I guess you've got to learn your lesson Every now and then When you find someone who's messing With your thinking And even if your intuition Says you might get hurt I know, I know It's all in how you say it -Tommy Shaw- It's actually a love (lust?) song, but it's the first thing that sprung to mind upon reading the Washington Post headline. • Washington Post. "Kerry to Offer Cut in Corporate Taxes." March 26, 2004; Page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25175-2004Mar25.html Okay, I confess, the first thing that sprung to mind was, "Now what's all this, then?" But the detail: So ... you're kidding me, right? First I want to clear the air about a serious strategic problem: Democrats "beating back" charges of "tax and spend"? During a Bush Administration?! The whole issue can be settled with a simple discussion: • A government taxes, a government spends. • A government doesn't tax, a government doesn't spend. • What the hell is George Bush doing cutting taxes and increasing spending? But that's the danger of catch-phrases. Oh, heavens, are the people supposed to shrink away from "tax and spend"? Quick, let's invent a neat scare-word for "irresponsible spending without regard to revenue availability." I'm of the general opinion that the first thing that needs to happen is that the tax code should be simplified. This bargaining with the Devil--"Okay, we'll cut taxes and increase your profit margins instead of make it harder for you to claim to be an American company when you're not really in town"--can certainly play for votes, but still . . . . I'll write it off to this being an "ABB" year, or something. Right, Senator Kerry. You're a "Democrat." Am I being too harsh? Heck, impress me. But on the surface, I'm not impressed at all. Is someone reporting straight from the press release? I despise this particular political math. Altman and Sperling are Clintonians; obviously, the Dems are preparing to roll to the right come election time. Sometimes I think the left must consider Michael Moore the house monkey; one of the things I share in common with the esteemed and reviled humorist and commentator is that we both wonder where the hell the Democratic Party went. It's not actually that we missed it the first time around (it just took a while to believe), and I don't know how much we'll appreciate the reiteration. Perhaps the future will reveal to me how exactly this is something other than a reinforcement of the need for a New Left. Call me a cynic; I don't buy it any more from a Democrat than I would from a Republican. Nonetheless, there's still time for them to impress me. But this pandering is horsepucky, and bodes ill for the coming Kerry presidency.
You finally reached your point at the end. Yay! It does look quite simple to me. Kerry is seen as too liberal to have a solid chance at winning the White House. He thinks he has to appear more moderate. Maybe he thinks he can grab some support from some big business types this way too? Perhaps the future will reveal to me how exactly this is something other than a reinforcement of the need for a New Left. Yes, our 2 party system is failing us. Note to Tiassa: Not intended as a flame but, "brevity is the soul of wit". Maybe one specific point at a time would be easier for us to digest? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's a toss-up. Often it's just covering the bases; I expect certain fluff responses, and try to brush them out of the way. To dramatize it a bit, I might have simply posted the link with the Shaw quote and asked, "Now what's all this, then?" By taking a few words to frame the issue, I hope to both leave the question open to general discussion while blocking out certain aspects of the discussion that tend to sound like right-wing radio (and, most likely, thanks to some genius idiocy, left-wing radio). Another alternative is to split the topic into several separate topics: • A Democrat cutting business taxes? • A Democrat giving over to the bandits? • A Democrat rolling yet further to the center? • The lack of a "real Democrat" in American politics? • Clintonian hands fashioning the candidate's economic policy? • Two-party issues? • Cynicism? • Presumption of a Kerry presidency? (I admit the last is a bit subtle; the deliberation of such a line can get lost in the bluster of election-year monkeynuggets. It's also worth mentioning, in terms of a "real Democrat," a recent WSWS article by the title, "How Joe Lieberman won the Democratic presidential nomination.") At any rate, I see issues rather broadly. I generally don't find discussions of issues here at Sciforums, in the news media, or in "real life" achieving their communicative potential. I mean, take Otheadp's pictoral response for example. Substantial? Communicative? Not really, but I do hope he feels better. I would, in the end, prefer the thousand words--assuming, of course, that they're coherent. Not one issue an the above bullet-list can foster a reasonable discussion of itself without invoking most of the others. (Cynicism and presumptuousness are not necessary components of those interrelationships, but could not be discussed in context without invoking the other points eventually.) The problem with brevity is that I don't see how incompleteness is the soul of "natural ability to perceive and understand." Invoking Hamlet in a political season, eh? A bit ominous, don't you think? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
