its over at dkos right now, but I think it makes a good question.
Rupert Murdoch is currently the owner of Fox News and a cable company that recently became the first cable company to sell hard-core pornography to its subscribers. As an outspoken and big-spending figure in the Republican party, should the Republican party continue accepting his corporate profits, partially made by pornography sales, as donations or join democrats in publicly refusing any support he would offer?
A huge chunk of middle/working/lower class America was sold on tax cuts for the rich, because they got a tax cut too. Giving everyone tax cuts seems fair, and giving those that pay the most, the biggest cut doesn't seem unreasonable. Why be jealous of someone else's good fortune, when you have been fortunate yourself? There is NO victim from tax cuts alone.
We need to connect tax cuts for the rich with social program cuts for America.
In a conservative budget the rich pay less in taxes than anytime since 19?? (im not sure of the date, but its a damn long time ago), and community policing gets cut by 80%. Heating oil for the poor gets cut by $200 million, as oil prices go up. Fire department aid is getting slashed by 30%. It goes on and on. The necessities of America are getting slashed.
I was watching crossfire (eee, a rare pastime), and I thought that the democratic argument sounded much stronger. If we say "tax cuts for the rich" everytime we mention budget, regular people will see the connection.
Bush's spending cuts are a golden opportunity to crush the republicans with their own ideology. Tax cuts for the rich in order to shaft the poor is the ugliest part of the "Ownership Society" ideology. Its the part we can win.
When they want to let people open private accounts with social security taxes, they have the upper hand, and we are left playing defense. When they want to cut social programs that people rely on, we gain the upper hand. This budget proposal may be best opportunity to take an axe to the unpopular underbelly of the Ownership Society.
You know the word association games pollsters like to do? We should aim to associate "low taxes on the rich" with "social spending cuts." We must assign a cause for the problem the Bush's budgetseeks to address. Republicans will try to reframe it, as a causeless happenstance, and now we must all sacrafice a little for our children's sake.
If we can conflate regressive tax cuts with social cuts, we win.
How many of these nanny-state-worriers are voting democratic? Nanny-state is pretty much a code word, for I hate the government and I vote Republican without thinking.
It appeals really well to working moms, and stay-at-home moms who wish their husband could come see Johnny's t-ball game.
I bet that 80% of Americans dont have an ideological position on government regulation. They like what works for them, and they hate what doesn't. This is a good law, because it seems so common sense. It appeals to lots of people and hurts no one, minus a few pain-in-the-ass bosses.
the funny looking poll numbers coming out of the speech about social security support. I thought it was a really well-done speech, and I saw those numbers for "speech-watchers" and got all sick in my stomach. I guess it was all just selection bias, whew. I think he may get a small bounce in the polls though...
I was about to write the TNDP about their lack of a blog, when I checked their website. They have a blog, but it was last update in 2004. You should make this clarification in your blog, otherwise any emails we send them will look pretty silly.
I took a polsci seminar last year on the politics of justice. We studied three thinkers, Nozick, Dworkin, and Rawls. Let me do a great injustice to them and summarize their arguments in a sentence.
Rawls - Justice as fairness. If you didn't know who you would be in society and you were picking government policy to run the society, you would pick a system of expansive political freedoms and a system that gave the most to the least well-off.
Dworkin - The course of our life is heavily influenced by luck. None of us our safe from extreme hardship, so we all want to pay for social insurance programs in case we ever are forced to rely on them. This is embodied in many European redistributibe programs.
Nozick - conservative thinking of the Republican party. Ownership society, property rights, no social welfare programs, etc. => Republican Party at its most ideological.
What is the democratic party's most ideological base? We have none of course, and everyone knows it. There are seperate arguments to support each primary position. Take three big tenants in the democratic party, and what they stand for. Then think about the arguments for each one.
Anti-vouchers, pro-choice, and affirmative action.
Vouchers destroy public school enrollment, hurts funding.
Seperation of Church and State
Scientific argument about fetus consciousness.
Prenumbra in Roe v. Wade, and the implied right to privacy
Dangerous illegal abortions will kill women
Historical economic differences passed down from slavery are unfair.
Diverse environments at universities decrease racism, increase quality of education.
Without AA, subconscious racism becomes a factor. AA leads to fair hiring.
All the arguments about these arguments are almost completely unrelated. It is unreasonable to expect the average person to have a complete mental idea of all the arguments necessary to support all the positions of democratic party.
On the other hand, Republicans have a central, philosophically grounded narrative. The "Great Backlash" movement works, because its so easy to understand. It gives you a way to have an argument in your head about everything, when you dont much of anything. It only takes a couple of assumptions to be taken on faith, and then you can arrive at almost all Republican positions by inductive reasoning.
We need what they have. And what they have is already out there, in progressive terms. We only have to pick it up.
was it really neccessary to insult someone for having a pro-privacy opinion? It isn't like being worried that a central authority has people's personal info, and it being organized by political beliefs is ridiculous. What if a tyrannical government wanted crack down on a paticular ideology and its followers? Having such lists is dangerous, regardless of the good intentions of its owners. Maybe such lists are necessary in spite of the dangers. I personally think that such lists and other methods of organization are more important than the risks entailed with their existence.
The link is broken! I tried to get to the site, but I keep going to Lakoff's page. So what if the guy paid a hooker with a personal check. Give him a break. Granted his TV show is very bad amd gross, but are the readers of mydd.com really his target audience? What would they say about political talk shows? Maybe there's a reason his show is played every hour of the day rerunning on tons of stations, while the shows we watch are relegated to the sunday morning deadzone.