NYT David Brooks makes good point

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi everybody,

I was watcing Meet the Press last Sunday and during the roundtable discussion David Brooks said this:

July 11: Robert Gibbs, roundtable - Meet the Press - Transcripts - msnbc.com

MR. BROOKS: Yeah, I, I actually agree with that. I'm a little scared myself. You know, you look at what happened in Britain, the Conservative party took over after a long period out of power. They, they have a real austerity program. They're really cutting spending, putting the country, which was much worse debt shape than us, on a long-term path to some sort of fiscal sanity. I'm not sure the Republicans are ready there, so I'm a little nervous about that. But the question people are going to ask us is, "What did President Obama offer, and are we satisfied with that?" And they're not getting there. And to me the big picture is that if Harry Hopkins, the great liberal from FDR's administration, came back and said, "I'm going to create a perfect liberal moment. We're going to have a big financial crisis caused by Wall Street, sort of; we're going to have the biggest natural disaster in American history caused by an oil company; we're going to have a very talented Democratic president; we're going to give him some money to spend to create a lot of programs." And after all that, it's still not a liberal moment, it's a conservative moment, that makes me think liberalism isn't quite going to sell in this country at any moment. If it's not selling now, it'll never sell. And I think...

----------------------------------

So, the question is, why isn't liberalism doing better? Brooks cites four points that would seem to indicate that politically, liberalism should be on the ascendancy:

1. Huge financial crisis that is perceived my many to be caused by big business and an unregulated free market.

2. An oil company causes the biggest environmental disaster in American history.

3. A talented and charismatic president.

4. And billions and billions (or trillions) spent on improving the economy by the government.

With all these things in place, the Democratic Party is poised for big losses this November in the mid-terms.

So, why hasn't liberalism done better in this very accomodating political environment?

 

[T-Dawg]

Hi everybody,

I was watcing Meet the Press last Sunday and during the roundtable discussion David Brooks said this:

July 11: Robert Gibbs, roundtable - Meet the Press - Transcripts - msnbc.com

MR. BROOKS: Yeah, I, I actually agree with that. I'm a little scared myself. You know, you look at what happened in Britain, the Conservative party took over after a long period out of power. They, they have a real austerity program. They're really cutting spending, putting the country, which was much worse debt shape than us, on a long-term path to some sort of fiscal sanity. I'm not sure the Republicans are ready there, so I'm a little nervous about that. But the question people are going to ask us is, "What did President Obama offer, and are we satisfied with that?" And they're not getting there. And to me the big picture is that if Harry Hopkins, the great liberal from FDR's administration, came back and said, "I'm going to create a perfect liberal moment. We're going to have a big financial crisis caused by Wall Street, sort of; we're going to have the biggest natural disaster in American history caused by an oil company; we're going to have a very talented Democratic president; we're going to give him some money to spend to create a lot of programs." And after all that, it's still not a liberal moment, it's a conservative moment, that makes me think liberalism isn't quite going to sell in this country at any moment. If it's not selling now, it'll never sell. And I think...

----------------------------------

So, the question is, why isn't liberalism doing better? Brooks cites four points that would seem to indicate that politically, liberalism should be on the ascendancy:

1. Huge financial crisis that is perceived my many to be caused by big business and an unregulated free market.

2. An oil company causes the biggest environmental disaster in American history.

3. A talented and charismatic president.

4. And billions and billions (or trillions) spent on improving the economy by the government.

With all these things in place, the Democratic Party is poised for big losses this November in the mid-terms.

So, why hasn't liberalism done better in this very accomodating political environment?

Short answers: People are idiots and "liberal" is still an unpopular label, and Obama isn't a liberal.

Also, I don't know where you get the silly idea that the democratic party is "poised for big losses." I don't know about you, but I think people are intelligent enough to realize that when someone's not doing what you want them to, you don't elect someone that advocates doing the same things to a more extreme extent. Of course, I'm probably too optimistic.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi T-Dawg,

Also, I don't know where you get the silly idea that the democratic party is "poised for big losses." I don't know about you, but I think people are intelligent enough to realize that when someone's not doing what you want them to, you don't elect someone that advocates doing the same things to a more extreme extent. Of course, I'm probably too optimistic.

I don't mean to sound rude, but what planet are you living on? You don't think the Democratic Party will lose a lot of seats in this years mid-terms?

I'm a pretty extreme right-winger, but even I knew that the Democrats were going to pick up seats in 2006 and 2008.

 

[T-Dawg]

Hi T-Dawg,



I don't mean to sound rude, but what planet are you living on? You don't think the Democratic Party will lose a lot of seats in this years mid-terms?

I'm a pretty extreme right-winger, but even I knew that the Democrats were going to pick up seats in 2006 and 2008.

Why do you think they're going to lose seats? People might be angry with the democrats, but they're even more angry with the republicans. If the democrats do lose seats, it'll be to real leftists (or perhaps libertarians in some areas). Of course, most people are so wrapped up in two-party thought that I wouldn't count on a third party candidate getting elected. So yeah, unless Americans suffer some serious short term memory loss (namely, on who, at least in their mind, single-handedly caused the current recession, who the "Party of No" is, who's actually TRYING to be "bipartisan," etc), the democrats are going to hold seats.
Of course, I'm assuming that a majority Americans have common sense. I'm probably wrong there.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi T-Dawg,

Why do you think they're going to lose seats? People might be angry with the democrats, but they're even more angry with the republicans. If the democrats do lose seats, it'll be to real leftists (or perhaps libertarians in some areas). Of course, most people are so wrapped up in two-party thought that I wouldn't count on a third party candidate getting elected. So yeah, unless Americans suffer some serious short term memory loss (namely, on who, at least in their mind, single-handedly caused the current recession, who the "Party of No" is, who's actually TRYING to be "bipartisan," etc), the democrats are going to hold seats.
Of course, I'm assuming that a majority Americans have common sense. I'm probably wrong there.

First; history, the party in power usually always loses seats the first mid-term (the only exceptions in the past 80 years, FDR and GWB).

Second, look at the polls. The CBS poll that just came out (not a right wing poll by the way) shows that majorities of Americans don't think Obama's economic policies are working and don't like the health care bill.

Do you have any evidence backing up your belief that the Dems will at least hold on to their seats besides consulting your ideological caverns?

 

[T-Dawg]

Hi T-Dawg,



First; history, the party in power usually always loses seats the first mid-term (the only exceptions in the past 80 years, FDR and GWB).

Second, look at the polls. The CBS poll that just came out (not a right wing poll by the way) shows that majorities of Americans don't think Obama's economic policies are working and don't like the health care bill.

Do you have any evidence backing up your belief that the Dems will at least hold on to their seats besides consulting your ideological caverns?

I'm just assuming that the voting population has at least a shred of common sense and isn't suffering major short-term memory loss. Of course, come to think of it, the American public is widely renowned for failing both of those things.

The thing is, the republicans don't seem to have a platform, besides being against anything Obama suggests. As many people say, they are the "Party of No."
The Party of No — Crooked Timber
Chris Weigant: Republicans Embrace "Party of No" Label

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi T-Dawg,

I'm just assuming that the voting population has at least a shred of common sense and isn't suffering major short-term memory loss. Of course, come to think of it, the American public is widely renowned for failing both of those things.

I think this is another way of saying you have no evidence suggesting that the Dems will do well this November.

The thing is, the republicans don't seem to have a platform, besides being against anything Obama suggests. As many people say, they are the "Party of No."

Nothing wrong with that. The number one activity of the opposition party is to oppose. I embrace the "Party of No" except is the "Party of Hell No."

 

[Tiapan]

The US votes via media, not common sense. That good old Aussie, Rupert Murdoch will tell the Americans how to vote and they will follow like sheep as they have the last 40 years.

Cheers

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Tiapan,

The US votes via media, not common sense. That good old Aussie, Rupert Murdoch will tell the Americans how to vote and they will follow like sheep as they have the last 40 years.

Did Murdoch tell Americans to vote for Obama because I missed that.

 

[T-Dawg]

I think this is another way of saying you have no evidence suggesting that the Dems will do well this November.

Not really, I'm just assuming that people have the common sense to realize that if the person they elected isn't doing what they promised to do (ie, give us single-payer healthcare), electing someone who promises to do the exact opposite (ie, abolish medicare) is still a bad idea.
Of course, I realize that this is Americans we're talking about here. I may be expecting too much.

Nothing wrong with that. The number one activity of the opposition party is to oppose. I embrace the "Party of No" except is the "Party of Hell No."

Right, so as the opposition party, what are they going to do once they get back into power? Keep talking about how much they hate democrats? Or are they going to do more of the same stuff they did the last 8 years they were in power? Neither is going to attract any independents.

 

[Engyo]

Nothing wrong with that. The number one activity of the opposition party is to oppose. I embrace the "Party of No" except is the "Party of Hell No."

I'd be a whole lot happier and a whole lot more likely to actually vote Republican if I could see them trying to govern instead of just oppose. At least Obama is attempting to address the problems he sees happening with the country, whether you agree with his proposed olutions or not. I don't see much in the way of Republican counterproposals, just "Hell no".

"Hell, no" doesn't fix anything that's wrong with the country, unless I am completely confused.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi T-Dawg,

Not really, I'm just assuming that people have the common sense to realize that if the person they elected isn't doing what they promised to do (ie, give us single-payer healthcare), electing someone who promises to do the exact opposite (ie, abolish medicare) is still a bad idea.
Of course, I realize that this is Americans we're talking about here. I may be expecting too much.

This is revisionist history. What was Obama's biggest campaign promise? That he would cut taxes for "95% of Americans." The American people are much smarter than you think and now they are realizing that too pay for all of Obama's failed economic and healthcare plans their taxes are going to have to be hiked. Thus, Obama lied in his biggest and most repeated campaign promise. This could be a reason why the Dems are about to get their ***** handed to them in November.

Right, so as the opposition party, what are they going to do once they get back into power? Keep talking about how much they hate democrats? Or are they going to do more of the same stuff they did the last 8 years they were in power? Neither is going to attract any independents.

The philosophy of "Hell No!" encompasses more substance that Obama's agenda. It involves cutting spending on everything (including on defense), cutting taxes, and working on repealing Obamacare. Those "Hell No!" measures will improve the economy much faster that Obama's failed stimulus spending.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Engyo,

I'd be a whole lot happier and a whole lot more likely to actually vote Republican if I could see them trying to govern instead of just oppose. At least Obama is attempting to address the problems he sees happening with the country, whether you agree with his proposed olutions or not. I don't see much in the way of Republican counterproposals, just "Hell no".

"Hell, no" doesn't fix anything that's wrong with the country, unless I am completely confused.

The "Hell No!" agenda ecompasses cuts in spending, cuts in taxes and repealing Obamacare. That is governing and would increase the wealth of Americans much faster than Obama's government spending can.

 

[Engyo]

Hi Engyo,

The "Hell No!" agenda ecompasses cuts in spending, cuts in taxes and repealing Obamacare. That is governing and would increase the wealth of Americans much faster than Obama's government spending can.

Hello, Joe -

I didn't realize that the only problem we currently face is that Americans' wealth isn't increasing fast enough.

I thought we were having problems with our financial sector, with rising costs and dropping insurance coverage in health care, with our educational system, with immigration, with two wars, and with government gridlock.

[sarcasm]Funny, I'm just not reading about how the slow pace of wealth increase is our biggest problem right now. I guess I just don't get this governing business.[/sarcasm]

 

[T-Dawg]

Hi T-Dawg,



This is revisionist history. What was Obama's biggest campaign promise? That he would cut taxes for "95% of Americans." The American people are much smarter than you think and now they are realizing that too pay for all of Obama's failed economic and healthcare plans their taxes are going to have to be hiked. Thus, Obama lied in his biggest and most repeated campaign promise. This could be a reason why the Dems are about to get their ***** handed to them in November.



The philosophy of "Hell No!" encompasses more substance that Obama's agenda. It involves cutting spending on everything (including on defense), cutting taxes, and working on repealing Obamacare. Those "Hell No!" measures will improve the economy much faster that Obama's failed stimulus spending.

I wasn't into politics back during the campaigning time, but if I recall, healthcare was Obama's major focusing point.

Oh, and you're pathetic "Hell No!" measures will DESTROY the economy even faster than Obama's policies will. I don't disagree that the bailouts were crap, but they maintain a bad economy, whereas your policies worsen an economy. Cutting spending and decreasing taxes on the wealthy like you Republicans want to will put money back into the hands of the wealthy, the ones who are hoarding it up, waiting for the recession to be over. And with their mindset, it won't be over anytime soon.
Also, your healthcare policy will get you fast opposition. The reason most independents don't like Obamacare is because it isn't progressive enough, and you want to make it LESS progressive. That's going to cost you votes. Everyone knows it was YOU Obama was foolish enough to try and compromise with on the issue, resulting in watered-down reform wrapped in a corporate givaway.

Also, as Engyo mentioned, people don't like gridlock, and guess who's been causing the gridlock?

 

[Engyo]

Also, your healthcare policy will get you fast opposition. The reason most independents don't like Obamacare is because it isn't progressive enough, and you want to make it LESS progressive. That's going to cost you votes. Everyone knows it was YOU Obama was foolish enough to try and compromise with on the issue, resulting in watered-down reform wrapped in a corporate givaway.

Ever hear of a poison pill strategy?

 

[T-Dawg]

Ever hear of a poison pill strategy?

Nope. What is it?

 

[Engyo]

Nope. What is it?

If you can't prevent something outright, make sure you modify it enough to cause either failure or at most minimal success.

 

[T-Dawg]

If you can't prevent something outright, make sure you modify it enough to cause either failure or at most minimal success.

Ah. And the republicans expect the voters to approve of that, or to not notice that?

 

[Engyo]

Ah. And the republicans expect the voters to approve of that, or to not notice that?

Of course they do - the not noticing part anyway. That strategy generally works; most folks don't want to think that hard.