"If he's elected, he may vote with "progressives" 30 or 40 percent, which is better than Allen for sure"
If the problem is that Webb will only vote with "progressives" 30 or 40% of the time, it means there is something wrong with today's "progressives", not with Webb.
I am a Democrat. This means I stand for mainstream, sensible, moderate values. I am not a "progressive", which is the far-left fringe counterpart to the far right fringe that controls the Republican Party.
This was all I needed to see to confirm my worst suspicions about what the above post means. Rational's near-incoherent attacks on Webb and ramblings about "addled ron" rate a "3" from Chris Bowers? That person has yet to post a single constructive comment in their entire time here.
MyDD has jumped the shark. I may or may not be back, but probably not.
Well, yeah, true. But I see the definitions of left and right hinging on economic issues, social class, and more than anything else, their position vis-as-vis organized labor.
Social issues are secondary and may not even fit neatly on the left-right spectrum at all, but be a tangent from it. The popular "Political Compass" quiz on the web makes that point by putting economic issues on the left-right scale but putting social issues on a separate scale that runs libertarian to authoritarian. In any case if the left is supposed to represent the interests and values of the working class, it's hard to see how some of today's "liberal" social issues fit. Gun policy, immigration policy, red light camera enforcement, seat belt and helmet laws, excise taxes on cigarettes and such (regressive taxes), a misguided approach to environmental issues that takes the form of anti-logging, anti-mining and anti-commercial fishing (read: anti-worker), the whole political correctness/identity politics movement, and a bunch of other things come to mind. On the other hand, I'm pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-civil rights - those aren't the social issues I'm talking about. But in any case liberalism somehow got cluttered up in the 1970s and 1980s and redefined with issues that aren't in the interest of Joe Sixpack, and by that new definition the WWII Generation suddenly got tagged as "conservative".
OK, now I understand what you meant. Wasn't sure yesterday. In that case it is true that the religious right has used opposition to all forms of birth control as a way of promoting pro-natalism, among their own "flock" more than anything else. They think it's a way of growing their churches and their base, although they'll never frame the issue that way (they'll frame it as being "pro-family" or similar). Pro-family means pro-large family. See congressman Rick Renzi for one of the most obnoxious examples. I have also seen that argument from white supremacists: "have more white babies or else doom and gloom will befall Der Aryan Race.."
It does not follow that anyone else should be making the same arguments, especially not Democrats, centrists, liberals, responsible conservatives, populists, progressives, libertarians, or apolitical reformers.
I also don't agree that under-population is even a problem. Europe's population even with below replacement fertility is basically holding at ZPG right now. Some countries have a very slight decrease in population. Japan and most of the former Soviet Bloc are also showing a slow decrease. But consider what those countries' populations were 50 or 100 years ago - this decrease isn't a bad thing at all, it is much needed to bring these countries that have way overshot their ecological carrying capacity back down to a sane and sustainable population. Pat Buchanan thinks below-replacement fertility rates are a disaster, and I disasgree. They have a long way to drop before it even becomes a problem, so long as the drop is slow and steady. A rapid drop in population would be a disaster, but that's not what's happening.
I don't know where you're getting this from. Are you referring to the "welfare mom with three kids" argument?
Concern about overpopulation/too high a fertility rate has traditionally come from liberals and environmentalists, and from some feminists.
The state with the highest fertility rate in the U.S. is currently Utah. It's also arguably the most Republican state in the country (along with Idaho and Alaska - which not coincidentally are #3 and #2 in fertility rates). The original poster is correct, this is not a right-wing argument at all.
What Wayward said. The World War II generation wasn't overwhelmingly conservative, they were overwhelmingly liberal. Their kids - the Baby Boomers - who rebelled and turned to campus protest and the civil rights movement did so because they took their parents' New Deal Liberal ideals at face value, and actually believed that their parents meant what they said about what America stood for.
I have a revisionist view on the Baby Boomers anyhow. They are the most conservative of the generations currently living, Woodstock Nation notwithstanding. "Generation X" is mostly a left-libertarian hybrid; the World War II generation (what's left of them) are staunch New Deal liberals; "Generation Y" is just like the World War II generation, favoring big government liberalism; and the "Silent" generation that came between the WWII and Baby Boomer generations in fact defined liberalism in the 1970s and 1980s (think Phil Donahue, Michael Dukakis, Barbara Streisand, Robert Redford, Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson...)
That leaves the Baby Boomers. Especially the younger half of the Boomers, the so-called Generation Jones. Look their statistics up - highest percentage of support for the Iraq War, highest vote percentage of any generation for Bush, highest percent of adherents to evangelical Christian beliefs. It's time we got past the myth that the Baby Boomers were some kind of righteous bastion of liberalism, because the much-ballyhooed campus protests and counterculture were just a small minority of the Boomers.
I hold and will continue to hold that the most liberal, left-wing generation in American history was in fact the World War II generation.
I guess most of them are running because they know somebody is going to emerge as the "anti-Hillary", and each of them hopes to be it.
The progressive wing will rally around Feingold. Feingold might emerge as the anti-Hillary candidate on that basis alone.
Gravel will make the race more interesting. He won't win the nomination and he knows it, but I think he is running to put the national referendum idea back on the map. He may wind up playing the role that Jerry Brown did in 1992 if Feingold drops out early in the season. Otherwise he may wind up playing the role Eugene McCarthy did in 1992: ignored.
The others may wind up trying to be the anti-Hillary and anti-Feingold candidate, positioning themselves as the electable alternative. Problem is, most of the names mentioned so far aren't offering much substantively different from Hillary. I'm putting my money on John Edwards, Wes Clark, and Mark Warner as the three most likely to go somewhere. The reason is they represent new blood and fresh ideas in the party. The others are just the same old same old. The 1980s and 1990s are over and the party can't keep repeating the mistakes of the recent past.
I predict Dodd, Bayh, Vilsack, Richardson, Daschle, and Biden all drop out after Iowa and New Hampshire, Gravel stays in but goes nowhere, Feingold and Clinton stay in until the end, and one of the other three (Edwards, Warner, or Clark) emerges as a consensus candidate for those who can't stomach Hillary and think Feingold is too far left to be elected. This will make it a 3 way race at the convention. One thing is for certain, we can't afford a Hillary Clinton nomination, because if she's the nominee, we lose.
I don't know. If the county maps are correct, wouldn't Idaho be blue and Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska be red in the state maps?
Every county in Idaho is showing blue except for a few sparsely populated ones in the southeast corner of the state, but the state as a whole is red...I'd double check the numbers for those four states.
That county in southwestern Nevada that is showing red, if I recall is the county with Tonopah in it and is a swing county that often goes Dem. Somehow I can't see them being deep red right now either.
Are the county maps accurate or just guesstimates?
Except that you say below that the Democratic Party should be reaching out to hunters and fishermen. Something I completely agree with. Promoting veganism, and "nonviolence" to the extent that "nonviolence" means being anti-gun and anti-hunting, work against these kinds of alliances.
Your posts have me completely confused. The Green Party is not the same thing as environmentalists but you seem to suggest they are, if you are running as a "Green" Democrat that is not the same thing as running on the Green Party ticket but you seem to suggest they are the same thing, and I still don't see where nonviolence has anything to do with the environment. If sea tortoises are being slaughtered in the Galapagos by armed pirates what's the best way to stop the slaughter? A police force patrolling the islands, armed and ready to use force to arrest the poachers, that's what. Nonviolence is a pipe dream.
Y'know, it's funny. Over the past year or so I've gone from being one of those progressive purists criticizing the Democratic Party for not being pure enough, to a centrist-leaning Democrat who realizes that the biggest problem facing the Democratic Party today is the progressive-left purist crowd trying to enforce their purity on the rest of the party. We need a big tent. Green voters are more than welcome in the big tent. Green true believers who threaten to take their ball and go home if they don't get their way, should not be.
Just for the record, I said nothing about the Democrats should marginalize the environment. What I said was Greens and the environment are two different things. I am quite vocal about the environment, if by the environment you mean the environmental issues popular in the 1960s and 1970s: overpopulation, the energy crisis (today's equivalent: peak oil), wilderness, and pollution. The "Greens" are a whole different ball game. Veganism, Birkenstocks, "nonviolence", and legalizing shrooms have nothing whatsoever to do with real environmental issues like overpopulation, pollution, and wilderness preservation.
I do not support the war in Iraq. I did not support the first war in Iraq either. This has nothing to do with "war and violence" in general. Would you have had the U.S. stay out of World War II? Was the American Revolution wrong? Was fighting back against Francisco Franco in the Spanish Civil War wrong?
I am anti-interventionist, not "pacifist" or "nonviolent". The distinction is important.
And as I meant to add: the rest of the platform is a mix of essentially good things like "grassroots democracy", and starry-eyed idealism and silliness. "Nonviolence"? "Post-patriarchal values"? Could we please come back down to earth?
the Green Party is not synonymous with environmentalism. In fact, environmentalism is not even the main basis for the Green Party. The Green Party has ten key planks. Only two of them are environmental, "Ecological Wisdom" and "Future Focus and Sustainability".