How Do We Know What We Say We Know?

Is it true that Democrats lose elections because they are not sufficiently populist? Would they enlarge their vote, motivate those who usually don’t vote, and sweep into office if they took the unabashedly liberal, or progressive positions, on health care, education and more heavily taxing the rich?

Along with a lot of my friends, I’d sure like to think that is true. It’s what liberal politicians –dead and living—from Paul Wellstone to Howard Dean to Russ Feingold meant when they have said they represent “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.”

It’s what Robert Borosage, of the left-of-center Progressive Majority argued recently in The Nation.

For these liberal and progressive Democrats, their blood enemies are the conservative or so-called "centrist" Democrats grouped in the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC types argue, meanwhile, the opposite case i.e. that the only hope Dems have is to firmly occupy the middle ground and cede nothing to the left. The most recent broadside from these quarters was issued by former Al Gore confidant Elaine Karmach and Clinton domestic policy adviser William A. Galston. 

Their latest report was bloody chum for liberal attackers who argued that the two wonks were proposing a Republican Lite strategy. Among the critics was the Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum who declared himself   “underwhelmed” by what he called the “conventional slice-and-dice electoral polling analysis.”

Drum’s critique of the centrist Dems wasn’t harsh enough for Internet Liberals like Avedon Carol who wrote:

“I'm sick and tired of being told the base is too far left. What does the base believe in? Universal health care, universal education, safe and fair employment, a healthy economy that provides good jobs, regulation to prevent corporations from defrauding us, care for our environment.”

Now, Drum has responded with a new post defending himself that also raises some pretty tough questions. Like the one I started off with this on this post i.e. how do we know if Democrats were just more outspoken on progressive positions they would win more? Is it possible that “the people” really don’t want political solutions that more closely conform to what we think their “real interests” are? Can it be than it for four decades the Democrats have just failed to find bold enough candidates? Or is George Lakoff – who I have criticized— actually right and it’s a matter of proper messaging?

I’d add a few more unccomfortable questions implied in Drum’s posting. If, ineed, the Democratic base and its supposedly latent allies are so liberal and progressive, why did Howard Dean never poll more than 30% among these same Democrat primary voters? Why did Dennis Kucinich only get about 3% of the Democratic vote? Why didn’t Democrats flock to these progressive alternatives? Why is it, indeed, that the only successful Democratic Presidential candidates of the last 45 years have been southern conservatives?

I don’t have any facile answers. Nor am I endorsing any side in this debate. I just want to know how we know what we say we know.

Comments

[reg]

Personally, I've never purported to "know" this nor is it what I would consider the only valid populist strategy without evidence of effectiveness in the trenches. Without writing an essay, which I'm not really qualified or inclined to write in this context, I think that at the level of Presidential politics some version of "Clintonism" is preferred. At the more localized levels, including Congressional and Senatorial races, the party should reflect a solidly populist left-center alliance that takes local demographics and realities into account. A few key issues like strong and effective national security, universalizing health insurance, a fairer tax code (not to be confused with across the board tax increases), increasing educational opportunities and protecting social security could be the glue unifying a coalition, but the differences between the DLC approach and folks to their left (like me) should be debated civily, tested regionally and not become the basis for fracturing the party. Pragmatism should reign, regional differences should be respected and successes should be replicated.

I find some of the DLC stuff I read over at TPMCafe to be perfectly respectable and worthy of consideration, not scorn. What bothers me most about the DLC is when it takes on the mantle of elite liberal corporatism, as opposed to blue-collor pragmatism. Attention to working class economic issues and a more cautious approach to cultural controversies that doesn't try to make one size fit all and everywhere could unite the proto-populism of the moderately progressive center with the aggressive populists of the liberal left on a common program and an effective alliance in which tensions were addressed creatively and respectfully rather than divisively.

The reality is that strong, charismatic candidates are the best hope to bring the center and left together. Wellstone was a committed progressive, but he projected a pragmatic optimism, energetic and competence that broadened his appeal. Clinton, for all of his personal flaws, also had something that appealed to people on a gut level and managed to align much of the more liberal wing with his resolutely centrist approach. There's no simplistic formula. On the numbers these folks have a strong point, but it's no excuse for projecting a politics that are cynical or fabricated. It's the difference between being informed by polls and becoming a creature of the polls. The public can often tell the difference. There's also the issue of leadership, which again raises the necessity of finding candidates who inspire confidence and a sense of integrity and authenticity. A center-left coalition should by its nature, at its best, combine vision and pragmatism. Frankly, I think that both sides of this equation are more often hobbled not by their ideological predilictions but by inability to articulate or inspire, formulaic responses to issues and a lack of energy or intellect.

[Robert Fiore]

The problem the Democrats have is that there's relatively little faith in redistributive strategies among the people who vote in this country, and under these circumstances the Democrats become The Cause That Dare Not Articulate Its Agenda.

The overarching reality is that for the next 30 or 40 years we're going to be taking care of retired people, and during this period we're neither going to have the surplus wealth to have true social democracy nor will we be able to cut enough to have a true low tax state.

What the current Republican administration demonstrates is that if you're truly a fiscal conservative then what you want is a Democratic president and a Republican congress, period, QED, end of story.

[Bill]

This is just an assumption, but I believe the deciding, rather large swing vote in this country per Presidential elections is not ideologically-based at all. They cast their votes, for lack of a better way to put it, on comfort level. It's the candidate they would prefere to fantasize drinking a beer with, or at the very least, who they would be more comfortable seeing on their living room television on occasion for the next four years. Whatever one might think of their policy proposals, Dean and Kucinich fail that test.

The "more heavily taxing the rich" message doesn't hold much sway nor does it represent a genuine populist approach that speaks personally and specifically to it's target audience. The thrust of Kerry's "economic plan" as little of it as I recall, was to repeal the Bush tax cuts, followed by some wonk talk about lower deficits and "investments". Not only way too abstract in a personal sense, it's easily deflected just by GOP talking point cliches- "tax and spend Democrat", "you know better how to spend your money ..." If it can't be specifically grasped on a personal level, many are more than glad to vote against their own interests, even if only for a token pennies per paycheck.

[Nell]

Some of the theory that the 'politics of contrast' approach will be a winner for Dems is based on who votes in this country. For many years now, registration and turnout rates have increased directly with income.

Along with the other structural obstacles to registering and voting, there's a strong personal/political inertia among poor Americans who don't see the connection between voting and any real improvements in their lives. When people do see that connection, even huge obstacles are not enough to keep them from voting.

So, the theory goes, if Democratic candidates can believably offer changes to improve their lives (living wage, universal health care), that will generate enough enthusiasm for voting among infrequent voters to win. Conversely, every piece of crappy, corporate giveaway legislation promoted by a Democrat kills enthusiasm and poisons the well for more populist candidates.

But there's a chicken-and-egg situation with campaign financing that has to be changed to give the theory any kind of real test. As long as the fundraising requirements of races are so high, corporate money will restrict the choices on offer. It happens within the state Democratic parties, not only between Republicans and Democrats.

[Michael Turner]

Avedon Carol, sniping at the Polarity Report:“I'm sick and tired of being told the base is too far left. What does the base believe in? Universal health care, universal education, safe and fair employment, a healthy economy that provides good jobs, regulation to prevent corporations from defrauding us, care for our environment.”

Left out "gay marriage" and "gun control", conveniently enough. What part of "polarization" didn't Carol understand?

These wedge issues matter. For example, the Karmack/Galston report points out that the Dems would probably be better off with leaving gay marriage issues to the states. You know, I hated David Souter when he seemed to waffle on abortion during his confirmation hearings, saying it might be considered mostly a states-rights issue. Honestly, not to sound like I might have *moderated* my opinions on abortion (I haven't), I have to say I see the wisdom of that view now. Clinton diagnosed Gore's loss pithily: "He went too far left on cultural issues." Well, he did. I'm fine with gay marriage progressing/regressing state-by-state now; I'm fine with leaving the Culture Wars at that level. Demographic shifts (the young tend to be more tolerant on gay rights issues) mean there will be progress in the end. Why do the Democrats have to push the issue so close to the center of national debate? This applies to a range of Lifestyle Left issues. Why not just let various progressive states enact their own gay marriage legislation, and prove, after a decade or so, that it isn't the end of the world? Why not let them be the policy test-tubes? Isn't that an actual strength of republic-style federation, that it permits evolution and selection?

Kevin Drum complains that the Karmack/Galston report doesn't tell the Democratic Party what it should believe in. I think Drum just doesn't have much of an attention span -- you have to read it to the end. I can't say I read every word, but I did read to the end.

Drum doesn't like "slice and dice" analysis? Well, that kind of analysis is one way to find out what people out there are really thinking. If all those numbers make your eyes glaze over, if you find yourself yawning, just read the damn callout quotes. (And other quotes from real voters, in the running text.)

I like this report. I don't necessarily like the conclusions -- some are distinctly dismal -- but they sound realistic to me. If it has strategic implications for the Left, I'd say the main ones are these:

(1) Do what it takes to get a viable third party going.

(2) Focus it on city- and state-level politics, where you can actually hope to make gains.

(3) Don't rely on the Democrats - but DO work with them. In particular, stop running candidates that threaten Dem capture of the White House -- cut some *backroom deal* to that effect, if there's political leverage in it across a range of localities. The pitch: "We'll work hand-in-glove with you to poison left-leaning voters against loose cannons like Nader, but you've got to give us some slack to get into state legislatures." Something like that anyway.

One curiously healthy outcome might be that it enables moderate Republicans to shift over to the Democrats. And from their ranks, the Democrats might get a presidential candidate who seems more like "our kind of people" -- strong, reeking of integrity, but empathetic -- to those all-important swing voters. Enough emigration from the GOP to the Dems might even embolden the GOP to do something long overdue for their own hygiene: ditch the hardline Christian Right, in a bid to bring more moderate conservatives into their own ranks, perhaps by inspiring some conservative-leaning independents to go into politics.

[Michael Turner]

Did I actually write "reeking of integrity" in that last? Ouch. Of course, Blue State Wonker that I am, I meant "redolent of integrity".

We are talking about politicians here, after all.

[Ron]

Was Bill Clinton from the far left?

That looks to me like an important question. He's the only success in a long dry spell of Dem presidential candidates. Mondale was certainly further left, Gore, Kerry. Those last 2 lost to a completely uninspiring Repub candidate.

Kerry was the ultimate anti-warrior, opposed everything military. Overall voting record left of Ted Kennedy. Why did he try to paint himself as a moderate? Is the outcome of Kucinich an indicator of why?

I submit that anyone who thinks the Dems are losing because they are not far enough left are not paying attention to history, or the actions/results from their own candidates.

[Brian Siano]

As others have said here, I don't assume that moving to the left will grab the Democrats more votes, or that this is what American voters "really" want. It's what I'd like to see in Democrats so that I'd feel better about voting for them.

This is what bugs me when people start talking about strategies to get Democrats elected. It implies that merely getting them elected is enough. It avoids the more important question, i.e., what should Democrats _do_ once we get them elected?

But I don't assume that all of those non-voting Americans are closet radicals waiting for a combination of Kennedy charisma and Kucinich values. Evidence goes the other way: the nonvoting Americans probably follow the same ideological distribution as those who vote.

I _wish_ that more Americans agreed with me, and I'd _like_ to think that, if my kind of candidates got elected and enacted serious political change, Americans would begin to understand how a decent civil society should be run.

[Brian Siano]

As others have said here, I don't assume that moving to the left will grab the Democrats more votes, or that this is what American voters "really" want. It's what I'd like to see in Democrats so that I'd feel better about voting for them.

This is what bugs me when people start talking about strategies to get Democrats elected. It implies that merely getting them elected is enough. It avoids the more important question, i.e., what should Democrats _do_ once we get them elected?

But I don't assume that all of those non-voting Americans are closet radicals waiting for a combination of Kennedy charisma and Kucinich values. Evidence goes the other way: the nonvoting Americans probably follow the same ideological distribution as those who vote.

I _wish_ that more Americans agreed with me, and I'd _like_ to think that, if my kind of candidates got elected and enacted serious political change, Americans would begin to understand how a decent civil society should be run.

[Brian Siano]

Sorry about the double-post. My browser didn't refresh the screen properly.

[Freddy the Pig]

Criminy! We know what we know beause we have the data of presidential elections. The only Democrats to get elected in the last 10 elections were centrist Southern Democrats-- and they barely got elected. (I think Carter just grazed over the 50% mark, while Clinton never even got that high-- he won because of Perot, Texas's ticket-splitting gift to the Democrats.) While the two most unabashedly liberal Democratic nominees in that time, McGovern and Mondale, were the two who got absolutely stomped. What about that isn't clear enough for people who covered their Nader/LaDuke sticker with a Kucinich sticker? You need another 10 elections to figure it out?

Having said that, I don't necessarily agree with the idea that America has gone purely and philosophically rightward. The reason for that is-- well, go read George Will's column this morning and see why, if you actually were a conservative, you should be upset with that liberal big spender George "I Have a Veto Power? Why Didn't Dick Tell Me?" W. Bush. There's nothing the least bit conservative about a prescription drug benefit-- there's just savvy politics in making sure you have high-turnout old folks on your side.

But what's happened is that the Republicans have managed to get on the correct, popular side of lots of traditionally Democratic issues, by simply writing a check for them, and thus expanded their base. Somehow they have both libertarians and fundamentalists, tycoons and crackers, supply-siders and subsidized farmers alike. While the Democrats have clung to a deflating life raft-- the shrinking union movement, widely identified in America with lack of global competitiveness, government pork, and the Mob; the grievance constituencies of the inner city, the Sharptons and Jacksons, who most white Americans suspect are part of the problem more than part of the solution for urban America; and so on. Somebody above talked about "redistributive" policies-- when you say that, most people see Jesse Jackson's face, and they don't believe a penny of it will do anything but get siphoned off. Meanwhile the free market creates more low-end jobs than our lousy schools can even produce people with the minimal skills to do. And you wonder why all in all, people say they prefer the market to the government as a solution. (As long as they have their prescription drug benefit, that is. There's a lot of hypocrisy involved, obviously.)

It hasn't helped that the Left has shirked the fights that could have built support for its positions. Three of the main brushes it's tarred with-- affirmative action, abortion and gay marriage-- were implemented through the courts, not through the legislative process. As a result the debates that could have opened minds and built constituencies were avoided. The Left has gone from teach-ins to putting the fix in judicially.

I think as long as it accepts its place on a right-left axis defined in traditional terms, the Democratic party will continue to shrink because its place on that axis continues to get nibbled away. The Democrats who get around this will be the ones who not only move rightwards but sideways. Unfortunately, some of the most promising opportunities for that will be forestalled by the nature of who the big donors are. There's a space for a candidate stressing digital rights, here and abroad (plenty of room to slam Rupert on China there), but not as long as you take money from the Hollywood studios. There's a space for a candidate stressing parents' rights in education and even vouchers in some fashion, but not as long as you take money from the teachers' unions. That's why I think the party should focus on electing governors, not presidents-- governors have the freedom to experiment with some of those things under media radar, in a way that any national figure dare not.

There are opportunities for the Democratic party, not to pick up right where things left off in 1968, which I think is the effective intent of too many comments in threads like this, but to take the core values of our party and apply them to today's realistic situations. I can't say, though, that I see the person who will do that in the 2008 election as yet.

[Freddy the Pig]

"I'm fine with gay marriage progressing/regressing state-by-state now; I'm fine with leaving the Culture Wars at that level. Demographic shifts (the young tend to be more tolerant on gay rights issues) mean there will be progress in the end. Why do the Democrats have to push the issue so close to the center of national debate? This applies to a range of Lifestyle Left issues. Why not just let various progressive states enact their own gay marriage legislation, and prove, after a decade or so, that it isn't the end of the world? Why not let them be the policy test-tubes? Isn't that an actual strength of republic-style federation, that it permits evolution and selection?"

Because once a right has been defined as essential by the party elites, you get vilified within the party for opposing it-- you become politically incorrect, anathema. That's how the party ends up with an official position that even most of its own voters, let alone the undecided ones, don't support.

I'm all for gay marriage, but tactically it's been a disaster. The approach you suggest is exactly right. Instead we rushed it as an essential human right and only hardened opposition against it-- and risked even a constitutional amendment that would have been very hard to overturn in the future. Astonishingly terrible politics-- and if I had to bet on what the next blunder like that will be, it'd be slavery reparations, which have become a given in certain urban political circles despite being absolute suicide for us as an issue nationwide.

[reg]

"Was Bill Clinton from the far left?

That looks to me like an important question."

You're kidding, right ?

[reg]

One thing that's been left out of this discussion, and it gives some credence to the Lakoffian argument at the level of Presidential electioins, is that the agenda of the GOP isn't reflective of majority opinion in this country and that they do in fact paint a few broad strokes and work up opportunistic packaging to sell some very underwhelming candidates. To anyone who says "Look at the last ten or so elections as evidence", I say, yes look at them. Carter beat a stand-in President under very unusual circumstances. Reagan, a great campaigner but the most over-rated President in our history, beat Carter because of the Iranians and the liklihood of the GOP actually committing treasonous collusion with them. Mondale got trashed by a sitting President who seemed positively regal at the time. Bush 1 had quasi-incumbency and not much else on his side. So he pretty effectively trashed a guy who was even worse at campaigning and charisma. Clinton won because of Perot, no doubt, given that he was up against a sitting Prez, but I have a hunch that a candidate with Clinton's skills could have beat Bush 1 in '88, i.e. w/o the incumbency factor. Clinton won fair and square in '96 and his protoge, a lesser candidate playing dodgeball in the wake of a bizarre scandal, won the electorate and would have squeaked into the electoral college had his votes actually been counted. Bush 2 won an unimpressive but fairly predictable re-election as incumbent by jawboning 9/11.

What I see if I were to try to extract defining issues from that bag that, for all of the GOP electoral success at the top, strikes me as rather mixed, is that people think they're getting screwed by the government on their taxes, that the government doesn't deliver nearly as much as it promises, that national security can be a deal-breaker but it's an issue that's enters into elections on the level of perception and rhetoric rather than anything approaching serious analysis (this trend started at least as early as Kennedy's bullshit "missile gap") and the Democrats are easily tarred with "cultural issues" that, in fact, galvanize a minority of zealots but that a slim majority either agree with the Democrats on, or tend to. (Abortion and civil unions - no Democratic contender I'm aware of has pushed for gay marriage, so we're dealing with perception here more than reality.) Given that breakdown and avoiding sweeping generalizations that obscure more than they reveal, I don't see any major obstacle here to moderately liberal Clintonesque Democrats regaining competitiveness for the Presidency.

The problem facing Democrats that's far more problematic than electing another President, which I contend can be done if the candidate is reasonably adept and attractive, is how to regain competitiveness in Senatorial races in two or three states and how to regain competitiveness in some parts of the south and midwest for congressional candidates. Also, as FtheP states, for governors which can also be the presidential bench.

Frankly, as has been observed in passing above, if Dems elect another President, it's likely to make people more inclined to elect a Republican congress, not give "liberals" a sweep. As I said earlier, I think that if the Democrats come across with a unifying, essentially moderate national program that appeals to a few fundamentals - and is realistically based on smart, effective policy and not the kind of bullshit, corrupt and, yes, unpopular domestic agenda that underlies the GOP package - we're looking at the Dems reviving themselves nationally via regional strategies. I have absolutely no problem with very centrist Dems like Mary Landrieu or Evan Bayh being an essential element of the party coalition. I only wish there were more of them, just as I wish we had a couple more Paul Wellstones and could bring some more attractive "fighting moderates" like Paul Hackett and, yes, Howard Dean (not for Prez!) into the mix.

I also believe that Nell's conception of "politics of difference" can work without also alienating swing voters. One of the biggest perceptions of "difference" that could bring a mix of swing voters, independents and new voters into the Dem fold is an aura (a reek?) of integrity and honesty as opposed to political hackism (-ery?). If the Democrats can't begin to bring some of the fundamentals - dare I say virtues? - that people want to see more of in politicians, they don't deserve a revival and will simply fulfill the worst case assumptions that someone like Marc justifiably holds, not to mention the man on the street who can't get jazzed about voting or politics. Meanwhile, the country suffers, even when it feels like "good times". Lots of structural issues that are waiting to kick us in the ass and we desperately need some decent, pragmatic leadership.

[Marc Davidson]

Freddy the Pig,
I don't hear much talk among party activists trying to extend same-sex marriage nationwide. That issue is a red herring. In fact in Massachusetts, as you recall, it was the Supreme Judicial Court that forced the issue. Party activists on the left are much more concened about preventing a definition of marriage amendment that would take it away from the states. It's difficult, however, to work to prevent erosion of a right without advocating for expansion.
Gun control is another example. The Party is quite tolerant of Democrats who oppose gun control. Look at the support someone like Paul Hackett gets from progressives. The other "values" issue, abortion rights issue is something most Americans agree on.

[Dan O]

I think it's worth asking the question from the other direction: How much electoral success have the Democrats had under the DLC since 1992? We've won a single Presidential election and been unable to recapture Congress. It's not been impressive. The DLC's answer is to keep moving to the center, but I don't think there is any more center to be taken by the likes of Lieberman and Gore et.al.

I think the populist stance will work because we have the historical example of an almost unassailable Congressional coalition that governed for nearly forty years from this position. Something in the Seventies and Eighties broke this coalition up. Knowing what that was might help. I think it is a combination of declining union membership (which was due to lost industrial jobs and union busting), and the defection of Southern Democrats over race under LBJ. In response to this shift came the DLC urging us to go center, to go right, in order to win. Then Clinton comes along, and through a combination of weak opposition and tremendous personal charisma, wins, seemingly confirming the thesis. But he hasn't because it hasn't resulted in any more winning since then.

This is only anecdotal, but I was involved with the Wellstone race and with an opponent of Jesse Ventura, both of whom were populists in their own way, and all I can say is that the sense of excitement over these candidates was palpable, especially over Wellstone. They were both incredibly polarizing figures, Wellstone generating almost as much hatred as love, but he absolutely tapped into something latent in the electorate. When you talk to displaced mine workers on the Minnesota Iron Range, or any other workers like that, you see that they just want to work, and they want that job to be able to pay for a house, a car, retirement and give them health care. What they see now is a party aligned with the interests that are taking these things away from them and replacing them with jobs at Wal Mart and Man Power. It's an incredibly powerful message as I have seen first hand.

To take a stab at Marc's last questions, it's probably a combination of personality (Kucinich cast as the boring guy, Dean as the loose cannon), and the various forces arrayed against them--they have to raise masses of corporate money and risk being co-opted or risk being defeated (as Feingold nearly was), they have to face attack from their own party on the right doing the Republican's dirty work (the DLC on Dean), they face attack from their own party on the left (anyone remember Ed McGaa?). But maybe I'm just smoking something...I don't know.

[wil]

I don't think it should be unconsidered that a lot of people on the far left of the Democratic party just come across as really annoying people. I'm not talking about how they get portrayed by Rush and Fox etc., I'm talking about how they come across when I meet them at parties or family gatherings. I'm in at least partial agreement with them on most issues (far more so than Republicans) but they're so self righteously in your face I have a knee jerk reaction to want to get as far away as possible. Katrina vanden Heuvel is probably the consummate example of this.

Conversely Earl Ofari Hutchinson (sic?) is the the exact opposite. A calm but confident guy I could have serious political discussions with and not want to strangle.

[Jim Santulli]

Walter Mondale was not a radical, nor was George McGovern, except on cultural issues. To be radical is to emphasize economic and fiscal justice, and no candidate has done that since Harry Truman-with the exception, maybe, of Robert Kennedy in 1968. One must also promote programs that benefit everybody, not just the very poor and the marginal groups, like Social Security does. And no one does that, because the left groups of our time want to support only those groups-thus the lack of support for Kucinich.

[reg]

good insights & anecdotes, Dan O...

[reg]

"a lot of people on the far left of the Democratic party just come across as really annoying people"

Dontcha think that we've got parity there with "a lot of people on the far right of the Republican Party" ?

(If I were going to go out for drinks after watching a taping of "McCrossFire Group", I'd rather it be with Pat Buchanan than Katrina VDH...but then I'd also choose dinner with Carville over Tony Blankly or that insufferable little MotherTucker Carlson.)

[Marc Cooper]

Ur gonna hate this Reg.. but what the hell. Tony Blankley is a sweetie pie gentleman and a delight to be with.. his politics suck big time but he's an honest analyst. I like him.

I also really like Buchanan. He;s very personable and polite and LOVES to talk politics. And he's no dummy. Anyway, his isolationaist anti-war and protectionist trade positions overlap with a whole lot of lefties who post on this board. They would find more common ground than they dare allow themslves to think.

One of my favortie political events in recent history was watching a Teamsters rally for Buchanan during the run-up to the 2000 primary. Delerious!

OK u can all start throwing tomatoes now. Throw enough and I will publish the names of the really personally creepy leftists and libs with whom I wouldnt be caught dead with on a desert island.

[Michael J. Totten]

Marc,

I wanna know who you wouldn't be caught dead on a desert island with. But I'm not in a tomato-throwing mood at this time.

Where's "Steve" when you need him?

[Marc Cooper]

Adding to my above comments, while I find the company of Buchanan and Blankley enjoyable, I really loved spending time with Paul Wellstone ( tyhis anecodte jogged by Dan O's comments above).

The last real time I spent with him was during the 2000 primary campaign. Paul was out stumping for Bill Bradley against Al Gore (a dual lost cause!). We were in Dubuque, Iowa on a cold, cold, cold day. Paul had just spoken to a private luncheon of labor leaders who, at the end, wanted HIM not Bradley to run.

After the talk, Paul came back with me to my car and we sat for fourty minutes with heat and defrosters blasting as he tried to also sell me on Bradley. No luck. In the end, I told hi, the union guys were right. Wellstone himself would have been a much better candidate. Dont ask me how I know that. I just think I do.

[Abbas-Ali Abadani]

Marc: "I also really like Buchanan. He;s very personable and polite and LOVES to talk politics. And he's no dummy. Anyway, his isolationaist anti-war and protectionist trade positions overlap with a whole lot of lefties who post on this board. They would find more common ground than they dare allow themslves to think."

Lots of common ground and lots of disagreement with the man. I love The American Conservative even though I sometimes hate it -- one of the articles in the post-Katrina issue contained some of the most overt racism that I've seen in a widely available news magazine.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_10/article.html

Buchanan himself -- sometimes he's like a pitbull pouncing on deserving targets and shibboleths and tearing them to shreds, other times he's like a lapdog for the administration, the latter especially when he's on TV.

But Blankley is just always a shill. In print, on TV, roundtable discussions hosted by C-SPAN -- wherever he is, he knows who's buttering his bread and who's ass he's gotta kiss. And boy, one thing about that man, he knows how to kiss ass.

Speaking of which the latest issue, not yet online, includes a review of Blankley's latest book (sure to be a Rockford favorite) by Buchanan. One of his better pieces in recent issues and touches upon a lot that was discussed by yourself and the posters here in the previous thread -- "Dead Serious".

I'll try to transcribe some relevent excerpts tomorrow, when I get a chance.

I am with Thomas Frank on this one.

The Dems need to stop fighting cultural battles. They need a better public face. Micheal Moore and Ben Afleck are not going to do it. The Dems DO need to reconnect with regular people and stop caving into the wealthy urban cultural libs that seem to have so much influence.

The "styles in New Leftism" seen in the anti war movement needs to go away once and for all. We seem to be refighting the battles of the 60's over and over again. Read the last chapter of Kazin's "America Divided."

Mainstream Dems would probably be very suprised at how unconcerned regular working people are about Gay marriage and other cultural issues.