Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (106756)	3/30/2005 9:38:56 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

Bradley's analysis That column is getting a lot of favorable play in Blogdom. Bradley is an intellectual who didn't have the charisma to make it as a presidental candidate. Ann Althouse, who is a Law Prof at UW, and an eminent centrist blogger, said this in a blog I posted earlier. althouse.blogspot.com Candidates don't risk talking about big ideas because the ideas have never been sufficiently tested. Instead they usually wind up arguing about minor issues and express few deep convictions. ... If Democrats are serious about preparing for the next election or the next election after that, some influential Democrats will have to resist entrusting their dreams to individual candidates and instead make a commitment to build a stable pyramid from the base up. It will take at least a decade's commitment, and it won't come cheap. But there really is no other choice. Very well put -- by a man with a fancy educational background who once ran for President and wiped out early, because of a woeful lack of charisma. He's right, though, isn't he? Is it a mystery that academics tend to vote for the Democratic candidate, despite this lack of coherent ideas? Academics are -- I'm thinking -- a lot less interested in elaborately structured ideologies than nonacademics imagine. Perhaps intellectuals are more comfortable with freewheeling, pragmatic politics than the average citizen. But BRADLEY is still right: the Democrats should develop a coherent ideology in order to speak persuasively to that average citizen, who longs for ideas that make sense. And plenty of academics would freewheelingly and pragmatically enjoy raking in lots of money while they produce the necessary structure of ideas.

To: JohnM who wrote (106756)	3/31/2005 2:26:00 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

If Democrats are serious about preparing for the next election or the next election after that, some influential Democrats will have to resist entrusting their dreams to individual candidates and instead make a commitment to build a stable pyramid from the base up. As far as it goes, he makes good sense, but his definition of the 'pyramid' is basically structural, not ideological. Sure, you need a pyramid to implement your strategy, but what is your strategy? Bradley notes that the Democratic candidates these days have to find their vision on the fly: they don't simply have to assemble a campaign apparatus - they have to formulate ideas and a vision, too But if the Democrats aren't running to implement their vision what are they running for? To my mind, Bradley ignored the elephant in the living room: Security. Look at any poll taken at any time since 9/11. Look for any question that asks, Which party do you trust more to keep another 9/11 attack from happening?. The Republicans win by 20 points or more. Where in the Democratic 'pyramid' is the Democratic vision that will allow them to compete with the Republican 'pyramid'? What is their understanding of what happened on 9/11, what is happening now, how to keep America safe in the future? I have received one coherent Republican message in answer to those questions. But the Democrats have been all over the map, from those who thought that Clinton's policies of treating terrorism as crime should be continued, to those who agree with the Republicans, to anywhere in between - and many Democrats have been avoiding the issue altogether, as if it didn't really matter. Security is an important question. IMO, the Democrats need to have a message if they want to be trusted with power again.

To: JohnM who wrote (106756)	3/31/2005 2:44:25 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793801

That analysis reminds me of the way Democrats look at the problems in government schools "All we need is more money" and the systemic problems will be fixed. Here is my two cents analysis of what is wrong with the Democrat party. 1. Leadership - few Democrat leaders have any real credibility. They are perceived as saying or doing anything to get elected. In other words, they lack "True North Principles". Most studies of admired leaders in business and government will point to credibility as one of the most important factors in creating "fellowship". It's often easier to support someone you profoundly disagree with who truly believes in his/her cause, and then it is to support someone you know is being phony. 2. Ideas - Democrat leaders who have a modicum of credibility and integrity, (I would lump Bill Bradley in with this small crowd), lack ideas which embolden the individual instead of the state, ideas which can be openly dialogued and debated. The recent Social Security debate is a great illustration of this. Put down Marx and start reading Friedman would be my humble advice. 3. Politics of Personal Destruction - Far too many Democrats are polarizing people; they don't accept differences of opinions very easily. They see Republicans as the evil enemy, and their demeanor and attitude reflect that. This non acceptance of different points of view prevents them from considering ideas which lie outside their circle of "group thinking" friends, those same friends re-enforce and stroke their ego (the Dan Rather type embody this mold). This creates an atmosphere which over time develops hypersensitivity toward those who disagree with them. After 9/11 the American people were looking for leaders willing to reach across the aisle and get-along for the betterment of the country. And they found few in the Democrat party willing to set aside partisan politics for rational thoughtful discussions to protect the American people. These three themes have many branches which touch other problems areas the party needs to deal with. The bottom line is they need new blood.