Have you noticed that it’s now the Democrats who are trying to wage a culture war? Meanwhile, all Republicans want to talk about today is economics, which was always the interest of the New Deal Democrats. [Read more...]
Christianity, Culture, Vocation
Have you noticed that it’s now the Democrats who are trying to wage a culture war? Meanwhile, all Republicans want to talk about today is economics, which was always the interest of the New Deal Democrats. [Read more...]
OK, this is rather belated, but still. . . .The quite liberal Dana Milbank takes the prize for best comments on the State of the Union Address:
There is something entirely appropriate about holding the State of the Union address on the same day as Mardi Gras.
One is a display of wretched excess, when giddy and rowdy participants give in to reckless and irresponsible behavior.
The other is a street festival in New Orleans. [Read more...]
E. J. Dionne, Jr., says that President Obama–in his goals, tactics, and leadership style– is the liberal Reagan:
To understand how Barack Obama sees himself and his presidency, don’t look to Franklin Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln. Obama’s role model is Ronald Reagan — just as Obama told us before he was first elected.
Like Reagan, Obama hopes to usher in a long-term electoral realignment — in Obama’s case toward the moderate left, thereby reversing the 40th president’s political legacy. The Reagan metaphor helps explain the tone of Obama’s inaugural address, built not on a contrived call to an impossible bipartisanship but on a philosophical argument for a progressive vision of the country rooted in our history. [Read more...]
Charles Lane says that Republicans are victims of their own success when it comes to the issue of crime. What was once a potent issue for Republicans have faded from the public’s mind, as crime rates have fallen dramatically, due largely to Republican-initiated policies that now even Democrats support.
Americans were unhappy about many issues as 2012 began. In one area, though, contentment reigned. By a margin of 50 to 45 percent, a Gallup Poll reported, the public felt “satisfied” with the nation’s policies on crime.
It was a well-founded sentiment. In 2010, Americans were less than a third as likely to be victimized by violent crime as they had been in 1994; the murder rate had declined by roughly half. Today we are approaching the low murder rates of the 1950s.
For the Republican Party, this is a triumph — and a disaster, as the 2012 election results proved.
It is a GOP triumph, because the enormous decline in crime over the past two decades coincided with the widespread adoption of such conservative ideas as “broken windows” policing and mandatory minimum sentences.
Whether such policies actually caused the crime decline is a separate, and much-debated, social-science question. The important thing is that many people believe that they did. As a result, conservative crime doctrine remains dominant in politics, with the two parties differing mainly over how to control and punish unlawful conduct most cost-effectively.
Hence the 2012 disaster for the GOP. Beginning with Richard Nixon’s “law and order” campaign for president in 1968, Republicans pretty much owned the issue. Fear of street crime — and its association, accurate or not, with post-’60s moral license, liberal Democratic policies and the rise of an urban black population — converted many a white working-class Democrat into a Republican.
The GOP advantage on crime contributed to Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, George H.W. Bush’s defeat of Michael Dukakis in 1988 and the GOP takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994.
When Gallup asked voters in January 1995 to name their top priority for the new Congress and President Clinton, 78 percent responded “reducing crime.” Given the murder rate at the time — 9.0 per 100,000 population — this was understandable. Sixty-six percent named “reforming the welfare system.”
Clinton got the message. In 1996, he signed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a main purpose of which was to limit death-row appeals. And, of course, he signed a historic welfare reform measure.
As the first Democratic president since Clinton, and the first African American one ever, Barack Obama has done essentially nothing to reverse Clinton’s crime and welfare policies. . . .
Indeed, Obama’s assimilation of conservative doctrine extended even to the war on terrorism, an area with which 72 percent of the public pronounced itself satisfied in last January’s Gallup Poll. Closing Guantanamo is out; drone strikes on al-Qaeda suspects are in. After four years of the Obama war on terror, you could almost summarize the two parties’ policies this way: Republicans waterboard, Democrats kill.
It’s true, as many commentators have noted since Nov. 6, that liberals seem to have the upper hand in the culture wars, after years of losing to the GOP. The 2012 electorate favored liberal positions on abortion, gay rights and the role of women in society.
We’ll never know whether 2012 would have played out the same way if crime had staged a comeback during the recession, as many expected. Certainly in the past, crime was as important to the Republican brand as abortion and gay rights, if not more important.
Safer streets, though, have blunted what was once a sharp wedge issue, and, perhaps, freed the electorate to consider social and moral issues in a different light.
via Charles Lane: Republicans a victim of safer streets – The Washington Post.
As our lawmakers try to prevent us from falling off the “fiscal cliff” when the Bush tax cuts expire with the new year and mandatory federal reductions click in, Matt Miller argues that BOTH Republicans AND Democrats are laboring under two wrong ideas when it comes to taxes.
Republicans believe our fiscal woes can be solved by cutting taxes. And Democrats believe our fiscal problems can be solved by raising taxes on the rich. Miller tries to show why neither will work and how such ideological blinders will prevent effective solutions.
See Matt Miller: Dead ideas on taxes – The Washington Post.
Perhaps it isn’t that one side is right and the other wrong, or that both are partially right, but that both are wrong! Where does that leave us?
If this is true, does anyone have any viable suggestions for putting our financial house in order?
The Republicans did not make a big deal of moral or “cultural” issues during the last election. Little was said about abortion. Conservatives were well-behaved when it came to gay marriage. Unlike previous elections, Republicans–including social conservatives who care a great deal about these issues–pretty much left them alone.
But the Democrats, in contrast, did run on moral and cultural issues. They attacked conservatives for opposing abortion and gay marriage. They went further, scaring the general public that the Republicans would outlaw birth control and enslave women.
And the Democrats won on these issues. Their take on moral and social issues was, in fact, very important. Single women voted overwhelmingly for Obama, largely, according to the exit polls, because of “women’s issues.” Clumsy and unsophisticated treatment of the “rape exception” for abortion on the part of two pro-life candidates cost arguably cost Republicans the Senate.
So we have reached the point at which conservative moral issues are political losers and liberal moral issues–gay marriage, abortion on demand–are political winners.
So what now for social conservatives?
Back during the Democratic National Convention, we did a post on the Democratic platform, promising that we would do the same for the Republican platform. I never quite got around to that at the time, and we just have a few days before the election, so I realize I had better get that done. I know that people say party platforms don’t really matter, but I do think they show us something about the parties and their ideology, as well as what tenets the wide range of party members can agree to.
So here is the Republican Platform, entitled We Believe in America. It defies excerpting, but here are the major headings, which you can read via the links.
The Democratic Platform is entitled Moving America Forward. It has the following headings:
I present both of these platforms as a public service to aid in your voting decisions.
How would you characterize the underlying assumptions of each document? What does each platform tell us about the ideology and the preoccupations of each party?
I would just like to observe that, whatever the merits of each governing philosophy, both platforms are depressingly utopian. Whether government will solve all of our problems or whether the free market will solve all of our problems, both assertions are way too optimistic. I wish a party would put forward more modest promises and agendas (e.g., No one in our administration will go to jail for misuse of public funds. We will follow the law. We will acknowledge our limitations.) Both platforms are just different variations on Pedro’s platform for student body president in Napoleon Dynamite: “Vote for me, and all your wildest dreams will come true.”
On December 31, the Bush tax cuts will all expire and, by the terms of the last government-shutdown compromise, spending cuts (especially to the military) will go into effect automatically. Such a double-whammy in the middle of an economic downturn would have dire effects, according to most experts, who are warning about the danger of this “fiscal cliff.” But some people are saying that we should just jump off that cliff:
The very notion of a “fiscal cliff” suggests that the country is approaching a calamitous drop-off at the end of the year — and it would be tantamount to suicide to jump off.
But a contingent of policy wonks and Democrats insist that letting the Dec. 31 deadline come and go — thus triggering automatic tax increases and spending cuts — could produce the best outcome for the country. Once the tax hikes have kicked in, the reasoning goes, Republicans would be hard-pressed to roll them all back and would have to accept a deal on taming the deficit that contains more new tax revenue than GOP lawmakers want.
So some policy analysts and legislators say they are willing to go over the brink—and some are even gunning for Congress to do it.
Call them the cliff-divers. [Read more...]
The war in Iraq is pretty much over and the war in Afghanistan is winding down, bringing to an end our wars sparked by 9/11–right? Well, not exactly. It turns out the drone war may go on for at least another ten years. The Obama administration has put together a systematic, on-going kill list. But in an Orwellian touch, it’s not called a kill list; rather, it’s called a “disposition matrix.” From Greg Miller of the Washington Post:
Over the past two years, the Obama administration has been secretly developing a new blueprint for pursuing terrorists, a next-generation targeting list called the “disposition matrix.”
The matrix contains the names of terrorism suspects arrayed against an accounting of the resources being marshaled to track them down, including sealed indictments and clandestine operations. U.S. officials said the database is designed to go beyond existing kill lists, mapping plans for the “disposition” of suspects beyond the reach of American drones.
Although the matrix is a work in progress, the effort to create it reflects a reality setting in among the nation’s counterterrorism ranks: The United States’ conventional wars are winding down, but the government expects to continue adding names to kill or capture lists for years.
Among senior Obama administration officials, there is a broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade. Given the way al-Qaeda continues to metastasize, some officials said no clear end is in sight.
“We can’t possibly kill everyone who wants to harm us,” a senior administration official said. “It’s a necessary part of what we do. . . . We’re not going to wind up in 10 years in a world of everybody holding hands and saying, ‘We love America.’ ”
That timeline suggests that the United States has reached only the midpoint of what was once known as the global war on terrorism. Targeting lists that were regarded as finite emergency measures after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are now fixtures of the national security apparatus. The rosters expand and contract with the pace of drone strikes but never go to zero.
Meanwhile, a significant milestone looms: The number of militants and civilians killed in the drone campaign over the past 10 years will soon exceed 3,000 by certain estimates, surpassing the number of people al-Qaeda killed in the Sept. 11 attacks.
With that milestone, if we practiced the old “eye-for-an-eye” collectivist revenge codes, we could call it even and declare peace. But the killings are going to go on and on for another ten years! I am astonished that it’s liberal Democrats who are doing this. George McGovern, who passed away this week, took the Democratic party, for better or for worse, in the direction of peace. Aren’t any of you Democrats bothered by Obama’s drone war? I wish the moderator at the last debate had asked about this topic. I’d be curious if Romney would continue this “disposition matrix” or if he really is the peace candidate. I mean, it’s good to protect America against our enemies and all, and drone strikes don’t put our military men and women in danger. But while we are attacking people overseas with these weapons, we are at war and not peace.
The Democratic National Convention was full of angst about how “middle class” Americans are having such a hard time, how “the system is rigged against them” (as Elizabeth Warren put it), how the rich control everything, and other evocations of national misery. But if things are so bad and electing Obama will solve the problems, why hasn’t he done anything about them so far? As someone has noted, the Democrats are sounding like they are running against an incumbent President Romney. But their guy is the one in office! Their rhetoric is geared against the status quo–but they are the status quo!

Copyright 2008-2013, Patheos. All rights reserved. Terms of Service | Patheos Privacy Policy | Site developed by Avalon Consulting, LLC

Follow Patheos
Evangelical: