Thank you, Brian, first of all, for the invitation to this inaugural debate: I hope it becomes a tradition for politicos across the Central Coast!

First off, let me state that America is above all a pragmatic nation: we want whatever works, and punish politicians and parties who don’t seem to be getting it done. Americans vote, by and large, by well-documented cycles more than anything else, and we’re at the beginning of a Democratic/progressive wave.

That said, there are things we can say about the national character—and contrary to popular belief, America is decidedly a center-LEFT nation. On nearly every actual issue polled by major polling firms, Americans as a whole stand squarely in the middle of—and quite often to the left of—the Democratic Party. The fiction that America is somehow a center-right country is predicated on two misleading statistics: the number of Americans who call themselves “conservative� in spite of their actual positions on the issues, and the number of Republican presidents elected since LBJ. Both of these, however, are highly misleading metrics. The reasons for these two happenstances can serve as the source of future discussion here.

But the fact is that on every issue from war to law enforcement, from taxes to spending, from wages to free trade, from labor unions to big business, from abortion to stem cells, environment to energy production, and crime to immigration, Americans not only prefer Democratic or even progressive positions, they do so by wide margins.

Brian,

Thanks so much for delaying things a bit tonight. I had a late meeting in Santa Barbara and just arrived home about a half-hour ago. I would also like to thank you for hosting this wonderful opportunity to debate the issues of the day and exchange ideas about political topics of interest. I want to thank David too for joining me in kicking-off what I hope becomes a regular event on the Dennert blog.

For my opening comments, I would like to start by saying that, in my view, America is very much a center-right nation. For starters, I would like to offer a few positions consistently represented in voting patterns form state-to-state on issues across the country that truly represent America's core conservative values: support for a strong national defense; an anti-tax bias; suspicion of government intrusion and overreach; support for law enforcement and strong law-and-order policies; a reluctance to support gay rights (Prop 8's passage in California as the most recent example); and reluctance to accept wholesale "immigration reform" (translation: amnesty).

This is just to name a few examples of the conservative principles that guide policy-making in the U.S. today. I welcome your responses, David.

Apologies for the length of this post, but it is necessary to make some corrections. I'm not sure what the voting patterns are to which Mike is referring:

1) Democrats support and have supported a strong national defense. It was LBJ who started Vietnam, Clinton who marshaled NATO to go to war with Kosovo. I would remind my colleague that it was Republican Eisenhower who said that every warship was food taken from the mouth of a hungry child.

2) On taxes, A Gallup Poll in April 2007 showed the following data consistent with most of the last decade: 66% think that taxes on upper-income people are too low, and only 9% think they’re too high. It’s even worse for corporations where 71% think corporate taxes are too low, and only 5% say they’re too high. Amazingly, only 53% think their own taxes are too high, while 43% say either that they’re too low or about right. In 2005 meanwhile, the L.A. Times poll showed that only 34% thought that tax cuts were a good way to boost the economy, while over 60% said that spending was the better way. Needless to say, a Wall Street Journal poll showed that an overwhelming majority said the Bush tax cuts were not worth it.

3) On government, An NES Study in 2004 said the following: 67% say we need strong government to handle complex economic problems—the alternative response being that “the free market can handle complex economic problems without government involvement,� which was only supported by 33%. And this was back in 2004. Those numbers will have shifted dramatically in government’s favor since. 58% say government should be doing more, not less. 59% agreed that government has grown because the country’s problems have grown.

4) On immigration, we have the most damning stats of all. In May 2007, a CNN poll asked whether Americans favored or opposed creating a program allowing illegal immigrants to stay and apply for citizenship if they had a job and paid back taxes. 80% said yes, and only 19% opposed.

Meanwhile, the Pew poll in 2006 showed that 49% of Americans favored penalizing employers as a way to curb illegal immigration, with only 33% for more border control and a pathetic 9% for building more fences.

There is still a way to go on gay rights, but anti-equality propositions have been passing by smaller and smaller margins, and we are far way away from the dark days of Harvey Milk and preventing gays from teaching in schools.

Thanks to both of you for meeting up and debating here on my blog.

When you leave a comment, put a link in the URL box so your name shows up better. Mike, the VCRCC URL is:

vcrcc.org

I am going to extend the debate to 9:15 or whenever you two give up, grow bored, or feel you have said enough.

After that there will be an entry for others to discuss the debate.

Also, feel free to skip lines and indent when to make your posts easier to read.

As I await Mike's response, I feel compelled at add as well that it was Ronald Reagan who pushed for and approved a legalization package for immigrants in the 80s, and George W. Bush, Karl Rove, and John McCain who pushed for another here in the aughts. The fact that a vocal minority of Americans and their representatives in the House are bitterly opposed to sensible immigration policy is not indicative of the national character or opinion on the issue.

I would argue that polls do not tell the whole story, nor are they necessarily accurate predictors of human behavior and voting results. Certainly, the way polling questions are phrased, the population and demographic groups targeted in polls, the sampling techniques used, etc. are all factors that affect polling results (you can tell I'm a big fan).

To pick on a couple of the polls cited by David, people generally like to say that the rich are under-taxed, but the rub comes when people are asked to define "rich." For some, it's those making over $100,000 per year. For others (like our new president), it's $250,000. Some draw the line at $1 million. Again, it depends on who's being asked, who's doing the asking, and what parts of the country are being asked.

People are fond of deflecting the issue to others (the rich, evil corporations, etc.). In other words, those perceived to be getting all the breaks. The fact remains, however, that the middle class pays most of the taxes. So, in order to make a significant difference in increasing tax revenues, taxes would have to be raised on the middle class. How many people are in favor of that? That would be a good question on a poll.

If you asked the average (middle class) taxpayer if they are paying too much or too little in taxes, what do you think the response would be? People are fine with saying that taxes should be raised, but not when it will affect them personally. Again, it's a human behavioral issue, which often defies polling results.

It's also not surprising that the results of the Wall Street Journal poll showed that most people felt that the Bush tax cuts were not worth it. They did nothing to stimulate the economy. In fact, the economy got worse. Yet, this is the same plan President-elect Obama seems to be resurrecting.

Your argument (or so-called study) that people believe the government should do more to address the economic problems does not square with reality. David, you're talking about the same government that can't figure out how to successfully manage a program to help people pay for TV converter boxes. This is the government that we want to put in charge of managing our health care system or stimulating the national economy?

Your point on immigration reform is just as baseless. If Congress actually believed the results of the CNN poll you're quoting, the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill that was proposed a couple of years ago would have passed with flying colors. Instead, Congress members found themselves deluged with calls and e-mails protesting this as the worst idea ever conceived.

On the gay rights comment, Prop. 8 passed in one of the most liberal states in the country, with a history of supporting gay rights. Granted, the margin of passage compared to Prop. 22 in 2000 was smaller, but the point remains.

Sorry, forgot to include the link in my last post.

I agree that stances on the *issues* don't necessarily predict voting behavior--otherwise you would see, well, the just elected makeup of the U.S. government in perpetuity. Republicans began to get elected--and the South switched from Dixiecrat to Republican--when they began to believe that tax dollars were going less to themselves than to "Those People".

"Small government" Sarah Palin, for instance, actually increased spending in her state. So why did Republicans presume that she supported small government and less spending? Simple: because she is a Republican from a state that doesn't have a Chicago, Detroit or Harlem in it. Since LBJ "lost the South for a generation", Republicans have largely ruled the roost.

Still, the fact is that people who run on government's inability to work unsurprisingly find themselves unable to run government. After seeing Republican lack of regulation and government fail so spectacularly in Iraq, in New Orleans, and on Wall St., Americans are more eager than ever for a new New Deal. A majority of Americans still after all these years consider FDR a superior president to Ronald Reagan. Americans want a government healthcare system, because the alternative has been a disaster. And Bush began to lose popularity when he threatened the government-run Social Security program.

On immigration, yes, a vocal minority deluged the ultra-rightist members of the House and derailed immigration reform. That says nothing about the national character at large. and gay rights issues have made enormous progress in the last two decades, and I think we know that marriage equality will be a fact across most of America within 10-15 years.

The fact is that Americans--especially those outside the South and gated-community style areas--are progressive in their views on the issues. Republicans can only win elections by appealing to fear of imminent death from communists/terrorists/etc., or more usually by playing to people's worst instincts on race. The power of both these tactics wanes with each passing year, however.

To put it much more succinctly, Americans *LOVE* FDR's New Deal. Certain kinds of Americans have not been quite as supportive of LBJ's Great Society.

Republicans have spent the last 30 years attempting to roll back the New Deal under the guise of rolling back the Great Society. Now, however, their anti-FDR aspirations have been unmasked, and the Republican brand is in the doghouse.

And with time and the election of an African-American president, the antipathy to the Great Society is decreasing as well. It will be incumbent upon Republicans to discover new ways of winning elections.

Because of the long delay, I feel compelled to add one more item: you say that "the middle class pays most of the taxes." You're right--that's is the entire problem.

In the runup to WWII, the marginal (highest) income tax rate was *94%* (!!) on all income over $200,000. It stayed that way until 1964, when the top marginal rate was lowered to 70%.

It’s now been gradually Republicans and their rich contributors down to a pathetic 35%, and the entire debate between McCain and Obama about “Joe the Plumber� was about raising it to a paltry 38%, and only on every dollar above $250,000. And that doesn't even get into capital gains and investment incomes where the rich make most of their many, and whose tax rates have been cut to lower than the middle class' income tax rates.

If people feel that the rich and the corporate are getting special breaks, it's because they are.

America’s prosperity in the 1950’s and 1960’s was due to the egalitarian tax scheme, when CEOs only made a maximum 250 times their lowest paid worker. The American people want a return to the saner fiscal policies of the 1950's and 1960's.

To your point on Sarah Palin, I would agree with you that, in politics, it's often style over substance or, perhaps more pointedly, perception over reality. I think a large part of her appeal came from her personal style and her image as a rugged individualist from a state that helped reinforce this image. It certainly wasn't sustainable over time, but it gave her the edge in the beginning.

I take your points on the anti-regulation policies of the Bush administration as just another example of the swinging pendulum of national politics. That is to say, people tire of policies that they thought they supported when they elected the previous administration, especially when they see them as not helping them as individuals as much as they thought they would. The usual response is: Let's vote for something as far away from the previous administration as possible. But, the reality is, they rarely see the dramatic positive changes they were hoping for. Call me cynical, but history has borne this out.

I'm not a total pessimist though. I remain hopeful because I believe in the strength, perseverance, and creativity of the American people. Not the politicians, necessarily, but the people.

I think the public's continued fascination with FDR is due to his perceived hero status for "rescuing" us from the Great Depression. However, there is certainly no guarantee that the programs and policies that were initiated by him would work as effectively today as they did then. We shall soon find out, I guess.

It is also true that a revered figure's glowing popularity tends to increase over time. The same was true of Kennedy (president for less than 3 years). I predict that Reagan's popularity will grow over time as well. You may recall that he wasn't nearly as popular when he first left office as he is today. Time both obscures and magnifies things.

On the immigration bill failure, I disagree wholeheartedly that it was a vocal minority that derailed it. If anyone is adept at reading polling results and the tide of public opinion, it is members of Congress. They live and die on this stuff. They hire professionals who tabulate and interpret the data for them and they certainly react to the results. They could see that this so-called reform bill was political suicide and they backed off. Simple as that.

Finally, I agree with you that the Republican Party needs to reinvent itself to become successful at winning elections again. I think you will begin to see this happen very soon.

It seems that we're not as far apart on this issue, perhaps, as it may seem. Still, a few points are in order.

1) FDR is popular not just because of the Depression and WWII, but directly because of the New Deal. Ultimately, FDR is popular precisely because of Social Security, Medicare, labor regulations, and other progressive government actions--all of which were fought by conservatives of the time as forcefully as national healthcare is being fought today.

2) I think you may see Reagan's popularity dwindle. Reagan's raison d'etre was deregulation and reduction of government, opposition to Communism, and reduction of the deficit. On the third he is an acknowledged failure by all parties; subsequent history has shown that the Soviet Union was teetering on collapse in any case; and the end of result of deregulation and gutting government can be seen on Wall St. and the streets of New Orleans today. FDR's policies and bills remain popular, thus he remains popular. I doubt history will be as kind to Reagan.

3) Pro-government positions are not as simple as a backlash against a previous, failed administration. The American People rarely if ever vote for smaller government for themselves. To quote a Republican on another blog, "people have never opposed socialism for themselves. People have for decades wanted free public schools, grants to go to college, retirements, medical care, money to keep their businesses and farms afloat, etc. So in other words, Americans support the socialism that benefited them and people like them. They just oppose it for the other guy. The Great Society was easy pickings, because it went to a small segment of society that, let's face it, most people didn't like anyway." Deregulators and government-cutters are not and never were popular when it comes to programs that affect *them* personally. Ultimately, the "anti-government" issue nearly always came down to race and race alone.

4) Again, you have to look at what actually happened on the immigration bill. "Congress" didn't vote against it. The bill was supported by Bush, Rove, McCain, most of Democratic Caucus, and many of the moderate Republicans. What happened is that the conservative base--a small minority of the voters--threw a temper tantrum and vowed to primary any Republican who voted for the bill. So Republicans decided it wasn't worth the hassle to upset the 20% of Americans that make up their rabid base, and derailed the bill in the House. The events in the Congress are not at all at odds with the poll numbers; they simply reflect the power of a vocal minority to affect policy.

I am curious as to how you see the Republicans reinventing themselves to win elections in this Center-Left voting environment.

btw, I forgot to mention that the the sentences "'Small government' Sarah Palin, for instance, actually increased spending in her state. So why did Republicans presume that she supported small government and less spending? Simple: because she is a Republican from a state that doesn't have a Chicago, Detroit or Harlem in it" were a quote from the same conservative blogger I quoted elsewhere, 'nephewmiltie' at RedState.com.

I'm afraid I'm running out of steam tonight. Got an early day tomorrow. But, I'm enjoying the back and forth and look forward to picking up where we left off in the morning.

I'll post my response before 9:00 AM. Good night and good luck...

No problem. Looking forward to a continuation tomorrow. My schedule is somewhat broken up tomorrow, but I will post when I am able.

I too am enjoying the dialogue. Good night and good luck to you as well.

Thanks for the snarky comment, Helen. It tells me I'm doing a good job. Now, back to the debate.

David, on your comment on a country seemingly longing for a return to FDR's policies, I couldn't disagree more. While some of his policies and programs had good intentions initially, they have also had long-lasting negative consequences.

For example, Social Security is now in a heap of financial trouble (teetering on insolvency), which again speaks to a national governmental program that has failed the test of time due to mismanagement and lack of forethought. Medicare is in even worse shape.

As I said before, socialized/nationalized health care is a similarly-intended program to provide for the public good that I believe would be disastrous to place in the hands of government. Do we want the same folks running the DMV responsible for your personal health care needs? I know I don't.

FDR-era labor regulations and the subsequent rise of the unions as a social and political force in America is another good area for examination. Since the 1950's & 1960's, labor unions have experienced a continuing decline in power and influence in America. Granted, their membership numbers still make them a politically potent force, particularly for Democrat Party candidates.

But, one only has to look at the recent scandals involving SEIU in Los Angeles and the ineffectiveness of the UAW in the struggle for (again) government intervention in the financial troubles facing the Big 3 automakers. Americans tend to be more pragmatic than idealistic and can readily see when something has gotten way out of control (unrealistic/unsustainable wage & benefit packages being demanded by labor unions).

Your points on the lack of a backlash by the American people against big government are interesting, but somewhat flawed. I agree that people are generally self-interested and tend to support the government programs that benefit them most. The same is true of taxing policies (it's OK to tax the other guy to death, but don't come after me). On the expenditure side, the reason that pork barrel spending still remains popular, despite the amount of breast-beating and discrediting it receives among politicians of all stripes is because the folks at home see it as benefiting their local or personal situation.

However, when a program reaches a tipping point, in terms of failures in management, oversight, and execution (Social Security, again, being a good example of this), people expect their government to respond by offering fixes or alternatives. Now, perhaps, total privatization of this program may not have been the best idea (and, in retrospect, probably would have been disastrous), the fact remains that the federal government has done absolutely nothing to address the imminent failure of this program.

Regarding the Republican Party's need to reinvent itself, I feel that the party needs new energy and ideas and new faces (Bobby Jindal of Louisiana comes to mind). John McCain, clearly, was not the best candidate we could have fielded in 2008. He was too strongly identified with the old guard of the Party.

I'm not saying the GOP needs to abandon its core principles and values (small government, low taxes, fiscal discipline, strong national defense, etc.), but it needs to re-engage the American public in a discussion of where we're headed as a nation and a people.

One example of a change in direction would be on the foreign policy front. We need to develop national leaders who are willing to engage in pro-active diplomacy (Nixon/Kissinger come to mind) and are willing to help troubled/politically unstable nations help themselves as well. We need to be willing to broker and facilitate cease fires and peace talks in hot spots, such as between Israel & the Palestinians, African nations steeped in violence and tribal warfare. We need to be less the isolationist idealogues and more the engaged leaders in world affairs.

Back to the original theme of this discussion and my initial premise, that America is a center-right nation, you had pointed out earlier that only 4 Republican presidents have been elected since LBJ. But, in looking at the 4 Democrat presidents who have been elected during this same time frame (LBJ, Carter, Clinton & Obama), you would have to agree that there is not a raving liberal among them. I fact, all (with the exception of Obama who hasn't been tested) would most likely be rated as centrist to conservative Democrats.

David,
Because of your comments about the tax rates for the rich, I feel compelled to ask.

What is your definition of rich, middle class, and poor?
What would you consider to be a fair tax rate for each of those catagories?

If the definition of "financial trouble" is a program that is projected to remain solvent for the next 25+ years, then SocSec is in trouble. But then, it's in much better shape than the rest of the private sector, which can't project solvency past the enxt 6 months. Its too easy to play fast and loose with SocSec figures, as the GOp's been doing for decades now, in an attempt to loot the fund and turn it over to guys like Madoff. Truth is, though SocSec should be overhauled it's in no danger of losing its effectiveness as a social safety net.

No one's talking about socialized health CARE. We've been talkign about a one-payer health INSURANCE network. That's a big difference and if the GOP's really interested in evolving, they should have a better grasp on this issue.

The loss of union jobs is partly due to the success of union movements over the past century, enabling more and more families to raise healthier kids and to send more and more of those kids on to a better education. As more union jobs (manufacturing & service) were lost, more white collar jobs, professional associations and entrepreneurial businesses were created...due to an expanding middle class. Thank unions for that.

True, people expect their leaders to fix govt when it fails. But for three decades we've had an increasingly polarized govt in which obstruction has become the favored tool of the minority. The quickest and most effective party to use that tool has been the GOP and while they claim they do it to keep government small and protect the savings of working class families, the evidence of those past three decades proves just the opposite: that its done purely for ideological reasons, its created bloated govt and its taken hard earned money away from working families far in excess of any tax savings the GOP's ever promised.

The USA hasn't seen even a glimmer of isolationist policies since the GOP tried to keep us out of WWII. And every time the GOP's controlled foreign policy its created a mess: from Eisenhower's VietNam debacle to Kissinger's Corrupt Power Politics to the Bush's NeverEnding Gulf War.

As for core principles...who are you kidding! Over the past sixty years GOP administrations have seen the deficit rise on average over 24% per year (the next OMB analysis for 2008 may see that figure rise to over 35%). Dems: 4%. That's absolutely laughable, coming from the party that preaches small government and fiscal responsibility even as it attacks the opposition as being liberal BigGovt Spenders.

The GOP needs more than new faces and witty slogans if its to evolve into something approaching what America needs during the next 50 years. It can do it, I'm certain, but not without admitting it no longer has any core values other than to secure political power for its own sake.

At this point in time, the USA is decidedly left of center.

Correction: it was the far right conservatives that tried to obstruct our entry into WWII, not the GOP. My apologies.

Mike,

I'll respond point by point, but I must reiterate the central question of this debate. The question at hand is not whether liberal or conservative policies are more effective (though that is a debate I would also love to have). The question is whether liberal or conservative policies are more *popular*: i.e., whether America is center-right or center-left.

In that vein, whether you believe that social security or other New Deal programs are financially troubled or effective is essentially irrelevant. The fact remains that every aspect of the New Deal remains extremely popular. People *DO* want a new New Deal, and they like the old New Deal. Once national healthcare is enacted, that too will be very popular. Which is really all the indication you need of the country's essential character not only now but in the past: a Center-Left nation.

That said, I'll address your points in sequence:

1) There is no crisis in Social Security. A knowledgeable person might reasonably argue that Medicare has a solvency crisis within the decade. Social Security, however, is projected to be solvent for decades. Further, if a program as important as social security were to be underfunded according to the current system, a grateful nation would find the money to continue it. Bush's wars of adventurism in the Middle East certainly haven't paid for themselves at the cost of over $2 billion/week.

2) On healthcare, you can link the government to the DMV all you want, but I guarantee you that the DMV has a higher approval rating than any HMO. Healthcare in this country is irredeemably broken, and America will sooner or later join with the rest of the civilized world in providing healthcare for its citizens. I am happy to have the same organization that runs the post office, the military, the police, the firefighters, the road crews, social security, medicare, and all the other highly popular, highly effective government programs upon which we depend take responsibility for my health. I'd certainly rather that, than continue to line the pockets of Blue Shield's CEO and investors, paying more money for coverage than I would for taxes on a national plan.

3) Labor. Again, you conflate efficacy with popularity. The question is popularity, not power or efficacy. The fact is that labor unions remain very popular, and much more so than big business. The fact that the labor unions have lost power in this country is directly attributable not to a loss of prestige or popularity, but rather to Republican policies specifically designed to cripple unions. Republicans don't win elections when they do because they hate unions, but rather *in spite* of the fact that they do so. Republicans run on culture wars, not on economics; it is only once elected that they promote retrograde economic policies under the radar that are contrary to the desires of the American people.

4) You continue to frame the (center-left) popularity of taxing the rich as a form of NIMBYism. It isn't. America's rich pay a far, far smaller percentage of their combined payroll/investment income than do the rich in almost any other industrialized democracy. Even so, only 53% of average Americans feel their tax burden is too high. Almost half of Americans feel they're paying the right amount of taxes--*but that the rich are paying far too little.* That's not NIMBYism: that's a decided center-left policy preference, and one that is grounded is the reality that America's rich are essentially getting away with murder. The rich have been waging class warfare on the middle class for decades, and screaming "class warfare" anytime we fight back.

5) The number of Republican presidents elected since LBJ is an arrow in your quiver, not in mine. I explicitly said so. Ever since LBJ lost the South and the gated-community types, Republicans have had their heyday playing thinly veiled racial politics, anti-Communist/anti-Muslim scare tactics, and anti-elitist culture wars--despite the fact that Americans disagree with Republicans on nearly every policy issue. It worked for a few decades and got some Republican presidents elected, but the strategy has played itself out. The GOP is now a party of the South and its cultural allies: not a good strategy for long-term success.

I agree with you that the GOP needs fresh faces to deal a country that is not only decidedly center-left, but finally getting over a three-decade long racial hangover. With Virginia turned blue and much of the Southwest increasingly Hispanic, the GOP will have to abandon the culture/race war model for winning elections. And that says nothing of Millennial generation voters--voters who are neither racists nor homophobes, and whose Democratic voting patterns spell doom for anti-gay and anti-Hispanic Republican tactics outside of certain gerrymandered areas.

Certainly, entertaining a more diplomatic foreign policy will be a start. But in the end, the GOP will have to begin running not against government, but as the party that seeks to run government more efficiently. Once it does that, however, it will have conceded the point: that America is a center-left nation, and that not only is the New Deal here to stay, but a new New Deal is coming. At issue will not be its implementation, but rather its administration.

In response to Jimmy's question about wealth, it is not for me to decide what the tax brackets should be. Clearly, there are the rich, and then there are a super-rich. Also, money that makes one rich in Kansas is barely enough to afford a mortgage in some parts of California. I think that Obama's plan to tax every dollar *above* $250,000 at a 38% marginal rate is more than fair: remember, from the late 1930s to 1964, the marginal rate was a whopping 94% on all income about $200,000, and the economy seemed to hum along just fine.

Still, the key point is not specific numbers. The key point is to reward WORK, NOT WEALTH. Because the rich and the corporate make most of their money not from wages and payroll but from investments, Republican politicians have tried to encourage as much money as possible to be dumped into investments at preposterously low tax rates. Only a fool works for a living in today's America rather than investing, the way Republicans have rigged the system. Of course, those policies have led to bubble after bubble in investments, horribly short-sighted business policies, and an unstable system teetering on collapse.

More important to note, however, is that an increase in investments doesn't equal and increase in standards of living for the middle class. While the DOW MORE THAN TRIPLED from Reagan's administration to George W. Bush's, INCOMES ACTUALLY DECLINED VERSUS INFLATION over that time, even as productivity soared. In other words, people for the last 30 years have been working harder for less pay, while the wealthy investors make a killing.

It's time to begin taxing wealth again, and reduce the taxes on work.

Regarding the rich and poor debate, I'm going to throw something out there that is very close to home for me and, hopefully, adds some additional perspective to the discussion. My Dad made an average of $4 million a year in his last 10 years in business, selling houseware products to large department store retailers (like Robinson's, Macy's, Saks Fifth Ave, Neiman Marcus, to name a few). He also branched out internationally for a time and was selling products to Taiwan, China, France, and Indonesia. This is where he made his fortune and allowed him to retire at the age of 55 with more money than he could possibly spend during the rest of his life. He retired with a very healthy nest egg, valued at nearly $250 million by his independent accountants.

This money, or a good part of it, has, in fact, been reinvested in the community already through public/non-profit collaborations that are designed to yield long-term positive results for the community as a whole (excellent return on investment instruments), So, those that are decrying the banks and financial institutions. Most of these organizations are just ineterested in a short-term bridge loan to get them over the hump and allow them to start producive services agin.

In my view, that's where the tax increases
need to happne. Most promosing miffle classers wuth lot ogs tebure

Mike,

I applaud your father's initiative, good fortune and generosity. But it would be more than a stretch to say that reinvestment in the community is the norm for the hyperwealthy. Reinvestment in the *local* community is even more rare. Usually, wealth is reinvested in real estate, the stock market, hedge funds and other even more exotic investments that don't actually benefit the community.

Furthermore, most Americans would rather trust the mandated reinvestment of government under popular control into accountable measures designed for community benefit, than trust to the good graces of a few wealthy individuals who may or may not be benefactors, and who pick and choose and businesses and causes worthy of their considerable endowments.

Hey all,

I extended the time between these two to Saturday night because Mike Gibson got a late start Thursday night.

I am going to unpublish the comments from other people until they are done debating.

David,

My point with my father was simply to show that there are many out there who voluntarily contribute to programs for the disadvantaged and the needy, not to mention the job creation and economic stimulus benefits their business investments typically provide, in some cases, lifting up entire communities out of poverty and despair.

Bill Gates and his wife have done marvelous things with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for example. These are the people who would be targeted for huge tax increases under your plan because the government thinks it should be the one doling out all the goodies,
thus disincentivizing private sector entrepreneurs to continue doing these wonderful things that benefit people.

Instead of making the rich the bogeyman and, therefore, someone to be targeted for tax increases, shouldn't we be encouraging them to be even more entrepreneurial and invest their money in new or expanded companies and businesses that will have far more of a far-reaching, positive effect on the economy than offering $600 tax rebates to everyone at tax time, or paying for TV converter boxes?

Don't you see that once the government gets
their grubby little hands on these folks money, it immediately becomes a disincentive for further re-investment and charitable contributions? It becomes more of a struggle to hang on to what they've got. And that's not good for our country over the long-term.

I would also like to refute the point you made regarding unions. I will point to recent events concerning the UAW workers and their efforts to persuade Congress to enact a full-scale bailout of the auto industry. How can you expect the American public to support a class of "blue-collar" workers who are making over $73 an hour for assembling automobiles using the latest robotic equipment that minimizes physical exertion while providing maximum safety features to protect the workers? Most middle class workers are making less for doing far more highly-skilled jobs, many of them requiring advanced college degrees or technical training.

This is the same weak argument that cashiers at grocery stores tried to make a few years ago when the foodworkers unions went out on strike. People are not very sympathetic with the plight of workers who are earning over $30/hour to run a product through a price scanner. It just doesn't wash with most people, except the union workers themselves, of course.

I agree that a new era is coming with regard to government's involvement in a whole host of things that it has never been involved in before. To many of us, that's a very scary notion. And the sad part is that they will be using yours and my money to conduct this widespread sociological/economical experiment.

But, again, being the center-right nation of spirited pragmatists that we are, we will not tolerate government failure for too long. I remain very hopeful of this.

As appealing as the notion might be, charity does not *begin* to do anywhere near the sort of good that populist government action does.

When Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, when the weekend didn't exist, when children worked in factories 14 hours a day with no minimum wage, charity was the most significant aid to the poor. It barely made a dent.

These same arguments that government action will reduce the influence of charity were made during the Great Depression by the robber barons looking to maintain their wealth. Just one example of this follows, taken from Arthur Schlesinger's book on the Great Depression. After the meltdown, Hoover appointed Walter S. Gifford, president of AT&T, to the "President's Organization on Unemployment Relief." Appearing before a Senate committee, he said the following (and I quote from Schlesinger):

"Gifford disclosed imerturbably that he did not know how many people were idle, that he did not know how many were receiving aid, that he did not know that the standards of assistance were in the various states, that he did not know how much money had been raised in his own campaign, that he knew nothing of the ability of local communities to raise relief funds, that he did not consider most of this information as of much importance to his job....

But on one question Gifford was clear: he was against federal aid."...THAT IT WOULD REDUCE THE SIZE OF PRIVATE CHARITY." His "sober and considered judgment" was that "federal aid would be a 'disservice' to the jobless."

In this case, "federal aid" referred to things like unemployment, social security, medicare, food stamps. You know, everything the rightists hated then supposedly because it would reduce charitable giving. That wasn't really the point, of course: the point was to keep their wealth even as the masses stood in breadlines. Or, to use a modern parallel, 40% of Americans go without health insurance.

The fact is that the reductio ad absurdum of this argument ends in feudalism: allow the noble class to amass huge hordes of wealth, and allow their noblesse to olige upon the peasants to avoid starvation. It didn't work then. It certainly didn't work in the Gilded Age of the late 19th century. It didn't work for Hoover. And it doesn't work now, either. This is the essence of "trickle down" theory--or, as it was more aptly termed at the beginning of the 20th century, "horse and sparrow theory": give horses all the oats, and the sparrows will get what comes out the other side. Trickle-down supply side economic theory (and its correlative, the importance of "charity" as a lever of social justice) has been thoroughly discredited once again--nor do Americans support it when it understand what it really entails.

On unions, the $73/hour statistic is an outright lie and fabrication of the rightwing noise machine. The average union autoworker makes far, far, far less than that: to reach $70/hour for the average UAW worker, you have to include only all future estimated retirement benefits for current workers, but also benefits paid to current retirees. It's a fabricated stat. None of which changes the essential point: labor unions remain popular with the majority of Americans. What resentment there is of unions in America is that unionized workers tend to make more than those who are not unionized. Apologies for crudeness here, but...DUH. That's the point of collective bargaining. The answers to that resentment is for those workers to...well...*unionize*. Which is exactly what the Employee Free Choice Act will make so much easier to do, and allow wages to actually attempt to keep pace with inflation for a change.

Finally, I agree that we are a nation of pragmatists. But nothing in your arguments begins to suggest that we are center-right.

Isn't the whole point of the last 8 (if not the last 28) years that the followers of Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are living in a fantasyland wholly unrelated to reality, good governance, or even the will of the American people in terms of policy positions?

Government has not failed us, any more than it was government that failed us in 1929. It didn't fail us in New Orleans, in Iraq, or on Wall St. It was conservative ideology that failed us in all these cases: an ideology of deregulation, social darwinism and ultra-laissez-faire capitalism that made a mockery of government and declared that "government is the problem."

The nation has finally woken up to the true agenda of conservatism after years of being blinding by race and other fear tactics, and they don't like what they see. Because when push comes to shove, this nation is decidedly Center-Left.

Brian,

Hope it's still OK to keep going here. I know you intent was to end the debate yesterday, but I felt compelled to respond to a few of David's points here.

David,

It seems that we have one fundamental difference in our viewpoints on human nature. You seem to hold fast to the notion that the top priority of the rich is to hold onto their money while I have seen clear evidence of the opposite, not only in my own family but in the numerous charitable organizations and foundations established by those with means who have been inspired to do something meaningful to help the underprivileged. I mentioned the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a stellar example, but there are thousands more out there.

Now, I will concede that those who work hard to establish a business and build it up over many years do feel it is important to keep a reasonable amount of what they earn through there own hard work, sacrifice, creativity, and risk-taking. Makes sense, I'm sure. And I certainly believe they should pay their fair share of taxes like the rest of us.

I think where we get into trouble is by assuming they should pay exponentially more as a percentage of their income because they've reached a certain financial pinnacle in their lives. In essence, this is penalizing success. It only encourages the kind of behavior we have decried for our large corporations, like exporting their operations to foreign countries where the tax rates and environmental regulations are more desirable. In other words, we need to consider the consequences of our actions.

The other point on penalizing successful entrepreneurs through higher taxes is the disincentive this creates for more new businesses trying to enter the marketplace. It is not just about charitable contributions from wealthy entrepreneurs, more importantly, it is about the spillover benefits that these new businesses provide to the overall economy including job creation, investment opportunities, and, yes, additional taxes flowing into the local economy.

Yes, we are a nation of pragmatists. The point being that we are cautious and realistic when it comes to the danger of runaway government.

We have seen the backlash effects of this in the past (over-taxation in California - Prop. 13; court rulings on the death penalty that have been overturned by voter initiatives - including in California; court mandates on busing that have found to be impractical & counterproductive; gay rights rulings that conflict with the will of the people - Prop. 8 in California; and the list goes on).

Some efforts of government have actually been stopped in their tracks by lack of public support and the reaction of the public (universal health care during the Clinton administration, so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" in 2006; and even in my own little town of Ventura - the dreaded "911 fee").

Yes, the American people voted for "change" with the election of Barack Obama. There is no doubt about this. Clearly, the public wants to see a change in direction with regard to our economy, foreign policy, and the transparency of government.

But, I say, be careful what you wish for. I just hope the Obama administration is smart enough to proceed with caution and pragmatism
with its policy proposals. Otherwise, we shall see this "center-right" America looking for yet another course correction.

I extended it to tonight at midnight, so keep going.

Mike,

If, as we agree, the American nature is fundamentally pragmatic, then let us be pragmatic. The question is not one of human nature, or the souls of rich folk as it were (though I think we know where most people stand on that, and it isn't on the GOP side). The question is what works and what doesn't.

We've tried giving rich people lots of money, and cutting or lacking social programs for the many, in the hopes that the rich would provide charity or additional investment out of the goodness of their hearts. IT DOESN'T WORK. It didn't work in the Gilded Age. It didn't work for Hoover. It doesn't work now. The rich get exponentially richer, and the poor suffer while the middle class stagnate.

Almost everyone knows this. That's why the polls show what they do: that America is decidedly center-left, and that they want the rich sharing a much larger part of the tax burden.

To your other points:

1) The issue is not taxing "success". Doctors, attorneys and successful business owners are successful and make a great deal of money, a fact with which most people have no problem. At issue is the taxing of WEALTH, in which individuals make exorbitant amounts of money by doing fancy footwork with other money. Wealth invested in financial instruments is, by and large, unproductive for society, but very productive for the investor. The idea is to encourage productivity and real creation of new businesses by taxing WEALTH instead of work.

2) Even if we were taxing "success", a system in which I could never accumulate enough wealth to buy 20 Lamborghinis and 7 beach houses would in no way reduce my desire to own 2 Lamborghinis and 3 beach houses. Personal wealth that reaches the high 8 or even 9 figures is extravagant, utterly unnecessary, and detrimental to the good of society. People don't tolerate it for long of their own free will: such disparities end either in bloody revolution (I call graduated income taxes "guillotine insurance"), or in the dictatorship to keep the huddled masses in line.

3) If we are truly taxing *wealth* rather than work, placing investments overseas will matter little, as the dividends are taxed regardless. I seriously doubt that most of the wealthy will move to Dubai to escape taxes: and, in fact, we already know what happens in these circumstances. Europe's and Japan's wealthy have largely stayed put, happy to do their part for a just and healthy society.

4) To your point about backlash--yes, certain aspects of the Great Society ran into the buzzsaw of racial prejudice and misogyny in this nation. The 1960's were a time of great upheaval, and there was some backlash against newly liberated women and minorities who were (wrongly) perceived by prejudiced majorities to be receiving the lion's share of government benefits. To that end, we have the election of Ronald Reagan; Prop 13; the election of 1994; "law-and-order" statutes that disproportionately affect minorities and the poor; the insistence on the death penalty, which seems to only be inflicted on minorities and the poor; and a host of other conservative SOCIAL measures.

The Right was also able to flood vast amounts of money into conservative think tanks and K-Street lobbying organizations, flooding the airwaves with lies about the nature of national health insurance, or Reagan's fictional "Cadillac-driving welfare queens".

In none of this, however, did the American people suspect their culture war Republican allies had a target firmly placed not on the Great Society, but on the New Deal. They wanted socialism for *themselves*, just not for minorities.

As I said, however, the nation has woken up to the GOP's attack on the New Deal; they've begun to reject the billion-dollar lies being told about national healthcare; and racial prejudice, misogyny, and homophobia are literally dying away with generational replacement and strong Hispanic immigration.

The GOP has gotten away for a few decades with turning a Center-Left country against its own interests and desires by race-baiting and playing culture wars. Those days are largely over now, and the Center-Left character of this nation is strongly reasserting itself now, and will continue to do so in the coming years.

David,

It seems that your theory is: If relying on the private sector and charitable organizations (in addition to the existing social service safety net) to provide for the needs of the poor isn't working, then we should turn this responsibility (lock, stock, and barrel) over to the government. This is nonsensical.

You hearken back to the Hoover era as evidence that relying on private philanthropy doesn't work; however, you've completely discounted the programs that have been put in place by Roosevelt and LBJ since that time.

The reason the middle class stagnates is because they are forced to shoulder the largest share of the tax burden. Now, I agree, there's a reasonable argument to be made if this is sound public policy or not. But, we have to look closely at the alternatives and their consequences.

If we, as you suggest, decide that increasing taxes on the rich is the best course of action, then what does this do to the potential for economic growth in a down economy? It further hampers it. Ask any economist worth their salt and they'll tell you the same thing. This is elementary economic theory.

Again, I say that America is certainly in the mood for change and, I agree, the last presidential election reflects this without a doubt. But, I maintain that the poll results you refer to are shaky in terms of what this means to the average American in terms of changes in tax and economic policy.

You may recall the "redistribution of wealth" comments by Obama in the final days of the presidential campaign that raised a significant number of eyebrows across the land. This, to me, is further evidence of this country's center-right orientation. This is a scary proposition to most Americans because it runs contrary to a basic premise of our society - free market capitalism. This may sound outlandish, but if Americans truly disagreed with this fundamental principle, you would see an awful lot of applications for passports to China & Russia.

You argue that Americans have an issue with people making exorbitant amounts of money, but, you must admit, without the Microsofts, Apple Computers, and Hewlett-Packards, there would be a lot less capital circulating throughout the economy to stimulate investment and economic growth. I think people, at a gut level, understand this principle and can see the detrimental effects of stifling this through random wealth redistribution policies.

You also make a counter-argument to my point about the danger of American business taxing policies increasing the incentive for businesses to export their production activities to foreign countries. To clarify, I wasn't talking about exporting wealth or assets, I was focusing on the production/manufacturing side (i.e., labor, equipment, and facilities). We have seen this occur, some would say, partially as a result of free trade agreements (like NAFTA), but also as a result of high labor costs in the U.S., as well as overly burdensome environmental standards.

I also find it interesting that you turn the backlash against the New Deal/Great Society programs as a function of racism and misogyny. How convenient.

I think one really good thing about Obama's election, coming from a lifelong conservative, is that the rants of such avowed spokesmen for minority America as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have finally been brought into question (and rightfully so). No longer will it be a convenient out for liberals to claim that the economic shortfalls of minorities is the result of racism and misogyny.

Your final point on the center-left character of this nation reasserting itself under an Obama presidency is not a given, as you suggest, but more of an unproven theory. I would submit that this is a temporal change in the winds and will be overcome (in time) by this country's center-right predisposition.

Mike,

It seems appropriate for the end of this debate that we are speaking at cross-purposes, and further enlightenment is not really possible. You continue to repeat statements that have no basis in reality, history, or poll data. As I've already made my central points with signficant data support and no particularly cogent refutations, I'll close with a few refutations of my own to your points such as they are:

1) As I have repeated before, wealth investments are taxed at a lower rate than is work income. Warren Buffett pays a lower effective rate than his secretary. This is unjust and bad policy, and the American people definitively do not like it.

And as I said before, the marginal rate from the late 1930s to 1964 was NINETY-FOUR percent. Our strong economy during that time was BECAUSE, not in spite of, those marginal rates. Republicans today who predict dire consequences for taxing the rich are lying: we already know what happened in the United States with these rates, and we know what has happened in other industrialized nations with higher rates than ours. There is no economic meltdown, no flood of capital overseas. There is, rather, economic and social justice. These are not hypothetical situations: there are easy parallels to draw concurrently and historically. Taxing wealth instead of work works, and managed economies are highly successful over the long run compared to laissez-faire boom-and-bust economies.

2) Your mention of China and Russia is humorous--both are crony capitalist societies. Perhaps a better comparison would be the large number of Americans fleeing to Canada and other countries to get quality healthcare they can actually afford.

3) You're right: Americans do recoil at the phrase "redistribution of wealth", because it brings to mind authoritarian communism, and the taking of money from the white, suburban middle class, putting it instead into black inner cities and East Los Angeles. Ask Americans if they'd like to see the billions scammed by the CEOs of Citibank & AIG and other "masters of the Universe" put instead into national healthcare and an Apollo Program for a green economy to combat global warming, and you'll see overwhelming support for it. It just depends on how you frame "redistribution".

Republicans have been redistributing wealth from the middle class to the super-rich for decades, and most Americans want to reverse that trend.

4) That you could remotely claim that Microsoft is a stimulator of the economy shows just how far out of touch is the average Republican. Microsoft and Apple constitute a duopoly that produce mediocre, overpriced products that swallow up and destroy the ability of small businesses to compete, innovate and create jobs. Unless you are directly employed by or invested in these companies, you know that their impact on the economy is to suck cash out of consumers with comparatively little benefit in return--especially in Microsoft's case.

That is true tenfold for healthcare companies, oil companies and others whose only purpose is to swallow up outrageous record profits, not benefiting any local communities to speak of, from a populace with little choice but to line their CEO's and investors' fat pockets.

5) We can argue forever the causes of minority poverty--though the idea that no more than one or two generations separated from Jim Crow laws, George Wallace and blaming "welfare queens" for society's problems, those communities should be blamed for their own plight is laughable. But that's not the argument. The argument is that the entirety of the racist South, as well as "white flight" gated and suburban communities, flipped Republican after LBJ, desperately afraid that their tax dollars should go to "Those People." This is common consensus in the political science community.

Fortunately, the power of that race-fueled backlash has shrunk to the South and to America's less populated exurban and rural communities.

The Republican coalition now consists of just three types:

1) Residual racists uncomfortable with any portion of their tax dollars going to blacks or Hispanics, and desirous of indiscriminately killing any ethnic or religious group around the world who makes them fear for their safety;

2) Religious fundamentalists furious that women may be having sex without the appropriate "consequences", and terrified that gay people might "recruit" their children if allowed to live out their lives in open happiness; and

3) Super-wealthy families desperate to keep their 8-figure incomes untouched by the nasty hands of the same "big government" that provides the services and protections upon which they so heavily depend.

It is for these last that I have the least patience.

The American character is distinctly Center-Left. We were among the first to give women the right to vote. When Europe went Right during the global depression of the 1930's we went Left with FDR. We love the New Deal. We state distinct preferences for center-left positions in nearly every poll. And we will soon have a new New Deal, which will meet with overwhelming public approval as well. The only question is how quickly overwhelming public sentiment for these programs results in their effective implementation over the top of the lobbying of wealthy Republicans and their corporate allies.

tax brackets. I was asking for YOUR opinions Gee David, nice liberal dodge there. I didn’t ask you to establish a nation standard for the of what constitutes rich, middle class and poor so that we may have a better idea of what you are talking about. You then try to confuse the issue by bringing up the variable cost of living in different parts of the country. The current tax codes don’t take the local cost of living into account. Are you suggesting that future revisions of the tax code should include this? You state that “Clearly there are the rich and then there are a super-rich.� While I agree with the statement it is possible that my definition of rich and super-rich are different from yours. So could you please define your terms?
You keep bringing of the fact that in the past the tax rate was 94% on income over $200,000. Do YOU think this was a fair rate?
I am not sure that I understand your comments about taxing wealth not work. Are you implying that I should be taxed at a higher rate when I retire and start to withdraw money from my IRA and 401K? After all this will be wealth earned from my investments not work. Please explain what is the difference between money earned by investing my time and labor or the money I earn by reinvesting my wages in the stock market?

oops, lets try again.

Gee David, nice liberal dodge there. I didn’t ask you to establish a national standard for the tax brackets. I was asking for YOUR opinions of what constitutes rich, middle class and poor so that we may have a better idea of what you are talking about. You then try to confuse the issue by bringing up the variable cost of living in different parts of the country. The current tax codes don’t take the local cost of living into account. Are you suggesting that future revisions of the tax code should include this? You state that “Clearly there are the rich and then there are a super-rich.� While I agree with the statement it is possible that my definition of rich and super-rich are different from yours. So could you please define your terms?
You keep bringing up the fact that in the past the tax rate was 94% on income over $200,000. Do YOU think this was a fair rate?
I am not sure that I understand your comments about taxing wealth not work. Are you implying that I should be taxed at a higher rate when I retire and start to withdraw money from my IRA and 401K? After all this will be wealth earned from my investments not work. Please explain what is the difference between money earned by investing my time and labor or the money I earn by reinvesting my wages in the stock market?

I'm no expert on the numbers, Jimmy. I'm a member of the reality-based community, and would defer to experts on matters beyond my expertise. But I would start with a little more than Obama's 38% over $250,000--probably a 50% marginal for every income dollar about $300,000. Remember, that's a 50% rate only for every dollar above and beyond $300,000. That's way more than reasonable. Like Obama, I would cut middle class tax rates, promote measures to increase wages, and punish the hell out of companies that outsource overseas.

I would immediately raise rates on capital gains to 30% or above, and regulate the hell out of hedge funds and other complex derivatives. Do absolutely everything to promote responsible long-term investing and a focus beyond the next quarterly profits, which is destroying American business.

That will still put rates below the rate to which Reagan first cut them--a far cry from the more reasonable rates at which they stood all the way from LBJ to Reagan, and far lower than were they were from FDR to Kennedy.

And that's just for starters.

and jimmy, if you can't figure out the difference between work and wealth, you're beyond hope. But I'll explain it patiently to you.

The work for which you earn a salary is productive and contributes value to society.

The money you gamble on the stock market may, in some vague capacity, assist the companies in which your diversified holdings are established to grow. There is no guarantee, however, that your 401K and mutual funds will be used by the companies in which you invest to create any jobs in the U.S., or to create anything of value to Americans. In fact, your investment is as likely as not to end up helping the corporation line the pockets of its board members and CEO, or assist it in establishing overseas operations at the expense of Americans. If, that is, you even investing in an American company in the first place.

Get it?

That is why, even when the Dow more than tripled from Reagan to George W. Bush, wages for the American worker declined versus inflation. It didn't actually help the American worker.

The only way we've been able to get by is by the insane expansion of credit. But for the historically novel ability of Americans to go an average of $10,000 into credit card debt, and to use their homes as ATMs, our economy would have collapsed under Republican laissez-faire policies long ago.

Investors aren't hurting for money--or weren't until recently. What hurts investors most is short-sighted, greedy policies that create big booms followed by bigger busts.

Better to have a slower, stabler growth policy that rewards work over wealth, and long-term investments over short-term.

David,
Your comments about Apple and Microsoft are absurd. I remember when Wang Word was the preeminent computer software and windows was just a novelty. There were dozens of software companies large and small that were trying to figure out how to get the most productivity out of personal computers. The windows operating system and associated programs proved themselves to be superior to all of the others. Since that time Microsoft has completely redefined how we record, organize, disseminate, and store information. Apple as you might recall nearly went bankrupt in the early nineties. It was only an infusion of cash from Bill Gates that kept them afloat. With iTunes, the iPod, and iPhone they have done with music and video what Microsoft did to information. These two companies EARNED the positions that they hold today. To say that they have done nothing but suck cash from consumers with comparatively little benefit in return is sheer ignorance.

Jimmy,

As the only two major software companies in the industry for well over a decade, they have obviously produced a large number of products. How could they help but do so? And the advent of Google has shown that competition is not entirely dead in the software industry--though Google itself is becoming a behemoth now.

But the claim that their corporate profits and dividends should not be taxed at substantial rates because of their supposed enormous contributions to societal welfare is preposterous, and would be considered laughable by the majority of Americans. Last I checked, BMW does just fine under the heavy German regulatory and taxation system, and manages to innovate plenty well enough. Same with Toyota and Honda under the Japanese system.

In fact, European and Asian companies are now beginning to outstrip their American counterparts in almost every arena--despite much stricter regulations and higher taxes. Gee...I wonder why that is? They must be doing it with magic.

It has taken Reaganomics and its adherents 25 years to destroy American business and the American economy, but they've managed to do so quite successfully.

And that only thing Republicans can offer is more of the same, and the hair of the dog that bit us.

No, thanks. We've tried that. It failed, just like it did under Hoover and in the Gilded Age.

Hi David,

I agree with a lot of what you've written here but I must take exception with your categorization of Republicans into three types. (And I don't agree with you on Apple or on raising capital gains tax rates, but I'll save that for another day.)

I could be wrong, but your categorization seems to be rooted in your disinclination to spend time with people who don't share your progressive viewpoint. I have friends and family members, all Republican, who don't fit neatly into any of those categories.

Where would Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins fit in your thesis?

Marie,

As a political activist with mostly Republican relatives in Utah, Idaho and Texas, who grew up in Riverside and has done more than his share of phonebanking and canvassing, and a market researcher who has conducted and watched tons of focus groups, I can tell I've talked in depth to literally hundreds if not thousands of Republicans in my time. I also spend a great deal of time reading conservative blogs like FreeRepublic and RedState. I know them like the back of my hand, which is why their arguments are so easy for me to refute.

If there *is* a fourth major category, it would be the Ayn Rand libertarians: pseudo-anarchistic idealists who believe that pure self-interest and zero government will lead to the perfect society. These are the Ron Paul types. But they're marginal in the party, their loyalties are subject to change, and nobody takes them seriously.

A fifth, dying category might be what are called Paleoconservatives: old-school isolationist open racists like Pat Buchanan. The difference between them and the Ron Paulites is their authoritarian tendency. But there are few of them left.

You mention Snowe and Collins, the last major Republicans in all the Northeast. There is a term for them: Rockefeller Republicans. Sometimes called Eisenhower Republicans.

These are socially liberal, fiscally conservative types who care about balanced budgets (pssst...today they call that a moderate Democrat). That would be the sixth and smallest category of Republican, and almost an extinct species. Can you name many others? Lincoln Chafee is more progressive than many Democrats. The only reason they're still called Republicans is legacy.

The Goldwater revolution, perfected under Reagan, was designed to destroy and extirpate the Rockefeller Republicans. It has succeeded admirably.

What has happened in America is that the economically populist but socially retrograde Dixiecrats in the South switched to the GOP, while the Rockefeller Republicans in the Northeast and West Coast have more slowly switched to the Democrats. More libertarian voters in the Midwest and West have been up for grabs, but are falling the Democrats' way as it becomes clear that overweening, unaccountable corporate power is far more dangerous to liberty than government power held by a democratic electorate.

Meanwhile, the youth vote is careening Democrats' way in a big, big way and--contrary to conventional wisdom--is unlikely to change as these voters age.

That's American politics in a nutshell.

BTW, on behalf of everyone on this blog, thanks for putting everything in a "nutshell" that conveniently reflects your point of view.

As to the basic, original question posed here...

Sure, if you mean that America believes in a thriving middle class, reproductive choice, equal rights for all, fair and workable immigration laws, accountable and transparent government, rights to organize labor under existing laws, a paper trail for election returns, avoiding foreign wars without a reason for national security, a free news media watching government, private telephone and email communications, protection of the environment and enforcement of existing laws, affordable college educations, and so on, then, sure, America is a center-right nation.

Whatever.

I am a lot more concerned about fixing our problems than picking labels.

Arrogant,

These are not my opinions, nor did I come up with these categorizations. These definitions--social conservatives (SoCons), fiscal conservatives (FisCons), foreign policy conservatives (NeoCons), libertarians, Paleocons, and Rockefeller Republicans are the definitions Republicans use to define THEMSELVES. And definitely the ones we use to define them as well.

They're not inventions from my head. You might want to try reading a few books on the subject sometime.

I have agree with Marie. Dividing Republicans up into very narrow, negative categories is overly simplistic.

I know Democrats that voted for Yes on 8 and both Stricklands, and I know Republicans that voted a great big NO on 8, and for Hannah Beth over Tony. What category would you place them in?

You'll never change a man's mind by cutting his head off.

The world is not black and white, and you'll never win the votes you need to put people in office in the conservative/republican leaning/majority parts of this county with an attitude like that, and an unwillingness to recognize and respect the shades of grey.

Reading these posts by David and Mike, I don't think the majority view is being displayed adequately. I see lots of fringe ideolology but little realistic assessment.

Here's a shot of realism:

California: Our overpaid legislatures are more interested in getting relelected than doing something about the budget. The Dems have done an end run on the Reps so now the Reps aren't even at the table. Most of the staff for the respective reps spend time deflecting calls than addresses issues. The citizens of California deserve better.

Nationwide: The economy sucks. It isn't President Bush's fault anymore than Obama will save everyone. It is the fault of greedy individuals. Bailouts aren't the answer and will prolong the agony. People need to suck it up for two years - it can be done. And yes, some people will lose their houses and some businesses will go under.

Center Right and Center Left are terms put out by far-right and far-left factions that hope to legitimize their belief systems. The mainsteam American is not currently represented adequately in California or the nation.

I'm a conservative Republican but I know my entire belief system isn't shared by many and it shouldn't be shoved down everyone's throat.

I want someone in office who has integrity and will make decisions that are fiscally sound. Simple enough.

David,
I stand corrected that you have not spent time with Republicans, but I would still venture to say that they are not your favored companions.

As I mentioned to you in a private conversation just last week, I grew up in a family of Rockefeller Republicans. It was a family tradition to be a Republican and walk into the voting booth and pull the Republican lever to vote the party line and walk out. (You used to be able to do that in the old days.)

While they are not well represented in Congress, I know quite a few people who still represent this way of thinking. One or two post on this blog.

The leadership of the Republican Party left me behind when they started tilting so far to the right and I changed my registration to Democrat. I have never felt quite comfortable there, either, as I hold some very conservative views on a few issues. Like Laura, I don't like labels.

You are a brilliant, studied young man. No doubt about that.

But I'd say this debate between you and Mr. Gibson has aptly illustrated why so many people are now switching their registration to DTS.

Thanks to both Atkins & Gibson for a very interesting and informative debate. You've both held up pretty well and both of you have made excellent points, despite a tendency towards defense of ideology.

Overall, I think David did a better job of defending his ideology by offering a lot more evidence in support of what's worked and what the American people have more favorably responded to. That tends to work well on a blog; less so in speaking to a crowd of voters Mike tended to rely too much on his unshakable faith in GOP conservatism, which seems to work well in addressing those same crowds but not so well when the contrary evidence is there, in print, for all to see.

I'd love to see a rematch AFTER Mike and David have had time to prepare more tangible evidence to support their views. Any chance, guys?

Thanks for all the good feedback, folks. This was an enjoyable experience for me and I'd love to do it again!

In defense of David, I think it's always difficult to avoid injecting a little ideological spunk when engaging in these types of debates, particularly when you have viewpoints that are coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum.

I respect David's well thought out responses and for keeping things on a mostly congenial level.

Thanks again, Brian, for hosting this event. I look forward to looking in on next week's debate.

Laura,

You want to recognize shades of gray and right leaning DTS voters so you supported John Burton? I know Burton is an effective organizer but he is a partisan that has done the same things you and Marie seem offended by here.

Offended wouldn't be the word I use here. I just don't think it prudent to lump Republicans into the original three categories of bigot, religious zealot or greedy millionaire, that's all.

That's like calling all Democrats tree-hugging, tax-and-spend socialist aetheists. :-)

Laura and Marie,

A few points need to be made here, first to Laura and then to Marie.

1) The Democratic Party spent the years after the losses of Carter and Mondale desperately trying to win back conservatives, cozying up to corporate money and moderating every piece of its message. We got Clinton's DLC and "Third Way", which was successful for Clinton himself, but disastrous for the Party as a whole, which suffered massive losses. It got so bad that anyone on the street could tell you what Republicans stood for (low taxes, strong military, traditional values), but you'd get ten different answers from ten different people if you asked what Democrats stood for.

It was really Howard Dean and the progressive movement--unabashed, unafraid Democrats with an unadulterated progressive message--that revived the party's fortunes (with some help from the Bush GOP's greed and incompetence. It was out of this movement that Obama's and Edwards' campaigns were born--campaigns that sunk the Clinton juggernaut and propelled the Democrats to the gains we see today.

2) As a corollary of this, disenchantment with the Democratic Party stems not from being overly liberal. As I have shown with the poll results (and I have a lot more where those came from), the American people actually stand to the LEFT of the Democratic Party on most issues.

The reason people get frustrated with Democrats is that Dems promise to help put the people ahead of corporations, and the middle class ahead of the rich, but then nothing ever seems to change. So people stop believing the government will ever actually help them--and proceed to vote on social or cultural biases instead. If neither party will actually help you pay your medical bills, why not vote for the guy you'd rather have a beer with?

The Democrats dominated for two generations after the New Deal, not because we pandered to the mushy middle and to conservatives, but because we showed that government can actually work to improve their lives, and weren't shy about it. It can be done again with ease, which is what terrifies Republicans. Democrats just have to get over the Battered Wife Syndrome they've had pretty much ever since 1980.

3) Marie, I appreciate that you grew up in a household of Rockefeller Republicans. Your experience, sadly, is far different from that of the vast majority of Republicans.

The Republican Party today is the Party of Sarah Palin. It is the party of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. It is the party of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. It is the party of James Dobson and Jerry Falwell. It is the party of Wal-Mart and Halliburton. And, to a lesser degree, it is the party of Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. Visit FreeRepublic. Visit RedState.com. Check out the crowds that attend a Sarah Palin rally. It may sting to hear it, but that's the truth. That's what the party is today. If Eisenhower were alive today, he would be a Democrat. Jim Jeffords switched parties, and Lincoln Chafee found out too late that he should have done so.

There are very few Rockefeller Republicans left, and what few there are, are mostly on the coasts swamped by a sea of Blue on all sides. Your singular experience doesn't change what the Party really is today, and Democrats won't lose votes just calling them simply a caustic and more truthful version of what they choose to call themselves.

Republicans like to say there are three legs to their collective stool (no pun intended): the FisCons, the SoCons, and the NeoCons. The laissez-faire, Club for Growth FisCons have all but extincted the balanced-budget loving Rockefellers (Jay Rockefeller is a Democrat today). The SoCons have, well, extincted science and reality from the Party, as well as the socially liberal Rockefellers. And the NeoCons have pretty much extincted the isolationist PaleoCons and Ron Paul supporters--though in the wake of the Neocon disaster, the Paleocons and Paultards are experiencing a resurgence.

They like it that way, and the purges continue within the GOP to this day. Wishing it were otherwise doesn't make it not so. And being nice about it in the hopes of winning conservative votes is a useless enterprise: far better to take the American People at their word, give them what they want, and follow the extremely successful path of FDR in creating massive change to actually benefit people's lives. Forcefully and unapologetically.

Finally, I want to extend a hand to Mike Gibson for being an affable, honest and courteous debate partner, and for not backing down a bit from the charge. I also want to thank Brian Dennert for making this possible. This has been very enjoyable, and I look forward to more debates to come.

My recollection of Clinton's impact on the Party is much different than yours, David. Even as Clinton was being elected the GOP adopted a strategy of personal attacks, combined with a deliberate attempt to neutralize his Administration's effectiveness by forcing a wedge between the President and the Dems.

The GOP was extremely successful, resulting in a Party that was so fearful of being associated too closely with Clinton that it virtually caved on most initiatives under GOP pressure. The 1990's became a decade where the Dems were doing center right somersaults to avoid being tainted by the word, "liberal". Far from it being Clinton's fault, the Dem degeneracy began with a Party that would not support their own leader.

To the voters, it appeared that Dems had no principles, no legitimiacy and no solutions of their own. THAT was why they lost big during the midterms.

Marie,

My comments were mostly directed at defending John Burton but criticizing David Atkins.

I think David would agree neither of them has much appeal to true conservative Republicans.

I am not surprised you are against labels but in politics there are different factions in every party. It sounds like you just want more labels to describe the different types of Republicans.

David & Brian, I prefer to focus on what unites us rather than what divides us. As a community activist, I have been able to get people from all walks of life to rally around a single cause that is important to them.

I had dinner tonight with my dearest friend and her family, a woman who would clearly fall into your religious right category No. 2. And she home schools her children, too. Yet I persuaded her entire family to vote for Hannah-Beth even though they did not agree with her pro-choice, pro-gay marriage stances. I found that common ground for them, which was Hannah-Beth's numerous bills which protected children.

I told her about your categories and she was predictably taken aback. You aren't going to persuade voters by alienating them. All the studies, polls, books and reading in the world is no substitute for good, old-fashioned people skills. Clinton was a master at it. Obama is, too.

SD-19 was more about character to me than ideology. Perhaps surprisingly, I found some of our most fervent volunteers were Republicans.

I've been tapped to be incoming president of the Ventura County Chapter of the National Women's Political Caucus this year. One thing I clearly love about this group is that it is bipartisan. My goal is to encourage more Republican women to join.

Coming off this very divisive SD-19 race, I hope we can find more common ground.

Brian, I wasn't critcizing David, I was disagreeing with his statement dividing Republican voters into three categories that he defined as racists, religious nuts and evil rich people. I don't know what that has to do with John Burton.

John Burton is not running for public office in this county, or one of our conservative leaning districts. With his liberal record, he would probably be the first person to tell you that he would not be a good fit in to run as a legislator in one of those areas.

He's running to chair the State Dem Party - obviously a partisan organization. Big difference. The qualities I feel he has that will make him an effective leader for the party are clearly outlined in the other thread, so I won't repeat them here - but suffice it to say that he will responsible for leading the effort to build a strong party infrastructure, define basic election strategy and raise the big bucks. Someone asked him recently "what kind of Democratic candidates would he support?" His response was "The kind that can win." This tells me that he understands that one can't hold all candidates, nor party leaders, to a single litmus test on ideology and style. The kind of candidate that can run and win in Hollywood isn't necessarily the kind of candidate that will do well in Simi Valley.

His job is to develop the resources and infrastructure to support winning candidates in districts of all kinds. In our county, that means moderate to conservative candidates in some districts. I believe he expects the local party to build a farm team, and to recruit and know the kind of candidate that best suits their district. Someone was evidently complaining to him about the Dems not fielding a candidate against Maldonado, and I think his response was that it wasn't the CDP job to find them a candidate - it was the responsibility of the local party to identify a viable candidate. And he's right.

The truth is that successful Dem candidates at the local level here in the conservative areas did not and could not win only appealing to Democrats. I caution that sharply defining Republican voters into three categories - racists, religious nuts and evil rich people - is a mistake. Many of the people who supported and/or endorsed HBJ were Republicans.

Which one of those three categories would you put Lou Pandolfi? Donna Prenta? Katie Teague? Leslie Cornejo? Linda Parks?

BTW, I was an Edwards supporter in both '04 & '08. Burton was also an Edwards supporter.

Marie, Laura,

I don't know what I said that made either of you think that I agreed with David's labels. Nor did I say three labels were adequate to describe members of either party.

But there are factions in both parties and it isn't unreasonable to identify those factions. You just did in many ways when you said you supported John Edwards in the Democratic primaries. His issues included strong opposition to the Iraq war and universal healthcare.

Of course most voters don't care what factions are in either party and don't care who the chair is of either party. They want government that works.

Brian, I never thought you agreed with the labels. I've known you too long to make that mistake. You're very fair.

Of course when one says that they support a certain candidate, it doesn't mean they agree with the candidate on every issue. For example, Edwards did not support gay marriage; I do.

I don't think I've ever found a candidate that I agree with on all the issues. I support candidates that I agree with on issues that I consider critical, and/or those that I think will bring a needed voice and expertise to any given branch of government. I donated this weekend to one such candidate, who isn't even in our district or county.

All,

You can banter about if you like, decrying labels, disputing their accuracy and what not. BUT THESE ARE THE LABELS REPUBLICANS USE ON *THEMSELVES*. I'm not making this up. It's not some liberal blogger's angry definition. It's their own freaking terminology for each other: FisCons, SoCons, and NeoCons. They call it the "three-legged stool" of the Reagan Revolution. Use Google, if you don't spend a lot of time reading the National Review or conservative blogs (I do).

Read Powerline, one of the most influential conservative blogs, here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/01/019625.php

Watch Mitt Romney here: http://www.truveo.com/Governor-Romney-On-The-Republican-ThreeLegged/id/2826180713

Ken Blackwell, RNC Chairman candidate here: http://kenblackwell.com/2008/12/reagan-coalition-must-unite/

Or this guy: http://mainstreamconservative.blogspot.com/2008/12/remember-when-conservatives-were.html

And I quote:

"Remember when conservatives were conservatives? In the Reagan years, the time of the only conservative American president in the modern era, one was a conservative, not a fiscon, neocon, socon, paleocon or any other kind of con. In fact, "con" was used by liberals as a term of contempt for conservatives, never by conservatives in self-reference."

Let's not live in a fantasyland, people. This is what Republicanism is. It's Republicanism as proudly self-defined by Republicans.

The idea that a bunch of Democrats are arguing whether it's fair to categorize Republicans into the categories *they've created for themselves* is humorous at best, ludicrous and insulting at worst not only to me but especially to them. All I was doing was pushing Mike's buttons by rephrasing his very familiar three-legged compatriots in a more negative fashion than he is wont to hear.

And no, we DON'T need a bunch of Republican votes. Not at the expense of diluting the progressive message that appeals to a clear majority of the electorate, if only candidates will have the courage to use it.

Brian, once again I find myself agreeing with Laura. I supported Rudy G. in the primaries yet there were quite a few areas in which we didn't agree - however, I feel he was the best Republican candidate. And I disgree completely with David's Republicans classifications on Republicans much less having Mike Gibson represent the Republican viewpoint. Both people represent a very limited view point and misrepresent the Parties.

$200,000 in 1940 would be worth at least $2.5 million dollars today.

$200,000 in 1964 would be worth around 1.5 million dollars today.

Source: http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/index.php

wowza,

You make an excellent point. Those numbers are not adjusted for inflation. So there is an argument to be made for only increasing the marginal rate for those over $1 million.

The problem with that is that very few people in that class are actually making "income" over that amount: it's almost all capital gains and other investment income, which it didn't really use to be.

So to really get where we need to be in terms of tax policy, you have to increase capital gains and investment taxes, and increase the marginal rate to something reasonable but not excessive on those clearing over $250,000 or $300,000--which is a pretty generous, hefty chunk of change no matter where you live.

Hi David,
I want to add one thing to my comments yesterday: I thought you did a superb job in presenting your point of view and although I quibbled with a few things, I am really glad you are on my team. You and KK are excellent additions to our local Democratic scene and I am very glad you are resurrecting our Young Dems group.

You can choose to ignore us cranky middle-aged ladies if you want; my daughter the Political Science major does all the time. :-) But sometimes we are worth listening to.

Marie,

I'm glad to have you on the team as well. You do fantastic work, and Ventura politics would be much poorer without you.

I think the difference in perspective is healthy. We come from different political traditions and worldviews; I think both are needed to counterbalance one another and move forward.

I posted another comment that unfortunately went into moderation due probably to the links provided. I showed numerous examples of conservatives referring to themselves as FisCons, SoCons and Neocons (as well as libertarians and Paleocons). I don't think we go overboard to label them with the same labels they choose to give themsevles.

In any case, all of this has been a very stimulating discussion, and I look forward to more in the future.

David

Brilliant job here. You were on target, responsive to Mike's albeit weak points and always coming back to your central argument. You always had the facts to back up your comments.

Mike seemed beaten about two comments in. He could have a least attempted to use some facts/polling to advance his thesis. For example, I have heard that polls have shown that Americans identify themselves as follows: 20% - liberal, 30% - conservative and 50% - moderate- hence center- right country. I am curious if this polling is accurate and how you would have countered it.

Congrats to both on the overall positive tone.

Really impressive job – I have forwarded this far and wide.

Jay

This was a great start! I was impressed with the presentations on both sides, quite frankly.

Although Mike didn't use as much polling results as David, he argued effectively about the questionability of some of the polling numbers and conclusions that David reached from these numbers.

He's right, poll numbers are notoriously skewed unless they're done by a non-biased entity, which is rarely the case.

Ventura Voter,

Are you seriously suggesting that the Pew poll or the Gallup poll are skewed?

It's a time-honored tradition for conservatives to deny the accuracy of polls, or to suggest that the polls are rigged by the supposedly "liberal" (lmao!) media. Conservatives believed Rove's "the math" instead of the polls in 2006. Conservatives were certain all the polls showing a landslide for Obama were rigged. They were wrong.

The polls aren't rigged. They show what they show.

Now, one can argue perhaps about the way that individuals interpret this question or that, or perhaps that the questions themselves lack adequate specificity or should be reworded--but that's a different matter.

I want to thank Brian, David and Mike for spending the time to do this on-line debate. It is a much more useful format for those of us who want to learn about the perspective of the issues.

However, I will say that I am disappointed in one respect that has little to do with the quality of the people in the debate. When I saw the premise of the debate " Are we C-L or C-R?" I was excited because I thought we would end up discussing somewhere along the way why our corporate media was doing such a hard-sell on the center-right theme when Obama had just won by landslide, Congress went more Dem than the Reps ever did at their height of success, etc. If this obvious hard-sell isnt a mark of a biased right-wing media then what is?

I also agree 100% with David that we should not be ashamed to call a spade what it is. That we all know some R's who dont neatly fit the stereotypes isnt a surprise nor is it a justification for holding back. We should not apologize for our system of belief and we should not be afraid of holding the R's failure to account. David very adequately explained past economic history. Mike relied very predictably but far too much on fear of what if. He really only proved that he is in fact not a student of history as he claims unless he left out the adjective "revisionist".

Marie - while you are a stellar political force in Ventura, you are letting your moderate roots cloud the path to success if by success we mean electing more Dems.If you spent half as much time worrying about how we could reinvigorate the disenchanted progressive majority, your conservative friends would be sitting around wondering what went wrong. There is very valuable polling that has taken place (that I do not have at my fingertips as David does) when people are asked about straightforward issues (not labels as Jay suggests) nationally we are close to 65% progressive approaching 80% on certain issues such as health-care. The numbers show a decidely leftist, popular leaning with very little center in fact.

I also caution against using the results of elections as a measure of group ideological leaning (clearly the corporate media wasnt interested in this premise post-election) simply due to our historically low voter turn-out - statistically, about 26 or 27% of the potential electorate determines the outcome in national elections. Low turn-outs encourage the swing of the pendulum and are in fact an admitted desire of conservative electoral strategy. This would suggest that electoral strategy/campaign marketing is a much more important determinant than ideological belief.

Jay,

I alluded to the "conservative" vs. "liberal" self ID issue as one of the very few arrows in the GOP quiver.

But the stat is meaningless. Just over 40% can call themselves conservative if they like--whatever that means. But when over 80% of the country wants stronger environmental laws, gun control laws, accessible healthcare, higher taxes on the rich, etc., those labels start to have no meaning.

I think that stat exists because people have this caricature of a "liberal" (carefully nurtured by the right-wing noise machine and fueled by racial resentments) as someone who wants the government to control the entire market, or someone who wants to tax the middle class to create massive welfare programs. When you bring policies into some basis in reality, the vast majority of people have progressive preferences.

Brian L. your suggestions hold a philosophical dilemma for me. I firmly believe the current hyper-partisan atmosphere in our nation is not in the best interests of the people. Here in California especially, this ultra-partisanship has paralyzed the budget process.

In no time in the history of our nation has this partisan divide been deeper and it is amply illustrated by our inability to get meaningful legislation passed.

Additionally, I believe in a system of checks and balances. One party in control of everything is not necessarily a good thing.

You and David firmly subscribe to the Daily KOS take-no-prisoners approach to politics. It's a Democratic version of the Rove/DeLay tactics which seek to label and squelch the opposition. He thinks it works. He may be right. But I can't personally follow this course.

On the other hand, I am not happy to see our hyper-partisan Republicans get elected, either. David and I have continued our debate offline and we have agreed that there is room for both our approaches in the Democratic party. He called it a "good cop/bad cop" approach.

I have way too many conservative roots to change my spots at this stage in my life. It is my fervent hope we can get moderates of both parties elected who will work together. I hope that isn't a naive wish. As David pointed out, we have plenty of moderate Democrats, it's moderate Republicans who are in short supply.

I believe there is also a very large disenchanted group who is sick of both parties. These are the people who are changing their registrations to DTS.

Marie,
I do not disagree with the assessment that we need moderate voices or even a moderate consensus. I am simply coming from a practical negotiating stance. We (the left) should not start the discussion from the middle when the other guys are starting far right. You end up conceding the middle from the get-go that way.

While I decry the level of hyperpartisanship, that is the field we are playing on. The left-leaning people didnt start it - rebelling against it by refusing to participate will just lose us more policy issues. Politics is an art not a science and no one cares how you feel. But they do care how you negotiate. The Dems have sucked at quid pro quo for so long now it sickens me to see how much of the store our party elite have managed to cough up for nada.

I would say that the DTS surge is primarily due to the Dems failure to adequately define their mission in the eyes of the public in combination with their spineless approach to politics. People want to see two distinct parties not just a lite version of the other one.

I hope you can see that I am not advocating for a sort of Dem totalitarianism. I am advocating for progress. Real progress not the power-hungry, winner-take-all version of right-wing strategy. You want checks-n-balances but you dont have it not because of partisanship but because of the cynical capitulation of the Dem leadership.

The CA budget issue speaks to a major flaw in the legislative process. A small minority of special interests are holding the process hostage like a whining bunch of three year olds that are down to their last $100 mil. These people are not correct in their assumptions, their approach or their viabilty as representatives of the people.

Sorry, Brian L., but this is starting to sound suspiciously like the Club for Growth's "kill the middle" efforts on the Republican side. It's a political theory which is apparently working, but who is paying the price?

Maybe I should defect back to the Republicans and start working with them to elect more moderates. But I doubt they'd have me at this point as I am a fervent anti-Strickland shrew. And let's face it, this did not work out well for Leslie and Katie.

I guess you guys can just bottle me up and send me out when you need the Mormon vote. :-)

Marie,
I dont know what the club for growth is but I do know that I just advocated for moderacy.

If there is a Rep movement to kill the middle then one effective means to do that is force the Dems to start right of left which would put them somewhere in the middle I guess.

You can not begin to negotiate from the position you want to end at. Negotiation 101.

I suspect we have more in common than not but maintaining a position that allows the other side to get 3/4's of what they want and you get what's left is simply foolish.

Talk about bringing a knife to a gun fight! Indeed!

Brian L. - Were you listening to Eric Bauman?

"Oftentimes we get caught up in our "party-line" positions and minimize discussions that might highlight our disagreements. I think the Democratic tent is big enough to acknowledge and tolerate a wide range of opinions. I do not believe it weakens Democrats to hear alternate views and to acknowledge that there are Dems with differing views on certain topics."

What? Marie not progressive enough? I never thought I'd see the day Marie would be called out for not being progressive enough...

Anyway, I had a chance to read the back and forth tonight. Hats off to Mr. Gibson and Mr. Atkins....

The Club for Growth is an ultra-right national group which has made it its mission to take out and destroy moderate Republicans. Tony Strickland was the president of the California Club for Growth before he ran for controller. At the time he took the job he described it as a "perfect fit" for him.

I guess we can agree to disagree, Brian L. This is purely a philosophical discussion, anyway, as neither of us are roaming the halls of power and negotiating.

See you Tuesday. I'm looking forward to celebrating Obama's inauguration! Just think -- only five more days of George W. Bush. I can't wait to see him gone. Now that's something we can agree on!

P.S. to Scott, my favorite conservative blogger. Thanks for the affirmation.

Marie,

Electing moderates doesn't come close to guaranteeing people work across the aisle. The California Republican Party has many moderates but so far not a single Republican legislator that has compromised.

The Republicans said that Hannah-Beth Jackson would have endangered their check on Democratic power, but obviously you ignored that argument and supported her for many good reasons.

I am confused if you are against labels or just different labels. I assume you didn't like his labels but recognize there are more than just moderates or conservatives in the Republican Party.

Marie,

I came into this debate late but after reading the comments I don't see anyone advocating running candidates against incumbents in Democratic primaries to push the party in any direction.

That is what the Club for Growth is designed to do.

Too many Brians coming at me here...

I never extrapolated the Club for Growth reference out that far. It's just the general idea of squelching the middle that I was referring to. This is, after all, a philosophical discussion, right?

Do you feel that hyperpartisanship is in the best interest of the public? Is it helping our deadlock in Sacramento?

I think we have moved past the label discussion for now.

Would electing a 2/3rds majority help or hurt the problem?

I'd like to see them work together and negotiate. Is that really too much to ask? Are our expectations that low now?

I think the Legislative Analyst's Office should be in charge of the budget. Let the electeds pick out drapes for their offices and sharpen pencils.

Marie,

I don't see any of these Democrats saying here that people in Sacramento shouldn't negotiate.

You asked me if a 2/3 majority would help or hurt. I responded that I just wanted them to sit down and negotiate.

Do you feel that hyperpartisanship is in the best interest of the public? Is it helping our deadlock in Sacramento? You didn't answer me.

Marie,

I don't know almost anyone that would say that "hyperpartisanship" helps the public. But I don't know if everyone agrees with what that word means.

The Republicans have already said taxes are too high and they are against higher taxes. If they don't concede their values, as they feel they have done over and over, does that mean they are being partisan?

Brian L. doesn't know what Club for Growth is but he's Mr. Ventura County Politics. Dude, you don't have to worry about bringing a knife to a gunfight, you don't even know who you're fighting, what time the fight starts, where it's being held or what it's about.

You're all confusing minority & majority with caucus. Those hard core, anti-tax-at-any-cost politicians have formed a caucus to prevent a budget, under the guise of saving taxes. By caucusing in this way, the group gains political influence far beyond its numbers and its that influence that matters....not saving taxes.

By adhering to strict discipline on the tax issue, their influence as a caucus makes them able to raise campaign & issue money far beyond what moderate Repubs can and they target that money against any colleagues that are even thinking of negotiating higher taxes.

If the legislature was split 49%-49% it would be that caucus of 2% that controls the legislative agenda. This is ATAAC's only goal...everything else is just PR.

You have a point, gs, but right now you can't separate the "caucus" from the Sacramento Republicans. Every single one except Assemblyman Roger Niello has signed the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" this year.

It has the effect of tightening the GOP ranks and thus even the Governator can't pick off Republican votes.