Howard Dean's 'Democrats Offer a New Direction'
Opening the Wall Street Journal today, I was met by Howard Dean's article, 'Democrats Offer a New Direction.'
After the reading through the first 11 paragraphs of anti-Bush, anti-GOP ranting, I finally arrived at the meat of the thing; Dean offers a slogan in lieu of a plan:
We believe that America should work for everyone.
What follows is the Democrat's platform that includes: raising taxes (pay-as-you-go discipline in Congress), derailing Social Security reform, raising the minimum wage for illegal aliens, and inviting the humiliation of Islamo-fascist's claims of victory by implementing a cut and run policy for Iraq.
In the article, Dean writes:
Exactly how am I less safe?
What things have changed in my life that makes me feel less free?
NEWSBYTES
'Democrats Offer a New Direction'
By Howard Dean
(WSJ) -- We need a Democratic Congress to fight the war on terror -- and to end the war on America's families. Republican policies of the last five years have damaged our economy and failed Americans. Democrats believe strengthening the middle class is essential for a thriving economy that rewards work, provides economic opportunity to all and makes it easier for parents to devote time to their families. An economy that favors the top 1% at the expense of everyone else might be good for President Bush's politics, but a shrinking middle class is bad for capitalism, democracy and America. We need a new direction.
Global Tags: Washington DC, News and Politics, News, Politics, Current Events, Current Affairs, Life, Culture, Tension
After the reading through the first 11 paragraphs of anti-Bush, anti-GOP ranting, I finally arrived at the meat of the thing; Dean offers a slogan in lieu of a plan:
We believe that America should work for everyone.
What follows is the Democrat's platform that includes: raising taxes (pay-as-you-go discipline in Congress), derailing Social Security reform, raising the minimum wage for illegal aliens, and inviting the humiliation of Islamo-fascist's claims of victory by implementing a cut and run policy for Iraq.
In the article, Dean writes:
We will restore honesty in government, starting with the pay-as-you-go discipline in Congress that served Mr. Clinton so well. Balancing the Federal budget will be a high priority with concurrent limitation of spending. We will ease the burdens on middle class Americans and reverse Republican cuts in college tuition aid and health care. We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, including pension reform, and preventing the privatization of social security.When pondering the Democrat's strictly theoretical concepts Dean offers in place of a step-by-step procedure for change, it would be wise to ask yourself the following questions:
We will dramatically expand support of energy independence in order to generate large numbers of new American jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We will have a jobs agenda that includes good jobs that stay in America, a higher minimum wage and trade policies that benefit the global labor force, not just multinational corporations.
We will have a defense policy that is tough and smart, starting with phased redeployment of our troops in Iraq, and shore up our efforts to attack al Qaeda and fight the war on terror. We also will close the gaps in our security here at home by implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
Exactly how am I less safe?
What things have changed in my life that makes me feel less free?
NEWSBYTES
'Democrats Offer a New Direction'
By Howard Dean
(WSJ) -- We need a Democratic Congress to fight the war on terror -- and to end the war on America's families. Republican policies of the last five years have damaged our economy and failed Americans. Democrats believe strengthening the middle class is essential for a thriving economy that rewards work, provides economic opportunity to all and makes it easier for parents to devote time to their families. An economy that favors the top 1% at the expense of everyone else might be good for President Bush's politics, but a shrinking middle class is bad for capitalism, democracy and America. We need a new direction.
Global Tags: Washington DC, News and Politics, News, Politics, Current Events, Current Affairs, Life, Culture, Tension
posted by Steven Moyer at 9:14 AM
10 Comments:
While I agree that Mr. Dean spent way too much time bashing the president and not nearly enough time enumerating any kind of alternative plan, I have to disagree with the blogger. As a so-called "security mom," I do feel less safe in an environment where the President has further destabilized the Middle East, failed to secure our borders, and spent billions and billions that we should have been spending on medical research and shoring up the public health system. And I am less free when my mail is being read, when I can be stopped anywhere, within 100 miles of the US boarder and challenged about my citizenship, and when my government is, or even may be, torturing people in the name of my freedom and safety.
History shows us that the loss of little freedoms is followed by the loss of bigger freedoms. We would do well to remember that.
In what ways has your day-to-day life, specifically, changed because you feel less safe?
Theories are nice in the classroom of rhetoric, but exactly how has feeling less safe changed your routine?
The Middle East has been destabilized since the dawn of civilization, Bush didn't cause it, Clinton didn't successfully address it.
Border legislation was enacted during the Reagan administration, The government has yet to act on existing laws. If it is so bad in the U.S., why are illegals coming in droves to the U.S.? Is it to feel less safe and be economically worse off than they were in Mexico?
The U.S. has undoubtedly some of the best medical services in the world.
Nobody is reading your mail unless you are writing to a terrorist. How would you even know if anyone is reading your mail?
You should feel less secure in the fact that your every move online is recorded by your ISP, and that has everything to do with marketing and nothing to do with the government.
As for the rest of it, folks would do well to avoid the flawed logic of applying moral equivalents in order to achieve political correctness.
Please show specific "historical" examples of the incremental erosion of freedoms in a republican democracy to validate how your final statement applies to the present.
Sorry, the democrates are the party of the past, quickly fading to extinction. They simply don't get it about many things. Don't get me wrong, Republicans have badly managed many things - the war, the deficit. But the dems don't come up with proposals for change. Just platitudes, just wind. On immigration they're much worse than the republicans, if that's actually possible. Neither party gets it when it comes to immigration. But when the dems vote down a law requiring people to prove citizenship to vote in national elections, it's not only plain wrong, it's dumb.
Please show specific "historical" examples of the incremental erosion of freedoms in a republican democracy to validate how your final statement applies to the present.
I'm not sure when you say a "republican democracy", if you mean little-r "republican" as in without a monarch, or big-R "Republican" as in the U.S. Republican party.
If you're demanding an example of the latter, anon, it's obvious you're not going to get one, because last time I checked, the U.S. has not (yet?) become a dictatorship.
But that doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. Democracies have become dictatorships in the past, and the path by which they do, has some very well known signposts: 1] A rapidly declining economy, 2] Threats of "war" by enemies of the country (often due to provocations by the nation's leadership) 3] Use of the threatened "war" by the national leadership to sieze ever greater degrees of power and to stifle dissent.
Now, is any of this happening in the U.S. today? Not to any great degree. U.S. institutions are simply too strong for real dictatorship to take hold. However, that doesn't mean that liberals like elizabeth are wrong in decrying taking even baby steps in that direction. In fact it is to be lauded. Even the appearance of dictatorship (such as use of torture) is unbecoming the U.S.
Let me also remind you that conservatives said the exact same things when Clinton was in power - with much less provocation. So it is deeply hypocritical for them to be taking the position they do now.
You're either for unchecked Presidential power, or you're against it. If its a power you wouldn't want a President Hillary to have, then its something you can't give to President W.
For those of you out there in the bog:
republican democracy: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Republican_democracy
The U.S has a Constitution-based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition, i.e., a republican democracy: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
You must know your concepts before you can defend them.
Hey Elizabeth, dittos to the other comments and would you rather that you and your family be dead. Just a thought.
This is not a democracy. How far we have come from our knowledge of our country and its founding. We are a Constitutionally established representative republic.
Dean says, "We will have a defense policy that is tough and smart, starting with phased redeployment of our troops in Iraq, and shore up our efforts to attack al Qaeda and fight the war on terror. We also will close the gaps in our security here at home by implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations."
Snappy phrases that sound good, but as usual, without substance. What is the defense policy that is tougher and smarter? If you redeploy troops, how do you fight terrorism and al-Qaeda? Where do you fight them? Which recommendation from the 9-11 Commission will they implement?
Sound bites without teeth.
Steve
NC
Interesting that I have been labled a "liberal" when what I have complained about is government intrusion into private life and irresponsible fiscal behavior. I guess the world really has changed.
How has my day-to-day life changed? Here's one: I get stopped at security checkpoints in and asked if I'm an American. Not, mind you, at a border, but driving within the US. Sometimes you sit for 30 minutes to get through the line. No warrant, no probable cause. Just "checking." Not, actually, that they can even do anything about it, since we are not (yet) required to carry national ID, so it is even more of a waste of the taxpayers dollars, and everyone's time.
How do you know when your mail has been read? When it arrives taped back shut with the US Customs seal on the back. That is how you know.
I must say that dick's response was my favorite. Yes, dick, what I really do wish is that my family and I were dead. Honestly, is that the level of debate we've reached? Nobody wants to be unsafe, but my point is, are we really putting our time and energy into the things that are making us the most unsafe? Terrorists have killed about 3000 Americans (not counting servicepeople) in the last 5 years. Tobacco kills that many a day, every day. Heart disease kills almost a million people in the US a year. I won't bother talking about the needless death around the world. Terrorism, while something we absolutely have to strive against, should not be an excuse to not be doing the things we know are right.
I absolutely refuse to get brought into the "republic" vs. "democracy" bit. I don't hear the President talking about bringing "republicanism" to the Middle East.
We as a country have to choose how much freedom we are willing to sacrifice in the name of safety, and those choice get made through conversation and debate. I personally think that we've stepped over the line. Does this mean, dick, that I want my family dead? Of course not. But there are things worth dying for, and I think perserving our freedoms is one of them. I respect other people's right to disagree.
Hello there Elizabeth, thanks for reading and commenting. Please accept my apologies for unbalanced reader comments.
I'll try to discuss some of your points.
If you are asked to comply with heightened security protocols, that would be because the government is attempting to maintain personal freedoms while trying to protect all citizens from terrorist attacks. The inconvenience is the fault of the terrorists. If you don't look like a terrorist and are unduly inconvenienced, blame that friction on political correctness.
There have been marked periods of heightened tension between the Islamic world and the West since the Crusades. The violence is nothing new; the conflict is a clash of cultures and not simply a result of prior or current U.S. foreign policy.
While Muslim terrorists have struck outside of the U.S. since 9/11, it is very important to note that there have been no terrorist acts committed inside the country since 9/11.
The security procedures seem to be working, even if the mainstream media says they are not. In strictly libertarian terms, our homeland security is a matter of making most important the needs of the many over the needs of the few (or the one).
I guess I'd rather have Customs in my post than have the NSA eavesdropping on my calls. Then again, I guess it makes a difference depending on where the post is headed and the contents involved.
The republican democracy referred to is a 'process' of government. Since the U.S. has a federal, Constitutional republic with democratic processes, I assume the request is to show an example of how freedoms have eroded in governments like ours in the U.S. If you were to say, "I am not free to smoke in public." I'd reply the freedoms of the many to not experience second hand smoke outweigh the freedom of individuals to smoke in a public place. Thus, we have discussed an actual 'specific' example.
My point in prompting folks to ask themselves questions is to foster a dialectic discussion that may help to see empirically what lies out in the open beyond the politically correct.
When I ask myself the questions, I can honestly say that I am only less safe because last year I moved from hurricane ally on the Gulf to metro DC. I honestly don't feel any less safe.
And I can't say anything has changed in my daily life that makes me feel less free.
My point is, reality lies out there beyond what passes for 'truth.'
SM
Before I even started to read Mr. Dean's article, I asked my self aloud, "Is he going to offer specific examples of his 'New Direction'?"
As is par for the course of current Democrats, he did not. Mr. Dean is still of the mind set that Bush bashing sells, but he fails to realize that no one is buying. Much like Mr. Kerry's constant drone of having a plan during his presidential campaign, Mr Dean has unfortunately followed that same path.
Democrats need independent voters, like myself, or they will continue to come up short in future elections. But how can I honestly vote for a candidate when I don't know what their plan is?
Post a Comment
<< Home