tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460005.post115372572572377339..comments2023-11-05T04:28:29.961-08:00Comments on Adventures in Capitalism: What Ails The Democratic Party, Part 379Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927628412285314176noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460005.post-1154626491115043152006-08-03T10:34:00.000-07:002006-08-03T10:34:00.000-07:00Matt,As I mentioned in the original post, this pie...Matt,<BR/><BR/>As I mentioned in the original post, this piece is from American Conservative, and various portions are definitely written to offend.<BR/><BR/>I explicitly did not want people to equate his thinking with mine. Nonetheless, I thought his position on the fracturing of the Democratic party interesting enough to reference.<BR/><BR/>On anti-semitism:<BR/>Yes, we should be very afraid. This guy seems like he might give Mel Gibson a run for his money. But his repugnant beliefs in this regard do not invalidate the other points he makes.<BR/><BR/>On the liberal consensus:<BR/>As many a libertarian or progressive would cheerily point out, the difference between the two parties in the US is not that large in a world where both Singapore, Russia, and Venezuela technically count as democratic governments.<BR/><BR/>I don't think that Republicans disagree with social security, progressive taxation, and effective federal programs from Medicare to a functional FEMA (though the progressive versus flat tax debate is a red herring, given the presence of other distortions like the mortgage interest deduction, the marriage tax penalty, the earned income credit, farm subsidies, etc.). It's more the definition of "effective" that is in play.<BR/><BR/>Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 because 1) he is the greatest politician of his generation, 2) the economy sucked in 1992 and was going gangbusters in 1996, and 3) he successfully triangulated by stealing Republican thunder on issues like welfare reform while still supported Democrat party principles.<BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, if the DNC were to ask me (not that they are), Gore should have won in a landslide in 2000, and Kerry should have won in 2004. The fact that they didn't is a huge red flag that the Democratic party is not pursuing a coherent, effective strategy.<BR/><BR/>If the Republicans win again in 2008, despite coming off what may be the most unpopular administration since Nixon, and before that, Hoover, the DNC's leadership should be summarily executed.<BR/><BR/>The Republican party may have been better at radiating competence, but any such image has been shattered by the combination of sleaze (Abramoff, De Lay) and incompetence (Iraq, Katrina). Can you honestly say that the American people view the Republicans as more competent? If so, the Democratic party is in even more trouble that anyone thinks.<BR/><BR/>Finally, neither party has a monopoly on anti-immigration politics. The Democrats are just more subtle, as in the Dukakis call for a higher minimum wage to squeeze out the swarthy people. Both are types of racism and xenophobia that should be denounced.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00927628412285314176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460005.post-1154394686817156392006-07-31T18:11:00.000-07:002006-07-31T18:11:00.000-07:00Just revisited this and actually clicked through a...Just revisited this and actually clicked through and read the article. This is an interesting assertion that Mr. Sailer makes with no back-up data:<BR/><BR/>"Less crudely, important white liberal constituencies such as the antiwar movement, the wealthy but fading mainline Protestant denominations, and the environmentalists are quietly becoming annoyed by the Jews who provide about half of the party’s campaign contributions."<BR/><BR/>Jews provide more than half the Democrats funding? (A) What in the world is that based on, and (B) any time someone on the right starts talking about the corrosive effects of Jews and their money, I get very nervous.<BR/><BR/>Another thing that's missing here is the fact that there is a broad liberal consensus that underlies this country. People believe in social security, progressive taxation, and effective federal programs from Medicare to a functional FEMA.<BR/><BR/>Sure, there was a marriage gap in 2000 and 2004. But how about 1996? How big was the marriage gap for Clinton?<BR/><BR/>I think this framing is BS. In addition to the wedge social issues, I think the primary issue is which candidate/party radiates competence. The Republicans are good at projecting this image. The Democrats (since Clinton) are not.<BR/><BR/>Also, any time anyone uses the phrase "white birth rate" -- be very scared. The fixation on the white birth rate is an attempt to distract from the point that the red states are losing their educated young to the coasts, and an attempt to de-value the immigrants and minorities that make up a larger share of the population on the coasts. But anyone who argues that these people are less valuable Americans has a frightening agenda.Egghead Lithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02256498166965229701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460005.post-1154247262394497562006-07-30T01:14:00.000-07:002006-07-30T01:14:00.000-07:00"Excess murders" seems to be used to refer to addi..."Excess murders" seems to be used to refer to additional murders that would not have taken place except for the Great Society program.<BR/><BR/>There is always an underlying rate of murder, just as there is cancer, heart disease, etc. We can do the same analysis for the number of "excess heart attacks" prompted by the success of KFC.<BR/><BR/>One famous series of articles highlighted heart attacks and suicides among those laid off as a result of LBOs...without considering that in any large population, heart attacks and suicides occur.<BR/><BR/>My old professor, Mike Jensen, ran that analysis and quipped that it seemed like LBOs were good for the health, since the reported number of heart attacks and suicides was actually lower than what would be expected from a control group.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00927628412285314176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460005.post-1153770269044354992006-07-24T12:44:00.000-07:002006-07-24T12:44:00.000-07:00This just echos the blue city/red hinterland dynam...This just echos the blue city/red hinterland dynamic that we've seen in the last two elections. Cities vote blue. Hinterlands vote red. In states were the urban vote can carry the state (NY, IL, MI, CA, etc), blue wins. If not, red wins.<BR/><BR/>All the rest is BS and based on the fact that voter turn-out in the US is 50% in a good year, so the party that's organized to get 26% can win.Egghead Lithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02256498166965229701noreply@blogger.com