Can I get an Amen?

Isn't it just like Democrats to respond to an outrage like the excommunication of party members from a North Carolina church by talking about taxes?

The head of the North Carolina Democratic Party sharply criticized the pastor Friday, saying Chandler jeopardized his church's tax-free status by openly supporting a candidate for president.

''If these reports are true, this minister is not only acting extremely inappropriately by injecting partisan politics into a house of worship, but he is also potentially breaking the law,'' Chairman Jerry Meek said.

eriposte has it exactly right:

[...] You have to also fight back on religion with religion. You have to fight religious extremists by pointing out that they are charlatans who are distorting their religion. You have to point out that they are deeply un-Christian. [...]

[...]

In a nutshell, the word immoral is tremendously underused by Democrats. It's time to change that because you can't win on "moral values" if you are unprepared to say what is moral and what is not.

When Bill Frist announced that he was going to speak to the "Justice Sunday" crowd, Harry Reid rightly expressed outrage at his actions. But Reid didn't talk about separation of church and state. He talked about how Frist's action insulted Reid as a Christian! Even Christians who don't agree with Reid politically can sympathize with him on religious grounds. Frist's actions were an insult to all Christians who don't follow the doctrinaire line that the Dobson crowd is pushing (i.e., the large majority of all Christians). But if Reid had attack him purely on the grounds of mixing church and state he would have quickly lost that battle. By making accepting that the fight was about religion and fighting back on those grounds he put Frist in the uncomfortable position of siding with the inquisitorial branch of the church.

Democrats: Republicans do not own religion. Don't let them claim they do.

God is not partisan.

Fight fire with fire!

Judgment is the issue

Jerome Armstrong comments on Bill Clinton's suggestion that it is time for Democrats to put forward a plan for Social Security:

Clinton will be dead and gone before Social Security needs to be changed, but he's decided that he's had enough of seeing Bush get his ass kicked by Democrats over the issue of Social Security. Did the Republicans come up with a plan when the Clintons tried to reform Healthcare?  No, and that's why Bill Clinton got the Democratic Congressional leadership's head handed to him after the '94 midterm election. Now though, Clinton is supplying Republican talking points:

Former President Bill Clinton: "[I] Think [Democrats] Need To Come Up With A Plan Of Their Own." (ABC's "Saturday Good Morning America," 5/7/05, Via ABC News' "The Note," 5/5/05)

President Clinton: "I Think The Democrats Should Say What They Are For On Social Security In The Next Couple Weeks ... The Democrats Should Have A Plan And They Should Talk To The President And The Congressional Republicans About It." (ABC's "Saturday Good Morning America," 5/7/05, Via ABC News' "The Note," 5/5/05)

Let me guess, Hillary has a plan; let me guess, it raises taxes; let me guess, the Clinton's are going to find a way for themselves to shine while the Democratic Party gets beat again.

The Democratic Plan is already in action-- it's called Social Security.

The Democrat's problem has been that they have been all to willing to lend the Republicans a helping hand just when they are most in trouble. They don't have the killer instinct when it comes to taking advantage of the blunders of the opposition. Does this mean that they are wimps? No, it just means that they, generally, think beyond the simple calculus of political advantage over the opposition and factor into it the greater needs of society (i.e., they are the more responsible of the two parties). Clinton's suggestion that Democrats should have a plan for Social Security is not, in itself, a bad thing. Democrats should have plans for all the major issues of the day.

So what is the problem with Clinton's suggestion? Is it simply, as Jerome suggests, that Clinton is trying to use the situation to the advantage of his wife at the expense of wider Democratic goals? I prefer to leave questions of motivation out of this. Clinton may honestly believe that it is to the Democrats advantage to counter Bush's privatization plans with plans of their own. Unfortunately, like so many short-sighted Democrats of recent years, Clinton doesn't appear to understand that just offering a counter-plan provides justification to the Republican initiative.

And that, I think, is where Democrats get into trouble. It's not that Social Security doesn't have problems that need addressing. It's that Democrats allow the Republicans to frame the terms of the debate and to set the agenda of what will be debated.

Regardless of whether Democrats take up Clinton's suggestion or not, they will still give the appearance of being purely reactionary in their public policy. Bush made Social Security his #1 domestic issue. By offering a counter proposal, the Democrats would, more then anything, validate Bush's assertion that it is the #1 domestic problem facing the country today. But by offering nothing they will also be validating that agenda, albeit indirectly, by ceding to Bush the authority to set the agenda.

This is where Democrats need to fight back, not on whether Social Security needs to be fixed but instead on Bush's placement of it at the top of the domestic agenda. We need to question Bush's judgment when it comes to setting priorities. Why has Bush devoted so much energy to this issue when there are much more pressing problems clamoring for attention (e.g., health care, the national debt, etc.)

And Bush's questionable judgment isn't limited to Social Security. Dubya has a habit of focusing on the middling problems while shoving off the bigger problems to someone else to solve. We see this domestically, but we also see it in foreign policy, where Bush chose to move Iraq ahead of issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, North Korea and yes, even international terrorism (though he used the latter as an excuse to justify his invasion of Iraq).

Bush repeatedly demonstrates poor judgment when it comes to setting the agenda of the US government, both foreign and domestic. By offering a counter-proposals to Bush's initiatives, Democrats are simply validating his agenda decisions. By ceding to him the authority to set the agenda the Democrats are giving up on the most devastating critique they could make of his Presidency.

Social Security faces problems, but they are not the most pressing problems we face domestically. Bush has chosen to make it the #1 issue through a combination of incompetence, ideology and as a payoff to the special interests that back him.

Iraq was a problem, but it wasn't the most pressing problem we faced internationally. Bush chose to make it the #1 issue through a combination of incompetence, ideology and as a payoff to the special interests that back him.

Judgment is the issue.

Save Paris Hilton's Inheritance

"Don't Tax Me Because I'm Filthy Rich!"

How long until Bush is deified?

Being a Republican or a Democrat isn't just a matter of faith. It is an actual faith.

At least that's what Dick Cheney says:

[snip] If we don't do anything at all, if we just stay where a lot of people have said we ought to stay -- there are a number of members of Congress of the other faith who have said that we don't need to do anything -- well, if you don't do anything, the net result will be, for somebody today, say, in their 30s, by the time they get to retirement age, their benefit levels are going to be cut some 26 percent or 27 percent. Automatic, that's what will happen with today's existing law.

There's more at the link.

These two politicians walk into a bar...

What Democratic politicians can learn from standup comedians from someone who has spent years trying to win over hostile crowds. Highly recommended.

Social Security Endgame?

Paul Waldman suggests a possible endgame to the Social Security fight. Bush will push both private accounts and progressive indexing. When it is clear that the Democrats won't budge on the private accounts, he will offer the "Grand Compromise". He will drop private accounts (the Dems #1 demand before negotiations continue) in exchange for some form of progressive indexing (which will turn Social Security into a welfare program and will eventually cripple it so that it can be killed later). If Democrats refuse they will be painted as the intransigent ones who aren't serious about "fixing" Social Security.

This is a real possibility, if we are to believe that Bush's primary motivation is an ideological desire to kill Social Security. But I'm not as convinced of that as I used to be. Oh sure, Bush, like any Good Republican, wants to put a stake through FDR's signature program. But Dubya's unrelenting drive on private accounts over the last few months leads me to believe that it is that which is the primary motivation for Bush putting so much of his political capital behind this push. Why? Because crippling Social Security, while ideologically nice, won't pay any quick dividends.

Private accounts, on the other hand, will bring about the almost immediate transfer of billions in Social Security trust fund dollars into the coffers of the investment world. That's a nice pay off for Bush's backers. But even more important, it will act as a pump to the economy going into the 2006/2008 election season.

The truth of the matter is that Republican economic policies have been disastarous for this country. But Republicans, being good businessmen, have been able to mask most of those problems by that old standby of the investment world: fresh infusions of cash. The Republicans have transferred huge somes of money from government coffers into the economy in a desparate attempt to keep the economy affloat. Tax cuts on the wealthy have been the primary method of bring about this transfer, but that particular well has almost run dry. The Social Security Trust Fund is the last big pile of cash left to be raided. If the Republican's don't succeed in turning that money over to Wall Street then they risk the truly awful effects of their policies becoming evident to all.

Private Accounts are absolutely necessary for Republicans to continue maintaining the illusion that they are better managers of the economy then Democrats. And that is even more important than the wet dream of abolishing Social Security completely. The fact that Private Accounts will also lead to Social Security's destruction is just an added benefit.

Dazzled by numbers

Typical. All they pay attention to is the numbers (3 million!) without looking into the substance of the claim.

Maybe someone should simply comission a poll of Kerry supporters to see if they think he should run again?

Myth Busters

Let me start this by saying that I understand Ruy Teixeira's basic point that Democrat's fascination with certain "myths of renewel" are just another example of avoiding the hard work of real renewel. I agree that we have to guard against buying into a fad or a quick-fix solution.

But I think Ruy goes to far when he dismisses various Democratic renewel efforts as "myths". None of the "myths" that Ruy describes (Framing, Innoculation, Unity and Mobilization) will, by themselves, solve the problems Democrats have. But that does not mean we should dismiss those efforts as being unproductive. Just because some latch onto one particular project as The One True Renewel Plan does not mean that those projects are pointless endeavours.

For example, while Framing by itself will not solve our problems, a failure to understand the importance of good framing will hobble our efforts. This is really the main point of Lakoff's latest efforts. He has never claimed that framing alone will solve our problems (that claim comes more from his critics, who make it just in order to debunk it). He is just pointing out that Democrats often shoot themselves in the foot by pursuing a Reason Uber Alles approach to public policy debate. The point is simple: good ideas won't matter for shit if we don't know how to communicate them.

Ruy is correct that anyone who thinks that any of these approaches alone will solve our problems is pushing a myth. But Ruy is himself pushing the Better Ideas Myth. This myth says that if Democrats just come up with some better ideas then everything else will fall into place.

Ruy does a disservice to Democrats by dividing advocates of different approaches against each other. Instead of belittling the pursuits of others as "myths" Ruy should use his considerable talents to find ways in which these various approaches can be melded into a cohesive whole.

That could go a long way towards killing the One Solution To Our Problems Myth.

Trivial Pursuits

Instead of railing against the media's obsessive pursuit of stories like the Runaway Bride, why not, suggests Steve Gilliard, turn the public's fascination with these stories to our advantage?

Do you know what was the most popular post on this blog, the post that brought me the most hits? A picture of George Bush with green hair! Which only goes to prove that even those of us who rail against the trivial are sucked in by it as well. Steve is right that there is a bit of snobbish elitism mixed in with the mockery we heap on the establishment media. What if, instead of simply mocking, we used the trivial as a trojan horse for talking about the issues we care about?

Conservatives are very good at this. They know how to turn the public's fascination with Michael Jackson into a wider debate about social morals. We, on the other hand, sit around bitching about how the Jackson story steals oxygen away from stories about Iraq or Social Security or Health Care or whatever.

Steve makes one truly excellent point (amongst several excellent points):

The folks are Romenesko were debating why they covered Krispy Kreme openings a couple of years back. They complained that it was just free advertising for the company. Now, while these folks had their noses up in the air, you had hour's long wait for these donuts as they hit new markets in the Northeast and West. The snobs missed the point that this was news. This company had a product which people were willing to wait in the early morning for. If 50 people line up for a fucking donut, asking why is a good start. You cover what happens, not what you think should happen, and goddamnit, if people stand in line at 5:30 to get hot dounts, you should find out why, even if it is a free ad. (emphasis mine - Chris)

Instead of screaming at the wind isn't it about time that we learn how to use it?

There's a dKos discussion on this as well.