"The current leadership of the Democratic Party is objectively damaging the interests of poor people, working people and small business owners - the constituency it owes it's allegiance to - by mounting stupid and suicidal campaigns and losing elections."

Interesting argument.

The denotation of 'liberal progressive' has been left behind by the connotation of 'liberal progressive'.

When you've decided to stop listening to new approaches to old problems, and actively resisting change, your definitions have changed.

Our problem is not ideological, but that they consistently bash Democrats, Democratic positions, and publicly proclaim that the Democratic Party has it wrong on a regular basis (thus implying that the Republican Party has it right, no matter how many nuances and qualifiers are included in their criticisms of Democrats)...

Ja - ist klar, Der Kommissar. Which is why I've suggested before that the Democrats adopt the Red Army's commissar system, so that every party member's blog postings would have to be approved by a political officer with a Makarov pistol. Until that day comes, I guess Bowers will just have to suffer Jeff Jarvis.

As long as Chris Bowers is enumerating his problems, he shouldn't overlook this one: When you start characterizing any criticism or dissent as "bashing", you have a serious intellectual problem. It can be caused by closed-mindedness, inability to take ideas seriously, primitive tribal-territorial instinct, or all three.

Finally, I'd have to point out that this "partisan democrat" attitude goes completely to pieces during a campaign season. What happens when you have several fanatical Democratic parties, each following a different pope and unable to regard their differences as anything other than treason? Since any kind of debate between camps is the same thing as being a Republican, what can they do except "bash" each other into the dirt? The venom between Kerry and Dean was nothing compared to the fire next time, when Hillary Clinton takes on all comers.

The current leadership of the Democratic Party is objectively damaging the interests of poor people, working people and small business owners - the constituency it owes it's allegiance to - by mounting stupid and suicidal campaigns and losing elections.

sorry, but you have your facts wrong. The old leadership of the Democratic Party --- the DLC'ers and their ilk, have been mounting stupid and suicidal campaigns by trying to turn the Democrats in to GOP-lite.

The NEW leadership of the Democratic Party is not going to sit still for GOP lies and distortions, and is going to fight back when right-wingers try to do stuff like its current efforts to destroy social security. To quote Peter Finch in the film "Network", "We're mad as hell, and we're not gonna take it anymore."

We've learned the lessons of Newt Gingrich -- that the way to win elections is first and foremost to fight for what you believe in. The big difference between the NEW leadership of the Democratic Party and the GOP is that the Dems won't have to lie or pander to racism and hate like the GOP does. We'll just tell the truth, and do so forcefully and directly, and (hopefully) it will be sufficient.

"We've learned the lessons of Newt Gingrich -- that the way to win elections is first and foremost to fight for what you believe in."

Wild idea here, but making sure the ideas you believe in are right might help as well. Arguing the Republicans are trying to destroy social security might not be the best approach, because it simply isnt true. Arguing that their ideas could kill SS might be something people will listen to without rolling their eyes. Arguing that your actually have an idea for SS might be the wildest suggestion of all, but give it a try. Who knows?

We'll just tell the truth, and do so forcefully and directly, and (hopefully) it will be sufficient."

Forcefully? Truth needs no force to be realized.

"The venom between Kerry and Dean was nothing compared to the fire next time, when Hillary Clinton takes on all comers."

Interesting observation. I'm still not certain that anyone will toss their hat in the ring if and when Hillary makes an announcement. Speculations as to who would run against Hillary from the Republican side of the house are abound. Speculations as to who in the Democratic party would challenge her nomination are not as forth coming.

"The NEW leadership of the Democratic Party is not going to sit still for GOP lies and distortions, and is going to fight back when right-wingers try to do stuff like its current efforts to destroy social security."

Uh huh. Stated with no sense of irony by the proprieter of a lame Bush bashing site. Same old same old no matter how many times you yell NEW or reality based. Saying it doesn't make it so.

God, how I miss Harry Truman.

"Most of the country shares those issues with me." I would submit that the liberal progressive stance you described is not shared by "most of the country". There are certain values which you have in common with your more small-government countrymen which are not shared by the Willis's of the world. Historically many people have agreed with both parties on some things: they vote for whomever the closest agreement is.

Amen, A.L. No political party is worthy of loyalty. That's exactly what they want so that they can count on your vote without having to expend money or effort.

But as Randy Barnett noted recently, a lot of Americans do view political parties as sports teams, and root for and against them accordingly (how do you think most Americans watch election night coverage?). And the blogosphere is no exception. Whether that says more about the gullibility of Americans or the overpredominance of sports in our society, I have no idea.

We've learned the lessons of Newt Gingrich.

I don't think so. Gingrich advocated a "center-right coalition" that would appeal to Democrats and non-conservatives. The basis of the appeal was largely non-political: patriotism, values, and dissatisfaction with the Washington status quo. Where it was political, it struck at issues that went beyond Republican concerns: the power of ultra-liberal and leftist special interest groups, high-handed unions, the outrages of Hollywood liberals, the media echo chamber, the Ward Churchills, and the corrupt Wright-Coelho party that existed only to serve its own selfish interests.

Note that this strategy was not "More of the same old stuff, only real loud this time." Note also that it worked because it exploited a glaring weakness in the opposition.

Good advice Oscar, but I'm afraid that it presupposes that the Left actually has some ideas for dealing with Social Security other than just “raise taxes and tell people you’re only going to raise taxes on other people.”

Therein lays the big difference between Newt Gingrich and Howard Dean. Newt, agree with him or not, was and remains an idea man who wasn’t content to say “you guys suck, the public really agrees with us.” Instead he found a positive vision of a better way of doing things and presented it to the American people and contrasted that with what the Democrats had to offer. When Republicans became the majority party in 1994, it wasn’t just because we didn’t agree with the Democrats it was because we made the case to the voters that we had something better to offer.

Howard Dean in contrast seems to have no real vision. He’s just a hater and his appeal is pretty much limited to people who are also haters. Under Dean, the Democrats will remain a minority party and the real policy debates will be within the Republican Party and those few DLC/Blue Dog Democrats who remain.

"The current leadership of the Democratic Party is objectively damaging the interests of poor people, working people and small business owners - the constituency it owes it's allegiance to . . . -A.L.

Here is, exactly, the crux of the matter. Stating in a positivist way that the party owes its allegiance to these interests is, IMO, simply no longer true. It might be more accurate to say that the party owed its allegiance to those interests thirty years ago, the most salient point in its history as a champion of the poor being in the heyday of LBJ's Great Society programs. Those are the interests the party's leaders still demogogue, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty the party's allegience is now to itself, its own power, and its own hatred of Republicans, and now, apparently, hatred of anyone under the tent who isn't singing its own special song. Marc's essay is most revealing--the crowd he describes is only interested in self-gratification of the most revolting kind. I grew up in their midst and I can't take them seriously as champions of the poor and downtrodden. They are among those who, as a friend put it, think feeling sorry for people is one of the works of mercy. Imagine calling themselves "disenfranchised" simply because they lost! What pathetic self-indulgence. As a born and bred Democrat, who hooped and hollered at LBJ's acceptance speech--I really thought the rapture was at hand--it was a hard landing when I hit a rough spot in life and found out that in return for its help the gov't wanted my self-respect in return. It wasn't long after that I realized that most of every dollar that was supposed to help the poor was absorbed by the bureaucracy. I began to believe that the party's approach, even at its apex of purity and power was actually damaging the interests of poor people, working people, and small businessmen (all of which I was at one time or another). That's when I started to vote Republican. You and I share a vision--a free, egalitarian, prosperous society. For the life of me I can no longer even imagine the Democratic party achieving any of those things. In fact, the party is setting itself in opposition to those goals day after day--for one reason only, and that is that G.W. Bush--that terrible, evil, ex-drunk, honest-to-goodness believing Christian--has articulated them as his goals, too.
BTW Thanks for your stupendously great blog. I read it every day. Rick

Hey left-wing Dems, what happened to "dissent is patriotic"?

Arguing the Republicans are trying to destroy social security might not be the best approach, because it simply isnt true. Arguing that their ideas could kill SS might be something people will listen to without rolling their eyes. Arguing that your actually have an idea for SS might be the wildest suggestion of all, but give it a try. Who knows?

The intellectual godfathers of privatization at places like the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation also want to eliminate Social Security. To suggest that the GOP is not aware that the basis of the argument behind privatization is the elimination of Social Security is simply naive.

Even Bush has been forced to admit that privatization won't solve social security's long term problems----and anyone who is intellectually honest will acknowledge that Bush's privatization scheme will bring advance the date at which the Trust Fund runs out of assets, and benefits will have to be cut drastically. Tell me that you really believe this is not a recipe for trashing Social Security, and I'll show you some beachfront property I have for sale in Arizona....

As for what the need for Democratic ideas, the best idea is for Bush to stop spending more money than he raises in tax dollars. The simple fact is that if we have a balanced budget for the next 40 years, any "Social Security crisis" will solve itself. That is because there will be a twelve year period from 2030 to 2042 when we will be spending 6.2% of GDP on Social Security benefits---and that 6.2% does not change appreciably for the subsequent 50 years. Much of those benefits will be paid through the redemption of the Treasury Notes held by the Trust---and if we have a balanced budget through 2042, in 2043 when we the Trust runs out of money, we won't have to raise taxes one penny. All we will need to do is simply dedicate the general revenue that was being used to redeem the Treasury notes to the Social Security System---if the budget is balanced in 2042, in 2043 there will be a massive surplus in general revenues equal to the shortfall in Social Security.

But if you insist upon a solution to the problem today, here is one that works. The Social Security Trustees just released a report that says that if we remove the cap on income subject to social security taxation, the system will remain solvent indefinitely. In other words, if the rich are asked to pay the same percentage of their income for Social Security insurance that the working poor are paying, the problem is solved.

As noted above, the real problem is the Bush regime deficits. The "burden" on placed on future generations by social security is a myth --- a far, far greater burden will be placed on them by the non-social security part of the national debt that we will be dumping on our children and grandchildren---and the debt owed to Social Security would only be due to someone else if the Trust Fund did not exist.

But George W. Bush and the GOP are too cowardly to take the steps necessary to balance the budget, and stop mortgaging our children's future so that fat cats can have tax breaks, and we can have wars without paying for them. The GOP has the White House and both houses of Congress --- and they have the duty to come up with a responsible economic policy.

So don't complain about the Democrats --- its the GOP that is in charge, and has been in charge, of everything. When Clinton and the Democrats were running things, we instituted policies that provided not merely balanced budgets, but paid off the debt that our generation had incurred under the "leadership" of Reagan and Bush I. Lets see you right wingers balance the budget, and stop placing the burden on future generations.

Yet strangely Clinton was talking about the 'Social Security Crisis' back when the budget was balanced. Care to tackle that one?

FWIW, I largely agree with what p.lukasiak is saying, though I am tired of the "You freaks/sell-outs are why the Dems are losing" argument. It is a lazy shortcut, like the "Chickenhawk" accusation, to argue "people like you are why `we' are losing", instead of "people like you are wrong on the merits".

In a great essay No Time for Losers, Paul Krugman pointed out something for business that I think is also true for politics: "When you come down to it, business isn't much like sports. Every touchdown in football is achieved at a rival's expense; but while a business may have a few major competitors, most of the time an extra dollar in profits is earned not by taking business from a rival, but by creating value where none existed before."

Instead of thinking of politics as a fight-fight-fight where one side must prevail, it's probably better to think of politics as an opportunity to add value to the country in some small way. In other words, what policy platform, political strategy, & grassroots execution, if adopted by the Dems, would potentially add the most value to the country? Though you do have to be willing to fight to get things done, and you do have to defend yourself if attacked.

One exception to the "Can't we all get along?" nicey-niceyness. Gerrymandering aside, I do consider Schwarzenegger orders of magnitude more corrupt than Gray Davis (two words: 1. 187 2. Enron), and find it annoying that AL doesn't.

p.lukasiak Some links that may be of interest...

1997 Balance Budget

Wow Social Security gets a mention in the above article as well! Let's see here now. Here's an analysis of the 1997 proposal. Hmm - here's the voting record on the 1997 amendment. Here's the CBO testimony on the possible effects of a balanced budget dated May 6, 1992.

2003 Balanced Budget

Here is a take on why it may not be a good idea to balance the budget. And you guessed it. This article mentions Social Security as well.

It's not going to happen from either side of the isle. But since you believe a balanced budget is going to solve the issue and you believe taxing people on their income until it's time to retire will solve the issue let's go to the horse's mouth.

Yet strangely Clinton was talking about the 'Social Security Crisis' back when the budget was balanced. Care to tackle that one?

sure. If you actually bother to read Clinton's comments, he makes it clear that achieving a balanced budget was an essential part of dealing with the long term issue of Social Security solvency, and how to provide promised benefits when the Trust fund ran out of assets.

Clinton recognized that the massive debt incurred thanks to Reaganomics would, if not addressed, make it virtually impossible for the nation to make the necessary adjustments in revenue allocations need to continue to provide full benefits---that the cost of servicing the debt itself would be so great that benefits would have to be cut, rather than revenues reallocated.

In fact, back in the late nineties, people were worried about eliminating the non-Social Security debt too quickly---and this was the reason for Clinton's flirtation with investing part of the Social Security Trust Fund in the private sector.

Wow Social Security gets a mention in the above article as well....Wow Social Security gets a mention in the above article as well

my dear child, you are confusing the benefits to be derived from balancing the budget with the consequences of passing a balanced budget amendment. Clinton demonstrated that you didn't need a balanced budget amendment to balance the budget---all you needed was smart policies.

Bill Clinton and his Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin whose responsibility is managing Social Security funds mismanaged those funds horribly and deliberately.

SS was sold short duration bonds that paid much lower than a fair market interest rate. This had the effect of giving the Clintonistas cheap money that kept the fiscal deficits down and presented the illusion of surplus. Rubin knew exactly what he was doing and the ultimate disaster that would develop. He did it anyway.

p.lukasiak

"my dear child, you are confusing the benefits to be derived from balancing the budget with the consequences of passing a balanced budget amendment. Clinton demonstrated that you didn't need a balanced budget amendment to balance the budget---all you needed was smart policies"

Ah my dear son you are missing the point, all deal in futures and future dollars each year (yours, mine, your children's and your grand children's) as well as estimating what they will or will not be. The proven way to keep your head above water is to spend less than you make. When your predictions are based on futures nothing is certain.

As for social security I'm willing to give up my share for something much more stable in my opinion (a personal account). Of course if we continue down the path we keep going I'll gladly accept the check at the end of the rainbow but when you, your children or your children's children find the coffers dwindling or empty what will they do?. I'll complain to my legislators that I put into it and it's mine (put more strain on my children and their children) they'll complain to their legislators about the ponzi scheme and the increases to support it. In the end who wins (those who die with a social security check in their hands?). No one.

Hey, p. -

"my dear child, you are confusing the benefits"

...no offense (yet), but no one on this site deserves to be spoken to like that; last time I checked we were all adults who deserved each other's respect and courtesy.

Next, sadly, BC did do a decent to good job on constraining spending. But he balanced the budget in no small part because the financial engineers turned loose by accounting deregulation and dot-com insanity made so much money that they paid a whole lot of taxes.

I'll happily give credit for what's due, but I'll also strongly argue that reality trumps all.

A.L.

(thus implying that the Republican Party has it right

Now, who is it exactly that's living in a black-and-white world?

Does Chris actually believe that there are only two possible answers to any given question, with one being "R" and the other being "D"?

"We've learned the lessons of Newt Gingrich"

Hardly! What Newt and the class of '94 had was The Contract, a well-promoted, clearly defined set of intrinsic principles and very specific policy objectives and legislative goals.

Aside from the now-usual rhetorical pablum, I have yet hear anyone on the left offer any such specific agenda for the Democrats... including the party's most recent, failed presidential candidate. About all the Democrats can seem to talk about it what they oppose.

VDH has noted that in foreign affairs the Dems are now the isolationsists... and he is correct. But it goes much deeper than that. As the Democrats move farther and more comfortably to the left, leaving a rather substantial vacuum in their wake, the GOP is being viewed, rightly, as more and more moderate (e.g. the Medicare drug benefit, or the Kennedy-esque tax cuts).

So long as the only arrow in the Democratic quiver remains opposition, the American public will continue to view them as such... and vote accordingly.

What is wrong with the Dodgers?

And to get back to democrat principles, exactly what programs are dems proposing to cut to get to a balanced budget? A tax increase would certainly be in the offing, but that alone wont do it without going back to Jimmy Carter, economy killing levels that simply are not palatable to the American people. I hear Dems claiming to be deficit hawks a lot the last few years, but it seems to me to be one of those be careful what you wish for propositions. As much as the Democrats are held hostage by their special interests, I have trouble imagining where all this supposed savings will come from. The Pentagon?

Probably because there is no such thing as a “fiscally conservative” Democrat when you consider the following facts:

Every Democratic presidential candidate promised to spend more than George W Bush.

No Democratic presidential candidate or party leader has come out in favor of any sort of entitlement reform to reduce the long-term cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

The Medicare prescription drug benefit for which Bush and Republicans have rightfully been criticized is now estimated to cost $720 Billion over ten years. The Democrat alternative was originally set to cost $900 Billion over ten years. What most people forget is that the original bill was $174 Billion over ten years (and it included more reform of the overall Medicare program than the final bill) until it was filibustered in the Senate because (a) it didn’t spend enough and (b) Senate Democrats didn’t want competition or means-testing. The name of the Senator who led the filibuster was Harry Reid (D-NV), the new Senate Minority Leader.

The double-digit explosion in non-defense/non-homeland security discretionary spending including restoring farm subsidies all occurred when we had a Democrat-controlled Senate. Prior to Jeffords’ defection all discretionary spending was growing at about 4 percent and now that Bush has been reelected, Congress and the President are trying to hold it to about 3-4 percent growth rate.

The DNC’s response on 02/08/2005 to President Bush’s proposed $2.6 Trillion budget was to send out an email to rally the troops because, you guessed it, it doesn’t spend enough for them.

fling93: a lot of Americans do view political parties as sports teams, and root for and against them accordingly

Wow, who'd have guessed that this very thread would be an excellent example of this. Go figure.