It's not often I have the privilege of posting original articles by fair-minded, analytical authors. I'm very happy to be able to do so today with a hearty "thank you" to Bradford Cummings for sending it my way.
Feel free to email your comments directly to him by clicking the link on his name. And, as always, the Comments section of this blog belongs to you so feel free to post there as well.
ConservaChick here again... I feel compelled to note the following: I take issue with one assertion in this article. The idea that "pro-marriage" legislation -- basically, support for the Republican plank that marriage is between one man and one woman -- is not truly Conservative; it is solely Republican in nature. To a Goldwater Conservative like myself, it is simply more government interference in the personal lives of Americans. However, having said that, I truly enjoyed this article and I hope you did as well.
Feel free to email your comments directly to him by clicking the link on his name. And, as always, the Comments section of this blog belongs to you so feel free to post there as well.
One Dog, Two Dog, Red Dog, Blue Dog
by Bradford Cummings
With the contentious 2006 elections having passed us by, pundits fueled by partisan desires have blindly asserted their opinions as to how our country has arrived at this conclusion. Mandates will be claimed, political graveyards will be filled by John Kerry bobble head dolls and a whole score of candidates will begin focusing their sights on the promising vistas of 2007 and 2008.
I begin by congratulating my Democratic opponents and friends. You have finally overcome that hurdle which at one time seemed unreachable. Your vim and vigor have paid off and you now have majorities in both the House and Senate. This has been a truly positive outcome for a party that has recently evolved into the political equivalent of UK football.
Yet against my better judgment, I feel it necessary to lay before you the reality of this political "touchdown." Your win is akin to kidnapping University of Louisville quarterback Brian Brohm and convincing him that Cardinal red is actually Wildcat blue. In other words, you took the day by utilizing candidates that appeared at least as conservative as the Republicans they faced. Save exceptions like Congressman Yarmuth, these Blue Dog Democrats ran as tax cutting, Jesus loving, gun toting politicians that have become pawns in a classic game of bait and switch.
Don't believe me? A simple online check will prove that a vast majority of the Democratic victories were scored by social and fiscal conservatives.
Heath Shuler of North Carolina describes himself as an anti-amnesty, pro-life, tax cut Democrat. CNN describes Indiana's newest "blue" Congressman Brad Ellsworth as pro-life, pro-marriage and anti-gun control.
Even Joe Lieberman, ostracized by his own party for not playing party-line politics, soundly defeated Ned Lamont by 10 percentage points.
If that is not enough, consider that seven out of eight ballot measures went pro-marriage, every eminent domain initiative was nixed and in Michigan of all places affirmative action was restricted. MICHIGAN! These are not exactly indications of a national liberal uprising.
This is not to say there were no positive developments for the left minded to feast upon. Bernie Sanders of Vermont became our very first Socialist Senator, who among his many "inspiring" views includes government control of the media. But let's be honest with ourselves here, we are talking about Vermont, the same state that let Judge Edward Cashman hand down a sixty day judgment to a convicted child rapist without batting an eye. To put it bluntly, The Green Mountain State is officially on my shortlist of US territories I would not mind seeing secede.
And of course, there were several ballot measures that at first glance could indicate a desire to follow in the footsteps of Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi. Gay marriage did not pass in Arizona, South Dakotans seemingly took a pro-choice stance, Missouri welcomed stem cell research and a whole slew of states increased their local minimum wage.
But before you start a rousing chorus of Les Miserables’ “Do You Hear the People Sing?” consider that there may be more here than meets the eye. While most conservatives believe in the sanctity of marriage, there exists a relatively even split as to the value of civil unions, a restriction in the Arizona amendment.
Again, the same dichotomy subsists among the rightwing when the issue of abortion rears its ugly head. However, since the South Dakotan measure allowed no exception for rape or incest, another traditional value was covertly defeated.
The Missouri initiative was originally a twenty point landslide that closed to two points by Election Day, largely due to the heightened awareness caused by national figures like Rush Limbaugh. This issue does not even appear on the GOP talking points, a strong indication that a consensus has yet to be formed.
And while minimum wage increases scream of a swing towards more government control and a repressed economy, most people do not understand the intricacies of this issue. We are sold the single mother trying to raise her kids on $5.15 an hour, a scenario even the most heartless cannot resist. But the reality posed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that only 2.5% of the nation's workforce earns that salary becomes a messy fact that Democrats aggressively sweep under the rug.
Make no mistake; these recent events do give some brief power to the leftist side of the Democratic Party. But reading into this win as anything more than an uprising against corrupt politicians and the abandonment of conservative principles by Republicans could be costly. Unless the Democratic Party governs from the moderate right, eventually Brohm will find his way home and the championship mirage will disappear.
ConservaChick here again... I feel compelled to note the following: I take issue with one assertion in this article. The idea that "pro-marriage" legislation -- basically, support for the Republican plank that marriage is between one man and one woman -- is not truly Conservative; it is solely Republican in nature. To a Goldwater Conservative like myself, it is simply more government interference in the personal lives of Americans. However, having said that, I truly enjoyed this article and I hope you did as well.
Comments
If I had to summarize the theme of the article it was, ‘you pretended to be us, and that’s how you beat us’; I don’t think American voters are really that dumb and main stream articles like this one from MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15658019/) paint a more complex picture than a simple ‘liberal’ versus ‘conservative’. My personal view is the Democratic Party focused more on the ‘beans and bullets’ issues and the majority of voters responded.
Moreover, I truly think this attempt at short term salve for the Republican base may have long term consequences; the more you reinforce this message of ‘Conservative Democrats’, the more appealing you make the Democratic Party as a ‘Big Tent’ alternative. The fact that the Democratic Party can have a diversity of opinion is clearly a strength in the current political climate- but who knows what tomorrow will bring. The bottom line is that claiming that these Democratic newcomers are really ‘your people’ doesn’t really help you; in a superficial way it might help you feel better about the results, but it doesn’t address the change in power structure.
I would argue voters gave the GOP 6 years of unrestricted power and gave back on none of the ‘red meat’ issues they always run on ‘banning gay marriage’, ‘banning abortion’ and ‘eliminating taxes’. I remember in the 90’s many of my republican friends using the phrase ‘if only we ran the government’; well, they got their chance for 6 years and moved the football not one yard- and everyone noticed.
On the larger issue of language, I noticed the author of the article relied on a lot of political stereotypes to advance his point. Let’s be honest, there are many ways to approach an issue that don’t easily fit a simple label like ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’
Two quick examples-
2nd Amendment Rights
As an educated Kentuckian and gun owner, I fully understand the reasons for and necessity of the 2nd amendment- but as an adult I also understand that adult issues require responsible actions. For the safety of all we as a nation monitor medicines, food, vehicle use, construction standards, etc- why on earth would we not monitor firearms? This isn’t about taking away guns, but managing an adult issue as adults.
Taxes
I see taxes as an investment in America, Kentucky and my home town. Infrastructure costs money and if we want the necessary infrastructure to advance commerce and public works then we should all be good Americans and do our share. Taxes are the price we pay for access to the most powerful infrastructure on the planet- the USA. And I think where most people get ticked off is when they see their money wasted or when they see disparity in the application of taxes. My biggest beef on taxes is that if I have to pay, so should corporate America- Period.
Finally, I think we as Americans need to understand that these are complicated, adult issues that require thoughtful, reasonable solutions. I don’t think anyone expects instant answers, but we should expect to see progress on these kinds of questions- not endless, entrenched and dogmatic arguments that leaves us all stagnant.
Just my opinion.
Brad
I must say that the rise of Conservative rhetoric from Democrat candidates this year represents the first true diversity of thought that I've ever seen in that party. Most typically, I hear a lot of groupthink coming from each party. Not this year though; this year, Republicans stuck to the tired rhetoric that they've not practiced while Democrats tried something new. The Democrats were the ones stretching their party line boundaries and that served them well. I think it would do all Republicans a disservice not to examine this more closely.
Voters now seem to be looking at individuals more than parties. I think that's a good development. It means that we, as voters, expect to be REPRESENTED not simply chattered at. I don't think the Liberal ideology in it's farthest Left incarnation is good for the economy of this nation; however, if they stick by their non-partisanship pledges, we might see some movement back toward getting the legislators out of our private lives.
I have to take some issue with your 2nd Amendment and Taxes viewpoints, Brad. Of course, right? I'm a Conservative and those are two BIG ones for us! ;-) "...why on earth would we not monitor firearms?..." We DO! We currently monitor firearms to a great degree. Can we do more without impacting a citizen's right to bear arms? Maybe. However, it begins with education and respect. No one, even someone who owns a firearm legally, can allowed to be uneducated and disrespectful with regard to lethal weapons. It's a must. Education not criminalization.
"I see taxes as an investment in America, Kentucky and my home town...." Yes, they are an investment of sorts; however, it is completely unfair that we pay taxes multiple times on the same income -- after all, sales taxes, dividend taxes, property taxes, etc. all come from what we are able to do with whatever the feds and the states leave us from our original earned income! At some point, the infrastructure of this country must be handled more economically. We must be responsible for the upkeep on many of our own needs and not expect "Mama Kentucky" or "Mama Fed" to be breastfeeding us.
Without corporate America, many of us would be in big trouble when it comes to earning a living. How are we supposed to become responsible for ourselves and our families without good jobs and careers provided by corporate America? Having typed that, however, I do believe there should be no government subsidies or bail-outs for businesses in this country -- stand or fall on their own merits just as I expect individual citizens to do. Just as I do. If I expect that from myself why should I not expect that of other citizens, my government, and businesses?
Great points in both the article and from your comments, Brad. I think it encourages us all to think about the results of this election from all perspectives. In my humble opinion, that's exactly what America needs -- more civil discourse from all perspectives. Go team! :-D
I saw nothing in what you wrote above that I necessarily disagree with.
One of the reasons for the structure of the House is that is was intended to be more reflective of the current feelings of the population- that is why the Senate tends to be more immune from populism because it was designed by the founders to resist it- and the Supreme Court very much so. Frankly I think the ‘Conservative Democrat’ angle is being over played somewhat- just my opinion.
The parallel I was shooting for with the 2nd Amendment is that of a driver’s license; in that we as a state/nation have a general standard to operate a car- which has the potential to be a destructive force, just like a firearm. Another example is a CCL, you have to pass a written test as well as a live fire exercise to prove competence- and yet no one complains about this requirement. I agree it’s fundamentally an education issue. As a gun culture we need to accept firearms as a part of the American Psyche and find a responsible way to manage them.
I agree with you some on your issues with taxes- and I don’t believe the government should be ‘floating’ an industry- with one caveat; if it’s an industry that may have a National Defense role- like the rail system in moving military equipment such as APC’s, Tanks, Hummers, etc- then we should have some minimal levels that we as a nation maintain. That’s one reason I was particularly upset with congress when they gave several hundred million dollars to the oil industry for exploration- when they’ve recorded record profits for the last several years. In my view it’s no different from paying gold miners to look for gold- which they then get to keep and enrich themselves.
And my problem with corporate taxes is that they routinely pay a significantly lower percentage than the average American- I am no economist but rhetorically speaking if you’re going to claim corporations are ‘entities’ then they should pay in line with what the middle class has to cough up.
I agree we don’t want an overly dependant relationship with the state or federal government (I think your breastfeeding description has mentally scarred me- just kidding), but I do believe there are common good projects that clearly have a benefit to all citizens and businesses- highways; CDC research; Agricultural research; etc. things a corporation would struggle at accomplishing a state or federal organization can effectively manage.
Once again you haven’t said anything I consider over the top or beyond the pale- clearly there’s some room there for respectful dialogue.
All the Best,
Brad
Don't take this the wrong way- but as long as republicans continue to push the current meme of "Conservative Democrats", they'll never retake the House or the Senate. This 'message' has created an opening for voters who may not embrace the arch-conservative 'all or nothing' framework.
Even if you have a block of Blue Dogs that cross lines occasionally- which I doubt Pelosi will permit- The Democratic Majority leadership will still set the agenda and the rules. No republican legislation will see the light of day. This isn't punishment, but just a continuation of the rules put in place by the republican majority. Only this time Lobbyist influence will be curtailed through the new ethics legislation.
Joe Lieberman is a great example of the problem with the 'conservative Democrat' meme; he align's with the republicans on votes- but he continues to caucus with the Democratic Party. The result- The Democractic Party, Harry Ried, sets the rules; makes up the agenda; controls the committees. All because of Joe Lieberman the closet republican.
Is it possible the GOP will will back the House or the Senate- of course it is. Forecasting to 2008, is it likely they will? No- in fact most forecasts indicate furhter errosion of GOP seats between now and then.
This is just my opinion.
Again, the commentaries on this are all full of good insights. I can't believe my good luck at having readers who really put their heads into these posts. I love the civil discourse that breaks out when that happens!
I agree with you, Anonymous 3:23pm, Republicans cannot continue to push the idea that "Conservative Democrats" won the day. Those who were elected this year were not all Conservative Dems but those that defeated Republican incumbents were certainly more moderate than their far Leftwing comrades. Moderate in my mind means they embrace some of the Conservative ideology as well as the Liberal ideology of their party. That's a good thing, in my mind, because it means we are electing "buffet style" thinkers. They choose what best fits their constituency which is all a citizen can hope for in his/her elected representative.
I don't think Pelosi will have as strong a hand as you might wish/believe. Already she has seen her stated choice for Majority Leader defeated by her fellow Democrats in the leadership election recently. Pelosi represents the very far Left while leading Democrats who cover the spectrum from far Left to far Right within the Liberal ideology.
It seems to me that, even with a Democrat majority, we are going to see a lot more debate and dissent over issues in both house of Congress now. Republican Conservatives may disagree with me on this but I think it's a good thing for our country at this point in time.