policies.
- Erosion of civil rights and gradual loss of freedom in exchange for a false sense of safety
- Despite lots of talk, not doing obvious things to make the country safer (improving port and airport security, guarding borders)
- I disagree about "keen administrative abilities". Despite several years of time to have plans to deal with disasters, look at how Katrina was handled
- Policies that make the rich richer and that are bad for the poor and middle class, creating more and worse class problems. I think the middle class is drastically shrinking in this country (being pushed into low middle class if not poverty), and if you aren't one of the couple of percent of people that is making out like crazy, things are probably much worse for you than they were before. (Example: If you want to cut taxes to stimulate the economy, why not simply increase the standard deduction by a couple thousand dollars, so that nearly every single citizen sees reduced taxes, instead of cutting them in ways that only benefit those that are substantially wealthy. My taxes have not gone down under all these "tax cuts".)
- The strong influence that religious and especially fringe religious leaders have over this administration
I think Democratic fearmongering didn't work precisely because of the main point of Jane's post: They offered no solutions or ideas. They just assumed that everyone hated Bush as much as they did, or that they could win an election by badmouthing Bush. I agree, you can't win that way. You have to give people something to vote FOR, and not (just) something to vote AGAINST. I disagree with quite a few things Bush does, and I think the country is getting worse not better - but I don't "hate" Bush. Hearing "this guy sucks weasels" does not make me think "Hell Yeah!!", it makes me immediately think "How would *you* do things better"?
Although not having articulate solutions to offer is the main cause of their problem, I do have to say that Kerry (and Gore before him) were terrible candidates. Really, out of all the Democrats in the country, those are the two best leaders they had to offer?
But on the abortion quote, I don't see how that is an outrageous thing to say. Maybe the wording was awkward, but is that really different in significant ways than our recent Supreme Court nominees basically saying "I don't agree with abortion, but it is the law of the land and I can rule that way"?
Jane -- as far as the accusation of cherry picking data, it is a claim you make all the time without ever supporting it.
For example, in the first 3 years of the Reagan administration real gdp growth was -1.94%, 4.52%, and 7.29%. This was the recession and the recovery. It was a normal pattern and you see strong growth in the recovery that more then offset the poor performance in the recession.
Sp even if you tried to cherry-pick the data it would not make any diffeerence because the cyclical recovery more then offset the weakness in the first year. Growth in the first three years, including the recession is actually stronger then it was in the remaining five years
of the Reagan administration.
So what you call cherry-picking actually does not make any difference.
There's a commenter over at RedState who signs everything with the warming aphorism, "Give a man a poisoned fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
Which is neither here nor there. spencer, what your statistics still fail to address is exactly what miracle you expected Bush (or any president, or any Congress) to pull out of a hat to bolster the economy after 9/11 and the bursting of the dot.com bubble, plus countering the effects of the sudden requirement for increased defense spending - which, even if we hadn't gone into Iraq, would still have happened, albeit presumably on a smaller scale (unless we're to take some Left-side commenters seriously and assume that we would've deposed the Saudi government and then the Syrians in lieu of Saddam - but somehow I doubt that's really what they had in mind). It's downright unbelievable to me that the American economy is measurably so good after this triple whammy.
"- Erosion of civil rights and gradual loss of freedom in exchange for a false sense of safety
. . .
- The strong influence that religious and especially fringe religious leaders have over this administration"
Bruce -- I agree there are people who are worried about these things, but for most people, there has been no concrete effect on their lives and they just aren't that concerned.
Has Christianity been forced on anyone in the last 5 years? No. In fact, the courts have seen to it that there is damn near no mention of religion in the public square. And having "Under God" in the Pledge doesn't count (assuming it survives), because that's status quo.
And as for loss of freedom, what can you not do today that (a) you would have been permitted to do 5 years ago and (b) you want to do anyway? Maybe make certain campaign contributions, but that was not a Republican led effort. And you can't take your pocket knife on an airplane anymore. Big deal.
Hey is right. The slippery slopes are mostly slipping to the left (gay marriage, no mention of the word Christmas, and just try to get a violent kid expelled from the public schools -- you can't because he has a behavior disorder). And DenBeste is right. A lot of that's coming out of the unelected people in the ebony robes and ivory towers.
And then Nancy Pelosi says, "It's like God has spoken." Now, that's spooky.
Gee tylerh, can't you come up with an example where the Democrats would get the government off *my* back? I'm just not altruistic (nor is anyone else, really, they just think they are).
spencer -
But then you do agree that Medicare is unsustainable? At a certain point I hope you understand that pyramid schemes do tend to come to an ugly end.
Bruce -
I forgot where I saw it, but I am pretty sure that most taxpayers received a tax cut. Bush lowered rates on regular income as well as on investment income.
You have to also remember that the purpose of cutting taxes on divs is to remove the distortion created where debt becomes cheaper than dividends. IMHO, making divs tax inefficient also creates a greater likelyhood for lower quality earnings, which in turn is economically destabilizing. The benefit goes far beyond who holds the equities and in what type of account (taxable/vs non)
Also, I think you're repeating a lot of the same alarmist lines spouted by the left. "The middle class is becoming poor.... We're turning into a society like Columbia with all poor and only a few rich..." If you look around, you'll see more wealth than ever before. Yes, there is a new generation of incredibly rich people. But the fact that Bill Gates walks into a room doesn't make you absolutely worse off, only relatively. Look at the quality of health care, the personal electronics, the amount of living space (except for NYC, where I have the misfortune of living), and you see a generation with a lot more. And, factor in that a large % of the poor in the US are new immigrants who will rapidly move up, and you have a pretty nice thing going.
US government is not to be trusted and is too ineffcient to run the ports in this nation! Er, but the Dubai government...they are up to the challenge?
JoskK wrote:
"I don't think you want to try to pretend that the left doesn't lie. It's ignorance of fundamental economics and abuse of data are fundamental to their platform"
The Economist magazine does a poll of economists each presidential election year. The results last time were that out of 7 economics categories, Kerry was preferred in 6, sometimes by very large margins. Only in free trade was Bush preferred.
So are they also ignorant?
Tom
Denise,
Thanks for a thoughtful response.
It's true that civil rights are not being violated in ways that are both on a large scale AND excessively intrusive. But it is certainly a concern. The Bush administration, in my opinion, shows little respect for, or value of, civil rights. Their going-in presumption is that what the government and police want to do is OK by definition, and they have little interest in debate about limitations or checks.
What can't I do now that I could do 5 years ago, that I'd actually like to do?
- Get books from the library or Amazon without the potential of having my reading materials reviewed and judged by the government. Sure, I'm not reading bomb-making books, but the very idea that my private reading list is any business of the government is far beyond the pale. Why do they have the right to that information?
- Talk to my girlfriend on the phone without thinking there is a decent chance the call is monitored by the government. (I know, I know, only Al Qaida terrorists are monitored... except I don't believe that is true even in the case of the NSA program we know about, and Gonzales as much as said that there were additional NSA programs we haven't heard about yet).
- Live my life knowing that I can't be "disappeared". Sure, the chance that this would happen to me is vanishingly small, but I'm surprised more people aren't upset that we now live in a country where you can be picked up and locked up indefinitely/forever with no charges, legal access or recourse based on one man's unreviewable say so. (I don't care whether that one man is Bush or someone else - That is not the rule of law). Sure, Padilla got put into a different type of jail several years later, for whatever comfort that is worth. But even that is only because the public knew about that case. How many other cases of citizens held without charge are there besides the cases we've heard of?
That's my off-the-cuff list; I could probably do better with more thought.
The idea of "if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" that I often hear is not very reassuring at all. The power of the government needs to have limits and checks, and Bush's demonstrated attitude is that he wants no limits. When limits are put on him, he ignores those limits (think McCain torture bill).
I guess I'd say that some small concrete changes in civil rights, coupled with my perception of the value that the government now gives civil rights, does give me genuine concerns about my rights and the direction they are going.
I wish I had time at the moment to address your point about religion, and Josh's about taxes. Perhaps later?
You know, I was kinda of hoping that some Democrat would refute Jane's central thesis, that the Left is out of ideas, by listing some of the new, innovative ideas that Democrats have advanced in the last decade or so.
Unfortunately, I think the comments here go to prove her point. The anti-Republican/anti-right comments are all about how bad the republicans are, not what alternatives the Democrats/Left offer and why they are superior.
I personally don't give a rats ass about political parties. I want problems fixed. I'll vote for anybody who gives me a workable program. I want solutions that use the technology of the 21st century. I want solutions that aren't based on the idea I am idiot incapable of managing my own affairs. I am not a social conservative. If the democrats would act like they had any awareness that it was no longer 1973 I would be far more comfortable voting for them than Republicans.
To date however, I don't see it. The Democrats have not offered ANY new ideas in the last 30 years. Until they do, they better get use to minority status.
B above makes a good point about tylerh's comment. According to tylerh, if I want to have an abortion, marry my gay lover, and then phone my friend in Al-Qaeda (without fear of wiretapping) so I can announce that I've successfully convinced the US to slink out of Iraq the way it slunk out of Vietnam, the Democratic party is the party for me.
Not only that, but according to tylerh, that's an example of how the Democratic party is channeling the spirit of Ronald Reagan.
War is peace! Slavery is freedom!
This actually strikes me as a perfect example of the core Democratic problem. Tylerh has identified at least 3 and possibly 4 issues that according to polls really don't resonate with most Americans: gay marriage, outrage at NSA eavesdropping, and pulling out of Iraq without finishing the job (abortion may or may not resonate depending on how it's defined).
Rather than recognize that these are issues that lose with moderates, tylerh instead suggests repackaging the ideas and convincing the moderates that yes, they really do want these things, they just didn't realize it. Presumably because voters are morons and they'll do anything you want if you just find the right way to talk to them.
Voters aren't morons. It's not the packaging -- it's the product.
I know the right has "many great big ideas". How about an idea that would stop the civil war in Iraq.
As a Democrat I completely disagree. The big idea for the Democrats is that the government should be the arbitor to level the playing field between those who have power due to market forces and those who don't. Simply, the government should be there to help people and businesses accomplish things that are beneficial to all, when those individuals or businesses are unable to do so themselves. The government is there, because capitalism unchecked doesn't bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people but it needs to be (dare I say the r word) regulated.
All of the various factions of the Democratic party (and I agree that there are deep divides between them) agree on that point. Labor generally wants laws to support workers' being able to have power to bargain for a fair wage. The environmentalists want the government to counter standard market forces to include the cost we are incurring by destroying the environment. Inner city communities want the government to empower them to be able to do what they with their own monetary and family backgrounds make difficult to achieve.
Thus, city dwellers tend to be more Democratic Party supporters, because people are more likely to bump into or rub against each other requiring regulation to ensure that it happens smoothly. Rural people tend to vote more Republican, because living in wide open spaces individuals aren't likely to encounter as many disagreements or friction, so any government intervention is likely to be intrusive (taking guns / restricting land use for environmental purposes).
That message displays itself in governance in many ways. Republicans tend to fill goverment organizations like FEMA with political cronies, but under Clinton it was a highly competant governmental organization. Democrats want to do real reform on energy independence unlike Bush's talk by instituting higher CAFE standards. Democrats want the courts to be a vehicle for people to get retribution against large corporations that pollute their land / sell them a dangerous product etc. etc.
What the Republicans have succeeded in doing is creating an environment of cynicism around the ability of government to solve people's problems. Government is beaurocracy or higher taxes or welfare mothers getting million dollar pay offs at government expense. Having the government out of people's lives is better, because government can't do anything right.
They have also been successful at using triangulation to fool enough people believe they are for government doing something, whether it be the education reform acts or the drug benefit or arresting enron officials that they are able to keep power.
Also, Republicans have been successful at using negative wedge issues that appeal to some very strongly but the entire public is against. The simple example is abortion, where most people are pro choice but a vocal and commited minority are prolife. The pro choice people vote Republican sometimes, because they simply don't believe that abortion will ever be legal. However, can you imagine the Democratic Party rise that would take place if Roe v. Wade were overturned?
Certainly no one is to either extreme. Everyone believes there needs to be some regulation and no one believes there should be too much. The Democrats big idea though is a strong compitent American central government that balances the playing field, takes care of things that the private sector can't, and empowers individual Americans. It seems like that is exactly what America wants right now.
Spencer,
Your whole concern here seems to be that the existence of a US deficit is the be all and end all of financial issues. No one disagrees that deficits aren't (always)a concern but we've had dramatically higher deficits as a percentage of GDP without ensuing economic disaster. Maybe your statistics are perfect but the bond market, which daily votes on fiscal policy, isn't too concerned about the federal deficit.
Witness long term interest rates. They are at levels not seen for 50 years. The market doesn't see the deficit as such a big problem. If it did, I submit long term rates would be far higher. Why? Simply because every government has an easy solution (albeit unattractive for the rest of the financial world)with which to deal with monetary debts; inflate them away. Inflation, when applied to any monetary debt problem, is simply another, very effective, tax. That is what you want, no? Higher tax rates?
Same result, less "real" deficit to deal with.
The bond market today simply does not see the US deficit as an issue. Maybe the millions of investors, betting trillons of dollars on this issue are wrong but the last time the market doubted the government's will to contain inflation interest rates reached 15% for 30 year treasuries (1982).
I think current bond investors are a little too optimistic but, on the other hand, the long term return on bonds (net of inflation) is about 2%.
Given the 2-3% inflation of the last decade or so...maybe today's bond investors are right. Time will tell. However, I know bond managers. They don't care who's president, they only want to protect and make money over time. Somehow I don't think hundreds of these individuals, acting independently, analyzing constantly changing data with modern tools of incredible sophistication and power, are totally wrong.
Maybe all bond buyers are Republicans...but then again, wouldn't a Republican be the first one to screw someone over for a dime? No one imagines any Republican risking THEIR OWN money just to support another Republican. They're too greedy.
No, regardless of the politics of bond investors they aren't complete fools and they are greedy. They wouldn't be betting on Bush policies like this if they thought it would blow up their portfolios.
Get books from the library or Amazon without the potential of having my reading materials reviewed and judged by the government.
You couldn't do that five years ago either. It was always possible for the government to subpoena that information; the Patriot Act just made it easier.
Talk to my girlfriend on the phone without thinking there is a decent chance the call is monitored by the government.
So you're more paranoid now than you were five years ago. The government has for years had the ability to monitor your calls. If you're unwilling to take their word for it that they aren't listening to you now, why are you willing to take their word for it that they weren't listening to you five years ago?
Live my life knowing that I can't be "disappeared".
So you're less ignorant now than you were five years ago. The government has always been able to "disappear" you.
The fact of the matter is that the average American realizes that their chances of being "disappeared" are so close to zero as to not be worth knowing about. The average American doesn't make calls to the Middle East and therefore doesn't much care if those calls get listened to. The average American doesn't check books on bomb-making out of the library and is vaguely suspicious of people who do.
That's why this fearmongering doesn't work. Because even though the Bush administration might be violting people's rights, thus far they've only been caught violating the rights of people that average Americans are suspicious of.
The idea of "if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" that I often hear is not very reassuring at all
Yes, but it is reassuring to almost everybody else, even if they don't consciously realize it. Hearing that people are being mistreated for doing something you never do, belonging to a group you don't belong to and have no wish to join, or living in a place you don't want to go to, just doesn't scare people.
The simple truth of the matter is that for the overwhelming majority of Americans, any loss of rights since 2000 has been strictly hypothetical. Their practical rights -- the ones they use, want to use, or are likely to need -- are unchanged. If you tell these people "you're being stripped of your rights!" their gut reaction is that you're nuts, because they don't feel the loss.
To put this in perspective -- during the 1990s it became hypothetically possible for the government to simply confiscate all of your wordly possessions and stick you with a multimillion-dollar tax bill without ever having to try or convict you for any crime. Where was the universal public outrage at this? Nowhere, because it happened to few people who weren't drug dealers, and most people don't deal drugs.
Gabe,
I quote from Jane's original post:
The left used to have a Big Idea: The free market doesn't work, so the government will fix it. [...]Conservatives stepped in with their Big Idea: the government screws things up, so let's leave more stuff up to individuals, which, if nothing else, will be a lot cheaper. Obviously, liberals disagree with this...but they have not come up with a Big, Easily Sellable, Idea With Obvious Policy Prescriptions to replace it. Some of them have just kept repeating the old Big Idea...
I think you just proved Jane's point.
I quote again from Jane's original post:
Some of them have just kept repeating the old Big Idea, which it seems to me that fewer and fewer people believe...
There are successful strategies for winning voters, but saying the exact same thing, only louder, is not one of them.
Simply, the government should be there to help people and businesses accomplish things that are beneficial to all, when those individuals or businesses are unable to do so themselves.[...]All of the various factions of the Democratic party (and I agree that there are deep divides between them) agree on that point. Labor generally wants laws to support workers' being able to have power to bargain for a fair wage.
Whoa, reality check: labor doesn't give a shit about anybody who doesn't belong to a union (ie, about the vast majority of people in America and in the world at large). More specifically, they want all nonunion workers to be either shut out of the labor market or forced to join a union. Labor unions don't support "policies that are beneficial to all" -- they support policies that are beneficial to labor unions and simply do not give a rat's ass if those policies harm everyone else in the world. See also: the New York holiday transit strike of 2005.
Similarly, the environmental movement is not interested in making businesses pay for "the cost we are incurring by destroying the environment". They are interested in people paying what THEY think the environmental damage is worth. What is the value of the spotted owl species? To an environmentalist, perhaps billions of dollars. To the average person, $0. They could disappear forever without the average person ever noticing or caring.
You phrase the Demcratic platform as being about making things better for everybody. What you miss is that that involves making the implicit claim: "we're Democrats, and we know what's best for you". People don't trust you to know what's best for them. They know what's best for them, and for most of them that isn't helping the union they don't belong to, or preventing them from draining the stagnant pool of water behind their house, or making sure that their kids have to compete for college against black kids who are graded on an easier curve.
Yes, but it is reassuring to almost everybody else, even if they don't consciously realize it. Hearing that people are being mistreated for doing something you never do, belonging to a group you don't belong to and have no wish to join, or living in a place you don't want to go to, just doesn't scare people.
Particularly if you believe that (a) those people are or are likely to endanger your life and the lives of those you care about and (b) that the ?mistreatment? (e.g. surveillance, detention) is rationally likely to protect you and those you care about.
I happen to think there's less to the whole Alito-Vanguard 'scandal' than meets the eye, but I also think enough met the eye to make it worth looking at twice.
Did Alito (almost typed 'Scalia' -- hah!) pledge to recuse himself from Vanguard cases? Sort of. As near as I can tell from the transcript, he said he'd do so during his "initial service". This was the source of much back-and-forth between he and Sen. Kennedy as the latter tried to establish what "initial service" was supposed to mean. Alito didn't think twelve years qualified as "initial service" any more, and I can't say I blame him. On the other hand, that language, by virtue of being vague enough to reassure everyone, offers weasel room to everyone, and I don't like that. It would have been better to either set a strict limit, or make it indefinite.
Did Alito rule correctly? The appeals court apparently thought so, after he did recuse himself in the wake of a complaint from one of the plaintiffs. I can't comment on the merits of the case, since I am neither a lawyer nor an actor playing one on TV.
I think he would have been better-served to recuse himself from the start, but it's hard for me to look at the facts and come to the conclusion that he's "a liar". I'd be a lot more concerned if the whole issue had been brought up by the losing side before he ruled against them, rather than after; or if the appeals court had found fault with his decision. Lacking any of those elements, this doesn't seem like a major problem, certainly not enough of one to keep him off the Court. But it could have been, and if it hadn't been publicly aired I wouldn't have the information to make that judgement. So I'm glad it was.
Particularly if you believe that (a) those people are or are likely to endanger your life and the lives of those you care about and (b) that the ?mistreatment? (e.g. surveillance, detention) is rationally likely to protect you and those you care about
Right. Also, being scared is distinct from being bothered. I am bothered that the US government has locked up a couple of US citizens, captured on US soil, without trial. I am bothered, although much less so, by the wiretaps. What I am NOT, is scared by those events. I don't think Bush is out to lock people up willy-nilly, nor do I think it likely that any of his successors for the forseeable future will do so. The US government is not going to come arrest me and toss me in Gitmo, and I know it, and no amount of histrionics is going to convince me I'm in danger of it.
The Democrats' problem on these issues is that they keep trying to say "YOUR rights are in dire peril!", which is just plain silly. No, our rights are not in dire peril -- not for the vast majority of us. Now, if the Democrats tried a different approach -- "look, these other people's rights have been violated, you should be outraged by this" -- that might fly. But then the question arises of whether people identify enough with the victims to be seriously bothered by what's happening to them. I doubt most Americans do. People identify with the idea that, on 9/11, a bunch of ordinary people got up and went to work, or got on a plane, and then got murdered by maniacs. They do not identify with being a Muslim immigrant with an expired green card, or being an Afghan peasant.
Tom,
>>The Economist magazine does a poll of [academic] economists each presidential ... Kerry was preferred in 6, sometimes by very large margins.
Again, Bush has done lots of things that don't square with the core progressive - liberal philiosophy of the GOP (pro free movements of goods and labor), pro free market, pro educational vouchers, pro property rights, ssec reform, etc. And I'm not sure what Kerry's plan was. One day he was against foreign workers and outsourcing, the next not.
I read that poll and I still would love to know how anyone could put Kerry down to any one plan. But certainly it's common knowledge that Bush, with programs like Med D and the steel tarrifs, falls short of what is the Republican ideal. One might argue that this is to grab the center, but nonethless, it's not what the GOP is about (at least in name).
Gabe,
>>The big idea for the Democrats is that the government should be the arbitor to level the playing field between those who have power due to market forces and those who don't.
I think you are missing the point. No one disputes that the above has been the Dems big idea. Follow through the prev discussion. The point made was that for most Americans, the idea that a big government is going to fix it better than the market can is no longer beleiveable and I think the smarter folks recognize this as just socialism.
>>city dwellers tend to be more Democratic Party supporters
I always wonder if that is really true. I think part of that implies the "sophisticated, educated, city dweller". In 2004, I read that everywhere and several articles mentioned Milwaukee, where I grew up. I went through the voting maps that were published and sure enough, the "city", which is largely the run-down inner city core, voted for Kerry. But, the surrounding counties, which is where much of the population lives and is considered the city to those who live there, voted largely for Bush.
I'd be curious if anyone has found exit polls breaking down voting by participation in government programs such as AFDC, Title 9, Welfare, etc.
>>Republicans tend to fill goverment organizations like FEMA with political cronies, but under Clinton it was a highly competant governmental organization.
Often repeated Dem consipracy theory. FEMA sucked under Clinton. They couldn't handle Floyd, if you remember. And Bush has had many top appointees, including the much maligned Snow. A Krugman swipe accused him of being a business "crony" (as if maddive experience in the buisness world is not a star on your record) and of having no econ background, dispite his Phd in econ.
>>hey have also been successful at using triangulation to fool enough people
Yeah baby, bring it on! HalibushhitlersaudihusseinChenny! Yes Smithers, we will rule the world through our cronies in Haliburton.
I am a registered Democrat because I live in a state with closed primary elections, and my region is heavily Democrat, so I want to vote for the least stupid/damaging candidates in the primaries. I really dislike both parties because they are both so wrong in so many ways.
"Name me one republican that has actually done something to cut welfare."
Governor Thommy Thompson (WI), upon whose welfare reform that the 90's welfare reform was based.
Welfare program policies follow labor markets. When there is high unemployment and a lot of leftover people, like the 1970's, welfare rules are loosey goosey. Welfare reform was possible and necessary because of tightening labor markets. We can't afford to let able-bodied people not work. There are no leftover people now, no throwaways. And it's doing a lot of good for a lot of people who needed the coercion to get some skills and experience and self esteem. I've seen it happen over and over. It's a good thing.
And for those who don't want to be coerced...well, when that five years runs out, move to the next state. *g*
I read that poll and I still would love to know how anyone could put Kerry down to any one plan
I'm curious what plan they were shown, too. They rated Kerry better on "preparing for baby-boomers' retirement" by a margin of 34%, but Kerry didn't actually offer a plan for that. Kerry's position was that Social Security isn't in trouble. Any economist who says they agree with that is either hopelessly incompetent or simply dishonest.
Similarly, in spite of the fact that Kerry's budget plan called for higher deficits than Bush's -- do the math, he raised taxes but raised spending more -- they rated him "better on fiscal discipline by a margin of 61%.
Either those seven economists were shown a Kerry plan the public wasn't made privy to -- one which actually made economic sense -- or they weren't competent in their field, or they were hopelessly biased in favor of Kerry for reasons unrelated to economics and let that cloud their judgement.
I'd be a lot more concerned if the whole issue had been brought up by the losing side before he ruled against them, rather than after
But why would they? I am not a lawyer but I did read groklaw yesterday. If he rules the way they want, no problem. If he rules against them, they've got possible grounds for appeal. As far as I can tell, that's one argument you save for appeals.
But why would they?
To save their client the cost of the appeal?
Jane -- as long as you are accusing me of cherry - picking data why don't you look at this by the FED.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2006/financesurvey.pdf
Spencer, I'm not denying that mean income fell (though median income rose). Rather, I'm pointing out:
1) Your periods are of different lengths, making such comparisons questionable, as you know that the longer the period, the more we will see regression to the man
2) Your results are sensitive to the choice of start years, and you have picked the start years most favourable to Bill Clinton
3) You have inexplicably excluded 2005 data, even though it is available; given how short the Bush period is, this substantially biases results.
More broadly, I think that this discussion is incredibly stupid, because there's no realistic mechanism by which Mr Bush could cause real median family income to fall. What's your poison? Tax cuts? The War in Iraq? CAFTA?
Now, if your point is just that politicians' claims to be able to affect the economy are so much BS, well, then you and I are in agreement. If your point is that the deficit is a bad idea, well, then I pretty much agree with you. But if you're trying to argue that Bush is measurably substantially worse for the economy than Clinton with those numbers, then shame on you, both for using questionable analytical practices, and for saying things that are economically silly.
Dan,
>>> Either those seven economists were shown a Kerry plan the public wasn't made privy to -- one which actually made economic sense -- or they weren't competent in their field, or they were hopelessly biased in favor of Kerry for reasons unrelated to economics and let that cloud their judgement.
I think it's also possible that b/c at the time Bush didn't push free trade seriously (that was pre-CAFTA) and he did implement things like the steel tarrifs that he may turned off a lot of economists. While Kerry never had one consistent plan and the Dems certainly don't have much beyond the usual pandering (higher min wage, affirm action, etc), still, Kerry never himself did something as text-book bad as protectionist tarrifs.
-J
"If he rules the way they want, no problem. If he rules against them, they've got possible grounds for appeal. As far as I can tell, that's one argument you save for appeals."
IANAL, but I'd think that of they really thought Alito was biased against them, they would have wanted him recused before there was a ruling against against them to overcome, rather than running up more costs afterwards.
Matters of economic interest are obviously important in determining political priorities. One of the salient ones is that, though annual income and wealth are more concentrated in the US:
1) the Left (as distinct from the Democrats) has no solution to problem of wealth disparity which isn't extremely destructive;
2) the portion of the population that either benefits from this concentration of wealth or realistically hopes to be wealthy is far larger than the 1-2% typically thrown around (for a variety of reasons). And that portion always votes.
In general, I disagree that the Democrats don't have a coherent idea. They do. The problem is that their natural constituency isn't large enough and isn't growing.
Very interesting discussion.
Rex -- You claim you are paying more in taxes,
How do you manage that? I mean, t the Republican have been cutting tax rates sharply for years.
Didn't you get ypur tax cut?
I got my tax cut , and it went to higher property tax , higher sales tax , a tax on 'carry out' food (chicago), higher tax on car plates , gas , all utilities . I could go on but i hope you get my point , which is there is no end to the 'things' that 'need ' to be fixed according to politicians of all stripes.
Bruce, let me add some details to what Dan said.
The Patriot Act gave the feds the power to look at your library reading materials if they were investigating terrorism; they already had this power if they were investigating drugs or INS issues. And the recent bipartisan modifications to the Patriot Act which branch out into combatting meth in particular are really scary. Note that fishing expeditions were never and still aren't authorized--the feds can't just decide they want to see what you are reading any time they feel like it.
As for calls overseas, they have ALWAYS (at least for 40 years that I know of and probably for at least 60 years) been "monitored." The NSA has massive computers that do key word searches on all overseas phone conversations, but if those key words never occur, the conversations are ignored. The latest flap is over the NSA actually pinpointing certain telephones in the US which send or receive overseas calls to known terrorists. And there are tight internal controls.
I too was bothered by the Padilla case, but now that the issue was bumped to the Supreme Court and a ruling passed down which prevents the government from doing what it did, I feel satisfied. One of the basic tenets in constitutional law in this country is that of Due Process. The government claimed that their internal system of review satisfied the due process concerns; the Supreme Court thankfully ruled otherwise, although it really wasn't a surprising ruling. I just wasn't sure because National Security is a very powerful trump card when performing the usual balancing act of interpreting the Constitution. But generally speaki