Country Comfort Ringtone Country Comfort Ringtone Real Hip Hop Ringtone Real Hip Hop Ringtone Freestyle Conversation Ringtone Freestyle Conversation Ringtone Forgive Ringtone Forgive Ringtone Midwest Invasion Ringtone Midwest Invasion Ringtone Ghost Ba…

quaked blotted mincing misspelling counterbalance plutonium,capital one credit card http://capital-one-credit-card.1click-credit-card.com/ …

I gave a sincere compliment in the comments to the previous post. To this one, I gave a sincere thumbs-down because I find the straining-for-equivalency, pox-on-both-houses stance tiresome. Often I wouldn’t say so, but against the background of yesterday’s post it seemed like an unhappy reversion to bad form, so I yielded to temptation.

Judging from comments before mine, I’m not the only one who feels that way, but others had already expressed my point, and less personally.

Everyone who cares about Iraq: please take reg’s advice and read Night Draws Near.

I think you underestimate the deep philosophical currents the Dems (or left in general) are swimming against. A Darwinian paradigm now prevails in all fields of intellectual and social endeavor. In economics it argues for an untrammeled free market. In psychology it argues for a genetic free market that explains all that we are and do. Sociology and anthropology are colonized (and nearly vaporized) by sociobiology; they too bow before the primacy of DNA. Social Darwinism fills the void they leave. Even our great religious awakening amounts to little more than Social Darwinism with a Christian face. All this is exarcebated by globalization and gives it intellectual comfort.

In this climate, fighting extreme ecomomic individualism is incredibly difficult. We need to understand ourselves differently before we successfully argue for a different sort of economy. (Let’s also admit that the failure and collapse of communism don’t made such arguments easier). I believe that the current Dems face a harder climate than TR did in his day (though there are some similarities). I’m not sure LBJ would be LBJ if he were around now.

With a nod to the rare exceptions, there are no Democrats who question the size or scope of the military budget or the placement of bases around the globe. Few have any opposition to the ever expanding free trade initiatives that come down the pike. Where are the champions of labor unions? Where are the champions of a meaningful public health system? Who objects to greater and more draconian federal crime stautes? Who of the Members think they should be subject to the same health insurance and pension laws as the rest of America (I can think of one)?

I won’t bore you with a continued list of the topics that are off limits, I’m sure you’re well aware. It may be that the voices of these causes are not heard, but the fact remains that the leadership of the party is part of the broad consensus that eliminates serious alternatives in domestic and foreign policy. They’ve all bought into the same vision. Can you think of anyone in national politics today who talks like LBJ or FDR? I can’t.

As for the current ideological climate: TR faced a pretty tough climate, but he was not deterred. All it takes is someone with some courage.

Differences? Sure. Enough of them? Not even close. This party is shamefully timid.

Re: ‘except in their funding mechanism, their overall mediocrity and their joint consensus on economic and foreign policy orthodoxy’. I guess that leaves Teri Schiavo and abortion rights as the sole points of distinction — which means they’re both the basically the same, but not quite identical.

The fact is, as a social democrat I’m not satisfied with either party’s economic policy but believe it’s disingenuous to claim there’s no difference. Furthermore, given the current array of social, economic and intellectual forces, I think it’s silly to believe that the Dems can simply screw up their courage and reconstitute themselves as a traditional labor party. It’s going to take a certain amount of upheaval and a lot of intellectual scut work before that’s remotely possible. As for both subscribing to the same foreign policy orthodoxy — there’s some truth to the claim so long as you’re willing to ignore all nuance.

Of course, the rationale in the minds of the neo-cons was primarily political. Read the early chapters of Packers book. It’s amazing what delusional zealots some of the most influential and strategically placed BushCo strategists were – this crowd undoubtedly stood alone among Americans in seeing 9/11 as the answer to their dreams and schemes. This is a terrible thing to say, but I can’t help but believe by their subsequent actions that they rejoiced in the opportunity presented by that horror as no others this side of the Islamist nutcases and anti-American extremists.

With a nod to the rare exceptions, there are no Democrats who question the size or scope of the military budget or the placement of bases around the globe. Few have any opposition to the ever expanding free trade initiatives that come down the pike. Where are the champions of labor unions? Where are the champions of a meaningful public health system? Who objects to greater and more draconian federal crime stautes? Who of the Members think they should be subject to the same health insurance and pension laws as the rest of America (I can think of one)?

I won’t bore you with a continued list of the topics that are off limits, I’m sure you’re well aware. It may be that the voices of these causes are not heard, but the fact remains that the leadership of the party is part of the broad consensus that eliminates serious alternatives in domestic and foreign policy. They’ve all bought into the same vision. Can you think of anyone in national politics today who talks like LBJ or FDR? I can’t.

As for the current ideological climate: TR faced a pretty tough climate, but he was not deterred. All it takes is someone with some courage.

Differences? Sure. Enough of them? Not even close. This party is shamefully timid.