99 Comments

1. Catherine:

I read recently, and can’t recall the source in this case, that “independents,” are a full third of the population.

I was shocked by that—or has this always been the case?

Aug 2, 2004 - 8:07 am 2. jerry:

Roger:

The Democrats have become what is Russia is called a Red-Brown party. That is, socialist economics coupled with a fascist political line. Now, I don’t think the Dems have reached the same level of depravity as the Russian extremes but it certainly has the major characteristics of the reformulated Russian Communist Party and the Liberal Party of Vladmir Zhironovsky. That is why it isn’t so strange that both Moore and Wilson can coexist as Democrats. Moore objects to Saudi politics because he identifies it with Capitalism (He is Red). He has no problem with its anti-Semitism or its suppression of opposing political and religious views. In the same the way Wilson is the classic “brown” arrogant and self-important personality. He is naturally attracted to Saudi Arabian society by personal affinity and interest. Most true believing lefties often continue in the self-delusion that they are ìanti-fascistî but they repeatedly show by their actions and associations that they consider the so called browns as there ideological allies. This is as true today as it was in 1939. The collapse of international communism in 1989 has led the left to become far more national in their socialism. The war of ideas between Lenin and Mussolini (they were on quite friendly terms by the way) has been settled in Benitoís favor. Today, the parties of the left are increasingly adapting the National Socialism of the Eric Roem faction of the original National Socialist movement.

Aug 2, 2004 - 8:15 am 3. flenser:

I don’t know if they really are diametrically opposed. That would assume that they actually have some deeply held beliefs which informs their world view. It seems more likely that they are motivated by the basic left wing impulse; that people like them should be in charge and calling the shots.

Wilson writes in The Nation, while Moore is an open communist. People like this will say whatever they find expedient at any given instant, but they don’t actually MEAN any of it.

In a similar vein, the current Democratic position is to say both that Bush is failing to pursue Al Queda with sufficient vigor, due to the “distraction” of Iraq, and also that the whole Al Queda terrorist threat is being hyped by Bush as a political ploy. Can these both be true? The question misses the point – the people making the charges do not CARE about whether they are true or not, only whether they are useful to their ultimate goal. If there is a major terror attack before the election, the “hyped” charge will be dropped into the memory hole. If there is no attack, the “distraction” charge will meet the same fate. In either case, thay will say “we were right.”

When dealing with unprincipled people, it’s a mistake to assume that they are at all concerned by things like logical consistency.

Aug 2, 2004 - 8:27 am 4. Peter G.:

Catherine, it’s been the case for quite a few years (at least since the 50s, probably before then) that 1/3 have registered as Independents, with Dems and Reps also getting about 1/3 each. In the biggest landslide elections the losing party ends up with about 35% of the vote (1964, 1972) with the Independents essentially all voting for one party.

Not that registering as an Independent means that one votes that way. I’ve always been registered as an Independent even though I started out as a hardline Democrat. Some are registered with one party only so they can participate in the primary election, but otherwise never vote for their registered party.

I don’t have a problem with someone voting straight party lines. I only have a problem with “My party’s never wrong, the other party’s always wrong.” I used to think that way. I was wrong, of course.

Aug 2, 2004 - 8:48 am 5. Eric Akawie:

The Saudi “connection” is simply a convienient handle to use to bash Bush, one that Moore probably chose because it could create a sense of betrayal among conservatives or the “Bush-Neutral.” I doubt it really gets Moore all that steamed on its own.

Aug 2, 2004 - 8:54 am 6. Knucklehead:

Catherine,

That 1/3 of us consider ourselves independants doesn’t surprise me. Being an independant, however, isn’t all one might expect it to be. I, for example, have always been an “independant”. I would much prefer to vote for the candidate rather than a particular party.

Over the past dozen years or so, however, I have arrived at a loathing for the Democratic party – I cannot vote for a Democrat, no matter how much I respect the individual candidate because I believe the Democratic party is corrupt and (if such a term can be applied to a thing like a political party) insane.

Since we have a two-party system I am forced to be, essentially, a Republican who does not participate in the party. That is not as bad as it might seem since the Republican party seems to me to be more inclusive and a better source of ideas (at least at this point in time).

I very much want the Democratic party to be crushed at the polls until whatever is left of some sane portion of it splits away to form the foundation of a new party. I don’t believe there is any hope that the Democratic party can jettison its most lunatic fringe – I think its problems are too deeply systemic.

If a new and sensible, and viable, party emerges then I can resume being an independant. I am aware of other independants who have gone the route of casting “protest” votes for fringe 3rd parties (particularly the Libertarians). That seems either a waste or a potentially dangerous path to me (I want no part of Ross Perots or Lyndon LaRouches or Ralph Naders at the knobs and dials of power).

If this “sensible new party” does not emerge relatively soon, however, I just may get off my Fat Independant Arse and actually join the Republican party and be a participant purely in the interests of exerting whatever small kuckleheaded influence I might have. If one party is so BAD that I cannot bring myself to even vote for one of its candidates, ever again, then perhaps it is in my best interests to join the other party and see if I can’t exert some small influence to help move that party from “doesn’t suck” toward “not half bad”.

Aug 2, 2004 - 9:27 am 7. Knucklehead:

Peter G:

…the other party’s always wrong.

This is, unfortunately, the box the Dems have driven me into – the inflexible postion that they are ALWAYS wrong. Fortunately the Reps seem to rarely put forth candidates into the elections I get to vote in where I really have to “hold my nose”. I don’t cast “protest” votes so much as “defeat” votes when I would potentially prefer, mildly, the Dem candidate. I don’t like it one little bit but I’ve had all I can stand of the Dems trashing things “for the good of the little people” while behaving as repulsive snobs and elites.

Aug 2, 2004 - 9:39 am 8. jerry:

Jonah Goldberg at NRO has written several columns lambasting our worship of political Independents. He rightly points out that the independents are often the most ignorant of issues, lacking of convictions and unable to make rational political choices. The last minute switch of undecided/independents from Bush to Gore during the last weekend of the 2000 election is a good example of the vacuouuness of these voters. Independents switch their votes because of Bush’s DUI conviction. An offense in which no attempt to cover up, no influence was used to reduced the sentence and W was treated as regular citizen caused our rhapsodized independent voters to vote for Gore because they didn’t want another Clinton type president. Independents made these claims despite the fact that Bush’s behavior was the exact opposite of the Clintonian response. Let’s stop kissing up to the Independent. I for one want an electorate to be able to figure out the difference between the candidates long before Election Day.

Aug 2, 2004 - 9:58 am 9. Rick Z:

Intellectual honesty and consistancy of argument are luxuries a party in opposition can afford to do without. The Democrats are new to this role, and it will take some time (and hopefully a few more failed election cycles) for them to master the art of honorable opposition.

Aug 2, 2004 - 10:03 am 10. jdm:

Knucklehead,

Unfortunately, I don’t expect the Democrats to change anytime soon regardless the size of an (expected) Republican victory. The Republicans have been winning in Congress by increasingly large numbers for the last 10, 15 (20?) some years to no avail. The one and only change during that time is that the Democrats have muted their beliefs (for example, the heavily restricted gun control the Democrats would like to impose is now simply not mentioned).

Your Sensible Party, if it ever comes about, will require a serendipitous fracture of both the Democrats *and* the Republicans at the same time with the further realization by the fractions that they have things in common and perhaps they should join forces. I don’t see it happening.

I think we may in a period of ascendancy for the Republicans similar to the period for the Democrats in the 30s. That is, an entire generation may tend Republican (no, I’m not saying I hope this to be the case, I just think it is).

Aug 2, 2004 - 10:05 am 11. jdm:

Jerry,

I can’t agree at all regarding the so-called worship of independents. The independents are what drag the two main parties towards the middle every election cycle. I fear and loathe the leftward leaning elements of the Democrats because I can see what they have wrought in society; however, I also fear and loathe what the rightward leaning elements of the Republican will wreak should they gain sufficient power.

Independents are also the only group that consistently favors smaller gov’t understood to mean lower taxes and fewer gov’t intrusions in personal life.

Aug 2, 2004 - 10:24 am 12. jerry:

jdm:

What you described as an independent is a Republican who doesn’t claim party affiliation unless he votes in a closed primary

Aug 2, 2004 - 10:28 am 13. Knucklehead:

Jerry,

Well, I have to say that as an independant I haven’t noticed anyone kissing my ass. Democrats seem to pay some vague lip service to attracting independants but it seems to be based upon very dubious notions or a complete unwillingness to take a side – appeal to independents as not knowing which side of an issue they are on. Republicans appeal to this independent because they seem to accept a wider diversity of viewpoints. I suppose many independants don’t know which side of an issue they wish to stand with. I don’t beleive I have that problem although I fully admit that it may take me preposterously long to determine what side I should be standing on. Theoretically independence allows me the freedom to vote according to what I believe right rather than some nebulous party line.

Maybe I’m just defending a choice I am reluctant to change, but I believe independance from membership in a political party to be a perfectly rational choice.

If one belongs to a particular party and disagree with that party, what do I do? One must either fight from the inside, switch parties, or become an independant. I don’t see how any of those choices is fundamentally different than my choices as an independent.

If I join a party and vote in its primaries I may get the candidate I prefer but I may not. How is that different than what I have now other than that I’ve “won” or “lost” an additional election. If the state one lives in allows independants to vote in primaries then how does independence differ from party affiliation? And if one is not prepared to be politically active within a party, how does that differ in any meaningful way with being an independent?

If one believes in “balance of power” or that something approaching political stalemate is often a desireable outcome or that too much control of the levers of government by one party (which is more or less what the FDR and the New Deal gave us), then being an independant allows me to put my shoulder to the task of slowing or reversing the pendulum.

Why is it necessary, or any sign of superior citizenship, to select one of two political parties to belong to? Party affiliation transcends governmental levels. My local government seems to have largely rejected (or has gone in the closet about) party affiliation. It is at the local level where I find the notion of independence the most useful – it is precisely here, locally, where I am most likely to have some firsthand experience with a candidate.

It seems to me attacks on the notion of independence are overblown.

Aug 2, 2004 - 10:38 am 14. Knucklehead:

Jerry,

Interesting points you make. For personall “independent” is a false label. Since I am very strongly anti-Democrat that leaves me, functionally, a Republican who has simply never registerd my party affiliation. What bothers me is that my affinity toward Republicans is somewhat “honest” (I agree with the positions of the Reps to a strong extent) but I am also painfully aware that it is partially a matter of being against the only other party – that isn’t “dishonest” but it is negative and, inherently, I just don’t like coming at things from the negative. Yet another reason I resent the Dems – they force me to be against them rather than giving me a legitmate option to be “for” something.

And therein lies yet another reason to not vote for Kerry. He’s invested way too heavily in being “against” things rather than “for” things.

How’s that for knuckleheaded analysis?

Aug 2, 2004 - 10:51 am 15. Katherine:

Jerry, my husband is such non-affiliated Republican independent, because here in CA it gives him right to vote in primary of his choice (he voted for Lieberman in the last presidential primary, on a principle). I crossed from Independent status to the Dark Side when Florida Supreme Court decided that sticking to election rules is for suckers – and Republicans.

Aug 2, 2004 - 10:53 am 16. flenser:

The knock on independents is that many of them have no consistent belief system. They pick and chose from the different options available. So they may agree with the GOP in opposition to higher taxes, and also agree with the Democrats in the desire for more government programs. An independent can be a libertarian when it suits, and turn around an hour later and be a socialist when that seems appealing.

It’s not such much their independence from the two major parties that is the problem, as their independence from any coherent political philosophy.

Of course, all this refers to independence, not from the two party system, but from any serious thought about what political principles are best. Seems there are two different matters being discussed here.

Anyway, to return to matters closer to topic.

If I can engage in a little Mooresque “dot connecting” for a moment, it’s interesting that Michael Moore is connected to the bin Laden family.

That is, he is connected via Lowes Theaters (owned by the Caryle Group) and George Soros (major investor in Caryle) to the bin Laden family (investors in Carlye).

:=)

Aug 2, 2004 - 11:05 am 17. jdm:

> What you described as an independent is a

> Republican who doesn’t claim party affiliation

> unless he votes in a closed primary

At this point in time I would agree with this, but it has not always been the case. Independents go with what gives them the most – or takes away the least.

Republicans fit the bill. For now.

Aug 2, 2004 - 11:08 am 18. Knucklehead:

Flenser,

How can any discussion of independence ignore the fact that we have a two party system? We are what we are. Neither political party has a particularly coherent or consistent political philosophy. And how does party affiliation necessarily indicate a coherent or consistent political philosophy?

Since Roger’s Place seems to be inhabited by a lot of recovering or reformed or “damn pissed off” Dems, let me ask how many of you have friends or other acquaintences who are “devout” Democrats and yet live completely “Republican” lives? They live their lives like dyed-in-th-wool “conservatives” right up to and including being Church Going Christians or one sect or another. Yet they somehow have a “political philosophy” that they somehow define as coherent or consistent and it is “Democrat”.

As a “party” outsider looking in, I don’t see any greater consistency or coherency from those who declare a party affiliation than I do from those who don’t. Are all y’all Affiliated Partiers protesting just a bit too much about this notion of coherence and consistency that allegedly springs from affiliation or registration?

Aug 2, 2004 - 11:26 am 19. WichitaBoy:

flenser

I’m afraid I don’t agree with you about either Democrats or independents.

“When dealing with unprincipled people, it’s a mistake to assume that they are at all concerned by things like logical consistency.” That’s correct. But by no means are all Democrats unprincipled. I agree that many are and that many of those who are running the party nationally are in that group. The Clinton cadre quickly leaps to mind here. But one need look no further than our gracious host for a counterexample.

Most of the rank and file Democrats, at least in the Midwest, are people of genuine principle who genuinely believe that they are acting in the best interests of the country. It won’t do to tar your opponents with the “unprincipled” brush just because you disagree with them. That underrates and marginalizes their concerns and motivations. That’s not worthy argument.

All political positions involve some compromise of one’s principles. That’s a necessary part of politics because people don’t all agree on everything. That’s true of Republicans as well as Democrats. Do you agree with everything on the Republican platform? Do you agree with large budget deficits? Should we pass a constitutional amendment against states’ ability to regulate marriage?

It’s not really logically consistent to oppose capital punishment because “life is sacred” while being at the same time pro-abortion, but that particular pair of contradictory beliefs is very common. The opposite pair is also logically inconsistent and widely held. It doesn’t follow that they aren’t real beliefs and that anyone holding them is simply out for power and lacks principles. There are many highly principled people holding these beliefs, on both sides.

“It’s not such much their independence from the two major parties that is the problem, as their independence from any coherent political philosophy.” I’m an independent and I believe that I have a coherent political philosophy, insofar as that phrase even makes sense. Hardly anyone agrees with my political philosophy, though, and certainly not the two major parties. It doesn’t follow that, because neither of the two cast-in-iron smorgasbords of political thought happens to fit my political thought at all well, I am unable to think.

Unable to write, yes, there’s unfortunately significant evidence for that.

I believe it’s a significant but common mistake to cast one’s political opponents as either without principles or without thought. It’s a mistake because sometimes they’re right and we’re wrong. I’d hate to wind up like the people who made the poster on the right in this post

Aug 2, 2004 - 11:43 am 20. Catherine:

It seems to me attacks on the notion of independence are overblown.

I’m with Knucklehead on this one.

There’s a new book out on Independents & Centrists:

Independent Nation : How the Vital Center Is Changing American Politics

by JOHN AVLON

Avlon was a speechwriter for Giuliani.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400050235/qid=1091472972/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2050998-3780836?v=glance&s=books

Aug 2, 2004 - 11:57 am 21. thedragonflies:

Fortunately for the Democratic Party, many liberals base their judgments and votes on emotion, not reason. Both Moore and Wilson share the big emotion, hatred of Bush, so they “feel” no disconnect between them.

Aug 2, 2004 - 12:00 pm 22. Cap'n Billy:

Re: Knucklehead at August 2, 2004 09:27 AM

Hey ya’ Knucklehead, how’d you get into MY knucklehead like that? That is my current position almost word for word. I have tried to give that wretched party the benefit of the doubt for years, but their current composition was the last straw. When people like T. Kennedy, A. Sharpton, M. Moore, and other charlatans too numerous to mention are treated like royalty something is very wrong in their little paradise. And that’s just a small part of what’s REALLY wrong with that party.

As recently as 5 or 6 years ago I was willing to listen respectfully to them. In fact, a good friend of mine was a Democratic candidate for Comptroller General of the state in which I live, and I supported him even though I was a staunch Republican. It was a very close election, and it took about a week to count the votes. As luck would have it, my wife and I were having lunch with him when he learned he had finally won the election.

I have since come to realize that, for the good of this republic, all responsible citizens have a sacred obligation to do everything in their power to deny public office, however minor, to as many of that party as possible. Every officeholder in whatever capacity adds to their power, which must be reduced as much as possible by all legal and ethical means.

Thus sayeth the Cap’n!

Aug 2, 2004 - 12:07 pm 23. Catherine:

Just found some interesting stuff on the growth of independents, from Avlon’s book. He sees it, at least in this passage, as a reaction to increasing polarization of the two parties. (I think Fiorina, at Stanford, says something simlar in his book Culture Wars.)

As Congress has grown more partisan, however, the electorate has grown steadily more Centrist, with the number of self-identified moderates rising from a bare plurality of 36 percent in 1980 to 50 percent in 1998 and 2000. At the same time, the number of Americans who are reluctant to identify themselves completely with either political party has been steadily rising.

In the mid twentieth century, party identification was a badge of honor. According to the National Election Studies program at the University of Michigan, fifty years ago 47 percent of voters identified with the Democrats and 28 percent with the Republicans, while just 23 percent were independents. In the year 2000, however, those numbers were almost reversed, with 40 percent of American voters describing themselves as independents, 34 percent as Democrats, and 24 percent as Republicans.

. . . .

Not coincidentally, as our professional politicians have become more partisan, Americans have reacted by voting in a new era of divided government, balancing the power of the president with a Congress from the opposite party for all but six years since 1980. The object of these voting patterns is not a wish for gridlock, but pursuit of the implicit assurance that extremists in one party will not be able to hijack the national legislative agenda. Likewise, there is a presumption that with a balanced government the best ideas from both parties will be the only legislation able to be passed. It is an instinctive extension of the constitutional principle of checks and balances, an attempt to moderate excesses in an excessively partisan era.

The steadily growing ranks of independent voters constitute a quiet revolution, and it is growing: This independent plurality becomes even more pronounced when you look at the politics of younger Americans. Again, fully 44 percent of those aged eighteen to twenty-nine identify themselves as Independents. Demographics are destiny.

Aug 2, 2004 - 12:15 pm 24. Catherine:

Here’s a passage from an Avlon column addressing the Jonah Goldberg view:

Another tactic used to explain away the independent vote is to accuse it of being incoherent and consequently irrelevant. But this ignores the fact that both the number of independents and self-described moderates have risen at precisely the same time that our domestic politics has grown more polarized.

ÔøΩYoung peole in particular are repulsed by this polarization,ÔøΩ asserts Professor David King of the Kennedy School of Government. A new survey by HarvardÔøΩs Institute of Politics shows that 41% of college undergraduates identify themselves as independents. . . . people who declare themselves independents tend to be the most moderateÔøΩthey are centrists. It is a radical center that feels alienated from politics.

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmailfiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMailGifMSIE&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/04/15&ID=Ar00901&ChunkNum=0

Aug 2, 2004 - 12:17 pm 25. jerry:

Catherine:

Rather then refute Goldberg King and Avalon strenthen the case. Moderate is self defined. Hillary Clinton sincerly believes she is a moderate. So does the hierarchy of the Episcopal Church. I suppose some on the right define themselves as moderates but are less prone to do so. People define themselves as moderates because they belive that they take only reasonable positions that anybody could agree with. No, moderate is a meaningless politcal term coined by the left (hint: “radical center”) to demonize their opponents on right for beging “out of the mainstream.”

Aug 2, 2004 - 12:28 pm 26. Fresh Air:

Alexis De Tocqueville warned that those who find themselves suddenly in the minority will, for a long time, have trouble accepting it. Going on 10 years now, the Democrats have not had control of most of the levers of government. This had made them befuddled and despondent. Their choice of Kerry was cynical ploy designed to reignite their fortunes at the expense of expressing a coherent message for the future. Kerry’s nomination will be proven to be both a tactical and strategic disaster, IMO.

I believe the major reason why the Democrats have such a cast of weird characters in their tent is their mortal fear of losing any of their base. If they purge all the fruitcakes they will look like the Tories in England. So you have the phenomenon where Kerry is first against the war during the primary, then he is for it afterwards (with important differences of course, like the color of the Army’s camouflage).

Rather than reinventing themselves to appeal to more voters, the Democrats are steadfastly clinging to the desperate hope that Kerry will be swept into office and all will be well again. Like Bill Clinton’s attitude towards terrorism, they are kicking the can down the road in hopes they won’t have to deal it. Sadly, they are deluding themselves and the rest of the country, too.

Aug 2, 2004 - 12:30 pm 27. Catherine:

Jerry

Then why the change in self-definition over time?

That’s the heart of the argument here.

Avlon is a Republican; speechwriter to Giuliani; columnist for the New York Sun.

Aug 2, 2004 - 12:33 pm 28. Catherine:

Rather than reinventing themselves to appeal to more voters, the Democrats are steadfastly clinging to the desperate hope that Kerry will be swept into office and all will be well again.

This is what always frustrates me.

There are all kinds of important things the Democrats could be doing that the Republicans aren’t as inclined to do—-why can’t they adapt??

Why is George Bush doing far more for education & civil rights than any elected Democrat?

Of course I know the answer to that in the “short term”: the teachers’ unions.

But in the wider scheme of things, how can Democrats cling to affirmative action while ignoring the schools?

And btw, I don’t want to demean the Republicans on domestic policy; Bush is doing a great job on education.

But Republicans as a group are, I think, usually more interested in foreign policy, defense, & economics than in education and health care.

Democrats are naturally drawn to issues like education and health care, and what do they come up with?

Staunch opposition to vouchers & “high stakes testing.”

Then there’s John Kerry, promising to “fully fund” education “no questions asked.”

I’m serious.

That’s a quote.

Aug 2, 2004 - 12:40 pm 29. Rick Ballard:

Roger,

I don’t generally disagree with you but i do not see any ideological difference between Moore and Wilson at all. They could easily fit inside a large pup tent. Both of them desire a return to the status quo antebellum. The fact that they are using different ammo to shoot at the President does not negate the fact that they are shooting at the President.

The sad fact is that they are at one with a party that used to be strongly anti-fascist and is slowly becoming crypto-fascist. You’ve noted that many times but it bears repeating. Honestly, it seems to me that both parties are moving toward a point of non-differentiation. The Reps are spending like drunken sailors and the Dems are coddling dictators. Were my grandparents alive, I don’t think that they would recognize either party.

Aug 2, 2004 - 12:42 pm 30. Catherine:

I just stumbled onto a quote!

“I didn’t leave my party; my party left me.”

– Ronald Reagan, onetime liberal union leader, on why he ended his affiliation with the Democratic Party

I often feel that way.

Aug 2, 2004 - 12:49 pm 31. Catherine:

The Kamber – O’Leary Political Quiz is here:

http://www.msu.edu/~jdowell/PolitQuiz.html

When I took it I came out dead center. I was surprised; I had expected to be right of center.

But I was smack dab in the center.

Hillary is not listed as a centrist, fyi.

Aug 2, 2004 - 12:56 pm 32. jerry:

Catherine:

Over the past 30 years the American education system has systematicly dumbed down the population. As these voters become an increasing percentage of the electorate larger numbers of people will be unable to put issues in context. Therefore, they begin to “split the difference.” Unfortunately splitting the difference between Dirty Harry and Walter Mitty has little meaning. That’s what “moderates” tend to do. There are very few issues that splitting the difference makes for rational policy. Splitting the difference only works if you agree on fundementals. Moderation is entirely different concept from the political center. A centerist is someone who has strongly held positions on particular issues, some left and some right.

The reason we have polarized politics is that we do have two America’s. We have a one group who believes in a republican governement and market ecoonomics and another party firmly committed to socialism. Moderates typically want to eat their socialist cake and maintain their republican freedoms. No can do.

Aug 2, 2004 - 12:57 pm 33. jerry:

Catherine:

I didn’t say that Hillary was a centerist, I said she sincerly believes that she is the middle. Its self identification.

Aug 2, 2004 - 12:59 pm 34. Knucklehead:

A while back it was somewhat common to hear people make the claim that they were “a social liberal and a fiscal conservative”. That one always baffled me.

What the heck is a “social liberal”? Is that someone who is sure to take the “liberal” position in any “social” setting? A coctail party liberal? Does it mean socially liberal wrt matters of personal choice – sex, drugs, rock and roll and such?

Does it mean “socially liberal” wrt social programs – welfare and “safety nets”.

What is a fiscal conservative? Does that mean one favors spending within one’s means or does it mean taxing to meet any level of profligate spending?

Can one be a social programs/welfare “social liberal” and also be a “within one’s means” fiscal conservative?

I’ve been blathering a lot but its only because I don’t know what the heck a “moderate” is. All things in moderation, especially moderation. I consider myself somewhat centrist or moderate regarding some things and downright “STFU and get outta my face!” about others.

I’m a non-religious person who can’t figure out why the sound of Silent Night or the sight of a creche makes some people grow claws and fangs and start foaming at the mouth. I’m not the least bit moderate about that – anyone who can’t tolerate the sight of a creche in the town hall flower bed needs a check up from the neck up and a sharp slap upside the head. I’m not the least bit moderate about public education. Start throwing the destructive bastards who wrecked it out the door face-first. Give those parents who want their children to escape the cesspool of a failed school a fighting chance – vouchers!

But then again, I’m an independant

Aug 2, 2004 - 1:07 pm 35. jerry:

Catherine:

Just took the test. Acording to this test I am left of center because I chose not to answer certain false dichotomies. It lowered my score. Its not a very good test.

Aug 2, 2004 - 1:09 pm 36. Catherine:

I said she sincerly believes that she is the middle.

And I sincerely doubt that, myself.

I’d bet the ranch Hillary does not think “liberal” is a bad word. Not in private.

As to the public getting dumber, IQ studies show people

getting steadily smarter (Flynn effect). Which is not to say anyone knows how to do math.

Last but not least, while we have polarized parties & politicians, it’s not at all clear we have a polarized public.

An interesting book:

Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America by Morris P. Fiorina

Also, on the subject of the public being too ill-educated to put issues in context:

The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in American’s Policy Preferences by Benjamin Page (I learned of this book through Oxblog)

and

The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations by James Surowiecki

Aug 2, 2004 - 1:12 pm 37. ricpic:

Giuliani or Shwarzenegger would be “fiscally responsible” presidents?

Do I laugh or cry?

Aug 2, 2004 - 1:13 pm 38. sammy small:

Cap’n Billy

I can give you one Dem who I like and will continue to vote for: Jane Harman. She is strong on defense, super knowledgeable on terrorism, and backs GWB in the WoT. She is being blasted and called a Dem traitor in her district (South Bay, CA) for voting on the extension of the Patriot Act. We need more like her.

Aug 2, 2004 - 1:14 pm 39. Catherine:

OK, Jerry, I give up.

The test was developed 10 years ago, I think, by two political consultants, one a consultant to Republicans, one a consultant to Democrats.

These are the categories they & everyone else in politics use to predict voting patterns & party affiliation.

The test may be stupid, the consultants may be stupid, the voters may be stupid.

Nevertherless, this test captures & distills a great deal of what “left” and “right” mean in this country.

Aug 2, 2004 - 1:19 pm 40. Knucklehead:

Catherine:

Sorry, I can’t resist…

Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few

There is a counter “truism” that goes:

The aggregate IQ of all the people gathered together in a room is a constant.

Aug 2, 2004 - 1:24 pm 41. Roberts:

I think that the recent history of the Reform Party is good evidence of the nonsense of the idea that “Independant” has any real ideological meaning. That was the ground that Reform purported to cover. And if you look at the various personalities and factions it attracted, they certainly did not represent any coherent ideological position at all.

Aug 2, 2004 - 1:24 pm 42. Catherine:

WichitaBoy

Just saw you!

Great post!

You, too, Knucklehead.

off-topic

Rasmussen is also showing a one point “negative bounce” for Kerry.

Aug 2, 2004 - 1:26 pm 43. jerry:

Catherine:

I also can’t resist pointing out that ill educated does not mean lowered IQs. It only means that a voter with an IQ of 140 but has been through a typical public school may not be able to place the Civil War in the right century. Native intelligence and acquired knowledge are no longer strongly correlated.

Also I will tell you what I mean by the test is biased toward a left wing perspective. According to the test the right wing answer is to trusting executive vs legislative authority is to choose executive authority. Not true, conservatives trust elected legislatures not bureaucrats and judges.

Aug 2, 2004 - 1:33 pm 44. Knucklehead:

It seems to me that some people misinterpret “Independent” as some coherent political ideology somehow ready made to have a party label slapped on it. “Independants” don’t agree with one another about issues throughout the political spectrum any more (and probably no less) than Republicans agree with Democrats or even any more than people agree with one another intraparty.

Independents are simply people who don’t believe either of the mere TWO parties fits them particularly well or who wish to not be driven to vote with a party rather than with thier consciense. Its not like we have four or five choices and anyone who can’t find a fit must be malcontent. Our system gives us only two viable choices. Why is picking a “side” necessary (I have no problem with anyone picking a side, I just don’t see why it says something “bad” about those who don’t).

Aug 2, 2004 - 1:43 pm 45. Lapsed Randian 2:

Strong on defense, fiscally conservative, and socially liberal: sounds rather Randian to me….

Aug 2, 2004 - 1:49 pm 46. Knucklehead:

Jerry,

I haven’t looked at the test but any test that takes an expression of preference for executive vs legislative authority and assigns “executive=conservative” and “legislative=liberal” is clearly flawed. Such a choice might potentially suggest a preference for centralized authority over “will of the people” but there is no good correlation I can spot between those things and modern American “conservatism” or “liberalism”. If their is a demonstrable correlation it is almost certainly the opposite, as you state.

Aug 2, 2004 - 1:50 pm 47. Knucklehead:

Well, no sooner did I axe “what the heck is a ’social liberal’?” than Our Host tells us he am one.

What is a social liberal? Do those who identify themselves as “social liberals” have some commonality of definition? Are those who may disagree with some piece parts of whatever definition then social illiberals?

Aug 2, 2004 - 1:55 pm 48. flenser:

Wichita

“When dealing with unprincipled people, it’s a mistake to assume that they are at all concerned by things like logical consistency.”

This statement was made in reference to Wilson, Moore, and like-minded folk. To the best of my knowledge, none of these people are independents. There are two separate threads running here – lets keep them clear, and not drag statements from one into the other.

I have no problem whatsoever in referring to the Moores of the world as “unprincipled”. And I’m pretty certain that you actually agree with me. Correct me if I’m wrong, in which case we can discuss.

Independents;

I have already made several distinctions here between different types of independents. There are those who are “independent” of the two major parties, and these can then be subdivided in various ways. Then there are those who are “independent” of any well thought out ideas, and whose allegiance is given to those who can promise them the most at any point in time.

If you do not feel that this is a valid distinction, say so and we’ll talk.

If you do find it a valid distinction, then what I am saying seems both clear and relatively inarguable – that those who are “independent” of a coherent set of beliefs have the effect of imposing an odd mixture of policies on the rest of us, by virtue of being a swing vote. In some cases this may be seen as a “moderating” effect. In others, we end up with the worst of both worlds, as in the case where the majority, weighted by the “independent” vote, backs tax cuts but also spending increases.

Democrats;

I did not say a word about Democrats being “unprincipled” people. Since you bring the topic up, I will say that I do not consider most Democrats unprincipled. I do find their principles repugnant, but that is a different story.

However …… I do not see any way to get around the fact that the Democratic party is currently run by groups of people who I feel deserve the scorn of the American people, including Democrats. Many Democrats, as evidenced by this board, seem to feel the same way. The problem, as I see it, (and again, many Dem’s agree with me) is that the leadership of the party no longer stands for any principles at all, save the pursuit of power. That is, they are “unprincipled”.

I’m not going to discuss abortion or the death penalty with you. (Sighs of relief all round) Suffice it to say that your contention about the two is unfounded.

Political philosophy’s;

The human race has had a few thousand years to mull this one over. People a lot smarter then us have thought long and hard about these matters. There are a finite number of ways a human society can be run, and they have all been imagined and implemented, many times throughout history. We know the pros and cons of the different ways of doing things. The adult thing to do is to weigh them and decide which pros, and cons, we are willing to live with. The non-adult thing to do is to imagine that life is a blank canvas on which we can sketch anything we desire – that we can pick, cafeteria like, from the libertarian, the conservative, the socialist, the communist, the secular, the religious traditions.

Y’all are a lovable bunch, and I’m glad you have ended up coming on board to the GOP. But that party is home to traditions other than the liberal one which you bring with you from the Democrats. You might want to listen to the natives in your new land. Maybe they know things you don’t.

Aug 2, 2004 - 2:03 pm 49. Goof®:

The Kamber – O’Leary Political Quiz is here:

What a surprise. 19 if I make myself answer every question.

“Fiscally responsible” applies to 0 politicians these days.

I haven’t happily voted for a candidate for President since I voted for John Anderson in 1980. I suppose he was before his time Roger. He meets your criteria.

There will be no new centrist political party barring some cataclysmic event. Given that, I’m willing to make due with what we have.

I was wrong on an earlier thread. One significant thing did happen at the Democratic National Convention. Kerry had the Ohio delegation put him over the top. Karl Rove, if no one else, noticed.

Jane Harman is my Congresswoman. I will vote to re-elect her in November–happily.

Aug 2, 2004 - 2:09 pm 50. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

I am surprised that the thread got this far without mentioning the centrality of the social liberal/conservative axis.

Here is a rough definition of social liberal, by example:

pro-choice

strong on gay “rights”

“accepting” of deviant behavior as long as nobody is directly hurt.

The conservative side is:

pro-life

limits on gay “rights”

pro-statutory morality – usually religion based.

If you look at what is different about Guiliani or Schwarzenegger, it is that they are social liberals but otherwise republicans.

There are a lot of people, probably even more on this site with its population of former democrats or whatever, who want the Republican party except for its social conservatism.

That is the elephant in the room.

In the past, many of these people voted Democrat purely because of this issue. That the Democrats are losing people who feel strongly on these issues (which tend to be pretty divisive) is remarkable.

However, in our country we only have a few votes – congress and president at the national level. So this other axis becomes a significant issue. To the Democrats, it is so important that they will do their best to defeat any Supreme Court or Appellate nominee who might vote pro-life at all – who might even slightly moderate the very extreme abortion jurisprudence.

In other words, the huge major divide in the country is about or related to sex. Freud (that old fraud) would love it.

Aug 2, 2004 - 2:32 pm 51. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Regarding independents and moderates…

“Moderate” is a useless term when used for self-identification. Lots of people are convinced they are moderate, and its important for them to be convinced, but they aren’t really moderate.

Independents, depending on state law, are people who don’t care who gets nominated. After that, they are just voters.

The two party system is solidly locked into place by all kinds of things. Hence, if a new party is to arrive, I think it would be from a split of an old party, a split fatal faily quickly to the rest of the old party.

If the Democratic party adopted sanity in foreign policies, and didn’t owe its existence to a large number of internal groups – school teachers, trial lawyers, blacks, immigrants, unions – especially governmental employee unions (which should be illegal in my opinion)…. If it wasn’t tied to massive spending increases by its constituency, it might create a Schwarzenegger party. The Republican part will not, because it is not going to go socially liberal without losing its religious base.

Aug 2, 2004 - 2:38 pm 52. Knucklehead:

Flenser,

There are those who are “independent” of the two major parties, and these can then be subdivided in various ways. Then there are those who are “independent” of any well thought out ideas, and whose allegiance is given to those who can promise them the most at any point in time.

“Independent of the two major parties” is certainly a useful descripition for some “independents”. But this definition would apply to the “pox on both houses” folks who don’t bother to vote ’cause the system is all screwed up and it could be applied to some of the more radical elements of the greens and skinheads and marxists and whatnot.

It seems to me that even for this sort of category we have to further qulify it to something like, “politically engaged likely voters who are independent of the two major parties”.

Now if we move on to the thos who are “independent of any well thought out ideas”, even if we limit it to people likely to vote (this description fits most of us somewhere along the line for some portion of the world we live in ;>) then it applies to some independents but surely also applies to some Republicans and some Democrats. Not everyone with a party affiliation has thought out their ideas very well and, let’s face it, not all planks in party platforms are particularly well thought out.

This same analysis applies to those who are just looking for “what’s in it for me” as the full measure of party affiliation. Why else, for example, would unions be universally Democrat? And how many people base party affiliation on one or two of the “single issues” – “for abortion and against assault weapons!” and when you probe to find out what the heck they mean by that and what, if any, limitations on boundaries they might recognize you quickly find that there’s no “thought” behind any of it. “I hate assault weapons!” So you axe, well, what is an assault weapon? and they have no idea that we might be taling, definitionally, about relatively minor matters like magazine capacity and pistol grip or the like.

People hold some ideas they believe are well thought out but they seem to never have explored much beyond the bumper sticker level. (Notfuhnuttin, but if one wants to remove AK-47’s and the like from the hands of individual people one might want to focus on a target rich environment such as, Idunno, Yemen?

I’m playin’ now, sorry. I’ll stop. Then again, maybe not. This matter of “coherence” and “consistency” always bothers me. I’ll just toss out an example (NOT INTENDED TO START A CATFIGHT)…

Progressive taxation. I believe anyone who knows me well would put me in the “conservative” category by modern American definition of “conservative” and “liberal”. And those who know me know that I don’t think much of our current tax laws. I believe our system is byzantine to the point of incomprehensibility and that there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that makes ordinary private citizens without particularly complex financial situations pull their freakin’ hair out and run to “experts” just to be able to file their taxes. Relatively ordinary people make basic decisions in their lives due to “tax consequences”. Huh??? What’s that all about. Shouldn’t we be making fundamental financial decisions for the right reasons, like our financial situations, rather than for the tax consequences?

I’m a conservative and I have nothing whatsoever against progressive marginal tax rates. Those who are doing reasonably well financially are generally getting more benefit (admittedly intangible) from the sorts of things government does. But there is something wrong with using the progressiveness to let half the population off the tax rolls (he who would take from Peter and give to Paul will have Paul’s support, so we really ought to think about making 1/2 the people into Pauls) and there is some level where we are no longer talking about “fair share” but, rather, about confiscating the fruits of Other People’s Labor.

How’s that for coherence or consistency?

Aug 2, 2004 - 2:43 pm 53. Cap'n Billy:

Re: sammy small at August 2, 2004 01:14 PM:

From your description, she looks like one of the last of the rational Dems, Sammy. If I still lived in the South Bay area (20900 Anza Ave, Torrance 1966-70), I would be sorely tempted, but I fear my rules would not allow it. I recognize the significance of your name from my own USAF pilot days, as I believe I recall from one of your previous posts that you once served in that capacity.

Aug 2, 2004 - 2:44 pm 54. Knucklehead:

John Moore:)

Aug 2, 2004 - 2:50 pm 55. flenser:

Re unions;

“the AFL-CIO juggernaut .. in essence has gambled its very existence on this election cycle. Privately, organized labor leaders will tell reporters and supporters alike that they believe a second Bush term will ensure the demise of organized labor as a political force in the United States.”

“When all of this is done, whether Kerry wins or loses, members of our unions are going to be shocked at how much we spent on campaigns and politics this year,” says the union organizer in New York. “People may go to jail over all of this. We’re putting that much on the line right now for Kerry.”

Aug 2, 2004 - 2:56 pm 56. flenser:

Oops! The link to the quote ended up as my name.

Aug 2, 2004 - 2:57 pm 57. Matthew Cromer:

To be honest, I think the American people are changing and the party system has not.

There is a large and growing group of Americans who believe in free markets, free trade, and personal freedom. They want lower taxes, they want to remake social security into an investment-based program and have no problem with gays. They don’t like abortion but don’t want it outlawed either. They are skeptical about the motivations of other governments and distrust the UN. They believe in a robust military that will intervene when needed to protect Americans and do not ask themselves “why do they hate us” but rather “who do we need to overthrow / kill” when faced with terrorism.

“New Deal” socialism is intellectually dead and now it’s time for the party of new deal socialism to die as well. I’d like to see the parties talking about how much to cut taxes, how many regulations to abolish, and which tyrants need to be overthrown. We need to see the Democratic party die and the Republican party divide in order for liberty to make any sort of progress forward.

Aug 2, 2004 - 3:01 pm 58. flenser:

Knuck

I never claimed that Republicans or Democrats had a lock on logical consistency, or that some independents were not principled.

I suppose I am saying that there is a finite set of choices out there, and that people who are not aware of them would ideally not be voting.

I would guess that such people are more likely to identify as independent than as part of a political party.

Aug 2, 2004 - 3:08 pm 59. flenser:

As to the prospects of an Rudy or Arnold winning the presidency, it’s the longest of long shots.

The base of the Democratic party detests Rudy. To the extent Arnie succeeds, they will hate him as well.

Meanwhile the social conservative base of the GOP will be unlikely to endorse either one, save as a last resort. I just don’t think there is a large “middle” our there that can elect someone like this to national office.

Aug 2, 2004 - 3:22 pm 60. WichitaBoy:

flenser

I agree with most of your posts and most of the points you just made.

It’s an interesting question how principled Michael Moore is. I don’t know the answer. My personal opinion is that he does have principles and that he genuinely believes that Republicans like you and George Bush should die for the good of the world. Principled or not, I do find him repugnant. Bill Clinton on the other hand I would say clearly does not have deep-rooted principles. In some ways this made him a better president than he would otherwise have been.

I agree that the word “independent” can be used in several valid ways. I don’t agree that it’s the thoughtless muddle in the middle causing our problems. We spend more than we are willing to tax ourselves to cover because we all like it that way, Republicans, Democrats, et al. Read Dennis the Peasant’s excellent post on this from the other day. Goof is absolutely right: there are no fiscally responsible politicians around right now. Don’t blame them–it’s we the people who choose this.

I agree with John Moore’s characterization of “social liberal” and I definitely am one. I like Giuliani and Schwarzenegger and I consider them the future of the Republican party.

I liked the distinction you made between the “adult” and “non-adult” views although I wouldn’t cast it quite so harshly. Life is always a balance between making do with what is already present and trying to wipe it all away and start from scratch. We all deal with this at all ages. That’s the number one quandary in software development for example.

Finally, I don’t agree with Knucklehead that the distinction is between capitalists and socialists. We, and for that matter almost all modern industrial economies, have a mixture of both. Almost no one disagrees with some socialism and some capitalism. The only question is what is the right mix at the right time. Right now the Democrats seem to be pushing some sort of nationalization of health-care. My considered opinion is that that will probably lower the quality of health-care for most but that it’s passage is probably inevitable anyway. Libertarians who imagine that we’re going to suddenly flip over to a do-as-you-please economic and moral free-for-all are sadly deluded.

Aug 2, 2004 - 3:42 pm 61. wxjames:

Here’s something Bush should campaign for A NEW TAX BENEFIT FOR ALL UNION EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS.

Make political contributions tax deductable. Force all unions to furnish a w2 with the exact amount given to political interests per union member. They then could deduct the amount from their taxable income. Also, they could opt out of the donation by furnishing a signed form and reduce their union dues accordingly. A good selling job would stretch the dems over the proverbial barrel.

Aug 2, 2004 - 3:56 pm 62. WichitaBoy:

Sorry, that was jerry and not Knucklehead.

Aug 2, 2004 - 4:03 pm 63. thibaud:

Dems who assume that any intelligent person must be an ABB voter display the mindless arrogance that has caused their party to lose their hold on every major branch of government. And Rove is no less arrogant. Screw ‘em both.

There are conservatives who are appalled at Bush’s spending; there are liberals who are appalled at the Dems’ embrace of conspiracy-mongering fools like Michael Moore and Howard Dean. Both of these groups are sizable and are not being heard by their respective parties. Karl Rove doesn’t give a damn about traditional, fiscally-prudent conservatives, and the Democrats in the age of Soros and the left-wing 527s don’t give a damn about the traditional Truman/Scoop Jackson Democrats.

More and more people are likely to conclude from this election that the parties are rotten at their core, and that neither party is capable of addressing squarely the challenges posed by Iran, China, entitlement spending as the boomers retire, and exposure to foreign creditors.

A pox on the partisans. They have let down this country. I only wish that there was a secular, fiscally-sane, national security party I could vote for.

Aug 2, 2004 - 4:04 pm 64. thibaud:

How many here would support a third party that’s resolutely secular, hawkish, pro-free trade, and fiscally restrained?

Such a party could carry California and Colorado and would be very competitive in the NE corridor states and the Pac NW — it could win perhaps as many as 100 electoral votes and would therefore force at least one of the two parties to co-opt one or more of the above key pillars.

There’s little chance that either party will embrace secularism, esp because even the Dems rely heavily on their own Baptist fundamentalists, in the Afr-Amer churches. Perhaps it’s unrealistic to expect the Dems to turn hawkish again, as well, or for either party to embrace free trade openly.

But it’s definitely realistic to expect at least one of these two drunken-sailor parties to embrace fiscal restraint in hopes of picking up this “third way” bloc of voters. Worth a try, methinks.

Aug 2, 2004 - 4:07 pm 65. PeterUK:

Flenser,Knucklehead,

I don’t know much about American politics, but it sounds as if the Democratic Party has turned into something akin to the British Labour Party.Many MPs are sponsored by unions and the drive towards Europe is seen by unions as a means to bypass legislation curbing their powers.The price of union support is always more power and more social regulation,fewer hours,more pay,less productivity,more socialism.

The restrictions on working practices and Health and Safety regulations emanating from Europe,for example, have resulted in more regulation,bureaucracy and burdens on businesses.Now the only employment growth sector is the public one,more jobs for the boys and girls and more feudal supporters for Labour.

Strangle it now before it gets any bigger.

Aug 2, 2004 - 4:23 pm 66. Katherine:

ìWe have a one group who believes in a republican government and market economics and another party firmly committed to socialism.î

Jerry, this is absolutely spot on. Arnold, bless his heart, claims that this is how he saw both parties after he emigrated here from Austria, and so he became Republican. His vision was clearer than mine; maybe that is why he is a governor, not me

In my case it took me many years of self-education and direct provocation (blatant abuse of power by Florida Supreme court) to abandon position defined by Knuckle as:

ìIndependents are simply people who don’t believe either of the mere TWO parties fits them particularly well or who wish to not be driven to vote with a party rather than with their conscience.î

and register as a Republican. At this point I am so disgusted with Democrats that it would take nomination of somebody like Pat Buchanan to position of leadership in Republican party to even consider voting Democrat.

Aug 2, 2004 - 4:29 pm 67. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Mathew Cromer says:

To be honest, I think the American people are changing and the party system has not.

There is a large and growing group of Americans who believe in free markets, free trade, and personal freedom. They want lower taxes, they want to remake social security into an investment-based program and have no problem with gays. They don’t like abortion but don’t want it outlawed either.

You have accurately described the Schwarzenegger Republican, with a more libertarian bent.

I find it sad that so many people are willing to leave our extreme abortion situation the way it is. And I think that there is a difference between having no problem with gays, and recognizing gay marriage.

You will find that many Americans are more moderate on those views. Most Americans favor restrictions on abortions, and in fact incorrectly believe that we have Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.

Gay marriage is not necessarily a pro-freedom thing, when it forced upon the vast majority who are against it. In any case, it is a privilege, not a right. I mention gay marriage because it is the only gay-related issue before the government that I know of.

In any case, while there are many people who support those views, there are also many who vehemently oppose them. Christians have been leaving moderate (now leftist) denominations for ones which view life as beginning at conception. That is a lot of people.

As far as smaller government, I’m not sure that is possible. The Republicans have long despised the National Endowment for the Arts (for good reason), but have yet to kill it, and in theory Republicans are in power. If we can’t kill the NEA, how the heck are we going to cut government?

Also, I personally am counting on Medicare. I know a lot about the health care business, and without massive government intervention (ech – Democrat thinking), it will never solve the problem of the uninsurable. If I were to retire, I could not get health insurance. In fact, two of my cohorts did retire, but I can’t, so instead I work for a health insurance software company.

I tried the VA last week and was means tested out of any eligibility.

Now I’m talking a purely selfish interest here. But it’s a very important one to me. The very nature of health insurance, plus the high costs of medical care, plus the multiple individuals pay compared to insurance companies (as high as 5 to 1)… all these factors say the system is badly broken and hard to fix.

So this conservative wants the government to bail me out on health care. I’ve paid the taxes, give me the benefits.

No take all the other little interests like that, and you’ve got votes that are paid for with tax dollars.

Aug 2, 2004 - 4:45 pm 68. Knucklehead:

I’m glad to hear that I am not alone with my “anti-Democrat” feelings. Maybe it is time to leave “independence” behind and declare.

Thibaud:

Would you elaborate on this…

How many here would support a third party that’s resolutely secular, hawkish, pro-free trade, and fiscally restrained?

I don’t know what “resolutely secular” means, as an example. If it means that people of faith aren’t welcome in the party and/or that the party has some “plank” in its “platform” that believes faith disqualifies people from serving, then I wouldn’t support it. I am not a “person of faith” but some of the absolutely finest people I have ever known are people of faith.

While it is never directed at me (since it wouldn’t apply) I believe I do detect pretty strong animosity to, in particular, Christians among many people. I can never find “the rub”. I have zero evidence that anyone anywhere (outside of Islamofasists) is attempting to force Americans to follow any religion. I just don’t see it – but I do see some animosity and political efforts (such as banning religious symbols from public places) that strikes me as borderline persecution.

Each of the rest (hawkish, pro free trade, etc) seem more easily identified but I’d want to hear the qualifiers around them also. I favor “free trade” but I have talked to wild-eyed libertarians who seem to want this to mean, “Imagine there’s no countries….” I believe nations have every right to take their own interests into account, but I also believe “protectionism” at anything but very “low sodium” levels is counter-productive.

Aug 2, 2004 - 4:55 pm 69. Syl:

All this talk of ‘principles’ vis-a-vis independents is missing a crucial element and that is time. One can hold the view that deficits are bad bad bad, yet realize that during a specific time frame they may be necessary.

Think, for example, of the fact that deficits may be necessary during a time of war, and that those who must pay (our children, grandchildren, whatever) will be better able to pay (assuming continued economic growth) at a future date after the war is won. And that not winning the war makes the whole question of deficits moot anyway.

There are times, then, when simply voting on ‘principle’ is not necessarily the wise thing to do at a certain point in time.

Another element is the importance of any one issue and which direction it is moving. Your principles may say that food labeling has been a good thing (I do) but the ‘movement’ now seems to be going too far in the direction of punishing the fast food industry for making us fat. So though you may agree in principle about ‘truth in advertising’ and ‘a healthier America’ you may not wish to destroy the jelly donut industry.

So, I certainly would not label all ‘independents’ with the broad-brush of being unprincipled. I’d rather say that they choose certain issues as more important _at the time of the election_ and vote accordingly.

An aside: I agree with Knucklehead about the secular destruction of Christmas. I’m not religious but I really resent not being able to hear the beautiful music and all.

Aug 2, 2004 - 5:01 pm 70. Fresh Air:

A prime reason why this country remains divided on social issues (chiefly abortion, gay marriage and affirmative action) is that they have been hijacked by the Supreme Court. Instead of letting the people make the laws, the Supreme Court has, in its infinite wisdom, elected to short-circuit Congress and the state legislatures.

A very important and negative side-effect of this is that it prevents the system from working. One side inevitably feels shortchanged when the Supreme Court steps in to create new rights or abolish old ones, but they have no ability to do anything about it.

It is thus very important to limit judicial review (possible under Article III of the Constitution–see here) of controversial laws, like the Defense of Marriage Act, so the power to legislate resides with the people and their elected representatives, not the federal courts.

Aug 2, 2004 - 5:19 pm 71. Kevin P:

Roger:

I am a registered independent but due to the rules in California I am still allowed to vote in the primaries, I just have to pick one party or the other. The thought of a new party sounds attractive on the surface but the reality of our system is that it is a two party system and unless one of the major parties vanishes our choices will be either Dem or Rep. There is a greater chance of changing a party from within then there is from forcing a change with a third party. Either option takes a long time and would requires decades of work. The only difference is that there are examples of the Republican and the Democratic Parties being changed from within, for bad or good depending on your point of view.Third Parties have failed. The Whig party fell apart and the Republican party replaced it.Every third party attempt has failed. They feel good and it allows someone who joins it to say that they are not one party or the other but as far as bringing any real change they don’t do much.

Aug 2, 2004 - 5:19 pm 72. Cybrludite:

What we need to do is form our own party. Too many entrenched interests in either the main parties or the assorted fringe ones. How’s this for the start of a platform?

Strong on defense

Alliances based on mutual interest, not inertia

Free trade with free nations

Fiscial responsibility & the refoms attendant to that

Secular, not anti-clerical

Government out of both our wallets & our bedrooms

Aug 2, 2004 - 6:10 pm 73. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

On the matter of secularism…

Fresh Air defines the issue well.

America has no religious parties, and I don’t expect one to arise. However, religion is a source of values for many people. To many, it is an illegitimate source of values, and that is often what a “securlar” party means: it has no policies based on values that come from, or are popular with religion.

Some mistakenly believe that the first amendment prevents the government from enforcing religious values. That is nonsense. I prevents the government from requiring any individual from being forced to become a member of a faith. It has been stretched to force people from having the slightest annoyance due to religion if it is on public property. That is anti-religious bigotry, pure and simple.

Everyone derives their values from something. There is no way to arrive at a set of values without some arbitrary choices of fundamentals. Those who are biased against religion just tend to forget that their choice of fundamentals has no more authority than a religious person’s.

I am really sick of the attacks on historic religious expression. The removal of the cross from the LA symbol was a classic example of politically correct bigotry. Because of anti-Christian bigotry, the cross, which was a proper symbol in the historic context, was removed. This sort of behavior is offensive and unnecessary.

Religious beliefs can lead to values that lead to policies. Anti-abortion beliefs are mostly of religious origin (although I can give you a solid libertarian anti-abortion argument, and the Catholic church allows abortion in some cases). Abortion has become a strong divisive issue. I agree that the courts are the main problem, and I think that a number of these issues should be removed from Supreme Court jurisdiction to avoid additional fault lines.

Religious beliefs can lead to anti-gay bigotry. I don’t know the level of that. The Catholic church, with an estimated 40% homophilic priests, is tolerant but not as much as Andrew Sullivan would want.

Boy Scouts do not allow homosexual leaders, but they have a good reason: the alternative is no insurance. Because of this attitude, the Boy Scouts are under constant attack – with them being removed from a number of United Way drivers. The Boy Scouts are a valuable institution (what I learned there helped me in SERE school in the Navy, for example). But because that long standing find institution has been forced to not allow homosexual adults, it is under vicious attack. Sometimes the claim is that it requires religion, and therefore it can’t be allowed to use government property (which cost the scouts access to a San Diego park that they had invested millions in). But don’t be fooled – they are under attack because of their anti-gay policy.

I don’t know what the attitude of the evangelical churches is. The Catholic church and the Evangelicals are strongly opposed to gay marriage, as am I. I don’t consider that bigotry because it is an attempt to preserve the meaning of Marriage, and gay marriage is neither a civil or natural right.

Aug 2, 2004 - 6:28 pm 74. wxjames:

Cybrludite, can we add

Programs terminate after 10 years

All dept. of the gov use normal accounting practices and books are open except secret functions like CIA

All elected and appointed and hired workers take and sign an oath relinquishing retirement benefits if found guilty of a crime while in the line of duty and pay all fines rather than the taxpayer pickup except secret functions like CIA

All politicians and beaurocrats are included on Social security

No tenure allowed

Juries are picked by the judge or jury director from those who passed the IQ test with over 110 scores

Aug 2, 2004 - 6:33 pm 75. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Knucklehead

I’ve long been of the opinion that people who derive a significant part of their livelihood from the government shouldn’t be able to vote.

In practice, that would probably be a mess… but hey, it’s the thought that counts (there’s a liberal thought

At a minimum, it should be illegal for government employees to join unions. I understand that one army – Dutch? – is unionized. The Europeans are definitely out to lunch.

Aug 2, 2004 - 6:53 pm 76. ambisinistral:

At the national level you have a clump of voters — primarily independents and “soft” Democrats and Republicans who exert a sort of inertia. When in power, and sometimes just when in a panic, both of the main parties get pulled to far to their extremes.

However, IMHO what is missing from this conversation is local politics. If you view American party politics only from the Federal level you get a very confused picture of what the dynamics actually are. American politics are very easy to enter into for those interested (and by that I mean as a campaign worker more so than a candidate), provided they enter at the county level.

You can sit in a party dominated county as I do, and have Republican candidates functioning as de facto Democrats. Mix all of these counties, and their peculiarities together, and you get the flavor of a Party in that particular state. Then mix all those individual States together and…

That’s how you end up with Goldwater Republicans rolling their eyes at the Religious Right types, while in the other tent you have collectivists like Moore rubbing sholders with the likes of Wilson. Since ultimately the people operating at the National level almost always have a geographic base and they end up reflecting how liberalism and conservatism is measured and interpreted in those some what narrow geographic slices.

Power flows up, and that are the strength of the system I believe.

Aug 2, 2004 - 7:11 pm 77. richard mcenroe:

Roger ó A big tent with one pole: ABB

Catherine ó The conservative/radical/”independent” goes back as far as the Revolution itself according to records from the period: One thing supported independence, one third was crown loyalists, and one third said, “hey, I’m farming, here…”

I suspect we are about to see a bunch of third parties, actually. I do not see how the Democrats can hold this non-existent coalition of their together through another serious defeat. (it surprises me yet that Sharpton hasn’t figured out that he can head an African/American-centric that could control a significant bloc of House votes).

The problem with a “centrist” third party is, “where’s the fire?” What’s the bloody shirt they can wave to rally the faithful? “Give me some liberty, and I’d rather not die?” “Maybe not so much taxation without representation?”

Frankly, I suspect the Republicans have more of a chance of becoming the centrist party than some notional new creation. There has already been one influx of “Reagan Democrats”. what says there will not be another, if the the current Democratic leadership continues to alienate and disenfranchise its mainstream wing?

Aug 2, 2004 - 7:32 pm 78. lindenen:

“There’s little chance that either party will embrace secularism, esp because even the Dems rely heavily on their own Baptist fundamentalists, in the Afr-Amer churches.”

Yes, but the Dems can take the black community for granted because they’re party line voters. They’re not going to run out and vote for Republicans. I’ve long thought the absurd commitment to the Democratic Party distorted the political system.

The Republican Party has a serious problem communicating with black America:

“Not only do Democrats enjoy an advantage in areas where you’d expect, such as health care access and abortion rights. But Ms. Conway found that “blacks preferred Democrats in Republican bulwarks as well.” Seventy-five percent of blacks polled thought the Democratic Party was more likely to lower taxes; 62% said Democrats were more likely to “reduce terrorism by strengthening the national defense”; and 69% even said Democrats were more likely than the GOP to “protect the rights of the unborn.”

Bizarre, right? It’s like they’re voting for a party that doesn’t exist. Or they think the Democrats and Republicans.

Aug 2, 2004 - 7:33 pm 79. lindenen:

Or they think the Democrats ARE Republicans. Not AND.

Aug 2, 2004 - 7:35 pm 80. wxjames:

What’s missing here isn’t a viable third or second political party, what’s missing is basic education for all Americans. Maybe we should focus our efforts on that. ?????

It’s just inexcusable to be that far out of reality without knowing something’s wrong. I suppose 88% of A-As think ask is spelt ax. Damn.

Bill Cosby should have awakened 30 years ago.

Aug 2, 2004 - 7:57 pm 81. Mary:

“That’s how you end up with Goldwater Republicans rolling their eyes at the Religious Right types,…”

How true. I am currently irate at Ron Reagan

talking about his father’s legacy, vs Bush.

His father is the one who led the party into

the land of Falwell et al.

If only Jerry Ford had been reelected, this would

be a better world.

Aug 2, 2004 - 11:22 pm 82. Kevin P:

Everyone:

Third parties are the big fantasy of disaffected voters who can’t deal with the facts on the ground. They tend to form around single issue philosophies( green, dixiecrats) or around strong personalities( T.R. and the Bull Moose, Perot, Reform). The issue parties tend to be too narrowowly focused(Enviromentalism, segragation), or the ones formed around individuals fade when the candidate is defeated.

The better tactic is for those people with minority views within the two parties is to do the heavy lifting of changing the ethos of the party. The odds are sometimes as long as the third party way but they would have the built in party structure to help them once they begin to make some headway. Third parties can win in local elections in states that lean towards their point of view but they can’t transfer that momentum to a national level. They also tend to be more dogmatic and less flexible and as sad as this might sound there needs to be a certain amount of flexibility to persuade people to change decades long voting patterns. Political conversion on a large scale takes time and tact. This doesn’t sound noble nor does it lift the spirits but it is a hard reality.

I think our host is a good example of the correct way to deal with tough political choices.I am going to call him a 9-11 Democrat.Because he views the Democratic candidate to be unable to lead the country in a time of war he is voting for Bush. This doesn’t mean he accepts all of the Presidents views, in fact he is oppossed to many of them. If the Dems ever get their head together and run someone with realistic foreign policy ideas I imagine he will head back to his original home. If they continue their downward spiral then he will work to convince his new republican friends that his ideas on social values are the ones to go with.If roger tried to form the Libertarian Hawk Party he would get some initial attention,and if he did everything exactly right he could capture 3 to 7 per cent of the vote and it would go down in each following election. This is not a swipe at Roger. If Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t do it then no one can.

Aug 2, 2004 - 11:57 pm 83. Syl:

OT but it kind of goes with the end of knee-jerk party consent for some of us. Since 9/11 I think I’ve been looking for my ‘roots’ as an American. What does it mean and all that.

At the same time I’ve been enjoying an author I’d never read before because I had thought he was corny or something. Louis L’Amour. Hey, I lived many years in Manhattan and those who do often become more ‘european’ than american.

Which at this point I’m rejecting. Totally.

L’Amour from the little book of short stories I just finished writes about quintessential American values and heroes.

I find it very comforting. WWII stories, football, some gangster stuff, and, cowboys! Yes!

But I didn’t really understand why these stories meant so much to me until I found an article at Opinion Journal about two towns. One American. One Canadian. The differences between the two and the cowboy spirit of America.

Article…it’s great!

So I see another trip to the used book store (sorry, just can’t afford them new) because L’Amour is calling me!

Aug 3, 2004 - 6:05 am 84. Knucklehead:

Wow, what a thread! I don’t even know where to start other than to thank y’all for letting me know that either I am no crazy or that I’ll have some company and decent conversation when they finally come to take me away.

John Moore:

I have been consistently baffled by those who refuse to accept that religion is the anchor through which MANY people keep their value system from drifting away with the tides. I am further baffled when people assert that it is impossible to arrive at an “pro-life” position without building the foundation of it upon religion. The same wrt “same sex marriage”. Whether one agrees with the position or the reationale/logic used to arrive at it is immaterial – it is entirely possible, and not even particularly difficult, to arrive at such positions without any reference to religious beliefs.

And it sure seems to me that religions, despite some of the enormous pains they have caused humanity, have served enormous value over the course of history. Just have a think about some of the “food handling and consumption” ideas of various religions. They may seem like silly superstitions to us now but it is not the least bit difficult to come to the conclusion that they were arrived at to try to protect people in a time when there was no “science”.

Last, but not least, is they over-heated concern for the Jerry Falwell type “religious fanatics”. Good grief, how much trouble and consternation can these televangelists cause us? To paraphrase Nancy Reagan – Just Keep Clicking and soon enough you’ll be looking at Animal Planet rather than the 700 Club or whatever. How hard is that?

Many above:

I don’t see how we really get to a “third party” other than as a temporary situation. As someone above pointed out “third parties” tend to be narrow issue or personality based and that can’t survive long term. If we ever get a viable “third party” it seems to me it will be temporary transitional sort of thing while one party dies off and its replacement is raised to adulthood. The net outcome will be that we wind up with two parties one of which is likely to be a very modified version of what it was (this may be what’s happening to the Republican Party) and the other will be the remnants of the other party combined with whatever portion of the body politic it attracts. We once had “Whigs” here, after all. Our system is not a parliamentary one where several parties can be sustained. It really is set up to favor the “great middle” with ideas being fought out across this sort of “Chasm of the Center”.

Syl:

The notion of “American Exceptionalism” is subject to enormous ridicule but strikes me as remarkably true. We are not like every other nation and never have been. There is an incredibly large kernel of truth to the notion that the US is based upon and “idea” rather than a tribe or race or culture which has evolved over time. We ignore or deny this at our own peril. Those who wish we were more “European” are, IMO, willfully ignoring the fact that the US exists because of a specific rejection of European political values.

If you haven’t already, check out Larry McMurtry’s work. Fascinating stuff if you axe this knucklehead. Steinbeck does, IMO, a great job of getting at some of the same sorts of things from the perspective of the early 20th century (gotta put his politics aside, but that’s not difficult) and oddly enough, I’m coming to the conclusion that Grisham is feeling his way toward possibly becoming a similar writer wrt to mid-20th century America.

We are a great nation with a history full of very interesting and good people. That doesn’t suggest we’re perfect – only that there is real value and something different that should not be rejected simply because it is different.

BTW, I just felt a pang of guilt about recommending authors using the bandwidth of Our Host. Recommendation of some authors does not constitute a rejection of others

Aug 3, 2004 - 7:04 am 85. richard mcenroe:

Syl ó L’Amour toujour! If you like his stuff, rent the movie “Bite the Bullet”, written and directed by Richard Brooks.

Aug 3, 2004 - 7:30 am 86. richard mcenroe:

Knucklehead ó Maybe we need a bumper-sticker: The Next Time You Need Help ó Call a Belgian!

Aug 3, 2004 - 7:32 am 87. chuck:

Syl,

Louis L’Amour wrote a short autobiography that is interesting, not so much because his life was unusually exciting, but because it gives a good sense of America at an earlier time in flyover country. Heinlein at his best, and earliest, gives me a similar sense. It is a sense of America that I miss and would like to see come back. Maybe that will happen if folks like yourself begin to appreciate it.

Aug 3, 2004 - 7:51 am 88. Knucklehead:

Chuck,

I don’t think that America is gone. I just think we tend to look for the scenery and vignettes that originally exposed it to easy viewing. The scenery is gone and the storylines have been “modernized”.

I may get stomped by Ron Wright for saying this, but one needs not look much further than Katherine here at Roger’s Place. The most moving lesson I ever received about “American Exceptionalism” I received at the hands of a Puerto Rican tow truck driver on Christmas Eve. Some of us – those who’s immigrant background is several generations back – need to stop from time to time and examine why so many people still come here and still willfully buy into the “Great Experiment”. The answers to that are right in front of our eyes if we’ll just open then and have a look.

Aug 3, 2004 - 9:28 am 89. Syl:

Knucklehead

Yes. American exceptionalism, one of those things that fell to the bottom of my mind for decades. It has re-emerged above the waves.

Chuck

The freedom, joy, spirit, individualism, optimism and innovation are still around. As is the get-off-my-back attitude towards government. It’s simply not shared by everyone these days.

However, as I understand it, our economy is going through a major structural change which may be as significant as the industrial age. And at the heart of the new economy is entrepreneurs. Now that’s nostalgic And they can and will use all of the American attitude and qualities available to them.

BTW, Joe got me three of Roger’s books!

I could bring this back around to the topic but what I wanted to say re our two parties being american and european wasn’t coming out too well. So I’ll just head off for some shut-eye. Been up 24-hours.

Aug 3, 2004 - 9:36 am 90. chuck:

The freedom, joy, spirit, individualism, optimism and innovation are still around

I am trying to put my finger on what precisely that spirit is. All of the above, but I think another thing is simply physical action. People did things. The action was not intellectual, but physical. None of this arguing of ideas as an end in itself. It brought out a sense of living as opposed to existing.

Along the same lines, it strikes me that the Left has become morbidly pessimistic. There is always something wrong, our leaders are corrupt, our businesses exploitive, our morals reactionary; we are bad people and should simply stay still to avoid damaging others. WTF? This should motivate me to vote for these folks?

Aug 3, 2004 - 9:53 am 91. Knucklehead:

Chuck,

The big leap that immigrants made to become “American” was largely an intellectual one. They had to be willing to leave everything on the bet that the “grass is greener”. Once they placed the bet they had to help sell the concept.

All the physical “did stuff” parts were dictated by their situations. They were miserable where they were or were chased away in some fashion or other and then had to make it or not by their own efforts. This would have been required no matter what the system they arrived at. The US could have been anything moving in any direction and they would still have come here because they couldn’t stay where they were.

The truly remarkable thing about the Great Experiment is that so many millions arrived, suffered the pains, and looked around and said, “Hey, I’m in. Let’s get to work making this work.”

Aug 3, 2004 - 10:42 am 92. thibaud:

One reason for the polarization is the cross appeal that the parties have to

a) cosmopolitan fiscal conservatives on the coasts, Chicago and high-tech centers like Austin and Denver-Boulder;

b) religious blue-collar types in the upper Midwest, Great Lakes and the South who favor more government protection for the little guy.

The Dems’ social agenda appeals to a); the Republicans’ social agenda to b). The Repubs’ economic agenda appeals to a); the Dems’ economic agenda appeals to b).

Clinton’s triangulation strategy appealed to the fiscal conservatives. Rove’s strategy is to pander to the blue-collar types with some protectionist gestures, increases in Medicare etc.

Maybe it’s too early to tell, but it seems neither of these approaches has made large inroads on party registration patterns. So here’s a proposal for a long-term winning strategy:

Given that increased trade and services are creating many more new economy than old economy jobs, AND that the largest minority group will soon be Latinos, the vast majority of whom are from Mexico and therefore solidly behind NAFTA, one would expect the pro-free trade and pro-fiscal conservatism votes to increase faster than the anti-free trade and protectionist votes.

Especially so in states with a high concentration of economic cosmopolitans and Mexican immigrants. A version of the Republican party that downplayed religiosity, or one of the Democratic Party that was solidly free trade and fiscally conservative in best Rubin-Clinton fashion, would sweep elections in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado and be very competitive in the Northeast and Northwest. It might even win, if it were clever, across Texas and Florida.

CA, CO, NM, AZ + TX FL and 6-7 New England and PacNW states would = about 140 electoral votes.

If it could win NJ, most of the mountain states and some yuppifying, increasingly-high tech sunbelt states like GA, NV and NC, we’d have a nationally competitive party.

Any takers?

Aug 3, 2004 - 12:47 pm 93. thibaud:

Vote the Opportunity Party: Free Trade and Opportunity For All!

Opportunidad Para Todos!

Aug 3, 2004 - 12:51 pm 94. Daniel Calto:

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity”

–W.B. Yeats

Aug 3, 2004 - 12:54 pm 95. jerry:

Thibaud:

The third party of the future (it would actually be incorporated into one of the two major parties) is the Libertarian/libertine based party. This (without the libertine element) was the original Democratic Party (the anti-Federalists). This party would advocate small government, isolationist foreign policy and modern libertarian notions of personal autonomy. The later is a new element introduced in the postmodern age. The original Anti-Federalists were quite conventional when it came to social norms.

The reason why the political system hasn’t moved in this direction is because the Democrats remain imprisoned in Socialist norms and values that absorbed in two phases from Debbs’ Socialist Party and Post McCarthyite Communist influence. The reason that the socialist oriented Democratic Party supports individual autonomy issues is that they undermine bourgeoisie institutions not out of any commitment to Gay, abortion and similar autonomy issues. One positive aspect of a catastrophic Democratic defeat is that it would give them an opportunity to recreate themselves for 21st Century issues. The Republican Party, as they are currently constituted, embodies the Federalist philosophy of Madison and Hamilton and therefore represents one of the two poles of historic American political views. However, if the Democrats either win or come close we will remain in a deadlock between 20th and 21st Century politics. And if the Democrats win big, we will be transformed into a stagnant and ultimately dieing 20th Century Eurosocialist society.

Aug 3, 2004 - 1:07 pm 96. thibaud:

Isolationism also cuts across the parties’ core constituencies. Taftite, Midwestern Repubs were traditionally the leading voices of isolationism, but now it seems to rally the left as much as the Perot/Buchanan right.

I agree that if there’s to be a realignment, the core issue will come down to whether we embrace the big bad world that threatens to outsource US jobs and import foreign terror.

A secondary issue– which may became THE issue faster than we think– is what the nation’s dollar policy should be, or more precisely, how we can prevent the collapse of the dollar given spiralling entitlement spending and Bush’s deficits. A strong dollar requires lower deficits and market opening, especially in Asia, for US exports.

Here’s one vote for an unambiguous embrace of globalization. In the world to be of the world! Free trade! Engage the jihadists on their home turf! Strong Dollar! Thou shalt not crucify us on a cross of weak dollars!

Aug 3, 2004 - 1:26 pm 97. jerry:

thibaud:

You are obvuously not familar with the economic history of the 1980’s. The Dems made the same argument about the Reagan deficits and the dollar. Turns out that the dollar became stronger as inflation declined. In fact, there is absolutely no correlation between exchange rates and deficits. Check the economic literature.

Aug 3, 2004 - 1:37 pm 98. Knucklehead:

I’m no economist so I can’t comment on the pros and cons of strong dollar vs. weak dollar. In the quarter century with which I have some experience converting US currency to other currency the dollar is roughly at the mid-point of what I’ve experienced wrt to highs and lows. It has been significantly “stronger” and significantly “weaker” and, IIRC, has moved significantly between “top” and “bottom” of the range I’ve seen at least twice. When the dollar is high Other Places seem very expensive. When the dollar is low Other Places seem very inexpensive.

There is surely a correlation between the “value” of the dollar and “economic wellbeing” but to my experience it doesn’t seem the correlation is particularly strong, or at least not anything approaching proportional. By that I mean that even though I have experienced a dollar worth twice as much of a particular foreign currency (or, conversely, half as much) I didn’t see economic conditions as twice as good or only half as good. My purchasing power was certainly not twice as much or half as much. I therefore make the knuckleheaded guess that there are other, probably more significant, factors at work.

Aug 3, 2004 - 2:10 pm 99. Knucklehead:

Oops! Of course I meant…

When the dollar is high Other Places seem very expensive. When the dollar is low Other Places seem very inexpensive.

as just the opposite.

Aug 3, 2004 - 2:12 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: