4 Comments:

• While those are all worthy issues, I don't think any of them will turn out to be as important to the voters as Iraq, taxes and possibly the economy in general. The fact that the party is united on certain issues doesn't mean that those issues will be the focus of the general public.
  
  For instance, it's true that the polls - and the election itself - show that voters were disgusted with the behavior of Rebpublicans. But I believe this just means that they want politicians to behave better - not that the passing of laws forcing them to do so is their most important concern.
  
  If we have to have higher taxes to make up for the enormous deficit the Republicans have wrought upon us, I think the public will be understanding about that as long as any tax reforms are obviously redressing the balance previously skewed in favor of the wealthy. People aren't stupid, they know that Democrats left office with a balanced budget and Republicans screwed up the whole economy with their stupid war. But I don't think raising minimum wage is enough, there has to be some serious effort to make some major changes in addition to that.
  
  Exit strategy in the war will also be a big issue over the next two years. If the party can't find some common ground to be effective on this issue, they will be in big trouble starting in less than a year.
  
  Health reform is getting to be a priority, too - and not just Medicare. There is a significant portion of the population who have no health insurance because it's unaffordable. And that percentage is growing every year. The time is right to be addressing this issue and the longer it is ignored, the more important it will become.
  
  I agree that the items on the agenda are all worthy, that they are both good policy and good politics. If they are achieved, it will be nice to be able to point to a good quantity of important accomplishments.
  
  But, remember, Bill Clinton won on one issue. "It's the economy, stupid." Because the voters all have ADD - they have one, maybe two, issues that are the most important to them and they will cast their votes based on those issues regardless of where candidates stand on most anything else. And I don't think that any of the issues on that Democratic agenda will be the hot button issue. The war. Taxes. Maybe the economy in general, depending how it performs over the next couple of years. Maybe health reform, although I think that will probably be more important after 2008. Still, it's something they should begin working on now if they don't want to be caught flat footed. It's a very complicated issue.
  
  But in the near future, it's the war. The Democrats don't have the luxury of waiting two years to deal with this issue. There are enough Republicans against this war to make a Democratic initiative possible. And they will be judged on this issue, make no mistake about it.
  
  I don't agree that the Democrats "don't have any ideas". But I do think they need to pull themselves together into a party united on how to handle some big issues. Ignoring those issues because they aren't starting from a position of total agreement is still going to make them a target for Republicans.
  
  Anyway, I think the Democrats have some big problems ahead of them and even if they accomplish every single one of the items on their agenda, it won't be enough to keep them in office. They need to pull together, become united and cohesive as a party. And they're off to a truly bad start. I still have no confidence in them. I think they got lucky and that luck is not going to hold unless they take advantage of it. Instead, their pushing it.

  By  Rebecca, at 10:26 AM  

• Well first of all, leadership fights are VERY common during brand new majorities.
  
  As for a more ambitious agenda or health care, taxes, the war, or u.s. living standards, I think you're forgetting something. We don't have a Parliamentary system of government, where the legislature has all the power. With Bush still in the presidency, anything more ambitious or controversial than what's already on the agenda is almost certainly going to be vetoed. There's also the problem of the Senate, where you need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
  
  I suppose you'd like the Democrats proposed an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, impeachment of Bush, a universal health insurance program, mandatory membership in unions, and a massive redistribution of wealth through the tax code. Leaving aside whether any of these policies are a good idea (which I don't think they are), trying to do so now would make things worse. Not only would these proposals fail to pass the Senate, but even if they weren't, they'd be vetoed by Bush. Since Bush is still President, with his bully pulpit and the support of the media he'd be able to brand the Democrats as radical left-wing traitors, viciously partisan, AND unable to get anything done.
  
  The Democrats did not run on an aggressive liberal agenda. They ran on restoring accountability to government, to clean up corruption in Congress, and to make incremental reforms on health care, education, retirement, etc. They also campaigned on trying to get Bush to change his Iraq policy - to develop an exit strategy. To try to do more than this not only won't be successful, it will also not be what they were sent there to do.
  
  That's what I think, anyway.

  By  Arbitrista, at 12:26 PM  

• "I suppose you'd like the Democrats proposed an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, impeachment of Bush, a universal health insurance program, mandatory membership in unions, and a massive redistribution of wealth through the tax code."
  
  Now, now, I've never given you reason to suppose I was an extreme leftist. But you cannot deny that our tax code and our health system are both severely in need of reform - the latter will be verging on desperate in the not too distant future.
  
  My prediction is that it will not be a factor in 2008, but it could very well be an enormous one by 2010. A little forward thinking by the Democrats could have something very effective in the arsenal at that time.
  
  As to the tax situation, it will be absolutely necessary to address that almost immediately to begin fixing that mind boggling deficit. It may as well be done in a more fair manner.
  
  I do see your point about presidential veto, but the thing to remember is that these things take an awful lot of time to research and draft. They need to get started on this stuff, now. I mean, no one in their right mind can deny that the Republicans took a balanced budget and put the country into a deep, black financial hole because of a war that was completely unnecessary. The Democrats should be able to almost blackmail those guys into supporting new legislation.
  
  "They also campaigned on trying to get Bush to change his Iraq policy - to develop an exit strategy."
  
  Well that wasn't on the little agenda you listed. In fact, you said,
  
  "You'll notice that Iraq and Immigration aren't on the agenda... That's because the Democrats are divided on these issues - as a consequence it doesn't make much sense to tackle them unless Bush decides to cooperate or when we have a Democratic President. Otherwise it will just hand the Republicans a political weapon while accomplishing nothing."
  
  Developing an exit strategy should be the highest priority right now. But, as you said, they are divided on this issue. My point is that they have to find enough common ground to unite over this issue and quickly. But I have doubts about their ability to do so. Serious doubts.
  
  So I stand by my position - which, I promise you, is nowhere near as extreme as you seem to think it is. It's just that I see the Democrats as a weak, fragmented party right now. And following up their victory with infighting at the top did absolutely nothing for their image or effectiveness. In fact, I think it may have been more harmful in its divisiveness than anyone realizes yet.
  
  Personally, I think they won their majority because they were the only alternative to the party in place and, because of that, they are merely on probation. If they don't demonstrate enough unity to make some significant changes, they will not get a chance to have a Democratic president - or, at least, not in 2008.
  
  That's what I think. But I guess we'll both have to wait and see how things shake out over the next couple of years. Just remember, Publius, winning that election was just the first step we needed. There are plenty of pitfalls ahead and we need to be aware of them in order to be able deal with them instead of being blindsided by them.
  
  "they should just do what they said they were going to." That's not going to be nearly as simple as it sounds.

  By  Rebecca, at 4:57 PM  

• The problem here is that we don't know precisely what voters were doing. They obviously weren't voting FOR the democrats, they were voting against the Republicans. Yet, were they voting against the party or the ideology? Since many democrats were elected espousing roughly the same, or similar socially conservative ideology, it is tempting to say, as many conservatives have, that the voters were punishing the Republicans for abandoning consevative orthodoxy. Yet, the New York Times was absolutely right: economic populism is back in vogue. I think Lou Dobbs and John Stossel for highlighting the fact that American is no longer a classless society, with the middle class being destroyed deliberately by the Republican Party.
  
  So, the Democrats should focus on shoring up the Middle Class. "4) Raising the minimum wage, making tuition tax deductible, and reducing college loan interest rates" is the only proposal that fits this bill. After the 1st 100 hours, they should take a page from the Roosevelt (FDR) handbook. Start creating programs that actively help the middle class: job training in information technologies, for instance. Adjust the Pell grant so that it actually pays for at least a full year of college. Education is the threshold for the middle class, with high school increasingly morphing into college in the last couple years. The Democrats should pass a bill copying the Advanced Placement (AP) model. Too many Americans just aren't prepared for globalization, and that's largely because the Republican Party has been catering to the very people who are afraid of globalization with bashing of illegal immigration. The U.S. should be an open country, but open in the right way. The Democratic Party can articulate a vision for the "right way" by focusing on the foundations of openness: protection of workers' rights and the environment. A presidential candidate like Edwards or Obama can provide the language for the right kind of openness.

  By  Marriah, at 12:34 PM  

Post a Comment
<< Home