The Left's Big Ideas (or not)

Washington Post ^ | April 25, 2006 | E. J. Dionne

[Angel]

WASHINGTON -- So Democratic Party leaders met over the weekend in New Orleans, gleefully criticized President Bush's stewardship and issued a ``vision'' statement that most pundits and reporters saw as less than visionary and not terribly specific.

Perfectly true, which underscores a central fact of American politics: ``New ideas,'' ``bold visions,'' ``detailed solutions'' and ``courageous policies'' almost never originate with politicians, especially politicians in the middle of election campaigns. Political consultants, with a few honorable exceptions, don't do ``vision'' either.

[Angel]

I find this interestin The biggest change is that moderates and liberals have begun to accept that they cannot simply adjust to conservative dominance of the political debate and alter their ideas to fit the current consensus. As Michael Tomasky writes in the current issue of The American Prospect, Democrats and their allies must destroy the current political ``paradigm'' based on ``radical individualism'' and replace it with a politics of the ``common good.'' Only a larger argument rooted in a different conception of government and society, Tomasky argues, will allow the party to ``do a lot more than squeak by in this fall's (or any) elections based on the usual unsatisfying admixture of compromises.''

In describing his common-good approach, Tomasky notes it has significant implications in challenging Democrats to stand for more than ``diversity and rights,'' however valuable these commitments might be. Both diversity and rights, he argues, would be better defended in a common-good framework. .

Common good sounds like communision or socialism to me. What do you think?

[Berlin_Freeper]

"Common good sounds like communision or socialism to me. What do you think?"


Definitely. sHillary even gave a speech not too long ago to the elite in SF about "taking things away from you for the common good."

If they start "taking things away" then no one will have the incentive to take risks to create businesses and the whole American way of life will crumble into the dust. And I guarantee you that sHillary will never take anything away from herself for any "common good".

The elite Liberal bleeding heart jerks like her will create the loop-holes for themselves just like always and it will be the upper middle class that gets the shaft, and that right there will be the ruin of America.

Those people make me sick in my stomach. I got my papers on the way right now to vote against that sHillary pig in my home State.

OUT PIG!

[malia]

bump

[CheyennePress]

They, of course, won't be able to say what this "common good" means.

Which is good and bad. Looks like they'll be running on Kerry's tried and tested "I have a plan! Elect me, and I'll tell you all about it!"-philosophy.

[jla]

Common good sounds like communism or socialism to me. What do you think?

I think "common good" is a euphemism for '20% of the people doing the work and the other 80% share the benefits'.

...oh wait, that's socialism/communism, isn't it.

[Steely Tom]

You know, I actually went to the link and read this stupid article, thinking that I would compose some compelling paragraph to refute it. But you know what? It's just a pack of utter drivel, and E.J. Dionne, whom I gather is some sort of intellectual leader of the left, is revealed as an utter boob, without an original idea in his head.

It would be folly to simulate some sort of argument with a fraud like E.J. Dionne. But, you know, I'm glad in a way. If he is the sort that is leading the left these days, we have little to worry about. Not to say that the left won't win a victory now and then, but I'm sure that when they do win some power back, they'll make a total mess of things in very short order, and quickly be voted back out again.

(steely)

[Timeout]

I wholeheartedly agree! Dionne is basically saying "What liberals need is some 'new ideas'". Ha. Political movements arise IN RESPONSE to ideas. I can't think of a single historical instance where a dying political movement saved itself with "new ideas".

Republicans' best response to the common-good theme is the "Mommy party" label. It's a wonderfully descriptive term: soft on national security, overly protective, feminized.

Neither Dionne or any other lib addresses their real problem...they stand for (but can't publicly embrace) unpopular issues. A good example is their focus-grouped response on gay marriage. After they floppd around for awhile, Kerry finally settled on: "I support traditional marriage. Homosexuals should have equal rights. And this is a matter of states' rights". Drivel. The first two contradict one another. And the last is in direct opposition to their Roe v. Wade stance. Their problem is they CANNOT say what they really believe (and would do once elected).

On taxes, conservatives have a perfect bullet: Bill Clinton promised tax cuts, but once in office magically discovered within 3 months that we needed tax INCREASES instead. Now Corzine has done exactly the same thing in Jersey. Republicans should tie the two together and hang it around Dems' necks.

[Steely Tom]

I've long thought that the "mommy party" and "daddy party" were brilliant distillations of the basic roles and philosophies of the two parties, compressed into two-word monikers.

The first person I ever heard state this idea was Dick Morris. As far as I know, he's the inventor of the concept. I could be wrong about this.

(steely)