Posted on 07/10/2006 4:34:27 AM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
SOMETHING HAPPENS to a political party when it is not just out of power but has had to play on the home field of its opponents for a generation: It loses faith in itself and becomes scared.
Like the 98-pound weakling who lives in fear of the school bully, it will say anything to avoid being stuffed into a gym locker: I don't really believe in anything! I don't stand for anything! Please just leave me alone!
That this has become true in the Democratic Party is clear in listening to the worried words of pundits and political professionals who counsel Democrats to avoid offering any vision or direction for the country — to instead simply wait for voters to so tire of Republican mismanagement that they will turn to more "competent" Democrats to administer a conservative state.
Maureen Dowd, for instance, argued recently that "big ideas" don't matter — "what matters," she wrote, "is the bearer of an idea." James Carville — the architect of Bill Clinton's 1992 victory — told Newsweek that "the American people are going to be ready for an era of realism. They've seen the consequences of having too many 'big ideas.' "
And in these pages, Jonathan Chait cynically dismissed any talk of "vision" or "ideas" and instead argued that Democrats should not formulate a coherent worldview because, for progressives, "everything works on a case-by-case basis." This ad hoc approach to politics misunderstands the basics of American history and underestimates the power of ideas in shaping it. It may win an odd election here or there in spite of itself, but ultimately, it is a losing strategy for any political party.
Ideas have driven American politics since the founding of the republic.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Well, it is refreshing to see the LA Times admit the democrats have no vision or ideas.
They know that the moment the Dems become insignificant, the conservatives and the Rinos will split and have a turf war, probably even a new party to the right. This would, of course be better for America, but not the GOP leadership.
They are for the working people and the environment. I hear them say it all the time.
I'm for the working people and the environment as well. The difference is in the balance...they would place the environment ABOVE people, I place people above the environment.
Let's see now, which "failures" would those be? The "failure" that defeated the Soviet Union, the biggest threat to freedom in world history? Or the "failure" of tax cuts, which doubled and then re-doubled national wealth within a couple of decades? Or maybe it was the "failure" of welfare reform, which reduced dependency and allowed the less fortunate to develop some self-respect and pull themselves out of grinding poverty.
The "progressives" have offered their ideas for the last hundred years. They've been shown not to work and rejected at the ballot box. If it pleases these nimrods to believe otherwise, let them go forward with their "progressive" agenda and see how well it takes off, not with the sycophantic media, but with the voting public.
This used to be called "situational ethics." Wonder if this kind of thinking has a new name these days.
The Rat party can't espouse any ideas.
The party now consists of two large groups - left wing Marxist lunatics and traditional democrats such as union members and the rapidly vanishing FDR voters.
If the party tosses out an idea, it will alienate one or the other group. Thus, it can't have any ideas. All it can do is bash the president. The party is trapped and there's no way out unless it dumps one of these two groups.
The LA Times is acting as cheerleaders for the dems.
Nothing new in that.
...to say nothing of the decades they have been killing their ofspring through "choice."
They absolutely are...which is why it is even more amusing that even their staunch supporters admit they have no ideas.
"...to say nothing of the decades they have been killing their ofspring through "choice."
Oh yes.
Maybe the LA Times are using child psychology on the rat party?
Yes, but ideas and vision don't go very well with demogoguery.
You forgot to mention the children.
You are 100% correct but even that is a self-defeating tactic for two reasons. First, Amercians almost never vote AGAINST someting. We tend to either vote FOR something or don't vote at all. This was illustrated in several polls right after the 2004 election. When polled, people who voted for Bush were not "just voting against Kerry" while people who voted for Kerry by and large were voting against Bush. Giving people something to believe in has always been a political winner.
Second, Bush will be out of office in two years. Considering that the singular thing that keeps the dems together is their hatred of Bush, what will they say then? They have demonized Bush into the worst thing that has ever walked the face of the Earth. According to ther rhetoric, no matter who comest next it has to be better.
The democratic politicians can't be pro-war, pro-life or pro-gun. They can't be anti-gay marriage or anti-illegal immigration. The only thing that unites them is that they hate President Bush. Whatever he is for, they are against. That will never be enough to win big and in two years, it will not be enough to win anything at all.
"Like the 98-pound weakling who lives in fear of the school bully, it will say anything to avoid being stuffed into a gym locker"
Sounds like your typical liberal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.