I don't know, for some reason I'm not a big fan of having a political party (and its members) be defined by a checklist of positions. It's not entirely rational, I know, and the outcomes they're going for are ones I agree with, but I still like the idea of members of Congress being independant representatives, rather than cogs in a broader Democratic (or Republican, for that matter) Machine.
That said, huzzah for trying to get more progressives elected!
Get. Over. It. This isn't the thought police, it's people raising money to support candidates they agree with. You can't build a movement unless the different segments of it are loyal to each other.
Now, if there's something on their list you really don't agree with, than don't give them money. But trading support for loyalty isn't oppressive, it's necessary.
Candidates must get 100 percent on a forty-item questionnaire that tests their commitment to economic justice and civil rights, including gay rights, public education, universal healthcare, environmental protection and abortion.
I suppose it's not a bad idea, but I wonder about the long-term electability of people who can honestly get 100% on such a test, and I wonder more about their ability to get anything done in Congress, if they should get there. Clinton was consistently criticized for betraying a host of liberal ideals, but I think his ability to do that is what made him a good President.
Actually, you're completely wrong about the DLCC being part of the Democratic Leadership Council. They are part of the Democratic Party - the woman on the phone probably said "DNC". The DLCC is the state-legislature equivalent of the DSCC (senators) and DCCC (House members). See here. Giving to the DLCC is completely worthy and won't only help rightist Democrats.
Damn. I swear the fundraiser I spoke to told me that it was a Democratic Leadership Council affiliate -- I said the words rather than the acronym to make sure. He must have been confused. I'll check it out and put up a correction. (And could you change your pseud? 'Oops' is taken.)
DLCC is most definitely NOT part of DLC. I thought you'd written the usual boilerplay that differentiates between the two. Giving them money, if you have a spare several thou lying around, is a good idea. And because state campaign finance laws work differently than the feds, its a legal and convenient way to use money strategically.
Since this is our political thread for the day, when I saw Krugman write this, this morning:
So what's going on here? Some might suggest that the alleged influence of the Some is no more real than the problem of flag-burning, that right-wing propagandists are attacking straw men to divert attention from the Bush administration's failures. And they wonder why people like Mr. Obama are helping these propagandists in their work.
Correction is up both places. And yes on the Krugman article -- expecting loyalty to the people on your side, rather than buying into the 'Some' nonsense, should be a minimum for prominent Democrats.
I suppose it's not a bad idea, but I wonder about the long-term electability of people who can honestly get 100% on such a test, and I wonder more about their ability to get anything done in Congress, if they should get there.
Take a look at the list (you have to click to a couple of pages -- it's proken up by topic heading). I don't see anything that should be a major handicap.
I see problems under Economic Justice, Civil Rights, and Education. I'm not sure I disagree with any of the positions staked out there (I don't know enough to know what's being staked out), but I can imagine a lot of people looking at that list and seeing the Olde Tyme liberals that they'd previously rejected. I'm not crazy about the DLC, and its current project, but I think it was part of a necessary course correction for the party.
If you had a specific issue with something under one of those headings, we could talk. In the aggregate, I'm thinking that a Demcratic candidate who can't stand up for all of that isn't worth much.
The issues are phrased sufficiently vaguely that it should be possible to agree with them without too much wrangling. But a number of them would be extremely tricky to implement in practice.
Disclaimer, I'm a fan of most of these as policies, just not sure they're great politics.
From the "Economic Justice" section
# Enforcing pay equity for men and women doing equivalent work;
[This is tricky, IIRC. My sense is that the phrase "equivalent work" has a long legal history behind it but IANAL]
# Requiring workers' rights, human rights and environmental protections - and the mechanisms to enforce them - in all trade accords;
[All trade accords? What about minor deals that are essentially re-establishing the status quo?]
# Passing new initiatives to hold corporations accountable, shut down sweatshops and turn export-processing zones into fair workplaces, not back alleys of exploitation; and
[I'm all for this but . . . actually trying to implement this is (unfortunately) a major fight]
# Developing an America that leads in the struggle against poverty, while creating the example of a just democracy for all.
[This one is so vague, how do you tell if a candidate keeps their commitment. Depending on how you read it, it could be relatively meaningless, or it could be a standard that's almost impossible to meet].
I think you're overthinking. These are aspirational goals -- local candidates aren't going the have a lot of influence on the details of trade policy. The question is, do the candidates agree that the items on the list are all good ideas?
(Enforcement is another issue, and one which the Right has had trouble with. But for getting people into power, we at least need to take some control of what ideas are being talked about.)
Rather than pick this low-hanging fruit, let's work on a new term with the same meaning, for intra-unfogged purposes at least. The obvious on is IANAA (attorney), but I also like IHNPTB (have not passed the bar) or ICPEAMN (can't put esq. after my name).
17 is probably correct but bothers me for reasons that I can't clearly articulate and will need to think about.
18 -- tia just made that joke (though google isn't finding TMK's "INALexicographer" for some reason). I find "ICPEAMN" appealing silly, but doubt it will catch on.
though google isn't finding TMK's "INALexicographer" for some reason
It takes a few days for comments to show up in the search engines. And once they're archived, they disappear and it takes another few days for them to come back. And Google misses some stuff that Yahoo! catches. (And, though it probably isn't making a difference here, you're short an 'A'.)
Gloria Allred rocks. Thanks for posting on this. You might want to check out ballot.org next.
Posted by benton | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 9:54 AM
I don't know, for some reason I'm not a big fan of having a political party (and its members) be defined by a checklist of positions. It's not entirely rational, I know, and the outcomes they're going for are ones I agree with, but I still like the idea of members of Congress being independant representatives, rather than cogs in a broader Democratic (or Republican, for that matter) Machine.
That said, huzzah for trying to get more progressives elected!
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 10:03 AM
It's not entirely rational, I know,
Get. Over. It. This isn't the thought police, it's people raising money to support candidates they agree with. You can't build a movement unless the different segments of it are loyal to each other.
Now, if there's something on their list you really don't agree with, than don't give them money. But trading support for loyalty isn't oppressive, it's necessary.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 10:07 AM
Candidates must get 100 percent on a forty-item questionnaire that tests their commitment to economic justice and civil rights, including gay rights, public education, universal healthcare, environmental protection and abortion.
I suppose it's not a bad idea, but I wonder about the long-term electability of people who can honestly get 100% on such a test, and I wonder more about their ability to get anything done in Congress, if they should get there. Clinton was consistently criticized for betraying a host of liberal ideals, but I think his ability to do that is what made him a good President.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 10:18 AM
Actually, you're completely wrong about the DLCC being part of the Democratic Leadership Council. They are part of the Democratic Party - the woman on the phone probably said "DNC". The DLCC is the state-legislature equivalent of the DSCC (senators) and DCCC (House members). See here. Giving to the DLCC is completely worthy and won't only help rightist Democrats.
Posted by Oops | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 10:22 AM
Damn. I swear the fundraiser I spoke to told me that it was a Democratic Leadership Council affiliate -- I said the words rather than the acronym to make sure. He must have been confused. I'll check it out and put up a correction. (And could you change your pseud? 'Oops' is taken.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 10:28 AM
DLCC is most definitely NOT part of DLC. I thought you'd written the usual boilerplay that differentiates between the two. Giving them money, if you have a spare several thou lying around, is a good idea. And because state campaign finance laws work differently than the feds, its a legal and convenient way to use money strategically.
Posted by benton | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 10:35 AM
Since this is our political thread for the day, when I saw Krugman write this, this morning:
So what's going on here? Some might suggest that the alleged influence of the Some is no more real than the problem of flag-burning, that right-wing propagandists are attacking straw men to divert attention from the Bush administration's failures. And they wonder why people like Mr. Obama are helping these propagandists in their work.
I said yes!
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 10:41 AM
Correction is up both places. And yes on the Krugman article -- expecting loyalty to the people on your side, rather than buying into the 'Some' nonsense, should be a minimum for prominent Democrats.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 10:43 AM
We should figure out oops's new pseudonym for oops. "Oops, I posted again" "Oops2", Son or Daughter of Oops, Oopsalicious, etc.
Posted by benton | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 10:44 AM
Whoops?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 10:47 AM
Perhaps that's what I should be calling myself, given the erroneousness of the post.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 10:55 AM
I suppose it's not a bad idea, but I wonder about the long-term electability of people who can honestly get 100% on such a test, and I wonder more about their ability to get anything done in Congress, if they should get there.
Take a look at the list (you have to click to a couple of pages -- it's proken up by topic heading). I don't see anything that should be a major handicap.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 11:02 AM
I see problems under Economic Justice, Civil Rights, and Education. I'm not sure I disagree with any of the positions staked out there (I don't know enough to know what's being staked out), but I can imagine a lot of people looking at that list and seeing the Olde Tyme liberals that they'd previously rejected. I'm not crazy about the DLC, and its current project, but I think it was part of a necessary course correction for the party.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 11:20 AM
If you had a specific issue with something under one of those headings, we could talk. In the aggregate, I'm thinking that a Demcratic candidate who can't stand up for all of that isn't worth much.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 11:34 AM
The issues are phrased sufficiently vaguely that it should be possible to agree with them without too much wrangling. But a number of them would be extremely tricky to implement in practice.
Disclaimer, I'm a fan of most of these as policies, just not sure they're great politics.
From the "Economic Justice" section
# Enforcing pay equity for men and women doing equivalent work;
[This is tricky, IIRC. My sense is that the phrase "equivalent work" has a long legal history behind it but IANAL]
# Requiring workers' rights, human rights and environmental protections - and the mechanisms to enforce them - in all trade accords;
[All trade accords? What about minor deals that are essentially re-establishing the status quo?]
# Passing new initiatives to hold corporations accountable, shut down sweatshops and turn export-processing zones into fair workplaces, not back alleys of exploitation; and
[I'm all for this but . . . actually trying to implement this is (unfortunately) a major fight]
# Developing an America that leads in the struggle against poverty, while creating the example of a just democracy for all.
[This one is so vague, how do you tell if a candidate keeps their commitment. Depending on how you read it, it could be relatively meaningless, or it could be a standard that's almost impossible to meet].
Posted by NickS | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 11:58 AM
I think you're overthinking. These are aspirational goals -- local candidates aren't going the have a lot of influence on the details of trade policy. The question is, do the candidates agree that the items on the list are all good ideas?
(Enforcement is another issue, and one which the Right has had trouble with. But for getting people into power, we at least need to take some control of what ideas are being talked about.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 12:20 PM
behind it but IANAL
Rather than pick this low-hanging fruit, let's work on a new term with the same meaning, for intra-unfogged purposes at least. The obvious on is IANAA (attorney), but I also like IHNPTB (have not passed the bar) or ICPEAMN (can't put esq. after my name).
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 12:36 PM
17 is probably correct but bothers me for reasons that I can't clearly articulate and will need to think about.
18 -- tia just made that joke (though google isn't finding TMK's "INALexicographer" for some reason). I find "ICPEAMN" appealing silly, but doubt it will catch on.
Posted by NickS | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 12:44 PM
though google isn't finding TMK's "INALexicographer" for some reason
It takes a few days for comments to show up in the search engines. And once they're archived, they disappear and it takes another few days for them to come back. And Google misses some stuff that Yahoo! catches. (And, though it probably isn't making a difference here, you're short an 'A'.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 1:41 PM