If You Hate Government, You Shouldn't Run It

Now that is a simple and easy to understand slogan. It makes sense because a person who hates something and then tries to run it will do a bad job. It is true and the truth has been borne out by the Bushies' incompetence in Iraq, with Hurricane Katrina, with the fiscal operations of the Federal government, and with the actual running of the government itself.

The Bushies didn't look upon government service as "service" but as "employment", a place where they could make some money, pick up lines for their resumes, and fight the conservative battle against the evils of "big government." Of course, their conservative values didn't stop from trying to make a buck at the taxpayer's expense.

They were, of course, inherently bad at actually running the government. It is one thing to rant about liberals in some college or law school classroom or over beers at a local watering hole, it is a whole other thing to actually run a government. Time after time their conduct in office has been shown to be incompetent, venal, corrupt, and devoid of any new ideas.

It is not enough, though, to just enjoy the train wreck they are making of the conservative movement. Progressives need a slogan to drive home to the American people why these idiots shouldn't be put in charge of future governments. That's why we are submitting the slogan that "if you hate government, you shouldn't run it."

Liberals Should Encourage Ron Paul to Run as Independent

Salon Magazine has an article about Representative Ron Paul, the libertarian who is running for the GOP nomination by being against the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the No Child Left Behind Act,advocating the United States out of the United Nations, the phasing out of Social Security, and a return to the gold standard for American currency. According to Salon Magazine, Paul is driving the power brokers of the Republican Party crazy. Not surprisingly they have already lined up a challenger for him in the 2008 Republican primary for his Congressional seat.

Interestingly he has a growing presence on the Internet. An example is support for his videos on You Tube. His videos have been viewed over 980,000 times. That is more than Romney, McCain, or Giuliani, all of whom are the top three in most polls Republicans. He is attracting support from young people who are interested in his views on the Iraq War. He is also unconventional, appearing on the Bill Maher show and scheduling an appearance on the Jon Stewart Show.

Now, this guy is not going to win the Republican Party nomination, but clearly there is a market for his message. Liberals and progressives should find a way to fund this guy and encourage him to run as an independent. He would probably pull about 1 or 2% of the vote, much like Nader. Like Nader, however, if he pulled that 1 or 2% in the right states, say Florida, Ohio, or perhaps Virgina, he could shift those states to the Democratic victory column.

That was why, of course, that Republican donors supported Ralph "It Doesn't Matter If a Democrat or a Republican wins" Nader. That resulted in Florida being lost to Bush and that resulted in the terrible mess that we are in with Iraq. Maybe its time for liberals and progressives to return the favor.

Voters Look For Character Not Experience

This is from the AP news story linked to in this entry's title:

WASHINGTON — For all the policy blueprints churned out by presidential campaigns, there is this indisputable fact: People care less about issues than they do about a candidate's character.

A new Associated Press-Ipsos poll says 55 percent of those surveyed consider honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate.

The story goes on to examine the poll results and also to examine how the various candidates stack up on the whole "character" factor. One of the political consultants quoted in the poll points out that "character" encompasses a matrix of issues, including intelligence and empathy. This poll makes sense because voters don't have the time to get to really know a candidate and never did have the time. Voters have always depended on cues to tell them how to vote.

In the past such cues included a candidate's party identification. That cue, however, is declining in importance and has been for several years. What has taken its place are things such as gender, race, religion, and "character." These cues give voters short-hand information about whether they are likely to agree with what a candidate would do if the candidate is elected.

Now, liberals and progressives have a choice: they can gnash their teeth in frustration and demand that voters look at issues, something that voters aren't likely to do, or they can start running campaigns based on the cues that voters use in deciding who to support. Our recommendation is the latter because we want to win elections not run civic education campaigns.

Dems Have to Challenge "Market Fundamentalism"

Here is a phrase that we just ran across: "market fundamentalism." It is a term used by critics of conservatives who insist that "free markets" will cure every social ill known to man and that government is never the solution, but always the problem. The author of the article linked to in this entry's title points out that progressives need to start attacking this philosophy. She argues that until we attack this philosophy, we will not be able to make permanent political gains because the underlying philosophy that has shaped politics over the last 27 years will not have been culturally discredited.

Since the 1960s, conservatives have pushed the idea that government is inherently wasteful and inefficent. They push the idea that government programs don't work and can't compare with the marketplace.

This philosophy is behind charter schools, privatizating Social Security, Bush's new health plan, which will tax working families for employer furnished health insurance, and the decision to shut down Iraq's state owned companies putting thousands of people out of work. In the past while Democrats argued against certain policies advocated by market fundamentalims, they usually have not argued against the philosophy itself.

This is starting to change. More and more progressives and Democrats are challenging the idea that unfettered markets always produce good results for society. They are challenging the idea that government programs are inherently bad. This is good because progressives have to do to conservatives what they have been doing for the last 27 years: attack the underlying philosophy of the opposition. Read the article linked to in this entry's title. We think you will find it thought-provoking.

Advice to Progressives: Dream Bigger Dreams!

Katha Pollitt of the Nation magazine has advice for liberals: dream bigger dreams! Advocate universal healthcare for all, cheap or free higher education, and a minimum wage of $9.00 an hour and indexed for inflation. Build a movement and stop worrying about finding a leader. If you have the right movement, leaders will emerge and come to you. It is a provocative article and can be read by clicking on the link in the title heading.