Beinart on progressives and the threat of terrorism

U.S. News and World Report has a great interview with New Republic Editor at Large Peter Beinart on Democrats and national security issues. See link http://tinyurl.com/qe2j9 There are two great quotes from Beinart in the article that I think hit the nail on the head.

"The Bush administration has wielded the threat of another (terrorist) attack in such a promiscuous and politically opportunistic way that some liberals have responded by believing the threat is a Republican creation."

"The argument with the left is that it's dangerous to equate American greatness with American purity. If you demand that America be unequivocally virtuous, you create a situation in which America can't act. In the real world of international affairs, you can't maintain complete moral purity in fighting evil."

Sunday's Boston Globe had a very interesting article about divisions among Democrats concerning national security and foreign policy. See link to article athttp://tinyurl.com/my393 It is amazing that only 54 percent of Democrats now support the invasion of Afghanistan. I wonder what the percentages would be for party activists ? We can certainly oppose the war in Iraq and the Republicans cynical manipulation of 9/11 without buying into the absurd notion that Islamic terrorism poses no threat to Americans.

* "MUDCAT" - COMMON SENSE POLITICAL ADVISER TO DEMOCRATS

"Mudcat" sounds like a rather primitive nickname but Dave Saunders, a good ole boy from rural Virginia, offers some sound advice to prominent Democrats on how to build a Democratic majority. Saunders offers a refreshing perspective to the Democratic Party on how to reach out to the South and Middle America. Here are some excerpts from an article from the UK Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ about "Mudcat" and his political strategies for winning over Red America.

"A gun-loving, stock-car racing-mad country boy, Dave 'Mudcat' Saunders has to be America's most improbable Democratic consultant. In Washington, interns can be seen flicking through his new book Foxes in the Henhouse - How the Republicans stole the south and the heartland and what the Democrats must do to run 'em out."

"Three weeks ago the Democrats' leader in the senate, Harry Reid, summoned him to a secret meeting of the party's senators, in Philadelphia, to tell them what they needed to do."I chastened them a little," he said. "I spoke for an hour and a quarter and I told them in plain English what was wrong. They think in New England that we [rural Americans] in the South sit around and say how much we hate gays and discuss who we can go and lynch."

"Mudcat helped to secure a remarkable victory for a Democrat, Mark Warner, as the last governor of Virgina, a very conservative state, by touting him at bluegrass festivals and stock-car races. Now he wants to repeat that on a national level."

"He has a simple message to the Democrats to take on the Republicans on their own turf: "No one is going to outgun and outpray us."

Mudcat's political advice sounds like common sense to me, but that is something often in short supply in Washington among both parties.

* HOW TO HELP MEXICANS WITHOUT HURTING POOR AMERICANS

David Kohlhoff makes some excellent points on the Blue Dog Blog http://www.bluedogdemocrat.org/blog about how to help our neighbors in Mexico without harming poor Americans. The idea of a Marshall Plan for Mexico certainly has merit. There is no question that the Mexican people are in a desperate situation. A survey of Mexican adults conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center indicated that forty percent of Mexican adults would like to immigrate to the United States. The desire to leave Mexico is high even among the more educated and skilled citizenry. Half of Mexicans with a high school diploma want to cross the border and one third of college graduates would like to move north.

I think that David is right that something must be done to improve the situation in Mexico without opening the border and hurting our own poorest citizens. We certainly cannot absorb huge numbers of unskilled workers and while the U.S. would likely benefit from an influx of educated and skilled Mexicans - it would also harm Mexico by drawing away some of their brightest citizens. Of course, pressure needs to be placed on Mexico to adopt measures to reduce corruption, drug trafficking and bring more professionalism to their legal system.

I am not sure if the Chilean model for economic reform that David suggests is the answer. It is my understanding that Mexico like many of the other Latin American countries have cumbersome regulatory procedures that discourage the opening of new businesses. That should be changed but I would hate to see Mexico adopt the same sort of extreme free market economic policies that have brought greater job insecurity and income inequality to the United States. Chile has actually taken the free market policies a step farther than the U.S.in privatizing their equivalent of Social Security. The Chilean pension privatization has been a tremendous windfall for the pension plan companies but with certainly mixed results for their nation's retirees.

A better role model for Mexico might be Costa Rica which despite some recent political scandals has a long history of stable democracy. Costa Rica also has low unemployment and a strong safety net.

One of the best ways to help Mexico would be to change our trade policies and buy more stuff made by our neighbors south of the border and less from China. We have a much larger trade deficit with China than with Mexico. I was opposed to NAFTA and believe that our nation needs to maintain its manufacturing capacity, but if we are going to import cheap goods let's do business with our neighbors rather than our potential adversaries in totalitarian China. In the 90's,the Clinton Adminstration and the Republican Congress were so eager for global free trade that they signed GAAT opening the door wide open to Chinese goods and hurting Mexico after only a few years of NAFTA. Thanks to our government's foolish decision to rush into GAAT, factories were closed in Mexico and moved to China.

I despise "free trade" policies, but given the public and business demand for cheap goods - our trade practices would be make more sense if we emphasized regional rather than global trading partnerships. It is better that we give our dollars to Mexico than to China. Certainly our trade policies should be modified in a manner that will put pressure on our trading partners to gradually improve their labor and environmental standards. Expanding collective bargaining and requiring companies to pay a living wage in Mexico would help to broaden prosperity.

* BAYH CALLS FOR BALANCED APPROACH ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN) has called for a balanced approach on national security and civil liberties. the May 19 edition to the Des Moines Register reported:

"We've got to do two things here," the Indiana Democrat said during an interview in Des Moines. "We have to do what we need to do to protect our country. Lives are at stake. But we have to do that in a way that protects our civil liberties,and I've seen nothing that tells me we have to choose one or the other. I think we can do both."

"We have to prove that we can be good stewards of our national security, because if people don't first trust us with their lives, they're not going to trust us with anything else."

"Bayh said an independent federal judge should be allowed to monitor the government's wiretapping programs so terrorists can be identified."

"It's important to be able to do that," he said, referring to wiretapping. Without oversight, however, "too many Americans are going to think that J. Edgar Hoover has come back to life and is rummaging through their private communications, and that's not right." See full article at http://tinyurl.com/fgybr

Evan Bayh sounds like the kind of Democrat who can give our party a strong voice on national security issues. No thinking American wants to surrender our liberties and at the same time, we need to be vigilant about the threat of terrorism. Senator Bayh seems to have found the right balance on this critical matter.

* FLORIDA DEMOCRAT BACKS OFFICIAL ENGLISH

Congratulations to Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) along with nine other Senate Democrats for voting to make English our national language despite tremendous pressures to do otherwise. And shame on our Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid for labeling the official English movement as "racist." Reid's comments show just how out of touch our Democratic Party leaders can be with mainstream American views. 84% of the American public including 77% of Hispanics favor English as the official language according to a 2006 Zogby poll. In the same poll, 92 % of Republicans, 82% of Democrats and 77% of Independent voters favored official English. There is certainly nothing wrong with learning and speaking other languages, but strong nations are united by a common language.

* SIROTA ON WHAT DEFINES A DEMOCRAT

I am not a big fan of David Sirota, but agree with him that our party should return to being a voice for working families rather than being defined solely by social issues. The quotes below are from an article in Sunday's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

"The Democrats may win the November election. They might even take back the White House in 2008. But unless Democtic officeholders shuck their reliance on corporate cash and return to fighting for working families, says David Sirota, his party will be better off losing."
"There is always going to be a big-business party in this country. There always has been," says Sirota. "But we have had equilibrium in the past because there has always been a party of the little guy."

"Then, he says, "big business realized the way to really maximize its agenda was to water down and weaken the counterweight."

"Ultimately, what remains to distinguish Democrats from Republicans is not a commitment to the little guy, but positions on abortion, gun control, gay rights and other social issues."

"There is a very rational decision by many people to prioritize cultural issues when they go to the ballot box because they think both parties fail to represent them on economic issues," says Sirota. "And so they vote for the person who more culturally fits what they believe."

"Sirota doesn't think Democrats should abandon their historic commitment to social causes, but he wants them to raise economic issues back to an equal plane. Pro-lifers will get hissed and shunned at party meetings and conventions, he points out, while big-business Democrats shipping jobs overseas get welcomed."

"It is a matter of emphasis. What do you emphasize with your orthodoxy?" he says. "It doesn't make sense for it to be OK to sell out people economically - as long as you are pro-choice." Link to full article at http://tinyurl.com/mn7e4

What Sirotra says is true, in fact, many of the "rich,white and secular" social liberal activists in today's Democratic Party have rather anti-populist views on economics. If born twenty years earlier, many of today's social liberal Democrats would have been Rockefeller Republicans. The social issues have come to define both parties which is why so many working and lower middle class Americans vote against their own economic interests.

Washington Post:GOP is not law-and-order party on illegal immigration

Today's Washington Post cites a report by the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way concerning illegal immigration. A newly released Third Way clearly demonstrates that the Bush Administration has no intention of actively enforcing our immigration laws, but rather is more interested in assuring that big business interests continue to have a flow of cheap labor. See full Post article at: http://tinyurl.com/j6ero

"The report shows that the administration, despite their tough talk, is failing at border security and enforcing the employer sanctions provision," New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said. "It makes them vulnerable in what is their biggest and strongest argument -- that they are enforcing the law against illegal workers and are effective on border security."

"According to the report, federal data show that the number of agents more than doubled between 1995 and 2005, but that border apprehensions have fallen about 31 percent. From fiscal 1996 to fiscal 2000, apprehensions averaged 1.52 million a year. The number fell to an average of 1.05 million from fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2004."

"Away from the border, a similar pattern has occurred, with apprehensions falling an estimated 36 percent. 'This decline trend and low overall total suggests that illegal immigrants who escape beyond the border are more or less here to stay if they choose,' according to the report.

A third count in the Third Way indictment charges that the administration has been lax in punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants. 'Either the administration has no interest in enforcing the law, or there's a wink' at employers who hire illegal immigrants, Richardson said.

* HOWARD DEAN SAYS DEMOCRATS FAVOR "ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN" MARRIAGE

The Kansas City Star today reported that Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has been responding to attacks from gay activists and left-leaning bloggers for statements last week on the Christian Broadcasting Network about gay marriage. http://tinyurl.com/z3h3h According to the Star, Dean told CBN that the Democratic Party platform affirms marriage as between "a man and a woman."

"Dean acknowledged he was wrong about the party’s platform about gay marriage. Trying to reach out to evangelicals, he said the Democratic platform specifically said that 'marriage is between a man and a woman' But the platform does not define marriage this way."

"Dean: 'I misstated the Democratic Party’s platform, which does not say that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman, but says the party is committed to full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and leaves the issue to the states to decide."

Well, most of us in the Democratic Party and I think a majority of Americans favor equal protection for gays and lesbians in employment and housing. We condemn violence against gays and lesbians and might favor local domestic partnership registrations which already exist in a number of major cities and urban counties.

The reality is though that the vast majority of Americans and I suspect a majority of rank and file Democrats believe that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. Even Howard Dean just stated last week that "one man and one woman" marriage is the position of the Democratic Party.

Gay marriage is a divisive issue and perceptions that Democrats favor it threaten our ability to appeal to mainstream America. Our party should give a fair hearing to gay and lesbian concerns, but we also need to be inclusive of socially traditionalist and religious voters as well. If Howard Dean says that the Democratic Party affirms traditional marriage in our platform, why not make it so ?

Abolishing DOD: A radical idea that makes sense

Freedom Democrats http://freedomdemocrats.com/ called my attention to a creative post from the Daily Kos. I often disagree with the very left-leaning types at the Daily Kos, but one of their contributors has come up with a radical idea that makes sense. Why not abolish the Department of Defense ? It would be one way to get rid of Donald Rumsfeld and the Kos columnist gives some great suggestions as to how a more efficient structure might be organized. We simply don't need a vast civilian bureaucracy at the Pentagon. While the military must continue to be headed by a civilian commander, our men and women in uniform can best carry out the functions of our national defense. See link to the Kos column at http://tinyurl.com/kfm8p

"First, anyone who is wearing a uniform is transferred to the new Department of Uniformed Services. This means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, etc. This department fights battles. Period. It should be headed by a military group like the Joint Chiefs. If you don't wear a uniform, you don't work in this department. There would be a civilian top-level directorate as now."

"Second, there is all the indirect work done using DoD contracts. This includes procurement, weapons R&D and allied development work. Things like the Army Corp of Engineers and similar non-military functions should be transferred to another department such as Homeland Security or Interior. Perhaps if there is enough engineering and infrastructure work spread throughout the government we should have a dedicated civil engineering department. FEMA might also be put into this organization. This department could be called something like Military Support Services."

"Third, intelligence gathering and analysis not related to battlefield activity should be consolidated into a single department. This includes most of the present pentagon intelligence operations, the CIA and the NSA, and, perhaps, parts of the FBI. Clandestine operations of a non-intelligence operation should be removed from the CIA and into Uniformed Services. Spy agencies are not supposed to be overthrowing governments or trying to assassinate foreign nationals. This would be the Department of Intelligence Services."

"Dividing things this way would improve things in several respects. Weapons procurement and R&D would be evaluated by Support Services, an independent group. This would eliminate inter-branch rivalry. Pulling strings within DoD would not get your pet weapons system approved, for example. Similar efficiencies would arise from the ability of all intelligence services being organized by mission rather than which branch of the military they support. Having each department with its own cabinet member and dedicated congressional oversight committees would also prevent the type of funds shifting which goes on now."

"There is also no reason to keep the size (and many of the details) of the Intelligence Services' budget secret. Knowing how big it is does not impair security, but does give the civilian overseers and the voting public the ability to evaluate the cost/benefit of the department. Turf wars like those going on now between the CIA and DoD would be eliminated as well. Even conservative supporters of a big military should be in favor of streamlining "bloated" government bureaucracies."

As a "Scoop Jackson Democrat," I have long advocated a strong defense and a hard-line approach to matters of national security. Getting rid of the wasteful DoD and empowering our military to protect America is a common sense idea that deserves serious consideration.

* WHY DEMOCRATS MUST TAKE THE LEAD ON NATIONAL SECURITY

Writing in Real Clear Politics, Tom Bevan makes a strong case that Democratic center must reassert itself and our party must take a tough stand on national security matters to prevail at the polls. See link to full column at http://tinyurl.com/pvr43 Bevans quotes from Senator Evan Bayh who recently gave a great speech to the National Press Club on the need for Democrats to respond effectively to the challenge of militant Islam just as FDR, Truman and JFK stood against the threats of fascism and communism.

Here is an excerpt from Bevan's column:

"Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, both DLC centrists and possible 2008 presidential candidates, spoke at the event (a National Press Club forum to publicize a new book by Democratic defense and foreign policy experts) on Tuesday. While the two offered plenty of sharp criticism of the Bush administration's foreign policy, their message to the party could not have been clearer: Democrats must reclaim the aggressive foreign policy heritage of FDR, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy if they want to reclaim power." Bayh told the group:

"If you ask me why we lost the last presidential election, I'd say more than anything else, it was because of our perceived problems with national security, broadly defined, and the war on terror, more specifically. We still have a hurdle to cross with the American people in convincing them that we can be both tough and smart when it comes to securing America.
And we're not going to be able to have a dialogue with the American people on all the other issues that we do so well on -- health care, education, the environment, jobs. They're not going to trust us on those things if they don't first trust us with their lives."

"This is, of course, what the centrists have been saying for some time. In December 2004 Peter Beinart wrote an article in The New Republic entitled "The Fighting Faith" arguing that liberalism had failed to be fundamentally reshaped by the attacks of September 11. Beinart wrote that while Democrats were still energized by traditional domestic issues like healthcare, the environment and gay rights, he could find "little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda." Beinart eventually signed on to expand the centrist thesis of his essay into a book that will hit the shelves next month The Good Fight : Why Liberals---and Only Liberals---Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again."

"With the next presidential election more than two years away, it's far too early to tell which side will prevail. It's going to be a long, important fight with some very serious potential consequences. For the moment, at least, the centrists have fought back and taken the offensive. Time will tell if they can hold on to it." http://realclearpolitics.com

Democrats need to follow the example of FDR, Truman and JFK and take the lead in the war on terrorism. The Republicans have shown that they lack a real concern for protecting our national security interests and it would be a disaster for the Democrats to follow the path of the Moveonner Left toward pacifism and isolationism.

* THE "FAIR TAX" AND "JUST GIVE THEM MONEY" !

Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) is not only attempting a political comeback 25 years after leaving public life but aiming for the White House. Gravel is the first major Democratic figure to come out in favor of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax promoted as the "fair tax." Gravel is the most prominent although certainly not the only Democrat to endorse such a plan which has been embraced by many conservative Republicans, the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian-oriented Freedom Democrats.

In my view, progressive income taxes are more fair than relying on sales and property taxes for all government revenue. If the "fair tax" were enacted, we would either end up slashing the federal budget to the point of eliminating basic functions of government or greatly raising the price of goods through very high sales taxes. Even if food, medicine and inexpensive items of clothing could be exempted from the "fair tax", I think the middle and working class would still end up paying a disappropriate share of taxes as a relatively frugal wealthy person might pay little more than many solidly middle class individuals.

The notion that the IRS could be abolished with the "fair tax" is probably wrong as our state tax agencies are not able to do an effective job of making sure that businesses are paying their state sales taxes. In my home state of Florida, our Republican Governor and Legislature have sharply reduced the number of state tax agents. This situation has basically giving a free pass to unethical businesses that might be tempted to pocket sales tax receipts and depend on the voluntarily compliance of major companies. Some kind of federal tax agency would still be needed to properly monitor the payment of sales taxes by businesses engaged in interstate commerce and to investigate as tax fraud involving multiple states.

Furthermore, progressive taxation encourages wealthy individuals to give generously to charities in order to get tax breaks. If we ever go to a purely sales tax based system or a flat tax with no deductions, the amount of money given to private charities will probably drop sharply. Social service agencies, relief organizations, arts and cultural activities will be eliminated or be scaled back considerably. And I suspect there is a hidden secularist, anti-religion agenda behind the "fair tax" as it will sharply reduce the amount of contributions going to churches, synagogues and other religious organizations.

I agree that something needs to done to increase the savings rate and reduce mindless consumption but the "fair tax" is not the solution.

Interestingly, another idea advanced back in the early 70's by then Senator Gravel - a guaranteed annual income for all Americans is coming to the forefront again. Mark Satin of the Radical Middle Newsletter is promoting the concept of replacing all entitlement programs with a single annual cash payment of ten thousand dollars to every American. See http://tinyurl.com/zdqej I'm not sure this idea would work, but it is an interesting concept. I have generally favored an approach to poverty that is a mix of the Daddy State and Nanny State mindset that balances a willingness to help the poor with a certain amount of tough love for those who abuse the system. The Rich Uncle State approach doesn't work and the Absent Parent State is just too anti-humanitarian in my view.

Another idea along similar lines is a proposal by Congressman Harold Ford to establish a savings account at birth for every child. See link http://tinyurl.com/gwcp5 Ford's idea could be an effective weapon to reduce poverty and also improve the savings rate among Americans.

* THOUGHTS ON DEMOCRATIC MISALLIANCES

Dissent, a left-leaning journal of opinion, recently posted a though provoking
article "Democratic Misalliances" by Benjamin Ross from Spring 2003 to their online archives http://tinyurl.com/z2rdu While the essay is now almost three years old, it is still quite timely. I think that Ross makes an excellent point that elitists within the Democratic Party from the 70's McGovernites to New Democrats and in my view - now the Moveonner Left have captured the party and moved it away from the traditions of representing working families.

Although I like some of the DLC's positions on things like national security and charter schools, but don't care for much of their economic agenda which is simply too free market and big business oriented for my taste. Many of the New Democrats in the 90's held strongly liberal positions issues like gun control and abortion - issues that were important for the McGovernites and the Moveonner Left today. There is common ground with the McGovernites in the 70's to the New Democrats of the 90's to the Moveonner Left types of the 21stCentury in terms of their focus on the concerns of upscale and highly educated segments of the population as opposed to the poor, the working class and the lower middle class.

All of these movements assumed that racial minorities would inevitably go along for the ride despite the neglect of working class concerns and values, however, that will not continue indefinitely. At some point, Democrats are going to have to return to a mainstream and working class-oriented populism. The DLC and Moveonner factions in my view are both examples of how our party has gone astray.