2008 election: paradigm shift?

[mattp]

There has been a lot of talk about whether or not Obama's election represents a mandate. My distinct impression is that the American public has voted FOR healthcare and AGAINST character-attack campaign tactics, but I'm less clear on how we've voted on taxes, foreign policy, and "social" issues. Thoughts?

 

Do you guys who predicted republican landslides for President and Governor have reason to re-evaluate where you think the "center" lies?

 

Or you, who say the Democrats are sellouts to "the middle," any real reason to think they will shift more toward your liking?

 

 

[marylou]

I think I'd like to see the Democratic party go back to being more to the left.

[hafilax]

The popular vote for POTUS was essentially 50-50. If the Democrats want to hold power they'll have to tread a fine line. Will they compromise their ideals to try and hold on to the swing voters? I would like to think that if the Americans benefit under the Dems that they will hold on but that would require the public understanding that benefits have been gained. I would like to see Obama push his full Domestic agenda as far as possible.

 

I think the foreign agenda really depends on if he can muster some help from Europe. Canada is on board for Afghanistan (not that we have that much to offer). We'll see what becomes of the saber rattling by Russia. I can't see the US pulling out of Iraq completely within the next 4 years but any work toward that goal will be appreciated.

[Fairweather]

The Dems hold virtually all of the cards by virtue of a free and fair vote. They are free to do what they want vis a vis Iraq/Afghanistan, Guantanomo, the WOT, health care, education, the economy, etc within the confines of the constitution. And, of course, senate Republicans are still free to stay up 24/7/365 and filibuster if they feel strongly enough about an issue. I can only speak for myself, but here are a few of the issues that almost all Republicans I am acquainted with would get riled up about:

 

Guns - Go ahead and close the gun-show loophole...and leave it at that. The rest is settled law in the opinions of most.

 

Freedom of Speech - If you try to revive the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" there will be hell to pay. And satellite radio will finally become economically viable.

 

401k - I would rather see mine evaporate than turn it over to the feds.

 

Raising the Capital Gains tax - I don't really think Obama is dumb enough to do it, but Nancy and Harry certainly are, and this action alone will decimate hopes for any quick economic recovery. I hope Obama is reconsidering.

 

Military - Obama is free to do what he thinks is right...even if he's wrong. But any attempts to purge the officer corps ala Chavez will be interpreted correctly as the action of a despot.

 

Nuclear Weapons - Only a complete moron would be naive enough to declare us on a path toward abolition of nukes, and I don't think Obama is a moron.

 

There ya go. Have fun with it.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2008 by Fairweather

[mattp]

I don't quite understand all of that Fairweather (is he proposing to take over your 401k or purge the officer corps - whatever that means?) but I'm wondering what you think the election says about your prior estimation of American politics? Do you think this was just a normal election cycle or are we going to see a significant change either in the level of partisan gamesmanship or in the overall political wind?

[mattp]

Oh. And nuclear weapons? Only a complete moron would think we need them all. You are not a moron, are you?

[Bug]

I weighed in earlier.

The faster Obama tries to change things, the more likely it is that he will lose seats in Congress in 2010.

he voters have clearly spoken that we need to move left of Bush/Palin governing and campaign styles. People are afraid.

The economy brought home the reality that the Bushites really do not have it al figured out. Many on the right, were too comfortable listening to Rush and beleiving it all. That crumbled in October.

But before that, there was a building sense of dread about the new ways Bush was exercising Presidential authority. If every president has the authority to write in changes to laws at the time of signing, what will Congress be other than a research branch? If we do not have to follow long established international laws nor work collaboratively with the international community to change them, then how long can we stay on top and what will happen to us if another empire rises to the top economically/militarily? China for instance - by 2020 they will almost certainly the largest economic force in the world. Under Bush we have been acting like a schoolyard bully. We cannot expect to be treated differently unless we change before we lose the position of being the dominant power on the planet.

[Fairweather]

You are not a moron, are you?

 

There you go with the name calling, Matt. I give a sincere response and you reply as expected.

[ivan]

You are not a moron, are you?

 

There you go with the name calling, Matt. I give a sincere response and you reply as expected.

perhaps he just thought you'd agree that we could use fewer nukes than we currently field?

 

seems like our submarine force alone is plenty of assurance - we do we need artillery, aircraft, missile and sub-based systems for? the subs are the most difficult for bad-guys to do anything about, so we not cut 99% of the rest?

[ivan]

oh, and yeah, what does "purging the officer corps" mean? was there some fear that any general that agreed w/ bush's war would be cashiered?

[Fairweather]

Obama has, in the past, discussed the complete abolition of nuclear weapons as goal he would like to "put us on the path toward". He hasn't said "everything but the subs". I'll see if I can find a You tube on it, but it's not in dispute. Our nuclear weapons program can't just be turned off and existing weapons left as silent sentinels against a future threat, they need to be upgraded constantly as they do have a shelf life. (I think the H3/Tritium gas used in the fusion stage of modern 'boosted' weapons decays pretty rapidly.) I sleep better knowing we have them. Why on earth would we ever give up our ace-in-the-hole?

[mattp]

Can you not consider or acknowledge that we might have more nuclear weapons than we could possibly need? I didn't call you any name in my prior post but referred to your same question about Obama. On the other hand, you certainly are some kind of extremist (you pick the flavor) if you cannot fathom the possibility that we could cut our nuclear weapons arsenal even a tiny bit of if you suggest that any talk of pursuing disarmament is the path of a moron.

 

Once again: do you see in this election ANY shift in American politics or is it just politics as usual? The fact that Obama won overwhelmingly with young voters and hispanics, two growing populations, any cause for concern?

[Bug]

No cause for concern here.

Younger voter means better schools.

Older voters means less funding for education.

Our education system is what puts us in the top position.

The less educated we are, the more likely we are to vote for Bush or someone like him. The more likely we are to trust our government instead of reading newspapers and writing to our people in congress.

No Child left behind was a smoke screen for cutting education and putting the burden back on the states.

[mattp]

Apart from whether we could live with a single less warhead, Fairweather, what do you think the election said - if anything - about Americans' feelings about our military preparedness? McCain certainly expressed a lot less interest in diplomacy and a tougher rhetorical stance on terrorism but didn't he also at least in a vague way stand for a bigger military than Obama?

 

I don't think reducing our nuclear arsenal is very high on Obama's list of priorities at the moment and I can't imagine him taking any unilateral step toward disarmament except as some kind of efficiency or modernization effort but don't you think he could win points with voters if he at least once in a while says that there are too many nuclear weapons in this world and we should consider dusting off some of the old arms control agreements taht Bush and Co. sought to set aside?

[mattp]

I hope you are right about stronger voting for education, Bug, but I didn't see it as a big issue in this election. Yes, leave all the children behind may not be popular right now and I think the general notion that educated people are by definition "out of touch" didn't seem to play well but do you think our overall electorate is going to support increased funding for public education (one of few areas where they often get a vote on taxes) or more funding for research or, say, student loans?

 

Seattle has often voted for public transportation and parks levy's, and the Superintendent race could just as much have to do with dislike for the WASL as anything else, so I'm not sure we can see local results indicative of a trend.

[builder206]

The popular vote for POTUS was essentially 50-50. If the Democrats want to hold power they'll have to tread a fine line.

 

2000 election

Dem. 50,456,002 or 47.9%

Rep. 50,999,897 or 48.4%

 

delta 0.5%

 

2008 election

Dem. 65,431,955 or 52.6%

Rep. 57,434,084 or 46.1%

 

delta 6.5%

 

You’re irrelevant.

[Bug]

Actually, Obama made a strong stand on improving federal support for education in two of the debates (I didn't see the first one)his infomercial, and his acceptance speech.

That don't mean we can cash the check but it was very strong wording.

[Fairweather]

Can you not consider or acknowledge that we might have more nuclear weapons than we could possibly need? I didn't call you any name in my prior post but referred to your same question about Obama. On the other hand, you certainly are some kind of extremist (you pick the flavor) if you cannot fathom the possibility that we could cut our nuclear weapons arsenal even a tiny bit of if you suggest that any talk of pursuing disarmament is the path of a moron.

 

Once again: do you see in this election ANY shift in American politics or is it just politics as usual? The fact that Obama won overwhelmingly with young voters and hispanics, two growing populations, any cause for concern?

 

Sorry Matt, but I'm more interested in exchanging ideas with folks like Ivan who are actually interested in exchange. Go ahead and put me on ignore. Meanwhile, here is an article you may find interesting:

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/09/healthscience/09agin.php

[mattp]

Sorry Matt, but I'm more interested in exchanging ideas with folks like Ivan who are actually interested in exchange. Go ahead and put me on ignore. Meanwhile, here is an article you may find interesting: [link to page on mental deficiency]

 

Too bad. I actually look forward to discussing these issues with you. I've learned something from all of this debate on cc.com over the years and I value it. I'm not putting you on "ignore," but if you have decided not to converse with me I will genuinely miss you.

[ivan]

 

Sorry Matt, but I'm more interested in exchanging ideas with folks like Ivan who are actually interested in exchange. Go ahead and put me on ignore. Meanwhile, here is an article you may find interesting:

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/09/healthscience/09agin.php

hmm, it's a rather grim situation when i cast as a target audience

 

actually i was payign attention to this conversation between you and matt b/c i thought the question(s) he posed were faithful and interesting ones - so maybe just answer them for me?

 

do we in fact need the size of nuclear forces we currently employ? do we need the filthy expense of so many redunant systems, especially in time of record deficit? wasn't clinton's budget surplus due in good measure to a reduction in military expenditures, which is obviously a massive chunk of the federal pie? if you're willing to accept some reduction, how much? what's the minimum amount of megatons we need on hand at a given moment (it's not like we'd have to restart the whole damned manhattan project to produce more in an event of a serous conflict anyway, right?)?

 

i am of course not at all aware of our current nuclear inventory (and i would imagine such a # is and always will be a pretty closely held secret, no matter what might be publicly declared), but, it X is the amount required to pretty much destroy all human life on earth, i would imagine a very conservative estimate for us right now is 50X - if this were so, i'd see little danger in reducing that to less than 10X, especially if, in the process, we could save save a 100$ billion

 

matt - at what point in my cc.com life did i blink? how is it that you inspire such animosity? seems like you've always been the sober guy at the party not acting like an asshole and often playing the role of the guy prying car keys and knives out of dumb-ass mother-fuckers hands? do you like, pm these guys and let mr. hyde write the copy?!? guess i haven't alwasy been paying that much attention to spray

[mattp]

Ivan, I try to minimize my participation in these "you are the asshole" vs. "no: you are the asshole" discussions. Once in a while I get dragged into the muck, and I'm usually embarrassed when I do.

 

In the present context, I will tell you that I have not in fact engaged in any behind-the-scenes effort to stir the pot (in fact I've tried to make peace on many occasions with someone who just flamed me).

 

I won't divulge the nature of or senders of private messages I have received which have berated me for posting well stated messages when they didn't have time to reply in kind, or when cc.com poster s have actively threatened me. At this point, it would seem only to inflate things. I know that I annoy some folks with my tenacity, and I know that some folks have found my "tone" condescending but I can't really see how I have come anywhere near close to as offensive as lots of people around here. If someone wants to offer me some pointers, please send a private message.

 

Anyway, I appreciate that some of you have felt the need to defend me in the past week, but I'd rather get back to the issues.

[bradleym]

There has been a lot of talk about whether or not Obama's election represents a mandate. My distinct impression is that the American public has voted FOR healthcare and AGAINST character-attack campaign tactics, but I'm less clear on how we've voted on taxes, foreign policy, and "social" issues. Thoughts?

 

Do you guys who predicted republican landslides for President and Governor have reason to re-evaluate where you think the "center" lies?

 

Or you, who say the Democrats are sellouts to "the middle," any real reason to think they will shift more toward your liking?

 

 

To extend your point about character-attack ads, I think that Obama's strongest constituencies have signaled their desire to end the tired issues and labels of the past (guns, socialism, left/right, pro-choice/pro-life (gag!), 'welfare-queens', 'deficit-hawks', etc.) that are near meaningless in the current context. In short, to minimize ideology and to focus on pragmatism, intelligence, sober and far-reaching evaluations of where we stand and what might work, and to broaden the perspective beyond our shores. To be sure, those old categories and labels still mobilize a lot of people, and many hot-button, litmus-test issues will remain in the future, but they have less hold than they once did, and generational change is helping with that.

 

Krugman illustrates the trend in this morning's article, in which he explains how keyneysianism has gotten a bad rep from the ideological right who have glossed over certain factors in the widespread assertion that only wwII got us out of the depression. that may be true, but the reason is that wwII finally saw the implementation of true keynesianism.

 

The electorate signalled a desire to drop those old lenses when evaluating policy, and to focus on what might work. With respect to keynesianism, we're doing it anyway, so why not embrace it comprehensively and take a longer view?

 

anyway, my tuppence before the coffee has kicked in....

[bradleym]

oh, and yeah, what does "purging the officer corps" mean? was there some fear that any general that agreed w/ bush's war would be cashiered?

 

i think the example is how officers who disagreed with rummy's approach to Iraq were 'purged'.

[bradleym]

Obama has, in the past, discussed the complete abolition of nuclear weapons as goal he would like to "put us on the path toward". He hasn't said "everything but the subs". I'll see if I can find a You tube on it, but it's not in dispute. Our nuclear weapons program can't just be turned off and existing weapons left as silent sentinels against a future threat, they need to be upgraded constantly as they do have a shelf life. (I think the H3/Tritium gas used in the fusion stage of modern 'boosted' weapons decays pretty rapidly.) I sleep better knowing we have them. Why on earth would we ever give up our ace-in-the-hole?

 

How could any of us not agree with the desire to remove all nuclear weapons from the face of the planet? That said, I seriously doubt that Obama is going to do so unilaterally unless the other guys do too, in a way that can be verified.

 

This is a non-issue.

[bradleym]

Actually, Obama made a strong stand on improving federal support for education in two of the debates (I didn't see the first one)his infomercial, and his acceptance speech.

That don't mean we can cash the check but it was very strong wording.

 

early childhood education has been demonstrated time and again to improve the lives of those who receive it, and therefore all of our futures, and Obama has stated strong support for it many times. I agree that this was something for which the electorate expressed strong support.