The failed party

[Gatekeeper]

Winston:

Yep, it's mandatory by law. I just hope that's all that's asked for ... a statewide recount. None of this Florida 2000 crap.

Gatekeeper

[MichaeltheGreat]

The average American has a pretty distorted, sanitized view of defense and war in general. Things like missile defense are abstract, beyond people's technical comprehension, and pretty easily spun into nice, pretty packages.

Real combat is presented abstractly - we don't let reporters cover it, so realities of crispy critters, shake and bake, etc. aren't shown. Casualties on our side of the fence are fairly few and far between, and again, we mask the full impact with lots of pomp and ceremony.

When you've got real, proven, manly warriors like Bush, Cheney, Lott and Rice thumping them drums, people don't want a washed up cripple from that old, failed war we'd rather forget about reminding us that maybe, it ain't always gonna be a good show like the CNN version of the Gulf war and Afghanistan. We want news reports of our boys under our fearless leaders thumping those dirty ragheads. The occaisional somber flag-draped coffin being greeted by the President when it's flown into Andrews is an acceptable price, but let's not get too complicated or realistic about things.

American ignorance about foreign policy, geopolitics and military strategy is astounding. Most countries are as bad or worse, but they at least have the mitigating factor that their militaries are a very small part of their policy apparatus and budget. In the US, the significance of defense and defense policy is proportionately larger than in any other country in the world with a representative government, but people don't want to be bothered with it, they just want a show on CNN and our leaders to take care of it for them.

[Winston]

Gatekeeper,
Yes let's hope so.

BTW, did Tom Daschle do any kind of campaigning or endorsing for Tim Johnson in South Dakota? And is it customary for your state to elect two Democrats for Senate, seeing as Johnson was the incumbent?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
American ignorance about foreign policy, geopolitics and military strategy is astounding.

It's also typically one of the least cared about aspects of picking a candidate. How else do you explain some of the choices we've made for President, etc.?

[Peacemaker]

Originally posted by Arrian
Why is it, exactly, that people think the President controls the economy? Or the government in general, for that matter. The only effect the government has on the economy is indirect, and usually takes a while to kick in.

Capitalism, for all of its benifits, does have a downside: Marx saw it, though he overestimated its negative effects. A capitalist economy is cyclical in nature. Boom, followed by Bust, then back to Boom, and so on and so forth. The government, as it is currently set up in the US, can only have a limited effect on that.

Yet time and again, Presidents get popularity boosts in times of prosperity and suffer the opposite when times are tight. Even though they have very little to do with it.

If you wanted to argue that Americans are stupid, Tass, THAT would be a good point.

-Arrian

By george I think he's got it

[Arrian]

American ignorance about foreign policy, geopolitics and military strategy is astounding. Most countries are as bad or worse, but they at least have the mitigating factor that their militaries are a very small part of their policy apparatus and budget. In the US, the significance of defense and defense policy is proportionately larger than in any other country in the world with a representative government, but people don't want to be bothered with it...

*snip*

Well said. As usual.

-Arrian

p.s. Merciless, I agree. Stupidity does not recognize national borders.

[DanS]

I don't buy the stupidity argument. It's just an easy way to make excuses for the fact that people don't agree with you. Oh yes, it must be THEIR stupidity...

WRT ignorance about foreign affairs and naivete about the brutality of war, this is probably so. I don't care to watch crispy critters on TV every night and would prefer some sort of abstraction. Just like we no longer hang 'em high in the town square.

I would note that the criteria upon which American candidates are chosen are not wonkish at all. Perceived leadership is prized. In other words, even if Americans knew the details cold, I'm skeptical that it would change their political choices.

Also, I would note that foreign affairs have been covered relatively quite heavily in the US press since 9/11, and Americans seem genuinely interested in the topic.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Winston
Well, Dem. figureheads have a record of dodging drafts. Apparently the party base is unfamiliar with candidates being attacked even when they don't.

Actually Winston, the opposite is true. While Democrats have the reputation of being draft dogers, it tends more often to be Repulbicans who actually dodged: George Bush, Gingrich, Quayle, etc.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
Why is it, exactly, that people think the President controls the economy? Or the government in general, for that matter. The only effect the government has on the economy is indirect, and usually takes a while to kick in.

Capitalism, for all of its benifits, does have a downside: Marx saw it, though he overestimated its negative effects. A capitalist economy is cyclical in nature. Boom, followed by Bust, then back to Boom, and so on and so forth. The government, as it is currently set up in the US, can only have a limited effect on that.

Yet time and again, Presidents get popularity boosts in times of prosperity and suffer the opposite when times are tight. Even though they have very little to do with it.

If you wanted to argue that Americans are stupid, Tass, THAT would be a good point.

-Arrian

Thank you Arrian for saying what I've always said. Presidents have very limitted power to effect economies.

In their economic toolbags of influence on the economy are: trying to infleuence manage the money supply (Arguably Greenspan is the real mover and shaker)

Attempting to lessen taxes (via less governement spending which arguably results in less gov jobs thus leading to unemployment thus choking the economy and consumer confidence).

Attempting to increase gov jobs via public works programs (arguably increasing tax burdens thus choking the economy)

Attempt to encourage investment into the US industries by making regulations, executive orders, etc. as painless as possible to investors thus creating jobs.

Attempting to inspire confidence to stimulate consumer spending.

Aside from that theres not a lot the President can do.

There has been this falicy that FDR was able to single handedly bring hope and curb the effect of the depression via massive gov programs. To a limited extent this is true. He was at most able to inspire a bit of confidence in the US populace that the government was trying something different. In reality the US had a slight recovery that would have backslid were it not for the onset of WW2. This arguably was the greatest involvement a US president had on an economy (and in order to do so he initiated Huge gov spending programs).

Now arguably those some programs allowed great development of infrastructure for subsequent generations to enjoy ( road systems, more widely distributed electricity etc.)

The point being even if a President was capable of making a policy that had a dramatic impact (at a huge change to the government system as it stands) the impact to the economy is negligible (at least in the short term taking FDR's infrastructure advancements as an example). All a President can really try to do is stand on the sidelines and be a cheerleader and attempt to rally consumer confidence.

In Bush's defense (and yes I think he has blundred a bit as well), he has made in my estimation a concerted effort to try to rally conusmer confidence to overcome obstacles of 9/11, corporate leadership misdeeds, and the spectre of Iraqi war. I see little else of any effect that he could try to do.

OTOH, I am not especially pleased about the carte blanche he will enjoy to appoint judges of his choosing as I am an avid Pro-choicer.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's also typically one of the least cared about aspects of picking a candidate. How else do you explain some of the choices we've made for President, etc.?

It is probably the least cared about aspect, but with this vague war on terrorism, increased globalisation, the US economy's dependence on global issues, it's going to be increasingly costly to continue the same degree of apathy.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Winston
BTW, did Tom Daschle do any kind of campaigning or endorsing for Tim Johnson in South Dakota? And is it customary for your state to elect two Democrats for Senate, seeing as Johnson was the incumbent?

Daschle didn't get overtly involved in Johnson's re-election campaign until the final month or so. That's when they began appearing together from time to time and Daschle began airing ads about the good team he and Johnson are in Washington, D.C., and how the former's slot as Senate Majority Leader and the latter's slot on the Appropriations Committee were twin boons for a state that, usually, has little impact on Washington politics (and that's a run-on sentence). IOW, the Daschle-Johnson duo would be able to keep issues that affected South Dakota on the front burner in D.C.

Of course now that may be altered a bit, what with Daschle apparently returning to his slot as the Senate Minority Leader.

As for electing senators, there's an old saying in our state: We send the Dems to Washington to bring home the moolah, and we elect the GOP for state offices so the money can be spent/saved wisely.

I don't think it's a "tradition" yet to have both Senate seats occupied simutaneously by Dems. Back in 1994, then Rep. Tim Johnson (D) was going up against Sen. Larry Pressler (R), who had been in Washington for years and, thus, had clout that our state could use. Johnson defeated Pressler by a few thousand votes. Now it appears Johnson may hang on to his seat by no more than a few hundred votes — IOW, Thune tried to do in 2002 (he was hand-picked by Bush to try and unseat Johnson) what Johnson did in 1994, but came up short. Folks are saying that's because the Dems were successful in getting the Native Americans on our state's reservations out to vote in large numbers. They usually don't have as good a partcipation level in federal elections, but the Dems changed that. That 527 or so vote lead Johnson has over Thune is probably due to the Native American voters and Republicans who crossed party lines and voted for Johnson.

Gatekeeper

[Winston]

Yes I heard that Thune had his heart set on the Governor race, but that he was tapped by GOP leaders to run against Johnson for Senate in hopes of regaining control there. What a bummer it must be for him personally if yesterdays' result stands after the recount. From the Governor poll numbers, you'd think he could've won that comfortably.

Tom Daschle can't be too pleased either though, to say the least.

Thanks for the interesting insights.

[Provost Harrison]

The Democrats are not a 'failed party'. Come here and see the Conservatives if you want to see a 'failed party'

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Come here and see the Conservatives if you want to see a 'failed party'

Labor seems to be doing just fine PH.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't buy the stupidity argument. It's just an easy way to make excuses for the fact that people don't agree with you. Oh yes, it must be THEIR stupidity...

Well, it is. Whatever the issue, just remember that half the electorate has a two-digit IQ.

WRT ignorance about foreign affairs and naivete about the brutality of war, this is probably so. I don't care to watch crispy critters on TV every night and would prefer some sort of abstraction. Just like we no longer hang 'em high in the town square.

I would note that the criteria upon which American candidates are chosen are not wonkish at all. Perceived leadership is prized. In other words, even if Americans knew the details cold, I'm skeptical that it would change their political choices.

With an unsophisticated electorate, perceived leadership hinges more on slogans, spin, sound bites and charisma. Mind you, the Dems have been lacking on all of the above for a good while now.

A more sophisticated electorate would have the ability to burn through a lot of the BS and see how much of the projected image of leadership is based on real leadership, and how much on typical political campaign tools.

Also, I would note that foreign affairs have been covered relatively quite heavily in the US press since 9/11, and Americans seem genuinely interested in the topic.

Unfortunately, most of it is still in the Gary Cooper and John Wayne (or Stallone, if that's the generational preference) vs. the dirty ragheads vein. More people know what continent Afghanistan is on than did before, yes, but background like how the Taleban-NA ****fest was really an extension of Indo-Pakistani rivalry, or the relative precariousness and double-dealing by our purported allies are still beyond the scope.

To negotiate effectively, you need to know how the other guy perceives things, and what he believes his interests to be. How much do we know (or care) about the Saudi's national interests (whether the man in the street, the royals, the mullahs) or the Pakistanis'?