Replies

I've read the article and pondered it. And I'm going to pull something of a dirty trick here. I'm going to largely sidestep his logic, which is actually pretty good, and question the premise (which I think is largely unstated).

The premise here, as I see it, is that the Democratic party equals neo-liberalism, and will continue to. I don't really agree with that basic premise, so the rest of the article is built on a rhetorical house of cards from my perspective.

The Democratic party does not have a single cohesive philosophy at this point in time. Actually, there are a few opposing philosophies that are warring within the party. None of which have emerged completely triumphant.

Neo-liberalism, that is to say the "new-deal" liberalism that conservatives know and loathe has certainly been dominant in the party, and may well continue to be. But I don't think that philosophy has won any ultimate triumph.

I think that big-C Conservatives, that is to say folks who are attracted to FR or the opinion/journal, make a big mistake when they spend significant time trying to wrap their arms around the underlying philosophy of Democrats. There isn't one right now; you might as well try to hug a cloud.

I do think that a dominant philosophy is going to emerge, and I'm not so sure I'm going to like it. With the selection of Howard Dean to head up the DNC, you can bet that what emerges in the future will be a more populist Democratic party. I happen to like populist. Populist means you listen to what the people say and do their bidding. Populist where I live means pro-gun, and limited government.

But what I don't like is when populism gets married up with radical neo-liberalism or socialism. That might well be coming as well.