Spreading Honey

Kathy F. is on fire.   Thanks to this comment thread at Rox's, which answers the question "What can Dems to do to get the moderate and independent vote?" (answer: cease to exist), we found out that moderates are a sensitive lot.  They've been getting their feewings hurt by all the nasty Dems - like that horrible Howard Mean.  I mean Dean.  Well, Kathy has seen the error of our ways and lo verily she will repent:

From now on, I will never speak ill of the following: Republicans, including RINOs and Log Cabin; conservatives in all their guises: neo-con, religious right, your-grandfather's, etc.; George Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, and similar moderates; right-wing bloggers, i.e. Little Green (American) Footballs or Michelle "Incarcerate 'Em" Malkin; indictees such as Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby, or Karl Rove; and for good measure, Teddy Roosevelt.

The only chickenhawks I'll reference here will be actual birds. I will no longer drop the h-bomb, since it clearly applies to myself and my liberal friends. I will no longer make fun of people whose pants are on fire—cheap jokes are unfunny, and have run their course besides.

From now on, only pure 100% unadulterated honey will issue forth from this blog, in order to catch more flies. Oh wait...did I just call anyone a fly? I meant moderates, of course.

Linking to invective and liberal polemics will be strickly forbidden. In fact, I'll cease reading them altogether, in case the urge to rant should come upon me suddenly and without provocation. I will get my news from Fox, which Rupert Murdoch has thoughtfully cleansed of calumny and left-wing screed.

I might occasionally still think a bad thought or two—old habits are hard to break—but I'll bite my tongue  before I utter anything offensive. I wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

She's brilliant.  That's just some of it.   

She did leave out one reform that showed up several times in the thread and is one she'll have to address  if  she wants to win over the most self-described moderate flies.  According to responses, it turns out that moderates aren't only easily offended, they're also easily frightened.   Want to start a war?    Wave around a bottle of anthrax at the U.N.   Let a few quotes about mushroom clouds slip.   Pointing out the lies that started this wasteful war, which has undoubtedly made us less safe, isn't going to make us feel any safer.   Dems are going to have to start getting serious about "Islamofascism" by embracing the value of putting out fires with boatloads of Halliburton-supplied gasoline.   If we want to coax those moderates out from under their beds and down off the ceilings, it's going to be with lots and lots of bullets, bombs and depleted uranium rained upon the most convenient Arab country available and whatever recruits for our volunteer army we can find.  I'm willing to make that sacrifice.

Comments

[KathyF]

"Howard Mean"

ROFL!

(Congrats, that's the first time I've ever used that internetism.)

[Chris Clarke]

I particularly like the idea that these folks are forced to vote for imperial war, torture, skyrocketing deficits, and a dismantling of the US's law and order infrastructure because someone let Michael Moore sit at a nice table somewhere.

[eRobin]

Chris, don't be mean. They won't compromise their values. It's not their fault that those values don't include anything particularly valuable.

[Chris Clarke]

I'm waiting for one of the hundreds of conservative lookyloos coming into my site from Pro-Teen Wisdom or Cathy Young's joint (after complaints about my civility) to say word one about the guy who advocated killing my dog to shut me up yesterday, or the one who called me a "race mixer" today.

I think I'll be waiting for a long time.

They're all for the kind of civility they can grind into our faces with their bootheels.

[doghouse riley]

Alan Watts used to ask, "Where does your fist go when you open your hand?" The answer being that "fist" is a verb in the form of a noun. Similarly, "How do Dems get the moderate vote?" is an argument in the form of a question.

The list of unstated suppositions one must accept in order to answer the question is a long one. That the Democratic party can simply change its positions like you or I change socks and somehow convince "moderates" the change is genuine. That it can take its base for granted. That, in fact, there is this large group of "moderates" out there which are forced to vote Republican because they understand the same issues the punditocracy raises, and in exactly the same way.

And mostly, of course, there's the question, "Is there any reason Democratic control is so important that having a party in which Joe Lieberman sits at its center is worth it?" No, if you're the typical Democratic voter who votes the issues. Yes, if you're the typical policy wonk who asks the question and is in line for a government post.

So my answer is a fist.

[Chris Clarke]

I quit. Take over my blog please, Doghouse.

[Thomas Nephew]

Interesting exercise, flawed by self-reportedness of "moderates."

[John Ashman]

Interesting word-smithing, but like a rhetorical question, doesn't take you very far.

Here's the problem. Democrats have become policy wonks. It's all about "Roe v Wade", "spending more on social programs", "legalizing gay marriage", etc, etc.

Here's an exercise. Define your *ideals* (not goals) first. Then, once you figure those out, set some goals. Then figure out *creative* ways of moving towards those goals that a) does not raise taxes, b) does not offend the sensibilities of the other half, c) does not create unfunded mandates, d) does not involve labeling the other side as evil or wrong.

There's nothing wrong with Democratic ideals, it's the way it is forced on other people that is causing the rebellion. And part of it is the "if you don't want to give more money to X, then you are evil, selfish and against X" rhetoric.

BTW, one of the reasons for Clinton's success? He hired a powerful and effective Republican strategist. Dick Morris. And he explained how to move forward an agenda that didn't freak out Republicans and got something accomplished. Dick Morris was much of the focus and success behind Bill Clinton. Because he kept him focused on achieving goals, not self-sabotage. When he listened, at least.

[John Ashman]

BTW, both Rox's thread and Kathy's thread had a HUGE amount of constructive feedback, so to say that it was just "cease to exist" is complete and utter BS. For every negative, useless post, there were probably 5-10 ones that had useful info. The unfortunate thing is that, it seems, liberals want moderates to say "oh, just run better candidates" or "make the message more appealing" or "educate us so we'll move your direction" rather than the unvarnished truth - "go back to square one, start over, come back with better ideas and a better attitude"

[paperwight]

Then figure out *creative* ways of moving towards those goals that a) does not raise taxes, b) does not offend the sensibilities of the other half, c) does not create unfunded mandates, d) does not involve labeling the other side as evil or wrong.

Because that's *exactly* what the Republicans have done, and they're not forcing their ideals on the rest of us. Not. This is classic yellow-stripe and armadillo pabulum.

[eRobin]

Hi John. You wrote:

There's nothing wrong with Democratic ideals, it's the way it is forced on other people that is causing the rebellion.

And then

The unfortunate thing is that, it seems, liberals want moderates to say "oh, just run better candidates" or "make the message more appealing" or "educate us so we'll move your direction" rather than the unvarnished truth - "go back to square one, start over, come back with better ideas and a better attitude"

Dude, get an argument and stick with it. I prefer the first one.

PW: Amen. And it's so tiresome.

[John Ashman]

Paperwight - I didn't say anything about the Republicans being innocent. That's not the point. But more people basically agree with their agenda. It's a democracy, people voted, you lost. I keep telling you how to win again, but all I get is angry rhetoric in return.

eRobin - the argument is the same. It's not that independents and moderates hate your ideals, it's the POLICIES they don't like, such as "more money", "more regulation", "more taxes", "more programs", "more nanny state". If you figure out how to put pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-children, anti-poverty, pro-worker IDEALS into pro-growth, pro-business, pro-low tax, small-government, pro-America POLICIES with none of the "Republicans are evil" and "it's America's fault" rhetoric, you can start winning again.

Unless you truly want to be "victims" and continue to lose all the time. It's fine with me. I'd never BE a Republican, but they don't scare me. I said the pledge of allegiance all my life and the "under God" part didn't kill me, even though I didn't much care for it.

[paperwight]

If you figure out how to put pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-children, anti-poverty, pro-worker IDEALS into pro-growth, pro-business, pro-low tax, small-government, pro-America POLICIES with none of the "Republicans are evil" and "it's America's fault" rhetoric, you can start winning again.

What? Seriously, what?

You're saying "X and not X". Your advice is useless in the real world. We don't live in some idealized "the pie always gets bigger" supply-side fantasy. You can't have the lowest, least progressive tax rates in the western industrialized world *and* have decent infrastructure and health care. You can't give businesses complete freedom to move jobs offshore, to hire and fire as they like, and still allow even a reasonable amount of employment security over a lifetime. Can't be done. Come back when you can realize that adults make hard choices. Until then here, have a pony too. Of course, if you're saying that most people can't understand that adults make hard choices, and that therefore, they should be lied to, that pretty much makes you a Republican in the current mold.

And you can get stuffed with the "Blame America / Pro-American" implicit slander of liberals. A patriot pays his taxes because he realized that they're the funding for the country he loves. A patriot wants his country to work for everyone in it because he's proud of his country and cares about his compatriots. A patriot wants his country to stand for something good, something true, not just bombs fulla freedom and unfettered markets by any means necessary. A patriot doesn't hesitate to understand that the actions of his government do have consequences, not all of them good. And he loves his country just as much and wants it to improve, because he loves it. I am a patriot, just as much, and IMO, more than anyone who professes to "love their country" but isn't willing to love it like an adult loves another adult, but only as a selfish child loves his mommy, without any ability to sacrifice for it, to understand its flaws, to understand that it doesn't just exist to service his emotional needs.

[eRobin]

I thought of John today while researching a different post. This is from Kevin Sites' In the Hot Zone:

"When I arrived, I guess I expected to see anarchy in action. The place has been operating without a central government for the past 14 years. That I needed a team of eight heavily armed Somalis to allow me to do my job as a journalist is probably a good illustration. But there were surprises.

Somalia, though brutally poor, is a kind of libertarian's dream. Free enterprise flourishes, and vigorous commercial competition is the only form of regulation. Somalia has some of the best telecommunications in Africa, with a handful of companies ready to wire home or office and provide crystal-clear service, including international long distance, for about $10 a month. "

How'd that go again? pro-growth, pro-business, pro-low tax, small-government, pro-Somalia POLICIES

I think I'll pass.

[John Ashman]

Paperwight -

Part A - you're wrong. Yes you can. But you can't do it thinking IN the box. Regulations and taxation won't keep businesses here. There is NO liberal policy that can. However, lower corporate taxes, even eliminate them (in trade for a few things) and don't get me started on health care. Liberal policies favoring lawyers and insurance companies have created the problem and it will take a true libertarian to fix it.

Part B - If you love your country so much READ THE CONSTITUTION! There's NOTHING liberal about the constitution. It's all about libertarianism and FREEDOM FROM BIG GOVERNMENT. Learn to read something besides propaganda.

eRobin - The US is not Somalia, never was Somalia and never will be Somalia. The US was a *pure* libertarian country for 150 years. It's how we leapfrogged past all of Europe and became the greatest country in the world in a blink of an eye. READ A HISTORY BOOK! God bless, some of you people can be so ignorant of history (a seeming prerequisite for being liberal)! Moreover, the ONLY reason they haven't surpassed us is because they are MIRED in even more liberal silliness, so much so that even the LIBERAL party in Germany has agreed that they need to dismantle a lot of social programs. And, BTW, it sounds like the writer of your little factoid was praising the libertarian nature of what little business they have as the one GOOD thing about the country. The place is run by criminals, that's not a fault of the libertarism. Even libertarians believe in government to keep the peace and protect from invaders.

[John Ashman]

Does this even make you think a bit? :

BERLIN — Conservative Angela Merkel (search) struck a power-sharing deal Monday that will make her the first woman and politician from the ex-communist east to serve as Germany's chancellor, forging a coalition with ousted leader Gerhard Schroeder's party to reform the faltering economy..

"The great challenge of the next years will be fighting unemployment, so this coalition has to do everything to make sure the competitiveness of the economy is OK, that there is growth and that unemployment can be fought effectively," Muentefering said.

Germany's 11.2 percent jobless rate helped drag Schroeder's outgoing government to defeat.

[Chris Clarke]

Explain to all us historically ignorant types how the Whig Party's platform, as it evolved over the years, was "pure libertarian," John. I'm also interested in your justifying the federal government's role in the Shays Rebelllion, and how that came about as a result of Libertarian ideals. If you have ny time left after that, please do likewise with the Missouri Compromise, the Indian Wars, and the Chinese Exclusion Act. Thanks in advance.

[John Ashman]

Chris, all of that stuff was fought by people who were a part of or who understood the constitution and the *exact* limitations of the constitution, which is to say that it is not permissible to take money from the many to help the few. The cracks grew over time, but the country remained a libertarian country right up until the great depression and then FDR drove a truck right through it and, in his well-meaning niceness, ended up screwing us permanently.

As for the Whigs, I have NO idea about what you're talking - from the 1852 platform:

The Government of the United States is of a limited character, and it is confined to the exercise of powers expressly granted by the Constitution, and such as may be necessary and proper for carrying the granted powers into full execution, and that all powers not granted or necessarily implied are expressly reserved to the States respectively and to the people.

[John Ashman]

As for the other stuff, all of that was racism mixed with the desire of the government to protect the citizenship from perceived threats. Unfortunately, the founding principles of the country wasn't extended to slaves, illegal immigrants or indians. Not pretty, and not capable of being rationalized. The only problem with libertarianism back then is that they didn't apply it to *everyone*.

So, if wealth is a good thing, but it's denied to some people, does that make it a bad thing when someone wants to apply it to everyone? I'm not catching your point here. Throughout history, there have been situations where good coexisted with evil. That doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[John Ashman]

Interestingly, when thinking of Shays Rebellion, I was thinking of something else. So, now I'm *really* confused, since the Constitution wasn't in place at the time, the Governor of MA was the problem, not the federal government which was far weaker than that of the states and it was Shays rebellion that helped lead to the constitition:

"Shays' Rebellion is considered the one of the leading causes in the formation of the United States Constitution."

IOW, what the hell are you talking about?!?

[Chris Clarke]

That's some funny stuff there, John. How do you move those goalposts in six different drections at once? Aren't you violating a few natural laws?

Let's start with this: I asked you to tell me how the Whigs' evolving policy was at all Libertarian, and you give me one sentence from a platform.

Lame.

[John Ashman]

Read it carefully, Chris, see if you can grok it. If you can't, you're hopeless and believe what you want. It says that they believed that the *only* thing the Feds can do is that which is *specifically* outlined, whichi is to say defense, reguluation of interstate commerce, and the basic infrastructures required to hold different little countries together. EVERYTHING ELSE goes to the states and to individual who can decide if they want to do it or not. That means, if Massachussetts wants to have high taxation and quasi-socialism and Rhode Island wants to be libertarian, that is their choice, but the Feds may not enforce their will over the entire country.

That means no social programs, no health care, no welfare, no SSS, no medicaid. Nothing. Which makes the Whigs WELL "to the right" of Republicans. You'd have called them selfish and evil.

[eRobin]

See now, John, you called Chris names and that hurts my feelings on his behalf. We're all about the civility over here in liberal land. No room for meanies.

[Johnny Ashman]

All the facts in which you want to believe, eh, Robin?

BTW, "hopeless" was a conditional adjective. I think I actually called him "Chris" . But thanks for stepping in for him, he needed the help :-)

[Chris Clarke]

That means no social programs, no health care, no welfare, no SSS, no medicaid. Nothing. Which makes the Whigs WELL "to the right" of Republicans. You'd have called them selfish and evil.

Well, that's a consistent point of view. Too bad it's so completely unencumbered by any attachment to fact. As anyone with any familiarity with the actual history o the US would tell you.

Little hint: The Whigs were castigated in their day as the party of big government. Massive federal spending, pork, wasteful programs, etc. For extra credit, provide an example of such programs. A one-word answer will be acceptable.

OK, so you flunk that question. And you also flunked the other previous questions. The overall goal was for you to explain how they indicated what you called a "pure libertarian government", and your answer was that it wasn't pure. Which is true, and you woould have gotten full credit had you admitted your previous statement was in error. However, you did not do so.

But here's another one. I'm gonna take this one easier on you: It involves the history of your own political belief system. Not that most capital-L libertarians know much about the history of their own beliefs, but hey, hope springs eternal. You might be the guy.

Q: What event of major significance in the history of libertarianism took place in 1842?

[Johnny Ashman]

Chris, I would kill to have those massive spending, pork-loving Whigs right now. The Republicans could kiss my ass if they did. Okay, fine, there's really no such thing as a *pure* libertarian government. Nor is there any such thing as a *pure* communist government. Pure government is an oxymoron. However, it was more like 99% pure and I rounded up. "Massive spending" is like opening up the Dept of Ag and giving it $1000 to try to help productivity. The current Dept of Ag has [u] 20 million [/u] times the budget it was when it was created (not adjusted for inflation).

Flunk? In your eyes. What about Shays Rebellion? *cough*

A - Hong Kong? or Aurora?

[DavidByron]

Hey!
Anyone want to talk about feminism? :)

[Chris Clarke]

So tell me how a document that was conceived out of the perceived need to more efficiently preserve a central government's rights, in the aftermath of Shay's Rebellion, is somehow magicaly a founding document of the Libertarian Church.

However, it was more like 99% pure and I rounded up.

Which part? The free states only? Or the slave states too? Debtors? Internal Indian nations? Are you counting blacks as 3/5ths of a human being again?

As for the answer to the 1842 question, you're wrong. Think "Founding Documents".

[eRobin]

David: Read this.

[Johnny Ashman]

Chris,

the constitution was designed to preserve citizen's rights, not the rights of a central government. Or, shall we say, the right of the central government to preserve the rights of ALL the citizens and prevent abuse at the local and state level.

As far as "99%", I'm talking conceptually, in terms of how the government was run. Obviously, leaving out women and minorities were wrong, but that's not the point here. There was precious little pork, precious little transfer of wealth. For the most part, the government actually attempted to live up to the ideals set forth in the constitution.

As for the 1842 question, Hong Kong was a pretty big one, so you'll just have to tell me what you're thinking.

[John Ashman]

BTW, Chris, here's a great anecdote of government "efficiency" in action:

The Pentagon needed to set up a travel system to try to save money on all of the flights they need to use every year.

First they tried to contract out to an outside company on a fee-based system, but the no one wanted a piece of it because it was known to be a defective concept.

So then they tried to hire an outside company to develop a system, but only one applied.

They finally developed a computer system to do this and and finally, after 7 years and $500M (original concept - 6 months and $263M), have a system that is *partially* working.

The problem? Less than 8% of all reservations are booked through the system because it often doesn't find the lowest price fare. The Pentagon Inspector General has recommended shutting it down, but since congress never met a boondoggle in didn't like.

So, rather than simply using Orbitz or something like that, it will cost $25-$100 per ticket more for each Pentagon ticket over what it would have cost to do if they simply had done it through private companies. Total cost will be something like $4B to develop a Pentagon system similar Orbitz or Travelocity. Way to go gubment!

[Chris Clarke]

As for the 1842 question, Hong Kong was a pretty big one, so you'll just have to tell me what you're thinking.

I was thinking I was pretty sure that question would trip you up as not knowing much about the ideological underpinnings of libertarianism.

And I was right, but it was a pretty safe bet. That's usually the case when someone assumes, based on some post of mine or other, that I'm not a libertarian. And it's almost always a Laff Riot.

As you have been.

In any event, I'm done with you now. Have fun trolling the left.

[John Ashman]

That's interesting. Based on your all of your posts I had assumed you were a member of the Teenage Pedantic Antagonist Party.

Lots of things happened in 1842, RI constitution, obscenity laws, etc. I'm not going to play a mind-reading game with you. It's not a game of "guess a number from 1-100".

The ideological underpinnings of Libertarianism is the constitution. Libertarianism is simply a rebirth of the same beliefs held by the people who founded this country because everyone else wants to interpret the Constitution however they want.

As for "trolling the left", they wanted to know what was causing an exodus away from their party. I, and many other told them. All you're doing is trolling anyone you want, whenever you want, just to be pedantic and childish. Have fun with that.