Debates on the left

[jaygray]

Wouldn't it be refreshing to see some debates on the left for a change? I think most of the interesting discourse you see these days is on the right. For example, the role of religion in government. It's very interesting to see the libertarians and the (hard to label) religio-expansionists go at it. The idea I'd like to see is something that would reinvigorate the democratic party while at the same time making it truly distinctive. Here in my opinion are some of the things democrats should be debating:

- the embracing of environmentalism as a means of making money, as a means of weaning us off of oil.

- in the same vein, the adoption of nuclear power

- the role of religion in society, not as a promoter of tribalistic and sometimes hypocritical moralizing, but as a unifying force. It wasn't that long ago that "leftist" religion, melded with politics, helped drive the civil rights movement. What's wrong with embracing religion as a party to combat, for example, crystal meth? What's wrong with religious principle backing an intervention into the genocide in the Sudan? (Contrast with the president's proclamations of faith, versus his reprehensibly tepid response to darfur).

- strong defense on principle. It's really too bad we don't see anybody like Scoop Jackson, Sam Nunn and Frank Church (all Democrats, all chairmen of the armed services committee) any more. The debate on the left should be: the projection of american power for non-military uses. What a tremendous display of the greatness of our military -- and a big reason to have it be as big and well-funded -- was the response to the tsunami last December. Similarly, there should be discussion regarding the failed mission in Somalia under Bush I. That screw-up has been kind of the Vietnam of humanitarian-military undertakings. We've been squeamish ever since. We need to revisit the lessons learned, rethink the strategies, and boldly act where it is appropriate.

- fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately the loudest voice in the Senate on this issue is a republican, McCain. The democrats could assume this issue, but they'd have to confront their own penchant for pork. Exactly.

- wouldn't it be interesting and refreshing to have a pro-life Dem, or to at least have the debate on this subject. Wouldn't it be interested for such a Dem to thoughtfully and quietly advocate the revisiting of Roe v Wade, while at the same time, propose a return to federalism on the issue. Perhaps such a dem would be a proponent of the reduction -- not elimination necessarily -- of abortions, by any means possible.

[MoMo]

Excellent points, jaygray.

There are some signs of Democrats rethinking and recalibrating their values (at least their public values) in this sort of direction, as in Hillary's new approach on abortion (along the lines of what you said, she now favors reducing abortions as much as possible -- but keeping them legal -- a pragmatic shift, in both human and political terms).

The question is whether they can do this in credible ways, and without offending too much their core constituencies. Pro-choice forces have drawn such a hard line, have dug in their heels SO deeply in the face of opposition that has at times been violent and vitriolic, that they themselves have gone to sometimes absurd extremes (like defending late-term abortions). Can they retreat at all from their own deeply dug trenches even while still being fired on by the extremist forces of the other side? Is there ANY slight chance of a mutual truce over a common agreement that abortion -- if it will not go away -- is not a good thing and should be limited in sensible ways?

[TrackDaddy]

Wouldn't it be refreshing to see some debates on the left for a change? I think most of the interesting discourse you see these days is on the right. For example, the role of religion in government. It's very interesting to see the libertarians and the (hard to label) religio-expansionists go at it. The idea I'd like to see is something that would reinvigorate the democratic party while at the same time making it truly distinctive. Here in my opinion are some of the things democrats should be debating:

- the embracing of environmentalism as a means of making money, as a means of weaning us off of oil.

- in the same vein, the adoption of nuclear power

- the role of religion in society, not as a promoter of tribalistic and sometimes hypocritical moralizing, but as a unifying force. It wasn't that long ago that "leftist" religion, melded with politics, helped drive the civil rights movement. What's wrong with embracing religion as a party to combat, for example, crystal meth? What's wrong with religious principle backing an intervention into the genocide in the Sudan? (Contrast with the president's proclamations of faith, versus his reprehensibly tepid response to darfur).

- strong defense on principle. It's really too bad we don't see anybody like Scoop Jackson, Sam Nunn and Frank Church (all Democrats, all chairmen of the armed services committee) any more. The debate on the left should be: the projection of american power for non-military uses. What a tremendous display of the greatness of our military -- and a big reason to have it be as big and well-funded -- was the response to the tsunami last December. Similarly, there should be discussion regarding the failed mission in Somalia under Bush I. That screw-up has been kind of the Vietnam of humanitarian-military undertakings. We've been squeamish ever since. We need to revisit the lessons learned, rethink the strategies, and boldly act where it is appropriate.

- fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately the loudest voice in the Senate on this issue is a republican, McCain. The democrats could assume this issue, but they'd have to confront their own penchant for pork. Exactly.

- wouldn't it be interesting and refreshing to have a pro-life Dem, or to at least have the debate on this subject. Wouldn't it be interested for such a Dem to thoughtfully and quietly advocate the revisiting of Roe v Wade, while at the same time, propose a return to federalism on the issue. Perhaps such a dem would be a proponent of the reduction -- not elimination necessarily -- of abortions, by any means possible.You've just described...

Bill Clinton.

[mzungu]

that's pretty much what i was going to say, td. for instance, clinton on letterman last year or earlier was arguing that environmental standards could be used as an engine for economic growth by forcing innovation.

i think that there are a lot of debates on the left about all these issues and many more, but the question is really how much traction they have when democrats are shut out of house, senate, and white house. the notion that the left needs a positive discourse concerning what should be done is absolutely right, but this discourse does exist. in fact, it is so variegated that there is no one issue around that would drown out the others. so focus is a question. I do not think that backtracking on roe v. wade is the answer here at all, however. A large majority of Americans supports roe v. wade. Principle is not the problem for many democrats. They have very strong principles. Whether they explain them very well is another question. Asserting religion is likely still necessary to win the presidency for a democrat and there are many, many left religious discourses, such as liberation theology, in this country, but they don't get much press. They are a major portion of the anti-war movement, which included even the sort-of right wing Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI. As for fiscal responsibility, the democrats right now have the right to be viewed as more fiscally responsible than republicans, because clinton's administration was able to deliver balanced budgets and surpluses. however, no one has ever lost because of deficits, as i believe lee atwater said.

I think that there is a popular combination of factors that would lead a democrat to win again, and it is not far from what jaygray says. I would add that democrats can really capitalize on fears about a government surveillance state by embracing civil freedoms while simultaneously offering more effective ideas for increasing security against terrorism--port security, no guns on planes, etc. (there was a story last week that roughly $4.5 billion of government anti-terrorism spending had just been wasted on ineffective stuff.)

[jersey_guy]

Similarly, there should be discussion regarding the failed mission in Somalia under Bush I. [/I]

Somalia was Clinton's screw-up, not Bush's.

It's not true there is no debate on the left. Last year we could see some interesting debates of Senator Kerry with himself.

But as long as the party is being held hostage by socialists from San Francisco (Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein) and People's Republic of New England (Dean), do not expect any diversions from raging leftism. For them it's 1960s forever.

[mzungu]

bush is the guy who brought u.s. troops to somalia in december 1992 and so bush is responsible for sending them in with inadequate resources to a situation they couldn't handle. don't blame clinton on that. he brought the troops home.

[mzungu]

here is a story about the prospects of nuclear power in relation to diminishing reliance on oil (see jaygray suggestions above):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/politics/09energy.html?oref=login

[jersey_guy]

bush is the guy who brought u.s. troops to somalia in december 1992 and so bush is responsible for sending them in with inadequate resources to a situation they couldn't handle. don't blame clinton on that. he brought the troops home.

Clinton strongly supported the US mission in Somalia, and gee somehow he was unable to provide them with any additional resources throughout 1993.

[TrackDaddy]

It's not true there is no debate on the left. Last year we could see some interesting debates of Senator Kerry with himself.

But as long as the party is being held hostage by socialists from San Francisco (Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein) and People's Republic of New England (Dean), do not expect any diversions from raging leftism. For them it's 1960s forever.LOL

[mzungu]

that people's republic of new england stuff is just ludicrous. that is the heart of this country's founding, and one of the strongest abolitionist regions as well.

[TJPatriot]

New England is the heart of this nations founding? I know a few Virginians that would disagree...

Jefferson...Washington...Madison...know the names?

[Zat0pek]

that people's republic of new england stuff is just ludicrous.

I absolutely agree. . .it leaves out California! :D

[mzungu]

uh ... ever heard of the new england patriots? no, not the belichick version. the boston tea party. bunker hill. the adams'. patrick henry. crispus attucks. paul revere. many of our early presidents were from massachusetts and much of the philosophy of individualism and liberty derives from massachusetts thinkers. you might choose virginia, a source of many early presidents, but also a slave state and deserter. same goes for the rest of the south. fighting to retain slavery? doesn't qualify for the highest ideals of this country. california was a free state and also easily the most populous state.

[exjersey1]

I absolutely agree. . .it leaves out California! :D


Hey, watch it now.

Don't make me call Uncle Vinnie in Bayonne.

[jersey_guy]

uh ... ever heard of the new england patriots? no, not the belichick version. the boston tea party. bunker hill. the adams'. patrick henry. crispus attucks. paul revere. many of our early presidents were from massachusetts and much of the philosophy of individualism and liberty derives from massachusetts thinkers.

mzungu has to go all the way back to 18th century to say something positive about Massachusetts - talk about being out of touch with reality. MA is the ONLY state in the union that keeps losing population, I guess Kennedyland isn't as sweet as the liberals would like to think.

[Biscuit_AQ]

what a coherent point.

[mzungu]

what is the real american state, jersey_guy?

if you want me to say something positive about massachusetts, that is really difficult.

uh ... among the richest states in the country, among the best secondary education systems in the country, the best postsecondary institutions in the country, the best graduate schools in the country, among the lowest divorce rates in the country, among the lower murder rates in the country, among the highest literacy rates in the country, ...

[Jwaksman]

what is the real american state, jersey_guy?

if you want me to say something positive about massachusetts, that is really difficult.

uh ... among the richest states in the country, among the best secondary education systems in the country, the best postsecondary institutions in the country, the best graduate schools in the country, among the lowest divorce rates in the country, among the lower murder rates in the country, among the highest literacy rates in the country, ...



let's take those one by one:


1) one of the richest states. Well, all of the northeastern states are the richest because they industrialized first. They had a head start. Southern economies were all still devastated from the civil war into around the turn of the 20th Century.

2) one of the best education system, etc... - not sure how you're measuring that. As for universities, most of the best universities are in the northeast (again) because they were there first. Harvard has had 350 years to develop as a university. Few universities west of the Mississippi have been around longer than 150 years (if any).

3) divorce rates - not sure why that makes a state better, but I guess I'll give you that one.

4) murder rates - this is culture. I'm sure there's a much higher murder rate in Boston than there is in Springfield. This isn't cause the laws are any different or anything, it's just the culture of the area.

5) literacy rates - this is a state that is completely useless in the modern age. It's like when people compare the literacy rates of countries. Any reasonably civilized country has literacy rates of 98% or higher among adult citizens, so what's the difference between 98.6% and 98.7%?? Who cares? In the US, literacy rates are simply lower where there are more immigrants, since there really aren't any kids growing up in America who don't learn how to read.

[MoMo]

what a coherent point.

Coherence is good... ;)

[MoMo]

1) one of the richest states. Well, all of the northeastern states are the richest because they industrialized first. They had a head start. Southern economies were all still devastated from the civil war into around the turn of the 20th Century.


Ummm... England industrialized first among nations, but went through a horrible de-industrialization period. Same for the Northeast U.S. Have you ever heard of the textile industry? A head start doesn't mean anything. In fact, it can be a negative.
Germany and Japan took industrial leadership in the late 1900s because their old industries had been leveled and they had the opportunity to start over again with what then was the cutting edge.

[Jwaksman]

I don't get what you're trying to argue here. It's not like Massachusetts and Arkansas had equal wealth in 1950 and that Massachusetts has just taken off in the last 50 years. None of the southern or western states have ever been near the wealth of the northeast. Read some economic history if you don't believe me...

[MoMo]

You said, and I quote, "all of the northeastern states are the richest because they industrialized first."

The fact is, that industrializing first means nothing, if industries since have pulled out. Detroit industrialized early in the last century. How would you now compare its economy to Atlanta's, which was nothing early in the last century?

[Jwaksman]

Detroit had a big head start. That economy has gone into the dumps recently, mainly due to a horrible and corrupt government. How many mayors in a row have been accused of corruption in that city?


There's no question that Massachusetts has a government that is hostile towards business, but this is still America. Every state is getting richer, just some at different paces than others...

[MoMo]

We're not talking about mayors' corruption. We're talking about the auto industry. Detroit was highly industrialized, before places like Atlanta. Now it's a pit.
It shoots down your argument.

Not worth saying much more.

[Jwaksman]

No, see you always do this. Your arguments are always much too simplistic. There are lot of factors for why things happen. You always like to pick one and ignore all of the other factors. Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work that way.


Detroit helped to drive out a lot of manufacturing by having tight labor laws & high taxes. Then, once the auto industry left Detroit messed up any chance of bringing in new business. Some areas have learned how to deal with losing factories (like Ohio, which lost a ton of manufacturing jobs in the 2000 crash and has had huge employment gains recently), while some cities are too messed up for that to happen.


Honestly, I don't even see what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying that Massachusetts is superior to, like, Wyoming because the average person makes more money? And, if so, what does that mean? that Massachusetts politics (far left) is better than Wyoming politics (far right)??? I guess that if you're arguing that then US politics is superior to European politics, since we're so much richer :D


Sometimes you really do go to extremes to try to promote your agenda...

[MoMo]

It's been simple since the start.
You said Massachusetts was naturally richer because it industrialized sooner.
I said industrializing soon is NO guarantee of current wealth.
This is undeniable.
You're trying to dance circles around the argument, raising smoke clouds, but the fact is your assertion was simply wrong, and demonstrated as such.

[Jwaksman]

The fact that Massachusetts had a lot more money from the start gives them a HUGE advantage over poorer states. Having more capital makes it a LOT easier to start up new businesses and to continue to live when factories leave.



I really have a question, have you ever taken an economics course? Honestly?

[MoMo]

Have you ever taken a course in diplomacy? Or logic?

[mzungu]

industrial powers come and go, and in fact, massachusetts's factories almost all left a long time ago, which is why there are so many quaint towns and villages with old factories now occupied by offices or retail. the fact is that you attribute the status of detroit entirely to left politics--strict labor laws, high taxes (you add corruption--just who was corrupting? obviously that would be the major corporations there), so it is fair for me to reductively attribute the status of massachusetts and the northeast to their leftist politics. why is it that the states where the economy is best are dominated by democrats? maybe it's because democratic policies nurture economic progress by devoting significant resources to education on primary, secondary, and university levels, by promoting progressive tax policies, by offering incentives to businesses that support good jobs, like the massachusetts technology corridor.

[Jwaksman]

No... there are a LOT of factors. You really have difficulty dealing with the complexity of the real world. Detroit DOES have one of the most corrupt governments in the country. Several mayors have been indicted on charges. That certainly doesn't help. Also, their high taxes and labor laws are unfriendly to business. This explains why business leaves. Unfriendly labor laws & high taxes do not lead to richer societies - that argument is flawed. That is why there are other arguments for why Massachusetts is richer than Alabama. Of course, Massachusetts isn't that rich. Just above average...

[mzungu]

massachusetts is a LOT richer than mississippi--more than 50% richer, in fact. and corruption isn't localized. connecticut's governor, for instance, a republican, was just removed/resigned for corruption, and numerous connecticut city mayors have been corrupt, as was the longstanding providence, rhode island mayer. new york city is incredibly corrupt. new jersey is corrupt. none of this stopped these places from being among the wealthiest in the country.

Three-Year-Average Median Household Income by State: 2000-2002

(Income in 2002 dollars)
3-year-average median1 (2000-2002)

Number of states2 with median income:
Not Lower Higher
Median Standard statistically than than
States income error different state of state of
(dollars) (dollars) from: interest interest

Maryland 55,912 1,096 2 47 0
Alaska 55,412 1,057 5 44 0
Minnesota 54,931 961 5 44 0
New Hampshire 53,549 760 4 44 1
Connecticut 53,325 939 4 44 1
New Jersey 53,266 836 4 44 1
Delaware 50,878 1,103 5 38 6
Massachusetts 50,587 971 5 38 6
Virginia 49,974 831 5 38 6
Hawaii 49,775 907 6 37 6
Colorado 49,617 919 6 37 6
Utah 48,537 924 6 37 6
California 48,113 518 3 37 9
Wisconsin 46,351 725 3 33 13
Nevada 46,289 786 3 33 13
Illinois 45,906 642 5 31 13
Michigan 45,335 724 6 30 13
Rhode Island 44,311 733 8 26 15
Washington 44,252 829 10 24 15
Missouri 43,955 828 10 23 16
Pennsylvania 43,577 527 8 24 17
Nebraska 43,566 757 10 22 17
Ohio 43,332 512 9 23 17
Georgia 43,316 721 12 20 17
Oregon 42,704 601 12 19 18
Kansas 42,523 793 12 19 18
New York 42,432 419 10 19 20
Vermont 41,929 644 9 17 23
Iowa 41,827 744 10 17 22
Indiana 41,581 575 8 17 24
Arizona 41,554 886 9 17 23
Texas 40,659 443 5 17 27
Wyoming 40,499 767 5 17 27
South Dakota 38,755 596 6 10 33
Idaho 38,613 774 6 10 33
Florida 38,533 465 6 10 33
South Carolina 38,460 756 7 9 33
North Carolina 38,432 597 6 10 33
Kentucky 37,893 655 8 8 33
Maine 37,654 634 9 7 33
Alabama 36,771 744 7 5 37
North Dakota 36,717 640 6 5 38
Tennessee 36,329 666 5 5 39
Oklahoma 35,500 481 4 5 40
New Mexico 35,251 849 5 4 40
Montana 33,900 692 4 1 44
Louisiana 33,312 789 3 1 45
Mississippi 32,447 808 3 1 45
Arkansas 32,423 658 3 1 45
West Virginia 30,072 479 0 0 49


1/ The 3-year-average median is the sum of 3 inflation-adjusted single-year medians divided by 3.
2/ Excludes the District of Columbia.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.

[Jwaksman]

Yes, Connecticut's governor was corrupt AND a Republican. Why that matters, I don't know. A lot of Republicans and Democrats are corrupt. As I've said maybe 459103284512905 times in past - no side has the moral high ground...


Anyway, Detroit's mayors are famous for giving in to special interests involved with labor. There's a reason that Detroit has been hit hardest by industry movement more than any other major city, and that even more than a decade later it still hasn't recovered at all.



Again, in typical mzungu fashion, taking one specific example and assuming that it applies in all situations...


The world is a lot more complicated once you walk off of college campuses...

[Jwaksman]

There's no way that's median income. It has to be mean income. Median income in the US is around $28,000 - mean income is around $45,000. You HAVE to start providing links and sources. You're out of control on random snippets of facts...

[BudE 84]

Wow I can't believe we're that high.