Why can't the Democrats seem to get it together? (GREAT blog post, must read!)

Asymmetrical Information ^ | August 3, 2003 | Jane Galt

[.cnI redruM]

I don't watch Fox ALL day, 5 days a week I go to work and I'll flip over to ESPN if The Braves are playing.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

[stupid/ greedy/ mean/ venal/ dishonest/ selfish/ hateful/ bigoted/ power-mad/ narrow-minded/ cruel/ careless/ hypocritical/ violent]

...Seeking like minded female for friendship/more <;-(

[The Electrician]

While some of the points made in the blog were interesting, and some even right on the mark, a lot of it fails the sanity test. If you believe that there is such a thing as "objective truth", even though ofttimes it may be difficult to discern, then you could indeed conclude after performing suitable research, that one party (namely, the left) more often needs to lie in order to advance their agenda. So, the neutral view that "everybody does it" (that is, relies on baldfaced lies to advance their agenda), is just not supported by the facts on the ground.

[Alberta's Child]

Why can't the Democrats seem to get it together?

The answer to this one was first put forth by Thomas Sowell a couple of years ago. Democrats can't seem to "get it together" because their Marxist worldview only works in places like schools, government institutions and media outlets -- places where there is no real price to pay for failure.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

sorry.. did not mean you personally!

[Hodar]

Better to lose honorably, say my Democratic pals, and I admire their spirit.

Like the Dem's in Texas?

[Gorjus]

. . .is just not supported by the facts on the ground.

Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts!

The tenor of the blog is that political opinions are just opinions - unjustifiable except by judgment and unconvincing except by cogent argument. Only by being exposed to contrary opinions/arguments can one find truth.

But there are facts out there, too. What if the reason conservatives believe that (moderate) tax cuts increase revenue is because they do? What does that fact add to the discussion?

Don't ask a liberal. They refuse to admit to the existence of facts - beyond the 'fact' of accurately quoting someone's opinion.

[My2Cents]

In other words, the reason the Democrats are doing so poorly is that they are full of themselves. Or at least this is one of the reasons. The fact that the world is too dangerous a place, and the Democrats are to a man (or woman) too cavalier with American security, is another reason. Also, the fact that the statism that is the bedrock of the Democrat appeal has been a bankrupt philosophy since the mid-1960s and the Democrats haven't come up with a viable alternative in a generation is another reason they're gasping for breath. The Democrats are so bereft of concrete ideas and principle that their only refuge are the politics of personal destruction, race-baiting, class envy, and the rest of their arsenal of lies. Americans are beginning to sense all of this, and it makes them queasy. This is why the Democrats don't have a snowballs chance to beat Bush next year. Put simply, Bush is trustworthy, they are not.

[My2Cents]

The left needs to lie because it doesn't stand up very well to the realities of life and the way the universe functions.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

I remember reading a Trotsky paper written in the early 1900's which proclaimed the failure and death of socialism. It was not only convincing, but still is relevant today in the way it exposed the inherent corruption in socialism, including the subjugation of the middle class. It was like it was written by a conservative yesterday.

My point is that socialism was doa 100 years ago?

When in the hell would democrats throw away the greatest national and economic and social achievement in the history of man in favor of a bankrupt philosophy doomed to failure and ultimate destruction at the hands of the people?

[Onelifetogive]

I would like for tax cuts to raise tax revenue, but it is not so.

Generally, a good argument, but this one makes her look rather slow...

No one (with a shred of intelligence) doubts the reality of the laffer curve.

The laffer curve - Tax revenue will be lowest at a rate of 0% and 100%, it will rise from both ends of the curve and meet at a maximum somewhere between them.

That tax cuts "never" increase revenue is as asinine as stating that lowering a consumer price will never increase revenue. To say that tax cuts never increase revenue would require that you also believe that pricing gum at $100 a pack will raise 100 times more revenue than if you price it at $1 per pack. (Time is the biggest difference in the two arguments - buying gum is optional, thus pricing effects will be quick. Paying taxes, in the short-run, is required and will respond more slowly to rate changes.)

Tax rate increases will increse revenue if the rate is above the inflection point, it will lower revenue if the rate is below the inflection point. (Speculation - rates are higher for high income people - thus rate cuts increase revenue. Rates are lower for low income people - thus rate cuts decrease revenue. Tax cuts should ONLY be for the rich!!!)

[wayoverontheright]

.....but because they live in a bubble, and thus are genuinely not aware that the other side may occasionally have the better of the argument.

Insularity doesn't explain the entirety of the left's hardheadedness. There's an intoxication which prevents them from seeing any other possibility, even when confronted with clear-cut evidence they are wrong.

No matter, the hangover's going to be a bitch.

[whereasandsoforth]

This is a sweet attempt to rationalize, but it ultimately fails. This piece is prone to establish both parties as being equals, but different. That's not true. One is based on lies and deceit. the other is based on truths and basic goodness. They cannot be demonstrated as one = one. Nice try, though.

[Gritty]

Being a true Democrat means never to have to admit you're wrong, or sorry!

[lowbridge]

What is true is that Democrats, right now, have more ability to insulate themselves from being confronted with the views of the other side. Geographically, they can isolate themselves into coastal cities, which is why I never met any Republicans except my grandparents until I went to business school.

: ''I don’t know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don’t know anybody who voted for him.'' - Pauline Kael's reaction to Richard Nixon's 49 state landslide presidential victory over George McGovern in 1972

It is even now common at gatherings of New Yorkers to hear bitter recriminations about the Supreme Court stealing the election for Bush, even though the recount seems to have shown, as conclusively as anything can, that Bush would have won even if the Supreme Court had mandated the exact recount Gore's team wanted. It isn't disingenuous; they do not know this fact. And how do they not know it? Because there are five million or so other people around who constantly tell each other that the Supreme Court stole the election for Bush. And like anything that one hears over and over from sympathetic sources, it becomes true to them, just as most of us love our siblings even though we've never really stopped to consider the matter. Everyone says that people love their siblings; therefore it is so.

Very true. Liberals cite each others lies so often, that they often become "facts" in their minds as well in the minds of the less informed public. Quite often I watch something untrue pop up on a liberal site (buzzflash, bartcop, du, etc.), and before I know it, other liberals are cutting and pasting that lie all over the internet on message boards, websites, and newsgroups. (The Lovenstein IQ hoax is just one of many examples. To this day, people, mostly liberals, are still falling for that lie.).

[lowbridge]

This is a sweet attempt to rationalize, but it ultimately fails. This piece is prone to establish both parties as being equals, but different. That's not true. One is based on lies and deceit. the other is based on truths and basic goodness. They cannot be demonstrated as one = one. Nice try, though.

Completely agree.

[cinFLA]

Tax rate increases will increse revenue if the rate is above the inflection point, it will lower revenue if the rate is below the inflection point.

I am not sure your curve as described has an inflection point.

[Ayn Rand wannabe]

While some of the points made in the blog were interesting, and some even right on the mark, a lot of it fails the sanity test. If you believe that there is such a thing as "objective truth", even though ofttimes it may be difficult to discern, then you could indeed conclude after performing suitable research, that one party (namely, the left) more often needs to lie in order to advance their agenda. So, the neutral view that "everybody does it" (that is, relies on baldfaced lies to advance their agenda), is just not supported by the facts on the ground.

Yes, but perception defines reality. From their perception, it looks like we're the ones lying because we go against the facts that they see. We see the opposite. It's merely a point of view that our perception of reality changes. If they don't see the same facts we do, then how do they know they're lying? (or vice versa). The objective truth is hard indeed to find.

[Monti Cello]

I have a feeling that the Bush enjoys subtly reinforcing the liberal myopia by leaving some vagueness about his motives. He will explain his actions in very simple language that is refreshing to his supporters, but reinforces the suspicions and prejudices of his enemies, driving them a little crazy. Bush plays up his 'cowboy' persona and doesn't shirk from his malapropisms.

Limbaugh does the same thing in his own way. He definitely goes out of his way to gin up the hatred of liberals in order to keep them seething and listening.