mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Blue Model Blues
A 2016 Defeat Would Be Devastating for Democrats
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Jim__L

    Democrats hate and fear everyone who is not politically correct, and seek to dominate and repress anyone who is not a government client. That makes it really, really tough for them to reach out beyond their base of voters.

    • Ocho

      Which is funny, because Republicans are the real ones who are labeling what is politically correct and what isn’t. The average person sees what is termed as ‘political correctness’ as just ‘treating people with respect’, but in this day it’s become akin to patriotic that Republicans show their fear-based xenophobic and racist stripes. If the Republicans win, they’ll just do what they always do and break the country, be it the economy again, civil rights, endless and needless wars, etc. and it will once again be up to the Democrats to swoop in and fix it again.

      The theory that Donald Trump is only running for President to secure another Democrat will take the Presidency (because who in their right mind would ever vote Trump into office, c’mon) so that all of his businesses won’t completely tank and he can avoid bankruptcy again is a sound one.

      • Dale Fayda

        Yours is a philosophy of oppression and failure. The overarching goal of the American progressivism is to reduce everyone to a helpless supplicant of the ever-expanding state. The Democrat party is glad to build its throne of power on the wreckage of this country (economic, societal, moral, military), if it buys them one extra minute in power.

        Truly, liberalism is a mental disorder.

        • Rover86

          That’s like saying that the overarching goal of social conservatives is to enslave everyone into an authoritarian theocracy. Sure such rhetoric plays well with those who despise their political opponents so much they can only imagine them as mad and or evil.
          But you’ll find reality to have a lot more nuance than the binary world of political ideology.

          • Dale Fayda

            My family ran AWAY from socialism. They’ve experienced it on their own hides and they know where the likes of you want to “stop this train”. The evil of the left’s intentions and its horrific results are a matter of historical record.

            The 20th century happened and socialism, the so-called “end product of societal evolution”, collapsed under the weight of its own depravity. Social Democracy, its half-wit cousin, is in the process of collapsing before our eyes as well. Locally (Detroit, Chicago), regionally (Puerto Rico) and nationally (Greece, Venezuela). And you have the cojones to tell me to be more “nuanced”?! No, chico, the “nuance” ship has sailed. It was never anything but a ploy to tell conservatives to shut up and for the left to distract from its myriad monumental failures.

            There is no sexual deviancy too perverse for the left to champion, no tradition too precious to destroy, no social more to important to degrade, no slander too heinous. All the political violence in this country comes from the left – what’s the last time there was a Conservative riot? When was the last time a group of white Conservatives burned down their own city out of stupidity and venality?

          • Rover86

            Ironically, because of this diatribe I can see there is little point in arguing with you. You exist in a binary world, an existential struggle between good and evil. Have fun with it, but don’t expect too many to take you seriously.

          • Dale Fayda

            Ouch, that one hurts… Ha, ha, ha, ha!

            Whatever shall I do now that Rover86 no longer deems me worthy of argument? Will I no more be enlightened by his “nuanced” progressive thoughts? So sad…

            Come back any time, lib. I’ll likely be around.

          • PennsylvaniaPry

            Looks like you won that one, Dale.

          • Jim__L

            Is it impossible to simply emphasize the fact that your positions are not the positions that Dale is condemning? That might actually lead to an interesting and fruitful discussion.

          • Jim__L

            True enough. I’ve probably been reading a few too many articles on what can only be called campus thought policing — a scary prospect.

            In situations like this I can end up arguing with whoever it is I’ve read that’s taken the most extreme position, instead of engaging with people who are actually in the discussion at hand. That’s a bad habit a lot of people have, but once you become aware of it, it actually gets easier to lower the temperature of discussions you’re a part of, particularly face-to-face discussions between people who could easily be cordial to one another. Telling them, “you’re arguing with someone who isn’t in the room” can get them to think long enough to turn things around.

            Insofar as there are issues people call “political correctness” that used to be called “common courtesy”, I actually agree with a lot of the guidelines. I don’t think that people should throw around the word that got “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” tossed out of schools. However, I think that throwing that book out of schools is political correctness gone terribly awry. I also think that backing up the guidelines with draconian punishments is not at all just.

            Unfortunately we really do have cases where draconian punishments and book-bannings are occurring. Rover86, would you be wiling to condemn those?

          • Rover86

            Certainly!
            I’m as frustrated and annoyed with small minded people trying to ban a book because it has a “bad word” or is “offensive” for some reason or another, as I am with small minded people trying to ban a book because it acknowledges that people of the same sex can love each other. I’m a big fan of the horseshoe theory of the political spectrum, the two extremes are closer to each other than they are to the middle. They differ on the substance, but employ similar methods: most damagingly a rigid insistence on ideological purity and a binary world view. There have been plenty of liberals joining Chait’s side of the argument regarding the resurgence of political correctness and its chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression.

          • Jim__L

            I look forward to the moderate left being effective at reining in the extreme left, but I’m not going to hold my breath. So much of the left’s agenda (moderate and otherwise) has been fulfilled by this administration that extreme left positions are about the only front they can still progress on.

            Well, that, and on some issues (like abortion — particularly after the Planned Parenthood expose’) the country is moving right, rendering the left’s position more and more extreme.

          • Rover86

            I won’t continue the argument but I will say this: I’ll gladly spend time and effort helping to contain the far left, I despise thought/speech policing and restriction of free expression. I’ll be gladder still if my friends on the right do the same with the religious authoritarians of the far right.

          • Laura

            sounds like the definition of how Obama views the entire republican party.

      • Tom

        Correction: the Democrats let the maintenance go by for so long that Republicans have to tear out large portions of the structure to get to the rotted portions. Then, when there’s a massive mess, the Democrats blame the Republicans for it.

  • Pete

    “A 2016 Defeat Would Be Devastating for Democrats”

    Yes, but it would be a blessing for the United States.

    • Ellen

      Right on. The other point is that liberals control most of the mass culture and higher education which is a large large part of the problem. They indoctrinate both those that become well educated through the universities and those that are semi-literate through mass entertainment. With ruinous results in both cases.

      Dale Fayda, I agree with your analysis. Destroying every tradition is the only thing that gets white liberals up in the morning. Don’t blame that particular problem on the blacks, by the way. The black middle class is as church-going a population as exists in America. Their support for the DP is strictly a racial issue, not a values one. The values problem of the DP stems from its white liberal elites who benefit from social disintegration, while no one else does, and certainly not the black and Hispanic part of the Obama coaltion, so-called.

      If ever there was a ruling elite that deserved the guillotine, the white liberals who run the DP are it. I have greater sympathy for Marie Antoinette than for that crowd.

  • Kevin

    The analysis misses the overwhelming Democratic strength in the bureaucracy, plus the judiciary (after accounting for likey defectors such as Kennedy and Roberts) which will hamstring and undermine any Republican agenda even if the pick up the presidency.

  • Nevis07

    That’s an interesting take from TAI. I see it from a somewhat different angle. If the GOP take the white house and manages to hold both chambers (a likelihood in my opinion), then yes, they can essentially legislate their agenda. But keep in mind Americans on both sides of the aisle have a wariness of overarching power – hence the check and balance built into the constitution. I suspect the independents would flex their voting power away from the GOP in succeeding elections. If the Republicans win the white house, they’ll have to finally articulate and put into practice their ideas. I like limited government and many other aspects of what the GOP stands for, but simply being the party of ‘no’ won’t be available once they control the federal government. And once they control the government they own the results. I just hope they have a plan to execute their agenda in an intelligent way.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    A large and growing segment of voters believes that the bloated Government Monopoly has grown so large and beyond the limits set down in the Constitution, that it is now crushing the life out of the productive private sector. It needs to be remembered that the Government Monopoly like all Monopolies, suffers from the same disease, the lack of the “Feedback of Competition”. It is the “Feedback of Competition” that provides both the information and motivation which forces continuous improvements in Quality, Service, and Price, in free markets. This means that the Government Monopoly can never be the efficient deliverer of benefits and services the Leftists would have everyone believe. The Government Monopoly needs to be limited to only those tasks that only a central government can provide (Defense, Foreign Relations, Justice) as set down in the Constitution. And all other tasks need to be handled by the free market, where they will be forced to improve in Quality, Service, and Price by the “Feedback of Competition”.

    • Rover86

      I have a genuine question, well two even.
      I understand power can accumulate in government to undesirable levels, but why is it the contention among you and your ideological compatriots that power can ONLY accumulate to undesirable levels in government, and not in big business?
      If grown large enough, accumulating sufficient power and wealth, a private entity can engage in rent-seeking or come to dominate the market, escaping market forces and allowing them to set their own prices to a large degree. Competition is supposed to cure that. In Adam Smith’s market economy, a local baker who overcharged would soon find the competition undercutting him and steal his customers. But huge businesses have the power to negate those forces, buying up competitors, buying up politicians, and making price agreements with whatever few competitors they still have. We get consolidation, not innovation.
      Power can accumulate to undesirable levels in multiple places.

      Also why do away with the distinction between public and private sector entirely? What profit is there in providing health care for say, the poor? There are things everyone needs, but may not be profitable to provide. Is there profit in our humanitarian principles? Denmark, The Netherlands, Germany. These countries are not perfect by any means but they are not greece, they are not soviet russia or maoist china.

      • Promqueen

        Whenever I hear the fawning over Denmark and The Netherlands I wonder how you can even possibly compare them to the U.S. What’s more, I also find it racist beyond belief.

        And the big bad business argument is so ancient and creaky-boned. There are regulations for business, so many regulations that businesses are leaving this country in droves. But the fact of the matter is that business does not control you. They do not have legal powers to institute law against private citizens. Government does and it does. Why is this so hard to understand? If it wasn’t for capitalism, you’d be living in a tree and all your earnings would go to your favorite socialist leader. Do you really think they’re looking out for you? Yep, you have a mental disorder. Sad.

        • Rover86

          Well as long as you’re being reasonable about this I guess.

          • Promqueen

            I am trying. Assuming you’re being ironic here. 🙂

      • PennsylvaniaPry

        Government can crush big business like a bug if it wants to, that’s why. Teddy Roosevelt, and the Supreme Court of the time, did it. FDR did it selectively. Obama has destroyed the coal industry. Now, you can argue that each of these moves were necessary correctives, and maybe they were, but when push comes to shove, the government always trumps business, regardless of its attempts to influence government. This is not to say that business does not try–and try hard–to influence the government, but at the end of the day, politicians need votes, not lobbyists’ treats. There is, therefore, a fundamental asymmetry here.

      • PennsylvaniaPry

        As for the hoary citing of the Nordic countries’ admittedly successful welfare systems, several points need to be borne in mind. Those countries have been quite ethnically homogeneous up until very recently. There has been a large degree of social trust in those societies. As a citizen of those countries, you feel reasonably certain that your taxes are actually going to fellow citizens much like yourself. (This will be tested in a big way as Muslim immigration floods into Northern Europe, by the way.) Secondly, there is a distinction between obvious humanitarian programs such as health care for the poor, etc.(and, we DO have Medicaid, by the way) and the broader progressive program that seeks, in various ways, to insinuate government say-so in what have hitherto been matters handled by individuals or groups of individuals (civil society, in other words) acting on their own. All of the little stories you hear about local governments butting in on church ladies’ bake sales and kids’ lemonade stands, as well as federal micromanagement of school lunches, just to cite the most recent such examples, each one trivial enough perhaps, but they add up. Then, considering Dale’s point about the totalitarian impulse lurking in progressivism, an impulse utterly lacking in societies with strong market economies and strong civil associations (clubs, churches, etc.), you cannot blame people for being wary. Not all of us want to be taken care of by the government like Obama’s “Julia.”

        • Rover86

          Bureaucracy has its absurd excesses and every ideology has its extremists, we all know that.
          I could get into how that same government power has both in the past and recent years been used to safeguard the constitutional rights of minorities in the face of hostile majorities motivated by their need for conformity rather than a love for individual liberty. And to actively undermine rights like the 4th amendment through the surveillance state. But what strikes me most about how those who despise the left and government power is how they talk about the left. There is no center left, there is no regular left. There is only the evil left, the nefarious left, with the maniacal motivations of a saturday morning cartoon villain. Out to destroy all that’s holy and good for no other reason than to usher in 1000 years of liberal darkness or something, something my new friend Dale actually appears to believe. How is it even possible to have a discussion with a mindset like that?

          • Jim__L

            OK, Rover, could you actually address what you’d do about the extremists instead of dismissing Penn’s concerns in a single line? That could help build common ground here.

      • Jim__L

        “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, if he should lose his soul?” – Mark 8:36

        What does it profit this country to keep teachers from teaching that, or to keep that from being plastered on walls in the public square?

        I’ve heard the theory more than once, if the TEA party and OWS could unite, that could turn the country back on the right track.

  • Anthony

    Wow! So called Blue Model Blues is not an excuse to present wishful thinking as critical analysis. Much contention absorbs these web pages and our attuned political engagement – i.e., which of the major parties (Dem so called progressives/Rep self identified conservatives) is the friend of the common man (non beneficiary of Govt.) and which of Big Capital (laissez faire individualism). In fact historically, there has been little to choose; that is, the aims of both political parties, declared and achieved are to maintain the existing political-economic system and the same relative distribution of its rewards (while the ideologues battle on and blame the “other”). But as some wizened person once informed me, all this is inevitable given the general….

  • FriendlyGoat

    So all Mrs. Clinton has to do is remind ordinary people of the 101 ways they will be instantly screwed if her opponent wins. Seriously, the gist of this article should be her platform—–with a list of the life issues people will lose. I think it would run well against Mr. Trump, for instance.

    • Anthony

      Something insightful F.G. and of neighborly interest comparatively speaking (and worth a read, I think): http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2015/10/19/trudeaus-victory-is-a-triumph-for-decency-editorial.html

      • FriendlyGoat

        Thanks. I would like to think this is a harbinger of the 2016 results in America, which might be “too much to ask” on my part (or maybe not).

        Mr. Trump is profoundly disclosing the nature of “Republicanism” in the USA at this moment. After he gets done with the clarification, I have this dream that a lot our Congress might get the boot. (Yeah, I said dream.)

        Meanwhile, I wish our presidential candidate(s) were at good looking as Trudeau. But,

        • Anthony

          Trudeau is a handsome guy with a beautiful wife. Let’s hope he’s as capable governing as campaigning. Meanwhile, America the beautiful! What are we to do (Continue on F.G. despite the noises).

          • FriendlyGoat

            Thanks. I’m scaling my commenting back a little to do other things, but I’m still kicking. Your question of “What are we to do?” is a profound thought in five little words, by the way.

          • Anthony

            Thanks for the kind words F.G. and scaling back to do other things while “still kicking” represents both open heart and mind. You’ll be just fine!

          • Fred

            So those who disagree with you are making “noises”? Oh of course, how silly of me. I forgot about your superhuman ability to transcend bias and see things sub specie aeternitatis. And I’m sure it helps that dismissing disagreement as “noises” means you don’t have to consider anything that challenges your viewpoint. My, how convenient it is to be completely unbiased!

          • Anthony

            Dan Greene’s position still applies; Lifeforms assessment yet remains apt; Oct. 23, 2014 stands and and Greene’s time limit has @ least 14 months.

          • Fred

            Dayum, you did it yet again. Responded to . . . you haven’t read. Three words my man: America’s. Got. Talent. Hey, a million bucks. Just sayin’.

          • Anthony

            Dan Greene identified your triggers; Lifeform articulated the pathology; I responded expecting to dismiss by Oct 23, 2014 reference one year ago (but no such luck, catholicity…).

          • Fred

            My pathology? Seems like you’re the one who obsessively has to have the last word.

          • Anthony

            This simplicity has gone on since your inquiry about “Shibboleth” ( a 3/4 years ago response that I regret to this day making). Do us both a favor and write on TAI’s many issues and stop badgering…. I never look @ your material nor reply thereto – do me a similar kindness, thanks.

          • Fred

            You have the intellectual equivalent of a glass jaw, you know that?

          • Anthony

            You’ve made your metaphor; I trust we are finally “done”.

  • Frank Byrne

    While the overall tenor gives hope it should also be heeded as a warning. Democrats will pull out all stops like never before and it will get very very ugly.

  • Asok Asus

    “A 2016 Defeat Would Be Devastating for Democrats”

    Especially if President Trump manages to implement one or two of his major policies, such as as repealing obamacare, halting and even reversing illegal immigration and bringing back manufacturing jobs to the U.S., resulting in greater prosperity by the end of his term.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service