| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/3 |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34582 Activity:high |
11/2 Democratic soul-searching begins now: NY Times op-ed piece
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/opinion/03kris.html?hp
"The Republicans are smarter," mused Oregon's governor, Ted
Kulongoski, a Democrat. "They've created ... these social issues to
get the public to stop looking at what's happening to them
economically." ... Bill Clinton intuitively understood the challenge,
and John Edwards seems to as well, perhaps because of their own
working-class origins. But the party as a whole is mostly in denial.
\_ I find the comment that comes up time and time again, about poor
southern whites voting 'against their self-interest' revealing.
\_ yeah, tax breaks for billionaires.. totally dead-on!
\_ isn't this true? You know, with the vast majority of the tax
break going to the $200K+ bracket, the removal of the dividend
tax, the removal of the inheritance tax?
Well, to be accurate, it should say "millionaires and up".
\_ It is true, but it misses the point. Is it not possible to
vote against one's direct self-interest because, perhaps,
principles are involved? A libertarian might accept a higher
tax rate because he believes a flat tax is fairer than
progressive tax. Why is this so incomprehensible? -- ilyas
\_ Um, someone moved my post. My post was in response to
"tax breaks for billionaires".
Anyways, who says I didn't comprehend what you just wrote,
ilyas?
My post was meant to convey the FACT that most of the
tax breaks are going to the rich -- not the rightness
of it, which is different for every person, as you've
implied.
\_ Not you. I was talking about the author of the article,
and his seeming incomprehesion of southern voting
patterns 'against their interest.' This is a common
complaint from liberal circles, and I find it odd.
Those guys down south don't live in the same 'fight
for a piece of the public pie by any means necessary'
world as you do. (again I don't necessarily mean 'you').
-- ilyas
\_ the article is quite clear that it is talking
about poor, rural voters voting against their
"economic interest", which means the rich get more
money, the poor get comparatively less -- for the
short-term at least. It's a point of debate whether
a less progressive tax system works long-term.
It is also quite clear that the author believes
these voters are voting for their "social self-
interest" (my quotes on that one), which is voting
their values -- such as no gay marriage for queers.
their values.
\_ Ok how is a flat tax "fairer"? no one is forcing you to
earn more. If you believe an income tax is fair in the
first place then what's the big deal with progressive?
If it's too high you just don't work, and have a lot more
free time. If it's too high you're probably screwing your
economy. But that's a separate issue than fairness.
For example, a high tax on income over $1m/y wouldn't
truly hamper anybody's "pursuit of happiness", and would
be fair: anyone earning that much gets that tax.
\_ Look we are not going to have a long ass ranty
discussion about a flat tax, ok. For most people,
in most contexts, fairness = proportionality. Fairness
!= proportionality only if you are in magical liberal
taxland. -- ilyas
\_ proportional? not proportional to services used,
not even a flat tax does that. so it's already
unfair in that sense. once you're there, i'm arguing
there's no "moral" difference going to progressive.
\_ *sigh* If you want proportionality for services
used, charge for them directly. This argument is
stupid. You are not convincing me, and I am not
convincing you (nor am I particularly interested,
as far as I am concerned CA liberals can rot in a
hell of their own devising, I am getting out of
here first chance I get). -- ilyas
\_ Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
This argument is no more stupid than your usual
motd rantings. You just refuse to see outside
your chosen worldview. I suppose CA's liberal
hell is why so many people have been coming
here. Why are you here anyway? Using our
subsidized university system? Shouldn't you
already be out in Georgia Tech or something?
Oh wait that's public too... ok, Duke.
\_ I think your next line is to complain about
me using the phone system and the freeways.
This conversation is SO over. -- ilyas
\_ Not quite. While you might not be able
to avoid using the freeways and phone
system, there were plenty of private
universities, including top tier ones,
yet YOU CHOSE to attend the evil govt
funded public school. The free market
provided you with alternatives, but
YOU CHOSE to force all of us "at
gunpoint" to pay for your education.
Way to stand by your principles.
-meyers
\_ Sure, I can avoid using the phone and
the freeway if I go become amish.
Similarly, I go where I am accepted.
Though a private school would probably
be better, understand that all
universities in the US, private or
not, are heavily gvt subsidized, so
the point is kind of moot. Plus,
I where they let me. -- ilyas
I go where they let me. -- ilyas
\_ Stay on topic: we're talking about
your decision to attend a public
university instead of a private
one. Are you saying that *no*
private school would accept you?
-meyers
\_ No private school out of a
reasonably large set to which
I applied accepted me. Again,
because there is little moral
difference of kind (only of
degree) between a fully gvt
funded school (UCLA), and a
partially gvt funded school
(Stanford) I don't really see
your point. It reduces to
freeways. -- ilyas
\_ They only vote on abortion, anti-queer stuff, and whoever
thumps the most bible. They think this is their self interest.
They bang their cousins and mope around in their hick towns,
and send their kids to the army, why not vote Bush. Bush says
"y'all" and plays country music at the rallies.
\_ If you believe NPR; the Dems lost because the Reps
were better able to motivative their base. This was especially
true in Florida with the Christian Right ( Hah! What a &%*$
oxymoron) who viewed this election as an actual war against
their belief system; disturbingly similar to what all of those
racist groups used to blather on about. Who would think that a
country like ours could become more intolerant. The whole
youth vote thing never materialized as expected; more due to
apathy than anything else; according to at least some of the
networks; something akin to only people who pay taxes are
motivated to vote. Sad.. really really sad |
| 4/3 |
|
| www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/opinion/03kris.html?hp I n the aftermath of this civil war that our nation has just fought, one result is clear: the Democratic Party's first priority should be to reco nnect with the American heartland. I'm writing this on tenterhooks on Tuesday, without knowing the election results. But whether John Kerry's supporters are now celebrating or seek ing asylum abroad, they should be feeling wretched about the millions of farmers, factory workers and waitresses who ended up voting - utterly a gainst their own interests - for Republican candidates. One of the Republican Party's major successes over the last few decades h as been to persuade many of the working poor to vote for tax breaks for billionaires. Democrats are still effective on bread-and-butter issues l ike health care, but they come across in much of America as arrogant and out of touch the moment the discussion shifts to values. "On values, they are really noncompetitive in the heartland," noted Mike Johanns, a Republican who is governor of Nebraska. "This kind of elitist , Eastern approach to the party is just devastating in the Midwest and W estern states. It's very difficult for senatorial, Congressional and eve n local candidates to survive." But many of those people disdain Democrats as elitists who empathize with spotted owls rather than loggers. One problem is the yuppification of the Democratic Party. Thomas Frank, a uthor of the best political book of the year, "What's the Matter With Ka nsas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America," says that Democratic leaders have been so eager to win over suburban professionals that they have lost touch with blue-collar America. "There is a very upper-middle-class flavor to liberalism, and that's just bound to rub average people the wrong way," Mr Frank said. He notes th at Republicans have used "culturally powerful but content-free issues" t o connect to ordinary voters. To put it another way, Democrats peddle issues, and Republicans sell valu es. One-third of Americans are evangelical Christians, and many of them perce ive Democrats as often contemptuous of their faith. Some evangelicals take revenge by smiting Democratic cand idates. Then we have guns, which are such an emotive issue that Idaho's Democrati c candidate for the Senate two years ago, Alan Blinken, felt obliged to declare that he owned 24 guns "and I use them all." As for gays, that's a rare wedge issue that Democrats have managed to neu tralize in part, along with abortion. Most Americans disapprove of gay m arriage but do support some kind of civil unions (just as they oppose "p artial birth" abortions but don't want teenage girls to die from coat-ha nger abortions). Finally, grizzlies - a metaphor for the way environmentalism is often per ceived in the West as high-handed. When I visited Idaho, people were sti ll enraged over a Clinton proposal to introduce 25 grizzly bears into th e wild. It wasn't worth antagonizing most of Idaho over 25 bears. "The Republicans are smarter," mused Oregon's governor, Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat. these social issues to get the public to stop looking at what's happening to them economically." "What we once thought - that people would vote in their economic self-int erest - is not true, and we Democrats haven't figured out how to deal wi th that." Bill Clinton intuitively understood the challenge, and John Edwards seems to as well, perhaps because of their own working-class origins. To appeal to middle America, Democratic leaders don't need to carry guns to church services and shoot grizzlies on the way. But a starting point would be to shed their inhibitions about talking about faith, and to wor k more with religious groups. Otherwise, the Democratic Party's efforts to improve the lives of working -class Americans in the long run will be blocked by the very people the Democrats aim to help. |