The Future of the Democrats

As some of you know I posted a bit on the Death of Socialism predicting the loss by the Democrats in this election. It was first published in May '03.

So Matthew Yglesias is having a discussion of the issues. I posted a few thoughts.

I will present them here in a somewhat edited form. Go to Matt's place if you want the full flavor.

--==--

The future of the Democrat Party (provided they want one) is Lieberman.

Lieberman is a capitalist - unashamed, he knows the engines of prosperity. He liked the tax cuts.

Lieberman supports the war - we have real anti-liberal enemies out there, diplomacy is not going to cut it with the fanatics any more than it did with Hitler

Liberman is in opposition where it matters - social issues.

Bush got my vote this year - you run a Lieberman type candidate and he would be my prefrence over any one the Rs are likely to run.

Hell I was pinning for Joe this year.

Start with these propositions:

1. socialism is dead
2. there is a war on

Once you have those down try finding positiions that give you the votes to win.

BTW it would be a good idea to purge the Jew haters from the party. Cynthia M. should be disavowed by the Democrats.

The same way the David Duke/Pat B. wing was purged by the Rs. Publicly. Same goes for the Jew hater and arson inciter Sharpton. Ugly people make an ugly party.

You guys need to clean up your act if you ever expect to get out of the wilderness. Take Zell Miller's critique to heart. He is trying to tell you something important.

--==--

So some one pipes up that the Dems are the "peace party" or an equivalent statement. My reply:

Whatever happened to the party whose liberal watchword was death to tyrants?

Any one remember Jefferson?

What is wrong with invading random countries and replacing tyranies with democracies? Why not have a plan or a list instead of getting in the way?

--==--

Then some one pointed out that the Democrats were not stupid enough to nominate Lieberman (despite Gore selecting him for VP). My answer:

Glad to hear you are not that stupid.

In fact I predicted in May of '03 you would not be that stupid. I also predicted then (before any one knew who the candidate would be) that you would lose this election. Based on my knowledge of how smart you are.

If you are the future of your party let me make another prediction - '08 is going against you as well. By a larger margin.

When you have had enough of being so smart you will change.

--==--

Some one objected to me calling the Democrats the Democrat party. Here is my return response:

What would you prefer?

The Communist Party? The Socialist Party? The Progressive Party?

I have been a long time Libertarian so right now (given the war and all) I'm an independent. I like the Democrats on tolerance and the Republicans on the war and economics.

Call me a Republicanz all you want. I'm not one. I'm from the center. Where elections are won and lost.

I'm a Zell Miller Republican if you want to put a name to it.

I'm none to happy with chimpy on social issues. But hey, Osama reminded me, as if I needed reminding that there is a fookin war on. And we are no more going to diplomacy or new foreign aid program ourselves out of it than Chamberlain did in '38. Delay just added to the butchers bill.

I'd rather pay up front now than pay later with interest.

--==--

Random aside from me:

I might mention that Obama got my vote as well as Bush.

--==--

I got called a Republicanz troll. The response:

I guess my vote for Obama makes me a Republicanz troll.

LOL

And you wonder why you lost the election.

If all you have to say is "we wuz right and the voters and Republicanz were too stupid to see it" then the Ds are going to continue losing.

1. You lost the Presidency.
2. You lost House seats
3. You lost Senate seats

And I'm a troll for pointing out what I like about the Ds and what I don't.

Perhaps Democrat is the wrong name. I guess you would prefer loser.

Let me give it to you another way. Elections are won and lost in the center. The closer you are to the center the easier it is to win. Going hard left is not the answer.

The opposite is also true - look at Keyes. Going hard right was definitely not the answer. The problem is the Republicanz do not have enough candidates like Keyes to insure Democrat victories.

LOL

As to economics - you could do worse than study the last 20 years of Nobels.

If you want the short version read DeSoto's "Capitalism" - he talks about how to empower the poor. Then there is Hayek's "Serfdom" - which explains why socialism can't work. Written in 1944. Stil a good primer on why economic liberty is better than economic planning.

--==--

Then some one said we need a paper trail for all balloting. I agreed:

She is right about the ballot thing.

It must have a paper trail.

I guess that makes me a Republicanz too.

ROTFLMAO

--==--

Then some one piped up that what the Dems really need is more class warfare. I show here why that is not workable in America:

Class warfare will not work in America.

There is economic mobility and every one at least dreams of getting rich.

So people see taxing the rich as placing a tax on who they will become. i.e. it is a tax on people's future.

People already know this by watching big lottery payoffs. You win a gazillion dollars in the lottery and wind up with only 60% (or less) of the winnings. Reported every time there is a big win. First it is a $100 million payoff that is only $30 million taken as a lump sum. And only $18 million after taxes. People notice.

You are not going to get ahead in politics by taxing people's dreams.

Democrats used to be the party of hope. In fact for many years (before I believed Kerry that the killings by the communists if they won would be minimal - the boat people and 2 million dead Cambodians fixed that) I was a staunch Democrat.

Kennedy was the most exciting President I have ever lived under. His policy was low taxes and (ultimately) muscular foreign policy.

I remember the Cuban missile crisis when we all thought a nuclear war was hours away. I still liked his anti-communism.

=================

The economic reality is that any economy that can make the income of the poor double will increase the income of the rich by a factor of 20 or 100. I say let 'er rip. In such an economy I may some day become rich too.

Lieberman got that one right.

Unfortunately you can have fairness or wealth generation.

My belief is that wealth generation is better for every one.

--==--

Wretchard neatly encapsulates the gist of the counter arguments against my above points. Wretchard says:

These Progressives are somehow resistant to blandishments of the "big capitalists". Something -- superior intelligence or a finer moral fiber perhaps -- has made them insusceptible to ignorance and manipulation. And they alone stand in the way of the Darkness.