Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Turn the DNC Purple http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Dean%20DNC
I have a feeling that Dean is going to make a bid for DNC Chair:
UPDATE: The inevitable Draft Howard petition website has sprung up.
Dean as head the DNC would be a strong move in favor of more Purple-based politics, in my opinio. The reason is that Dean was the first, and remained the only, candidate to articulate the idea that the Democrats should not concede the South. Re-orienting the Democratic Party towards a truly national one, rather than trying to cherry-pick a majority of selected regions, is essential towards changing the RedBlue political culture. At the very least, it would force the Republicans to compete on the issues in Red States, which would introduce more dimensions to the political dialouge than just "god, gays, and guns" - and I am not just talking about economic appeals. Rather, the opportunity for a morality-guided domestic policy, with regard to charity, social works, and a true culture of life (more on that soon...).
The important thing is to try to move away from the same old GOTV arms race paradigm and to try to craft a geniunely national platform.
There is a political benefit as well. The various factions within the Democratic party - the DLC, the Clintonistas, the Kennedy Clan, etc - all were united against Dean. In Kerry, they had the chance to finally unite and present their conscensus candidate (selected through the front-loaded primary schedule that McAuliffe, a Clintonista, crafted precisely for the purpose of a rapid selection). Kerry's failure has essentially bankrupted their political capital. Dean represents a bold change and in remains the Democrats' sole success story (with regard to transformative politics). As chairman, he would actually have a mandate of sorts, to try new strategies and stymie the firmly-inside-the-box inertia thinking of the old guard. After all,m he can simply say, "you torpedoed me, and you got your way - and you failed. Now its time to try it my way." That kind of freedom is almost comparable to that of, say, an incumbent President freed from the worries of re-election.
ADDENDUM: Steve Grossman is a former chairman of AIPAC, who seemed to be a turncoat during the Dean campaign's waning hours, but is someone who still has Dean's trust and therefore deserves benefit of the doubt.
UPDATE: Liberal Oasis disagrees, arguing that Dean should instead seek to be a Bill Kristol-inspired Strategist and Ass-Kicker At Large (SAKAL). It's an intriguing idea, but why wouldn't Dean's arguments be any less distorted if he were the SAKAL rather than the DNC Chair, by the right-wing smear machine?
UPDATE: The inevitable Draft Howard petition website has sprung up.
Former presidential candidate Howard Dean is considering a bid to become chairman of the national Democratic Party.
"He told me he was thinking about it," Steve Grossman, himself a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Monday. Grossman was a Dean backer during the former Vermont governor's failed presidential bid."I strongly urged (Dean) to seek the position," he said. "Howard is a voice of political empowerment and that to me is important, for the Democrats to get their sea legs back as quickly as possible, to get beyond the disappointment of the last week and to believe there is a bright future ahead for the Democratic Party."
Dean has been outspoken since the beginning of his presidential bid in saying that the Democratic Party must establish a separate and unique identity from Republicans.
Grossman said that if Dean were to run for DNC chair, he would need to pledge that he would serve the full four-year term, thus ruling out a presidential bid in 2008.
Dean as head the DNC would be a strong move in favor of more Purple-based politics, in my opinio. The reason is that Dean was the first, and remained the only, candidate to articulate the idea that the Democrats should not concede the South. Re-orienting the Democratic Party towards a truly national one, rather than trying to cherry-pick a majority of selected regions, is essential towards changing the RedBlue political culture. At the very least, it would force the Republicans to compete on the issues in Red States, which would introduce more dimensions to the political dialouge than just "god, gays, and guns" - and I am not just talking about economic appeals. Rather, the opportunity for a morality-guided domestic policy, with regard to charity, social works, and a true culture of life (more on that soon...).
The important thing is to try to move away from the same old GOTV arms race paradigm and to try to craft a geniunely national platform.
There is a political benefit as well. The various factions within the Democratic party - the DLC, the Clintonistas, the Kennedy Clan, etc - all were united against Dean. In Kerry, they had the chance to finally unite and present their conscensus candidate (selected through the front-loaded primary schedule that McAuliffe, a Clintonista, crafted precisely for the purpose of a rapid selection). Kerry's failure has essentially bankrupted their political capital. Dean represents a bold change and in remains the Democrats' sole success story (with regard to transformative politics). As chairman, he would actually have a mandate of sorts, to try new strategies and stymie the firmly-inside-the-box inertia thinking of the old guard. After all,m he can simply say, "you torpedoed me, and you got your way - and you failed. Now its time to try it my way." That kind of freedom is almost comparable to that of, say, an incumbent President freed from the worries of re-election.
ADDENDUM: Steve Grossman is a former chairman of AIPAC, who seemed to be a turncoat during the Dean campaign's waning hours, but is someone who still has Dean's trust and therefore deserves benefit of the doubt.
UPDATE: Liberal Oasis disagrees, arguing that Dean should instead seek to be a Bill Kristol-inspired Strategist and Ass-Kicker At Large (SAKAL). It's an intriguing idea, but why wouldn't Dean's arguments be any less distorted if he were the SAKAL rather than the DNC Chair, by the right-wing smear machine?
Monday, November 08, 2004
Redistricting and Democracy http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/8417.html
Over at Cliopatra, K.C. Johnson looks at gerrymandering as a crisis in American democracy:
When our Constitution was designed, the founders saw the House a representing the changing whims of the masses, while the Senate with its lesser turnover would be where the issues of the day were deliberating by those of wisdom and experience. However, we're now in a situation where prior to this election - and maybe even now, with a couple of party defections - the Senate is the body most likely to change hands. As Dick Morris has often said on FOXNews, most Congressional seats are now little more than pensioned civil service positions dispensed by party patronage networks.
This is a crisis in democracy because it means that with control of the state legislature, a party can ensure its dominance of that legislature and by extension its congressional delegation for the foreseeable future barring a major shift in party allegiance in that state. This was always something of a possibility, but because the lid has now been opened on redrawing congressional districts whenever a legislature feels like it, has become easier than ever before. Is some demographic shift making things competitive again? Just tweak the lines here and there and make things safe again.
Many voters living in "safe states" complained to me during the election that they felt powerless, as their vote didn't seem to count. The states, at least, are well-established entities, and you could argue that as long as we have the electoral college, those will be the breaks. Congressional districts, however, change all the time. Imagine of Congress and the President could redraw the state lines. Were things too close in Ohio? Cut a slice out of eastern Indiana while attaching Cleveland to Michigan. At the same time, make Philadelphia part of New Jersey while replacing it in Pennsylvania with some of western New York. You get the idea - it's called rigging the system. And it must be stopped now.
"Excluding the Texas gerrymander, last Tuesday three incumbent congressmen (two Republicans, one Democrat) were defeated; three more open seats changed parties (two previously held by a Republican, one by a Democrat). In only 12 other contests (CA 20, CO 4, CT 2, CT 4, IN 2, IN 8, MN 6, MO 3, NY 29, OR 5, SD AL, PA 6) did the winner prevail by less than 10 percentage points. (Two seats in Louisiana remain to be decided.) This outcome occurred at a time when a majority of voters believed that the country was on the wrong track and the country is mired in a war that (regardless of one’s opinions on its merits) clearly has not gone as the administration promised."
When our Constitution was designed, the founders saw the House a representing the changing whims of the masses, while the Senate with its lesser turnover would be where the issues of the day were deliberating by those of wisdom and experience. However, we're now in a situation where prior to this election - and maybe even now, with a couple of party defections - the Senate is the body most likely to change hands. As Dick Morris has often said on FOXNews, most Congressional seats are now little more than pensioned civil service positions dispensed by party patronage networks.
This is a crisis in democracy because it means that with control of the state legislature, a party can ensure its dominance of that legislature and by extension its congressional delegation for the foreseeable future barring a major shift in party allegiance in that state. This was always something of a possibility, but because the lid has now been opened on redrawing congressional districts whenever a legislature feels like it, has become easier than ever before. Is some demographic shift making things competitive again? Just tweak the lines here and there and make things safe again.
Many voters living in "safe states" complained to me during the election that they felt powerless, as their vote didn't seem to count. The states, at least, are well-established entities, and you could argue that as long as we have the electoral college, those will be the breaks. Congressional districts, however, change all the time. Imagine of Congress and the President could redraw the state lines. Were things too close in Ohio? Cut a slice out of eastern Indiana while attaching Cleveland to Michigan. At the same time, make Philadelphia part of New Jersey while replacing it in Pennsylvania with some of western New York. You get the idea - it's called rigging the system. And it must be stopped now.
Dean's daughter in SUV rollover accident http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-briefs8.4nov08,0,2306814,print.story?coll=la-home-nation
Thankfully, no one seems to have been hurt. Thoughts and prayers go out to the family. With Elizabeth Edwards' breast cancer and now this, one could be forgiven for wondering if the Curse of the Bambino found a new home.
The daughter of former Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean and four other young women were sent to a hospital after their sport utility vehicle rolled over on Interstate 91, state police said.
Anne Dean, 20, was treated and released from Yale-New Haven Hospital, said a hospital spokeswoman, who would not describe any injuries.
State police said Mona El Sayed, 17, of Tinton Falls, N.J., was the driver of the Ford SUV, which is owned by Howard Dean.
Two faces
Change is in the air...and here I am. This morning I talked with Aziz a bit about politics and he invited me to post here to offer a different perspective. My plan is to post once a week on a politically related topic.
If you don't know who I am, and most of you likely don't, I am Razib Khan, and I run the weblog Gene Expression. I have filled out a political quiz, and you can view the results here. I am by self-description a small-l "libertarian," though I am a small-r "republican" first and foremost. Though Aziz and I disagree on many political issues, talking to him a few times in the past week (I am visiting Houston for business) has exposed the reality that though we are very different individuals we share deep ontological commitments.
As an illustration of my priorities, I will offer that I would rather live in a socialist or social conservative democratic republic than in a libertarian regime headed by a "benevolent" monarch. Process matters a great deal to me, because I implicitly assent to the maxim that the life we live now is interwoven with a promise that we make to generations that will come after, and a reverence for those who have come before us. It is through process that we preserve the means to extend our polity into the future rather than fixating on the ends of the next few years to the point where we mortgage our descendent's inheritance.
Enough narcissistic prattle. I must come clean to readers of this blog, I have said a great many negative things about American liberalism on my weblog over the past few years, a fair amount of it laced with sarcasm and contempt. But as I become more reflective politically, I realize that part of my anger was shaped by my college experiences at the University of Oregon, where a particular type of fashionable liberalism was normative. It is also influenced by the reality that I reside in a small southern Oregon town where New Age spiritualism and a hyperliberal sensibility are omnipresent (to make it more concrete, last year, 90% of bumper stickers were for Dennis Kucinich, with the balance being for Howard Dean). I believe my objection is to a particular type of "liberalism," rather than the whole broad swath of center-Left ideology.
Already I have stated that I share many ontological beliefs with Aziz. I will be more explicit about them now:
On the other hand, there is a new strain of modern liberalism which draws my ire, which I will term "Romantic." This liberalism manifests itself in emotional appeals to Nature (the capital is purposeful) and has an idealized vision of non-Western cultures. This liberalism will often speak of Women's Ways of Knowing, or Linear Western Thinking, as if the various classes of human (divided by gender, race or religion) are fundamentally and categorically unintelligible to each other, separated by a chasm of unshared persuppositions. I have had many negative interactions with this sort of liberalism, and showing will be much more illuminating than saying, so here are two anecdotes.
About 4 years ago I was sitting in Starbucks with a friend of mine whose father is an Israeli-Arab and whose mother is Scottish-American. Physically he resembles your typical American kid. He was rather fixated on the Second Intifada (his family still resides in Nazareth in an Arab region of Israel proper) and so we were discussing the situation. Out of the corner of my eye I notice a young man staring at us. Finally, he strides up to us and asks us why we are talking about Israel. I replied that we were just talking about the Arab-Israeli conflict. He stated that he didn't understand why I wasn't talking about my own culture. I asked him what he meant, and he responded that I was obviously South Asian, so as a Hindu I seem to have a peculiar interest in the Middle East. Then he turned to my friend and said as a white man he could never judge what was happening in the Middle East clearly. He then offered that he was of Jewish origin but had backpacked through Jordan and Turkey, and found Arab culture "beautiful."
My friend was incensed at this point, because he was of course ancestrally half-Arab, no matter that he "looked white," while I was totally irritated, since my origin is Muslim (though I have pretty much always been an atheist), not Hindu. When I explained the situation, the individual in question seemed to back off on criticizing my friend for his interest in Israel, after all, he was an Arab, but he still stated that Islam was not my "natural" religion, that as a South Asian I should be Hindu. It mattered little to him that my paternal line is filled with imams of mosques, or that one of my great-grandfather's is a local Muslim pir (saint). My brown skin meant that I was a Hindu.
The second anecdote I will offer is of someone I met on the plane. He was talking about how much better non-Western cultures were, and that his time spent in Turkey showed him that Islam was a religion much more sensible than Christian superstition. As an apostate who has experienced a non-trivial amount of harassment, I get tired of this sort of talk, so I pulled out the "feminism card." The feminism card is simply pointing out that Islamic cultures are by and large not particularly liberal in the realm of female autonomy, whether you believe this is intrinsic to Islam itself, it is a plain reality on the ground. I particularly get irked when men who have visited the Middle East as tourists tell me how great those cultures are, since they haven't experienced them as natives, least of all as women. The feminism card is generally a way I have used to push some of my friends away from an uncritical lionization of non-Western cultures. And it always used to work. But of late it hasn't been working as much. My friend on the plane responded that well, cultures differed, and who were we to judge? Cultures might differ, but universal human values do not, and in good liberal tradition I happen to believe that there are universal values, that slavery is wrong, that state sanctioned sexism is wrong, that religious intolerance is wrong. But for some people, as long as sexism or religious fanaticism wear's a brown skin, well, that's just a different culture.
The anecdotes above lead to my next assertion: there is a strain of modern liberalism that is turning its back on the Enlightenment, rejecting the West, rejecting objective truth, rejecting universal values, and resurrecting romantic nationalism as an organizing principle of society. This strain of liberalism is I believe closely related to the rise of Post Modern thought, which negates standards and undermines the legitimacy of reason. If you reject reason, where do you turn to? Tradition! And tradition is often embedded within ethno-national cultures, and here you have the tendency to view individuals as members of groups instead of as ends in and of themselves. Now, to some of you out there this might be a peculiar concept, but over the past few years I have had the recurrent experience of being first thought of as a member of an ethno-national group (after physical inspection of my appearance) and so resulting in a barrage of questions about South Indian Hindu temples, vegetarianism and the like, and when I respond that this is inappropriate, most people have the decency to be embarrassed, but several have simply stated to me plainly that I should know what my true culture is. The implication is that my true culture is encoded in my DNA, in my blood, in my ancestry. There is where the flight from reason will always lead.
Now, why is this relevant? Well, it depends on who American liberals want to ally with. A flight from reason, a turn back toward organic traditionalism, will mean that people like me, highly secular libertarians, will always oppose the march of "liberalism." I stand with the Enlightenment, I stand with the West, and no matter that they aren't my literal genetic forebears, I stand with the Dead White Males who gave us modern science, abolished slavery and ushered in the age of affluence which has freed man from so many of its persistent plagues. Such assertions today mean that I am often labeled as a "conservative" in my social circles, but the reality is that the revolutions of the past 200 years are worth preserving rather than suborning, there is a great deal I wish to conserve. If that makes me a conservative, than I accept that label. And labels, typologies, ideologies matter, because thought and consideration always precedes action that is not reflexive.
If you don't know who I am, and most of you likely don't, I am Razib Khan, and I run the weblog Gene Expression. I have filled out a political quiz, and you can view the results here. I am by self-description a small-l "libertarian," though I am a small-r "republican" first and foremost. Though Aziz and I disagree on many political issues, talking to him a few times in the past week (I am visiting Houston for business) has exposed the reality that though we are very different individuals we share deep ontological commitments.
As an illustration of my priorities, I will offer that I would rather live in a socialist or social conservative democratic republic than in a libertarian regime headed by a "benevolent" monarch. Process matters a great deal to me, because I implicitly assent to the maxim that the life we live now is interwoven with a promise that we make to generations that will come after, and a reverence for those who have come before us. It is through process that we preserve the means to extend our polity into the future rather than fixating on the ends of the next few years to the point where we mortgage our descendent's inheritance.
Enough narcissistic prattle. I must come clean to readers of this blog, I have said a great many negative things about American liberalism on my weblog over the past few years, a fair amount of it laced with sarcasm and contempt. But as I become more reflective politically, I realize that part of my anger was shaped by my college experiences at the University of Oregon, where a particular type of fashionable liberalism was normative. It is also influenced by the reality that I reside in a small southern Oregon town where New Age spiritualism and a hyperliberal sensibility are omnipresent (to make it more concrete, last year, 90% of bumper stickers were for Dennis Kucinich, with the balance being for Howard Dean). I believe my objection is to a particular type of "liberalism," rather than the whole broad swath of center-Left ideology.
Already I have stated that I share many ontological beliefs with Aziz. I will be more explicit about them now:
- Operationally we must assume there is an objective universe.
- Truth has meaning outside of any "social construction."
- Ideas can transcend culture, that is, universalism, can triumph over intellectual particularisms.
- Intellectual discourse must be grounded in good faith.
- Reason is not a Western superstition, but a common human tool.
On the other hand, there is a new strain of modern liberalism which draws my ire, which I will term "Romantic." This liberalism manifests itself in emotional appeals to Nature (the capital is purposeful) and has an idealized vision of non-Western cultures. This liberalism will often speak of Women's Ways of Knowing, or Linear Western Thinking, as if the various classes of human (divided by gender, race or religion) are fundamentally and categorically unintelligible to each other, separated by a chasm of unshared persuppositions. I have had many negative interactions with this sort of liberalism, and showing will be much more illuminating than saying, so here are two anecdotes.
About 4 years ago I was sitting in Starbucks with a friend of mine whose father is an Israeli-Arab and whose mother is Scottish-American. Physically he resembles your typical American kid. He was rather fixated on the Second Intifada (his family still resides in Nazareth in an Arab region of Israel proper) and so we were discussing the situation. Out of the corner of my eye I notice a young man staring at us. Finally, he strides up to us and asks us why we are talking about Israel. I replied that we were just talking about the Arab-Israeli conflict. He stated that he didn't understand why I wasn't talking about my own culture. I asked him what he meant, and he responded that I was obviously South Asian, so as a Hindu I seem to have a peculiar interest in the Middle East. Then he turned to my friend and said as a white man he could never judge what was happening in the Middle East clearly. He then offered that he was of Jewish origin but had backpacked through Jordan and Turkey, and found Arab culture "beautiful."
My friend was incensed at this point, because he was of course ancestrally half-Arab, no matter that he "looked white," while I was totally irritated, since my origin is Muslim (though I have pretty much always been an atheist), not Hindu. When I explained the situation, the individual in question seemed to back off on criticizing my friend for his interest in Israel, after all, he was an Arab, but he still stated that Islam was not my "natural" religion, that as a South Asian I should be Hindu. It mattered little to him that my paternal line is filled with imams of mosques, or that one of my great-grandfather's is a local Muslim pir (saint). My brown skin meant that I was a Hindu.
The second anecdote I will offer is of someone I met on the plane. He was talking about how much better non-Western cultures were, and that his time spent in Turkey showed him that Islam was a religion much more sensible than Christian superstition. As an apostate who has experienced a non-trivial amount of harassment, I get tired of this sort of talk, so I pulled out the "feminism card." The feminism card is simply pointing out that Islamic cultures are by and large not particularly liberal in the realm of female autonomy, whether you believe this is intrinsic to Islam itself, it is a plain reality on the ground. I particularly get irked when men who have visited the Middle East as tourists tell me how great those cultures are, since they haven't experienced them as natives, least of all as women. The feminism card is generally a way I have used to push some of my friends away from an uncritical lionization of non-Western cultures. And it always used to work. But of late it hasn't been working as much. My friend on the plane responded that well, cultures differed, and who were we to judge? Cultures might differ, but universal human values do not, and in good liberal tradition I happen to believe that there are universal values, that slavery is wrong, that state sanctioned sexism is wrong, that religious intolerance is wrong. But for some people, as long as sexism or religious fanaticism wear's a brown skin, well, that's just a different culture.
The anecdotes above lead to my next assertion: there is a strain of modern liberalism that is turning its back on the Enlightenment, rejecting the West, rejecting objective truth, rejecting universal values, and resurrecting romantic nationalism as an organizing principle of society. This strain of liberalism is I believe closely related to the rise of Post Modern thought, which negates standards and undermines the legitimacy of reason. If you reject reason, where do you turn to? Tradition! And tradition is often embedded within ethno-national cultures, and here you have the tendency to view individuals as members of groups instead of as ends in and of themselves. Now, to some of you out there this might be a peculiar concept, but over the past few years I have had the recurrent experience of being first thought of as a member of an ethno-national group (after physical inspection of my appearance) and so resulting in a barrage of questions about South Indian Hindu temples, vegetarianism and the like, and when I respond that this is inappropriate, most people have the decency to be embarrassed, but several have simply stated to me plainly that I should know what my true culture is. The implication is that my true culture is encoded in my DNA, in my blood, in my ancestry. There is where the flight from reason will always lead.
Now, why is this relevant? Well, it depends on who American liberals want to ally with. A flight from reason, a turn back toward organic traditionalism, will mean that people like me, highly secular libertarians, will always oppose the march of "liberalism." I stand with the Enlightenment, I stand with the West, and no matter that they aren't my literal genetic forebears, I stand with the Dead White Males who gave us modern science, abolished slavery and ushered in the age of affluence which has freed man from so many of its persistent plagues. Such assertions today mean that I am often labeled as a "conservative" in my social circles, but the reality is that the revolutions of the past 200 years are worth preserving rather than suborning, there is a great deal I wish to conserve. If that makes me a conservative, than I accept that label. And labels, typologies, ideologies matter, because thought and consideration always precedes action that is not reflexive.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Change
I've been reflecting on what direction this blog needs to go to remain an independent and useful voice in bringing true dialog back to American politics. I started this blog solo, but recruited an amazing number of people like Heath and Dana and Anna and everyone else who posted here with such passion and excitement for two years. But I think it's time to rethink what this blog stands for and what its purpose is.
It can't be about Howard Dean, the man, anymore. Nor can it be about Barack Obama the same way. It needs to be about something larger than a single politician, or even a single ideology. Reading Dean's quote at left about reaching out, and Obama's quote about One America, it inspires me - to think outside the boxes that Dean and Obama themselves still inhabit to a large degree.
I have been talking about "purple states" recently. If you look at where most of the liberal left-leaning blogs are going, they are debating how to turn states blue, and see the Purple-ness of those states as a sign of eventual success. This is still old thinking, an implicit validation of the binary nature of politics.
Politics is not binary at the individual level. And if we are heirs to the Dean movement, we must recognize that the individual is king. And that the individual operates according to universal prinicples, interpreted differently, based on experience, upbringing, and raw opinion.
The challenge then is to bring more divserity to Dean Nation, to seek out voices from farther beyond the narrow center-left spectrum we used to have. And to try and re-define the issues according to what values and principles we share.
Why shouldn't liberals be for nuclear power? Why shouldn't conservatives be for a woman's rights? Wy shouldn't a libertarian be for socialized health care? In fact, many Americans in Purple America are all these things, a seeming paradox if you look at teh world thrugh red-blue filters, but no paradox at all if you understand that people respect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Here's what this vision means in practical terms for Dean Nation. I'd like to thank many of our best front-page stalwarts such as Heath and Anna and Gabriel and Trammel for their hard work here - and ask them to continue their leadership as role models in the comment threads, helping to police our community and lending their voices to the discussion. Replacing them on teh front page will be new voices, fresh ones, that will articulate positions that will challenge the old right-left dogma and instead seek to build bridges across the artificial divides.
In short, we need dialog, and we cannot achieve it whilst talking to ourselves.
I know I risk offending many in our Dean Nation community by introducing such radical change. But I want this site to never become what the old o-blog became and where DailyKos and other liberal blogs seem to be headed: an echo chamber, bereft of innovation and increasingly full of stereotype about 51% of the population that have been artificially placed on the other side of an imaginary line. We can bridge that gap. I hope you'll join me in this new experiment. We have a lot to learn.
It can't be about Howard Dean, the man, anymore. Nor can it be about Barack Obama the same way. It needs to be about something larger than a single politician, or even a single ideology. Reading Dean's quote at left about reaching out, and Obama's quote about One America, it inspires me - to think outside the boxes that Dean and Obama themselves still inhabit to a large degree.
I have been talking about "purple states" recently. If you look at where most of the liberal left-leaning blogs are going, they are debating how to turn states blue, and see the Purple-ness of those states as a sign of eventual success. This is still old thinking, an implicit validation of the binary nature of politics.
Politics is not binary at the individual level. And if we are heirs to the Dean movement, we must recognize that the individual is king. And that the individual operates according to universal prinicples, interpreted differently, based on experience, upbringing, and raw opinion.
The challenge then is to bring more divserity to Dean Nation, to seek out voices from farther beyond the narrow center-left spectrum we used to have. And to try and re-define the issues according to what values and principles we share.
Why shouldn't liberals be for nuclear power? Why shouldn't conservatives be for a woman's rights? Wy shouldn't a libertarian be for socialized health care? In fact, many Americans in Purple America are all these things, a seeming paradox if you look at teh world thrugh red-blue filters, but no paradox at all if you understand that people respect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Here's what this vision means in practical terms for Dean Nation. I'd like to thank many of our best front-page stalwarts such as Heath and Anna and Gabriel and Trammel for their hard work here - and ask them to continue their leadership as role models in the comment threads, helping to police our community and lending their voices to the discussion. Replacing them on teh front page will be new voices, fresh ones, that will articulate positions that will challenge the old right-left dogma and instead seek to build bridges across the artificial divides.
In short, we need dialog, and we cannot achieve it whilst talking to ourselves.
I know I risk offending many in our Dean Nation community by introducing such radical change. But I want this site to never become what the old o-blog became and where DailyKos and other liberal blogs seem to be headed: an echo chamber, bereft of innovation and increasingly full of stereotype about 51% of the population that have been artificially placed on the other side of an imaginary line. We can bridge that gap. I hope you'll join me in this new experiment. We have a lot to learn.
Bush vs Clinton, 2008 http://www.bullmooseblog.com/2004/11/repeal-22nd.html
The Bull Moose argues it's time to repeal the 22nd. I heartily agree! We can sell the concept across the aisle. After all, by 2008 Bush will have been hagio-ified into Reagan II. They'd be drooling at the opportunity to run him again. It would be indeed the most epic election of all time!
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Kerrry's campaign: behind the scenes http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041104/nyth186_1.html
This is a press release on Yahoo about Newsweek's upcoming issue, which takes a peek behind the scenes of Kerrys campaign. The following anecdotes struck me as possibly decisive in Kerry's failure to really make any inroads in the South:
I think that the mistakes above could easily have accounted for 3% of the popular vote. Lessons learned. However, strictly in the category of I Wish Alternate History, imagine how the election would have been transformed had this come to pass:
The VP in charge of Defense as well? What are the implications of that?
The full report will be available online as well. Probably the most comprehensive summary of the election, on both sides, to be written.
Clinton Advice Spurned. Looking for a way to pick up swing voters in the Red States, former President Bill Clinton, in a phone call with Kerry, urged the Senator to back local bans on gay marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, "I'm not going to ever do that."
[...]
Shades of Dukakis. In early August, when the Swift Boat story started to pick up steam on the talk shows, Susan Estrich, a California law professor, well-known liberal talking head and onetime campaign manager for Michael Dukakis, had called the Kerry campaign for marching orders. She had been booked on Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" to talk about the Swift Boat ads. What are the talking points? Estrich asked the Kerry campaign. There are none, she was told. Estrich was startled. She had seen this bad movie before.
I think that the mistakes above could easily have accounted for 3% of the popular vote. Lessons learned. However, strictly in the category of I Wish Alternate History, imagine how the election would have been transformed had this come to pass:
The "Outlandish" McCain Offer. Kerry's courtship of Senator John McCain to be his running mate was longer-standing and more intense than previously reported. As far back as August 2003, Kerry had taken McCain to breakfast to sound him out to run on a unity ticket. McCain batted away the idea as not serious, but Kerry, after he wrapped up the nomination in March, went back after McCain a half-dozen more times. "To show just how sincere he was, he made an outlandish offer," Newsweek's Thomas reports. "If McCain said yes he would expand the role of vice president to include secretary of Defense and the overall control of foreign policy. McCain exclaimed, 'You're out of your mind. I don't even know if it's constitutional, and it certainly wouldn't sell.'" Kerry was thwarted and furious. "Why the f--- didn't he take it? After what the Bush people did to him...'"
The VP in charge of Defense as well? What are the implications of that?
The full report will be available online as well. Probably the most comprehensive summary of the election, on both sides, to be written.
Friday, November 05, 2004
A true Opposition http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_31.php#003943
Josh Marshall explains:
This is a critical distinction. The Democrats have been running since 2000 as the "not GOP" party. That isn't what makes a successful opposition - a true opposition is dedicated to giving voters a clear choice, opposing by example. It's not enough to say "that sucks" - you must offer something positive in its place.
I do NOT think that Dems need to compete on "moral values." Doing so only buys back into the Red-Blue dichotomy, with the assumption that we can flip a state if we market the ideas better. But what if some of the ideas themselves are wrong? Or at least, not genuinely representative of the valid concerns of the other side?
Note that the book in the reading list on the left sidebar, The Two Percent Solution, is exacly an attempt to revisit policy solutions from a more results-oriented perspective. Rather than adopt a classic "blue" approach, he advocates a genuinely "purple" method. Whether any of his ideas are workable is another matter, but teh point is that its a fresh way of looking at policy solutions that explicitly rejects the red-blue dichotomy.
Democrats also need to learn how to live with it, at least for the next four years. And that means realizing that for at least the next two years, the President can get passed almost anything he wants to. His congressional majorities are now sufficiently padded that he can even afford a few Republican defections. He simply doesn't need Democrats for anything.
And that means approaching most legislative battles not with an eye toward preventing passage or significantly altering legislation, but placing alternatives on the table that the party will be able use as contrasts to frame the next two elections. In other words, their only remaining viable alternative is to be an actual party of opposition.
This is a critical distinction. The Democrats have been running since 2000 as the "not GOP" party. That isn't what makes a successful opposition - a true opposition is dedicated to giving voters a clear choice, opposing by example. It's not enough to say "that sucks" - you must offer something positive in its place.
I do NOT think that Dems need to compete on "moral values." Doing so only buys back into the Red-Blue dichotomy, with the assumption that we can flip a state if we market the ideas better. But what if some of the ideas themselves are wrong? Or at least, not genuinely representative of the valid concerns of the other side?
Note that the book in the reading list on the left sidebar, The Two Percent Solution, is exacly an attempt to revisit policy solutions from a more results-oriented perspective. Rather than adopt a classic "blue" approach, he advocates a genuinely "purple" method. Whether any of his ideas are workable is another matter, but teh point is that its a fresh way of looking at policy solutions that explicitly rejects the red-blue dichotomy.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Discussion thread: Scoop?
I'm gratified to see so much new activity here at Dean Nation. It's been a while, indeed :) I've been thinking about what direction to take this site for some time now, and I had been toying with the idea of launching a new, Scoop-based site like Daily Kos or myDD. However, some have expressed privately to me that they'd prefer things the way they are. So, what's your take?
Do you want Dean Nation to go Scoop, with comment moderation, threaded discussion,s and diaries, or do we want to keep things simple? Would Scoop really just be a vanity move given that we aren't anywhere near the size of Kos? Please weigh in.
UPDATE: Well, looks like we are sticking with Blogger :) I do plan on experimenting with minor changes, possible switching to Blogger's built-in comments rather than Haloscan. But Dean Nation will look largely the same, no Scoop for the immediate future. Thanks to all for your feedback and reality-check.
Do you want Dean Nation to go Scoop, with comment moderation, threaded discussion,s and diaries, or do we want to keep things simple? Would Scoop really just be a vanity move given that we aren't anywhere near the size of Kos? Please weigh in.
UPDATE: Well, looks like we are sticking with Blogger :) I do plan on experimenting with minor changes, possible switching to Blogger's built-in comments rather than Haloscan. But Dean Nation will look largely the same, no Scoop for the immediate future. Thanks to all for your feedback and reality-check.
How united are we?
The answer to that question is a matter of perspective. The electoral map of red and blue looks divided indeed, and we have seen now in two Presidential elections that accepting that division as an axiom, and basing your electoral strategy on GOTV to eke out a thin margin of victory accordingly, has no margin of error. It only serves to emphasize the divisions, rather than bridge them.
Some on the right are interrested in reaching out, but as David Neiwert notes, actions belie words. Though Megan McArdle implores her conservative comrades to "give peace a chance", there is no repudiation of fellow conservative Adam Yoshida's cry to "curb-stomp the bastards" at Instapundit.com yet. However, counter-arguments to Bill Bennett's declaration of a cultural war mandate do abound, which is a good sign.
Do Red States and Blue states exist? We should be striving to make the answer, "no." But there are different ways to erase the distinction. One is to simply declare an Orwellian kind of revisionism, as Michelle Malkin does by invoking the county-level results. The clearly-titled message here is, there aren't any blue states of consequence, so why worry about what they want?
Alternatively, a diarist at Daily Kos paints a different picture, based on a more graduated percentage scale. Here, the message is, that red ain't so red, and blue ain't so blue. Most states are some shade of purple, with far smoother variation. If a county-level map were made from the same data, it would showeven finer gradations.
The purple state scenario is the assumption that has to define electoral strategy. Crafting a Purple message is not capitulation to the conservative message, nor is it a clumsy attempt to dress up liberal ideas in religious trappings to "market" them more effectively. It means waging a real battle for ideas, with a long-term outlook that may well concede control for 2006 with an eye to 2008 and even further beyond.
Of course, there are plenty of extremists on our own side of the fence who see things as black and white, or red and blue, as the most committed partisan on the right. They probably look at this funny map from MWU with a wistful sigh rather than a tickled snort. They too are simply too invested in the dichotomy assumption, and guarantee themselves electoral irrelevance as a result. We need to reject defeatist attitudes that deny the common bonds of Purple that bind all Americans, regardless of whether such attitudes hail from right or left.
Some on the right are interrested in reaching out, but as David Neiwert notes, actions belie words. Though Megan McArdle implores her conservative comrades to "give peace a chance", there is no repudiation of fellow conservative Adam Yoshida's cry to "curb-stomp the bastards" at Instapundit.com yet. However, counter-arguments to Bill Bennett's declaration of a cultural war mandate do abound, which is a good sign.
Do Red States and Blue states exist? We should be striving to make the answer, "no." But there are different ways to erase the distinction. One is to simply declare an Orwellian kind of revisionism, as Michelle Malkin does by invoking the county-level results. The clearly-titled message here is, there aren't any blue states of consequence, so why worry about what they want?
Alternatively, a diarist at Daily Kos paints a different picture, based on a more graduated percentage scale. Here, the message is, that red ain't so red, and blue ain't so blue. Most states are some shade of purple, with far smoother variation. If a county-level map were made from the same data, it would showeven finer gradations.
The purple state scenario is the assumption that has to define electoral strategy. Crafting a Purple message is not capitulation to the conservative message, nor is it a clumsy attempt to dress up liberal ideas in religious trappings to "market" them more effectively. It means waging a real battle for ideas, with a long-term outlook that may well concede control for 2006 with an eye to 2008 and even further beyond.
Of course, there are plenty of extremists on our own side of the fence who see things as black and white, or red and blue, as the most committed partisan on the right. They probably look at this funny map from MWU with a wistful sigh rather than a tickled snort. They too are simply too invested in the dichotomy assumption, and guarantee themselves electoral irrelevance as a result. We need to reject defeatist attitudes that deny the common bonds of Purple that bind all Americans, regardless of whether such attitudes hail from right or left.
Feingold's Win http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/images/index.php?ntid=15372
From the Capital Times:
"Almost exactly three years ago, even his supporters were suggesting that U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., might have finished himself off politically with a solo vote against the Patriot Act.
"Almost exactly two years ago, his critics were suggesting that Feingold had finished himself off by joining the small band of senators who voted against the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to launch the war with Iraq...
"But Feingold prevailed. He did so not in spite of his record but rather because of it. Wisconsin gave a resounding vote of approval to a candidate who spoke frankly and frequently about the failings of the Patriot Act, the misguided occupation of Iraq and the need to assert progressive values on issues ranging from trade policy to health care.
"There is a lesson in Feingold's victory for Democrats at every level of the struggle to reclaim this country from the forces of reaction."
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Howard Dean said it http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2003_03_16_dean2004_archive.html#200028555
from his electrifying speech at the California Democratic Convention, which we blogged about here at the time, when it was all so new:
Read these words and ponder their prophetic power. What is today's reality? A nation divided as it was before. A sea of red states, written off. The same partisan approach, relying on GOTV to eke out a bare-majority margin rather than a unifying message that transcends the false dichotomy of red and blue, left and right.
Howard Dean said it.
We’ve had two fine people. United States Senators, Senator Edwards and Senator Kerry, who’ve done a lot for our country and they have served us honorably and if they win the nomination either one of them I am going to support them and do every thing I can to help them win the White House. But, I don’t think we can win The White House if we vote for the President’s unilateral attack on Iraq in Washington and then come to California and say we are against the war. And I don’t think we can win The White House if we support the President’s “No School Board Left Standing Bill” and then come to California and tell every body that we are going to do all kinds of things for education. And I don’t think we can win the White House if we skip the most important abortion vote in the last year and then come to California and talk about pro-choice.
I am not surprised that only 15% of people between the ages of 18 and 25 vote because we have not giving them a reason to vote and we are going to give them a reason to vote now.
[...]
Senator Kerry was reported to have said that he could win without the South. I do not want to win without the South. I want to go to the South and I’m going to say to white guys that drive pick up trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back of their car.
[...]
I want my country back. We want our country back. I am tired of being divided. I don’t want to listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore. I want America to look like America. Where we are all included, hand in hand, walking down. We have dream. We can only reach the dream if we are all together – black and white, gay and straight, man and woman. America.
Read these words and ponder their prophetic power. What is today's reality? A nation divided as it was before. A sea of red states, written off. The same partisan approach, relying on GOTV to eke out a bare-majority margin rather than a unifying message that transcends the false dichotomy of red and blue, left and right.
Howard Dean said it.
Kerry concedes http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20041103/ap_on_el_pr/eln_election_rdp
"Congratulations, Mr. President," Kerry said in the conversation described by sources as lasting less than five minutes. One of the sources was Republican, the other a Democrat.
The Democratic source said Bush called Kerry a worthy, tough and honorable opponent. Kerry told Bush the country was too divided, the source said, and Bush agreed. "We really have to do something about it," Kerry said according to the Democratic official.
Yes, we do. But it's not going to be the GOP that repudiates partisanship as teh first step to making that change.
The Cold Equations
The provisional ballots are unlikely to save Kerry. Kos's calculation assumes that there are 250,000 provos, of which 90% are valid, and of which 85% go to Kerry. These numbers are enormously over-optimistic.
I think a more justifiable, but still generous to Kerry, range would be 200,000 provos, with 75% for Kerry. Doing the math (using the latest data):
Kerry: 2659664 + (200000 * .75) = 2809664
Bush: 2796147 + (200000 * .25) = 2846147
difference: 36483
percentage: 100 * (2846147 - 2809664) / (2659664 + 2796147 + 200000) = .65%
As Kos notes, an automatic recount is triggered by a margin of 0.25%. That spread above exceeds that margin. Kos' calculation ignores the fact that provos that Kerry doesn't get are added to Bush's total.
Unlike many fire-breathers, I don't want Kerry to demand a recount. But then again, that's because I believe that the whole GOTV-reliant electoral strategy is fundamentally flawed, and as long as the D or the R parties pursue it, a divided nation we will remain.
I think a more justifiable, but still generous to Kerry, range would be 200,000 provos, with 75% for Kerry. Doing the math (using the latest data):
Kerry: 2659664 + (200000 * .75) = 2809664
Bush: 2796147 + (200000 * .25) = 2846147
difference: 36483
percentage: 100 * (2846147 - 2809664) / (2659664 + 2796147 + 200000) = .65%
As Kos notes, an automatic recount is triggered by a margin of 0.25%. That spread above exceeds that margin. Kos' calculation ignores the fact that provos that Kerry doesn't get are added to Bush's total.
Unlike many fire-breathers, I don't want Kerry to demand a recount. But then again, that's because I believe that the whole GOTV-reliant electoral strategy is fundamentally flawed, and as long as the D or the R parties pursue it, a divided nation we will remain.
A true majority
The partisan Left, as is its wont, is collapsing into self-recrimination, accusations of disloyalty, and ideological puritanism. This even before we know for sure whether John Kerry actually won! But I am reminded of a wise saying:
I do sincerely hope that the "lets burn the cities!!" crowd gets fed up and moves to Canada if Bush wins. The problem is always your in-house extremists - they taint the message and undermine your respectability.
Right and Left mirror each other - except that Right has their own media. But if we had ours too, would we be any different? not when the inmates scream like howler monkeys about revolution when the democratic process doesn't break their way.
It's time to start approaching the problems of this country from a pragmatist, not an idealogue, perspective. It's time to wrk to build a true majority, that can genuinely reach across the aisle, not pin our hopes on ekeing out a narrow margin from an ever-vanishing pool of undecideds. While an ever-increasing pool of non-participants - esp the youth vote - get pushed farther and farther away.
We need to follow the path of Howard Dean - bring people into the process and be more inclusive. Reach out to the confederate flag pickup crowd and the NASCAR guys and build a robust majority that can win with a mandate in both the popular vote and the electoral college.
We need to end Democratism and Republicanism as our rallying points. 2004 was their last gasp. Sorry to say it, but DailyKos.com is as much a dinosaur as the DCCC it butted heads with. What did we achieve? More polarization, not unity. For all our critique of Bush for being a divider, what has our "side" done to counter? nothing. Instead we have pursued the same track.
An electoral victory that hinges on GOTV is fundamentally flawed. Bring the message, bring the policy, bring the civility - and the voters will come.
And yeah, Nader cost us this election too, if you look closely at the returns in the swing states - including Ohio. Why? Because young people really do believe there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the parties. And in one sense, they are right.
"Luminous beings are we, Luke - not this crude matter." --Yoda
I do sincerely hope that the "lets burn the cities!!" crowd gets fed up and moves to Canada if Bush wins. The problem is always your in-house extremists - they taint the message and undermine your respectability.
Right and Left mirror each other - except that Right has their own media. But if we had ours too, would we be any different? not when the inmates scream like howler monkeys about revolution when the democratic process doesn't break their way.
It's time to start approaching the problems of this country from a pragmatist, not an idealogue, perspective. It's time to wrk to build a true majority, that can genuinely reach across the aisle, not pin our hopes on ekeing out a narrow margin from an ever-vanishing pool of undecideds. While an ever-increasing pool of non-participants - esp the youth vote - get pushed farther and farther away.
While young voters split among Bush and Democrat Al Gore four years ago, 56 percent of voters aged 18-29 preferred Kerry Tuesday, according the CNN's exit polls. But even though more than 1.4 million new young voters registered to vote in this election, the youth block comprised roughly the same percentage of voters that it did four years ago, according to Associated Press exit polls.
We need to follow the path of Howard Dean - bring people into the process and be more inclusive. Reach out to the confederate flag pickup crowd and the NASCAR guys and build a robust majority that can win with a mandate in both the popular vote and the electoral college.
We need to end Democratism and Republicanism as our rallying points. 2004 was their last gasp. Sorry to say it, but DailyKos.com is as much a dinosaur as the DCCC it butted heads with. What did we achieve? More polarization, not unity. For all our critique of Bush for being a divider, what has our "side" done to counter? nothing. Instead we have pursued the same track.
An electoral victory that hinges on GOTV is fundamentally flawed. Bring the message, bring the policy, bring the civility - and the voters will come.
And yeah, Nader cost us this election too, if you look closely at the returns in the swing states - including Ohio. Why? Because young people really do believe there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the parties. And in one sense, they are right.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Madison, Wisconsin Turnout http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/local//index.php?ntid=15285&nt_adsect=edit
"According to statistics collected by the City Clerk's Office this morning, 52,520 residents went to the polls between 7 and 11 a.m. That is just over 30 percent of registered voters. Deputy Clerk Sharon Christensen said that could mean a 90 percent voter turnout by the time polls close at 8 p.m. and absentee ballots are processed."
Election Day http://thebattleformiddleearth.net/quotes/rotk_movie.html
"The board is set, the pieces are moving. We come to it at last, the great battle of our time."
-Gandalf the White
-Gandalf the White
Monday, November 01, 2004
Election Prediction thread
Electoral vote: Kerry at 300+. I think the surge in new voter registration is breaking hs way decisively in teh swing states.
Popular vote: tough call. Kerry majority, but if the spread is less than 5 points, be prepared for an onslaught of GOP litigation. I don't expect the spread to exceed 7 points in a best-case scenario. I think a 2-point spread, and ensuing legal challenge, is the most likely.
controversial picks: Ohio: Kerry. New Mexico: Bush. Florida: Bush. Wisconsin: Kerry.
Your thoughts? Nows your last chance to be seen as the future Zogby :)
Popular vote: tough call. Kerry majority, but if the spread is less than 5 points, be prepared for an onslaught of GOP litigation. I don't expect the spread to exceed 7 points in a best-case scenario. I think a 2-point spread, and ensuing legal challenge, is the most likely.
controversial picks: Ohio: Kerry. New Mexico: Bush. Florida: Bush. Wisconsin: Kerry.
Your thoughts? Nows your last chance to be seen as the future Zogby :)
John Kerry for President
When it comes down to it, i can live with a President with whom I disagree on social issues, the environment, the role of government, etc.
However, what I can't abide is a threat to the basic freedom of our citizenship. The Bush-supporters often cried, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact!" - to which my response has always been the New Hampshire state motto:
The real reason I am casting a vote for John Kerry is because I see the GOP as a party of extremism. George W Bush, though the standard bearer of that party, is actually quite moderate. He believes in civil unions, he thinks that teh war on terror can not be "won" in the conventional sense, he understands the need for immigration reform and public health plans. Were he ever freed from his cage (perhaps Wednesday...) he might well have been as genuinely moderate as ... Nixon. Who abolished the draft and created teh EPA, I might remind us all.
The GOP is dangerous. David Neiwert has been doing yeoman's work for the past three years documenting the slide of the far right towards the seductive allure of certain methods - unity of message, discouragement of dissent, public proof of loyalty, and one-party political dominance. His landmark essay on fascism is essential reading, as is his new series on the morphing of the conservative movement into pseudo-fascism and a recent Washington Monthly article on the K-Street Project. Republicanism has replaced conservatism, with great ill-effects to the tradition of debate.
Make no mistake - I reject the far left as utterly. But they wield no power, have no dominance, and lack the unity required for them to ever succceed in installing a communist framework over the Constitution. What level of socialism we have in our society is reaonable and the subject of consensus, not dispute, between left and right: welfare, social security, minimum wage, unions, etc. Communism no more discredits these benign forms of socialism than do tin-pot democratic "elections" garnering Tyrant A 99.99% of the vote discredit American democracy.
Terrorism is a real threat to us. But it is a threat that can be met and one that can be extinguished. That requires transformative change abroad as much as it does simple reliance on multilateral alliances. In that vein, I share at least one goal of the neo-cons, though I label myself a neo-wilsonian because of the very important way in which I disagree.
But what does it gain us to triuph over terrorism to find we have lost our soul in the process? If there is a lesson from history, it is that freedom cannot be extinguished from outside - only when it is willingly snuffed from within. We must preserve our liberal (in the classical sense) freedom, or there's no point in succeeding over terror. The fellow-travelers of the GOP today have no interest in maintaining that freedom. They would impose their own western sharia upon this nation instead.
John Kerry is not perfect, but he does represent the moderate center. That center is a broad tent, comprising of the mainstream of American politics. It covers Barack Obama and John McCain, it covers Chuck Hagel and it covers Howard Dean. And it covers me.
And to succeed against terror, and to help shape the world so that our classical liberal freedom spreads to the corners of the globe, we must make sure that we, the messengers of liberty, remain unsullied.
Stay tuned for changes at Dean Nation. New faces, new viewpoints, and a fresh outlook on our mission. It started here.
However, what I can't abide is a threat to the basic freedom of our citizenship. The Bush-supporters often cried, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact!" - to which my response has always been the New Hampshire state motto:
Live free or die
The real reason I am casting a vote for John Kerry is because I see the GOP as a party of extremism. George W Bush, though the standard bearer of that party, is actually quite moderate. He believes in civil unions, he thinks that teh war on terror can not be "won" in the conventional sense, he understands the need for immigration reform and public health plans. Were he ever freed from his cage (perhaps Wednesday...) he might well have been as genuinely moderate as ... Nixon. Who abolished the draft and created teh EPA, I might remind us all.
The GOP is dangerous. David Neiwert has been doing yeoman's work for the past three years documenting the slide of the far right towards the seductive allure of certain methods - unity of message, discouragement of dissent, public proof of loyalty, and one-party political dominance. His landmark essay on fascism is essential reading, as is his new series on the morphing of the conservative movement into pseudo-fascism and a recent Washington Monthly article on the K-Street Project. Republicanism has replaced conservatism, with great ill-effects to the tradition of debate.
Make no mistake - I reject the far left as utterly. But they wield no power, have no dominance, and lack the unity required for them to ever succceed in installing a communist framework over the Constitution. What level of socialism we have in our society is reaonable and the subject of consensus, not dispute, between left and right: welfare, social security, minimum wage, unions, etc. Communism no more discredits these benign forms of socialism than do tin-pot democratic "elections" garnering Tyrant A 99.99% of the vote discredit American democracy.
Terrorism is a real threat to us. But it is a threat that can be met and one that can be extinguished. That requires transformative change abroad as much as it does simple reliance on multilateral alliances. In that vein, I share at least one goal of the neo-cons, though I label myself a neo-wilsonian because of the very important way in which I disagree.
But what does it gain us to triuph over terrorism to find we have lost our soul in the process? If there is a lesson from history, it is that freedom cannot be extinguished from outside - only when it is willingly snuffed from within. We must preserve our liberal (in the classical sense) freedom, or there's no point in succeeding over terror. The fellow-travelers of the GOP today have no interest in maintaining that freedom. They would impose their own western sharia upon this nation instead.
John Kerry is not perfect, but he does represent the moderate center. That center is a broad tent, comprising of the mainstream of American politics. It covers Barack Obama and John McCain, it covers Chuck Hagel and it covers Howard Dean. And it covers me.
And to succeed against terror, and to help shape the world so that our classical liberal freedom spreads to the corners of the globe, we must make sure that we, the messengers of liberty, remain unsullied.
Stay tuned for changes at Dean Nation. New faces, new viewpoints, and a fresh outlook on our mission. It started here.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Katrina vanden Heuvel: Dean's Forward Thinking
Below is the text of an article by Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation. She had a nice review of Dean's latest book, You Have The Power.
I Just thought going into these last few days of this election that it was a nice reminder to all of us that we should be proud of the work we have done through Dean for Kerry, the left and the DLC: Enjoying the BACKBONE gang?
Of course, there's still a lot of work to do yet to get rid of Bush, if it really is possible. Still, Dean is right that a Kerry win is simply a stopgap for the twisted Bush effort. (I mean, to have my patriotism questioned by people who are now working hard and proudly to suppress and deny people their right to vote in anticipation of a massive turnout? How American is that? As American as apple pie, I suppose, in the minds of Tom Delay's busloads of angry mobs ready to terrorize Floridians again in the name of democracy.)
Good Luck to all of us next Tuesday, but really, the fight kind of begins for us the next day doesn't it?
Here are Katrina's thoughts about Dean's thoughts:
I wrote nearly twelve months ago in this space about the importance of building progressive strength in 2004 and beyond. A year later, progressives have hope in the decade ahead, thanks in part to Howard Dean. 
Dean's new book, You Have the Power, is an eloquent attack on Bush's failed record. At its core, however, is Dean's belief that progressives must look beyond November 2nd to achieve a progressive majority.
For starters, tactics matter, argues Dean. "By...establishing a permanent election-to-election presence on the American political scene through think-tanks, foundations, and grassroots organizations," Dean writes, the radical right has achieved political power. Extremists can be beat at their own game, though.
"We need to...have a permanent campaign, which is what the Republicans have done for the last twenty years," Dean recently argued in a Mother Jones' interview, a belief echoed powerfully in his book. After Election Day, progressives can take one month off "and then everybody's got to get back to work."
While Dean has endorsed John Kerry--and is traveling around the country drumming up support for his former rival--he recognizes that victory in this election means the defeat of the right, not the triumph of a progressive movement. Dean understands that no matter what happens next month, it is vital to continue to coordinate, organize and build the infrastructure to drive progressive ideals into the political debate and electoral arena.
In addition to publishing this excellent primer, Dean's new political action group, "Democracy for America" (DFA), is on its way to becoming a central station for progressive action across the country, finding and supporting the next generation of progressive leaders from school boards to Capitol Hill and, most importantly, inspiring members of what the late Senator Paul Wellstone liked to call "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."
DFA's candidates--called "Dean's Dozens"--receive donations and volunteer assistance through DFA's efforts online and on the ground. And Dean's endorsement should not be underestimated; as one Georgia Democrat running for Congress put it, it "jump-started my campaign."
DFA has endorsed and raised money for a school board member in Huntsville, Alabama and mayor of Salt lake City, Utah. It is supporting relatively anonymous candidates like Democrat Richard Morrison who is running against corrupt House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in Sugarland, Texas and more well-known ones like Tom Daschle, who is in a tough re-election fight in South Dakota. And DFA--working with other progressive groups--is also helping candidates running for county commission, city council and state legislatures nationwide.
In less than eight months, DFA has supported nearly 1,000 progressive candidates for office, raised more than $1 million in its first fundraising quarter alone and donated $756,605 to its chosen electoral fights.
We're going to "help build the Democratic Party" by helping to "keep [progressives] moving up and up" in Democratic Party ranks, says Laura Gross, DFA's Communications Director.
To that end, DFA has aligned itself with progressive groups such as Progressive Majority and 21st Century Democrats. What's important about this new moment says Gloria Totten, Progressive Majority's director, is that "we progressives are no longer willing to continue to be right on the issues and lose elections." Winning matters.
Dean's success in 2003, and progressives' future victories, may well rest in part on a new politics of authenticity. Dean was a straight-talking presidential candidate, who took on Bush in an aggressive and bracing way and challenged a cowed Democratic Party to get a spine transplant.
As Kevin Phillips points out in his astute Washington Post review of Dean's book, the Vermont governor was and remains correct in his conclusion that "when you trade your values for the hope of winning, you end up losing and having no values--so you keep losing."
Dean continues to speak out for values and issues that have received too little attention in this campaign, including the importance of restoring a balance between corporate power and citizens' rights, closing the "wealth gap," and fighting media consolidation so more diverse and democratic voices can be heard on airwaves across America.
Holding Republicans' feet to the fire has always been one of Dean's strengths. When rumors started to circulate that Bush had a secret post-election plan to reinstate a military draft, Dean published a column on DFA's website demanding answers from the White House about how it will meet its current commitments without resorting to a draft. He also posted a petition which will be delivered to the White House before the election. (Click here to join the more than 90,000 others who have already added their names to the petition.)
"The man stands his ground in a fight," William Greider said about Dean in The Nation last December. "When someone jabs him, he jabs back."
Dean hasn't wallowed in defeat. With a renewed focus on building a progressive majority in America, Dean is providing new hope. By taking the fight to the radical right and DLC Democrats, Dean's message is coming through loud and clear: progressives won't go away anytime soon.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
African-American Vote http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BLACKS_POLL?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=US
Any comments on this poll which has Bush at 18% among African-Americans?
Monday, October 18, 2004
Expectations and Ohio http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/special_packages/election2004/9901695.htm
The theme that the tough fight over Wisconsin represents a serious problem for the Kerry campaign is misguided. You could just as easily mention President Bush's 43% job approval in Ohio. He can't win with that number, and if it holds up and Kerry wins those 20 electoral votes, it's Bush who needs to flip at least two blue states while holding on to all the remaining red.
(Cross-posted at my blog.)
(Cross-posted at my blog.)
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Dean plugs Yahoo http://www.ysearchblog.com/files/howard_dean_ylocal.mp3
link is an mp3. it's Hilarious :)
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Tonight's Debate
Have they saved the best for last?
UPDATE: Cheney never met Edwards. Bush doesn't know he owns a timber company and denies saying he wasn't that concerned about Bin Laden. Does the Republican ticket have some sort of memory problems?
UPDATE: My tax cut joke is here.
UPDATE: Cheney never met Edwards. Bush doesn't know he owns a timber company and denies saying he wasn't that concerned about Bin Laden. Does the Republican ticket have some sort of memory problems?
UPDATE: My tax cut joke is here.
Obama and Feingold http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=13727&ntpid=1
Barack Obama was in Wisconsin supporting Russ Feingold. As a Feingold volunteer, I found this comments inspiring. If you do, too, click here. Let's make the midwest a new center of our brand of politics!
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
The Sinclair Issue http://www.boycottsbg.com/advertisers/default.aspx
There's really not a lot to say about this. What to do about it is discussed at the link.
Election 2008 feed
Nation-Building feed
Archives
Obama 2008 - I want my country back
About Nation-Building
Nation-Building was founded by Aziz Poonawalla in August 2002 under the name Dean Nation. Dean Nation was the very first weblog devoted to a presidential candidate, Howard Dean, and became the vanguard of the Dean netroot phenomenon, raising over $40,000 for the Dean campaign, pioneering the use of Meetup, and enjoying the attention of the campaign itself, with Joe Trippi a regular reader (and sometime commentor). Howard Dean himself even left a comment once. Dean Nation was a group weblog effort and counts among its alumni many of the progressive blogsphere's leading talent including Jerome Armstrong, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. After the election in 2004, the blog refocused onto the theme of "purple politics", formally changing its name to Nation-Building in June 2006. The primary focus of the blog is on articulating purple-state policy at home and pragmatic liberal interventionism abroad.
