No, you’re not getting my point. With 300 million different and diverse people they don’t all agree what constitutes a “good and improper ways of acting”. You have your ideas, other people have theirs.

November 9th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
“Why is America waiting for anything? Why is it not doing what it knows needs doing on its own without having to be told to by a “leader”? Why does it buy, pay for, what it doesn’t want?”

The answer is simple – there IS no “it”. There’s 300 million separate sets of choices , priorities, or needs.

So, since a reasonable number of the 300 million can’t figure out how to act in a good, effective, reasonable and proper way, all they need is a dictator, eh. One would think they could at least learn to boycott not good and improper ways of acting.

Cheers.

Thanks again, see ya on another thread.

I’d like to make a subtle distinction. I’m sure you’re right that AT SOME LEVEL most politicians are in it to make the world a better place as they understand the term. But I’m talking about something a little different.

What I’M saying is that these same politicians see playing the “getting elected” game as the price they have to pay for even having a shot at improving the world. And it is such an all-consuming game that it ends up becoming the point itself. With only two political parties any voter you alienate is liable to represent a vote for the other side, so you have to talk out of both sides of your mouth. And with the cost of even a US House campaign so astronomical you have no CHOICE but to put yourself in the pocket of special interests.

So while I agree that rookie politicians may get into this with the best of intentions, but they will quickly discover that if they do not have a fanatically single-minded dedication to WINNING, their opponent, who DOES have sich dedication, will beat them and their good intentions wiill never see the light of day. it’s a devil’s bargain but there you have it.

The new majority needs to behave in a respectful and responsible matter. (To do anything else would be strategically stupid, amongst other things). The desire for political revenge, by some, should be tempered. Also, cynicism is not effective, in my opinion, because there is too much at stake.

Republicans see people as citizens, team members of a country that is competing in the world, in business, in war, in philosophy. Republicans want to solve real problems … or at least make money attempting to. Republicans seem to have, in their very nature a cohesiveness that makes them more uniform and focused.
Republicans want to give boosts to other Republicans, they want to empower the system to act proactively.

Democrats see people as individuals, socially. They can be interested in anything and connected outside the bounds of the country. They see people not as national beings, but as human beings. Democrats are less concerned with national issues, they are more focused on themselves or world issues. Democrats want to do good. They can be interested in many thing which makes them more diverse and less cohesive and focused. Democrats often only act when they are in a crisis and act reactively.

The odd contradictions in these people types, and the natural assymetries that come about are what I think cause things like the last 6 years or total national division and stress and even debilitation are not good.

What the last 6 years has done is to reward only a certain kind of thinking and behavior and to marginize the other point of view, create a schzism where at once only half the country can be activated at a time.

The Republican idea of teambuilding seems to reward aggressive, unilateral
bullying behavior at the fringe, and the suggestion in the leadership tone.

What is the Democrats idea of teambuilding?

My head still rings from that boisterous election but I’m glad it’s over and the US public woke up long enough to boot the GOP elephant in its ass.

That it took so long disturbs me.
That it required so much corruption and folly frightens me.
That there is too much elation and expectation worries me.
That the democrats shifted further right to win perturbs me.
That the problems seem so overwhelming and the solutions so limited terrifies me.
That historical forgetting is built into the national DNA troubles me.
That the whole thing will start up again soon for the next political show 2 year from now irritates me.

America, don’t be too proud of your political process and your Start-me-up democracy.

Where is that ice-bag.

Two answers:

There’s the “politics” that is merely pursuit of personal power. There are also politicians who want to serve, who want to make the world better. I hope it is not true that *most* politicians are in it for pure power over others; in fact, I don’t believe it is true.

Your question reminds me of the interaction on the show about the difference between people who believe in good governance and those cynics who cast all of it off as something lesser than. Put me in the former camp.

This is spin, nothing more. This is neither a conservative nor a liberal victory. Rather, this is a pragmatists victory–and a victory for the notion that all politics is local. The Democrats have become pragmatic enough to realize that they need a big tent, and they’ve fostered an environment where, say, Catholics who believe in the Democratic party’s vision of economic justice but who are opposed to abortion can find a home alongside the party’s social liberals.

The idea that an election in which Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders are elected to the Senate is a “conservative victory” is just conservatives trying to put a good face on the disaster that befell them.

What we have now is a Democratic party that can accomodate gun owners from Montana as well as urbanites in New York. Still, that doesn’t mean that the party can’t come to a consensus on issues such as raising the minimum wage. I expect that the Democrats will focus on the economic issues at the federal level, and leave the social issues to the states.

Contrast this to the Republican party where the biggest wingnuts are given a bully pulpit and moderates are marginalized. Really, who was more qualified (in terms of actual knowledge and insight) to head the Senate Committee on the Environment–James Inhofe (who calls global warming a “hoax”) or Lincoln Chafee? Perhaps if the party had actually listened to Chafee occasionally and shown Rhode Islanders some respect, Chafee might have gotten re-elected and maintained the Republican majority.

But isn’t this true for most politicians?

Anyway, one thing that many Democrats are forgetting as their party parties, is that the voters did not vote FOR them because they had any fresh, inspiring new ideas. The voters voted AGAINST the GOP because they made such a terrible mess of everything.

Most of what I’ve been hearing from the Democrats is the same old rhetoric and the same old solutions. They have an opportunity here to do something that might make people want to actually vote FOR them 2 years from now, but do you think they’ll use it? I don’t.

Surely it is too late to redeem this disastrous legacy! The best he can do is make his overall presidential narrative more interesting…throw in a pinch of poignancy, that kind of thing.

I came away from that press confernce thinking these things:

(1) It really is ALL POLITICS for him. All decisions at all times are political (personal power) …rather than moral or learned or genuinely brave or timely.

(2) So…Poppy’s guy is being brought in to help clean up Junior’s mess. I note that Maureen Dowd apparently saw the same thing – with this difference: she had an insider witness to confirm it – “Poppy Bush and James Baker gave Sonny the presidency to play with and he broke it. So now they’re taking it back.”

(3) David Kuo, Paul O’Neill, even David Frum, and others have pointed out that GWB SAYS a lot of fine-sounding words, but doesn’t really mean them, never really delivers the behavior to back them up. So, we’ll just have to watch how this openess and bi-partisanship plays as in our real world. Narrative unfolding.

The answer is simple – there IS no “it”. There’s 300 million separate sets of choices , priorities, or needs.

But is the American public in the mood to have a serious, adult dialogue about the huge problems that face this country? Global warming and energy independence is one such question. The healthcare crisis is another. Because I am one of those something “net” actvisits, I would add in the ugly truth that Katrina washed up, poverty in America.

In the last seventy-two hours, I was making calls through MoveOn.org’s computer system all around the country (a marvel), button-holing citizens and handing out flyers in my town for Debra Bowen for secretary of state in California, and making calls in support of Jerry McNerney and against Richard Pombo, one of my career activist’s great pleasures and highlights I must say. I did feel a shift in the this country talking to folks, democrats fired up and reopublicans rethinking their leaders and positions.

But will this enthusiasm and introspection last or is it onto Britney Spears and the lastest reality show craze? I don’t know. But I do know one thing for sure from all my years in the trenches. The democrats will squander any and all political capital and momentum if they play to the middle and lose the “vision thing.” Remmeber that other Bush who didn’t have the vision thing? And what happened to him after four years. Well the dems will end up the same way but in half the time, by 2008 if they do not offer leadership and vision to the American public.

Even moderate or conservative democrats can agree about what basically needs to be done with global warming and energy independence. And they can find many rebublicans to join them in the cause starting with John McCain. The healthcare crisis will bankrupt our government and private sector is nothing is done about it. That is something republicans and democrats can agree upon. And since we are in a moral mood, forty-six million Americans without health insurance is a moral imperative to act. Now I think the answer to the healthcare crisis is in the quality it offers, coming from a health and healing perspective, keeping people healthy, off of prescription drugs and out of the hospital. This a bold answer but the only viable one I think. It will be up to the dems and thier allies across the aisle to make the case to the American people.

Actually Americans like vision and passion in their leaders. Look at George W. The problem is that he lacked substance. So the answer is vision, passion, experience and wisdom in leading this country out of the malaise we are in. A lot to ask for from any politician. But America is actually waiting for this kind of leadership to emerge.

Who will it be? Al Gore, Barack Obama or one or more of those fine candidates we just elected to office. Nancy Pelosi wake up! There is no middle road left to trod.

It’s amazing to be where the action is just by chance, especially since I’m leaving Friday. I attended Jerry Falwell’s church service Sunday, where he scoffed at a House of Representatives led by “San Francisco Pelosi.” (San Francisco apparently the modern day stand-in for Sodom and Gomorrah.) I’d love to hear what he’s going to say this coming Sunday. I wonder if my cable carrier in north Jersey even carries it…

The dominant emotion is disbelief. It’s like Red Sox fans in 2004. Democrats of this generation are so used to losing that it’s part of their personality. Winning is disorientating. If the Democrats have Congress, then anything is possible. Maybe my novel will be optioned by Hollywood next.

Debbie Galant
http://www.baristanet.com

“Just because the Demos won’t agree with this poster doesn’t mean that they have “no guts.”

It means that their view of the world will be different from the poster or perhaps even from mine.

Guts has nothing to do with it.”

jdyer – I seem to have hit a nerve. Don’t you think politics corrupts many a “world view”
but you are correct – my world view is certain to be different from the Democrats.
However, I do hold them to their stated positions.
-Not that I have any real right too — -not being a natural US citizen-

I suppose if we’re going to do some of this here, I have to put something up. So, on my final question (regarding how to find consensus amidst deep philosophical divides), I would recommend Michael Sandel’s recent collection (now in paperback) “Public Philosophy.” Sandel argues against some of the views I expressed in one of my posts this morning, but what he has to say on the prospects for (and value of) consensus is pretty essential stuff, and incoming Democrats could do worse than to understand these faultlines a lot better.

Whatever it is, it will be all about election strategy, marketing, demographics, etc.

That’s all both parties are about these days – the whole thing is just about winning and selling; it has nothing to do with any core vision of nations, history, the role of the state, society, individuals, or anything else that used to form the basis of political philosophy or ideology.

One of the big problems with only having two political parties in the US is that each one has to be so BROAD in its appaeal that it cannot take the risk of articulating a clear point of view, for fear of alienating some group, which will then go to the other parrty because that’s their only other choice.

As a result, Americans have NO CONCEPT of the purpose of a political party, which is to advance a core set of interests or values. In other democracies you can have a GENUINE conservative party or green party or Christian party or socialist party or whatever, because they are not TRYING to be all things to all voters. Instead, they are trying to represent the interests of THEIR constituency. That’s the CORRECT way to do it because that way most voters can find SOME party or politician to speak for THEM. In America that’s almost impossible.

We don’t need to answer these questions right away, but what are the books (or articles or pamphlets or blogs or whatever) that best explain where the country will (or should) be going under a Democratic Congress? What is the 2006 Election’s reading list?