Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

I came across this in today's NY Times. It's an excerpt from 'The Message Thing' by Jim Wallis, author of 'God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It'.

****

Democrats must offer new ideas and a fresh agenda, rather than linguistic strategies to sell an old set of ideologies and interest group demands.

To be specific, I offer five areas in which the Democrats should change their message and then their messaging.

First, somebody must lead on the issue of poverty, and right now neither party is doing so. The Democrats assume the poverty issue belongs to them, but with the exception of John Edwards in his 2004 campaign, they haven't mustered the gumption to oppose a government that habitually favors the wealthy over everyone else. Democrats need new policies to offer the 36 million Americans, including 13 million children, who live below the poverty line, as well as the 9.8 million families one recent study identified as "working hard but falling short."

In fact, the Democrats should draw a line in the sand when it comes to wartime tax cuts for the wealthy, rising deficits, and the slashing of programs for low-income families and children. They need proposals that combine to create a "living family income" for wage-earners, as well as a platform of "fair trade," as opposed to just free trade, in the global economy. Such proposals would cause a break with many of the Democrats' powerful corporate sponsors, but they would open the way for a truly progressive economic agenda. Many Americans, including religious voters who see poverty as a compelling issue of conscience, desire such a platform.

Similarly, a growing number of American Christians speak of the environment as a religious concern - one of stewardship of God's creation. The National Association of Evangelicals recently called global warming a faith issue. But Republicans consistently choose oil and gas interests over a cleaner world. The Democrats need to call for the reversal of these priorities. They must insist that private interests should never obstruct our country's path to a cleaner and more efficient energy future, let alone hold our foreign policy hostage to the dictates of repressive regimes in the Middle East.

On the issues that Republicans have turned into election-winning "wedges," Democrats will win back "values voters" only with fresh ideas. Abortion is one such case. Democrats need to think past catchphrases, like "a woman's right to choose," or the alternative, "safe, legal and rare." More than 1 million abortions are performed every year in this country. The Democrats should set forth proposals that aim to reduce that number by at least half. Such a campaign could emphasize adoption reform, health care, and child care; combating teenage pregnancy and sexual abuse; improving poor and working women's incomes; and supporting reasonable restrictions on abortion, like parental notification for minors (with necessary legal protections against parental abuse). Such a program could help create some much-needed common ground.

As for "family values," the Democrats can become the truly pro-family party by supporting parents in doing the most important and difficult job in America: raising children. They need to adopt serious pro-family policies, including some that defend children against Hollywood sleaze and Internet pornography. That's an issue that has come to be identified with the religious right. But when I say in public lectures that being a parent is now a countercultural activity, I've found that liberal and conservative parents agree. Rather than fighting over gay marriage, the Democrats must show that it is indeed possible to be "pro-family" and in favor of gay civil rights at the same time.

Finally, on national security, Democrats should argue that the safety of the United States depends on the credibility of its international leadership. We can secure that credibility in Iraq only when we renounce any claim to oil or future military bases - something Democrats should advocate as the first step toward bringing other countries to our side. While Republicans have argued that international institutions are too weak to be relied upon in the age of terrorism, Democrats should suggest reforming them, creating a real International Criminal Court with an enforcement body, for example, as well as an international force capable of intervening in places like Darfur. Stronger American leadership in reducing global poverty would also go a long way toward improving the country's image around the world.

Until Democrats are willing to be honest about the need for new social policy and compelling political vision, they will never get the message right. Find the vision first, and the language will follow.

****
Which suggestions, if any, appeal to you?

[Nowhere Man]

The very fact that a quarter billion citizens of one of the richest countries in the world has only 2 filthy, fundamentally corrupt political parties is the problem.

2 fundamental issues

1)electoral college reform. I'd just toss it in favor of a popular vote. Others claim that it would disenfranchise the citizens of Wyoming.. Fine, to speak about disenfranchisement, none of my presidential votes have ever counted. Why? Because I have to agree with the majority of my state to get a vote counted.

Solution: If we have to keep the electoral college (allow state votes to be split by percentage.

2) House of representatives. The house was designed to grow with the population. A law was set that each rep should represent at least 36,000 people. Unfortunately, no cap was set on the max. Fearing the influence of immigrants, the house size was capped at 435 reps IN 1911!

In contrast to the House, the Senate was specifically designed not to grow with the population.

There is currently one House rep per 500,000 people in America.

That is an exponential increase, which is really an exponential decrease in your representation.

People argue against it saying that it costs too much to increase reps. All the while, we spend the most on industries (primarily defense) that openly bribe Congressmen to spend money on said industries.

As such, the political strategies of the two parties don't concern me much.

Nothing will change until the system as a whole is overhauled. That may seem impossible now, but I'm sure that eliminating monarchy once seemed impossible.

The one certain thing is change. If my proposals seem ridiculous, just wait.

[joe_doufu]

Joe's advice to Democrats:

IMHO, the Democrats like to talk about what they're fighting for, but don't think much about providing results. They say "we're for the Environment" and "we're against Poverty" and want us to think that Republicans are *against* the environment and *for* poverty. They're certainly able to convince themselves (see the audience at any Michael Moore premiere for evidence) but this philosophy wins few converts from other parties.

Second, Democrats need to stop taking money from organized crime. Er, I mean "labor". Did I say organized crime? I meant organized labor. Saying that you want to create jobs, improve public education, and grow the economy is hypocracy when you're solidly on the payroll of labor unions.

Unfortunately Democrats shot themselves in the foot promoting "campaign finance reform" that basically prevents wealthy people from donating to campaigns, so the only way to fund a campaign is to take lots of tiny donations. In the US that means churchgoers and business owners fund the Republicans, while the Democrats get money primarily from organized crime. I mean organized labor. If we did away with "campaign finance reform" it would go a long way toward cleaning up politics in the US.

Finally, the Democrats need to stop being the "we disagree with Bush" party and start coming up with ideas. Their candidates sound like teenagers in the debates. In particular, Democrats love telling us they'll spend lots of our money on problems, but don't say how they'll spend it. (Paid right to the labor unions, folks, is the idea.) When the Democrat says, for example, "I'm going to spend a billion zillion dollars on Education, and the other guy isn't," and the Republican says "Here's my three-step plan to improve Education in this country..." people believe the Republican.

[funplanet]

vote Libertarian

[Hank Scorpio]

[desultude]

[kimchikowboy]

Given the current state of affairs, the only truly effective platform I can envision and could support would include a trap door and a noose.

[desultude]

[dulouz]

The Dems have offered tasteless shapeless fudge again.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[joe_doufu]

Libertarian looks good on paper, but when you start getting the newsletters and realize the other party members are nutcases in New Hampshire carrying shotguns to the office, you generally become a libertarian with a lowercase "l".

[Nowhere Man]

And doesn't it blow that the libertarians' only chance of electing a president lies in one of the "big two" dying?

More parties=better choices for representation.

Reform the electoral college. Increase the size of the house.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

You know if there were more reps isn't it possible that somewhere in the South that several who openly support the Klan would get elected to office?

One good thing about the US system is that it keeps the extremists out.

[Nowhere Man]

The actual reason behind freezing the size of the house in 1911 was to prevent the influence of immigrants.

Considering that circa 1911, freezing the size looks more like a Klan initiative.

Robert Byrd, a senator, is a former Klansmen.

And the idea is representation. If say, 36,000 people (the original mininum set for a rep) thought a Klansman best represented their interests, so be it. I doubt that would result in a majority, or even a significant influence, in terms of house voting.

If we are to pretend to have a democracy (we don't), the concept is government by the people. Your argument suggests that the people can't be trusted to govern themselves properly. What's needed is plurality. A plurality that is reduced every day to serve the purposes of the duality that reigns.