Dems Rebuild

[RedDenver]

 

Hillary, for example, actually had fewer policies in her ads than Trump did, in fact less than any presidential candidate since at least 2000. Even if we grant that she and/or her team were policy wonks, they weren't running on their policies.

You're talking about advertising.

 

I'm talking about policy. She was detailed, thorough, and comprehensive; as Sanders would have been if he had won, most likely, thanks to the people he would draw to his team.

 

I don't understand what you're trying to get at here. The assertion that the Democrats didn't have detailed policy proposals -- whether or not you agreed with them -- is a bit of a wild charge, don't you think?

 

I thought we were talking about the Dems having a clear policy message as opposed to platitudes and talking-points.

 

I'm using Hillary's lack of policy messaging as an example.

 

And if the Dems have detailed policy proposals, I've yet to hear them. What policies does the Democratic Party stand for?

[zoogs]

Look them up?...I mean.

 

The weakness of the messaging is precisely that it's not platitude-based wagon-circling. It's today primarily anti-Trump, which apparently isn't very compelling.

 

I think the diversity within the camp is a plus for the substantive debates that can and do happen with it. This would be far less a problem if the same occurred on the other side -- or if the Dems had more seats. But neither is the case.

[zoogs]

If I understand your politics correctly, you aren't a fan of the Democratic Party chiefly because it's not as leftist in economic ideology as you would prefer. I think that's fine, but it's not the same as diagnosing with the same policy-empty, narrative-only style of today's GOP.

[RedDenver]

If I understand your politics correctly, you aren't a fan of the Democratic Party chiefly because it's not as leftist in economic ideology as you would prefer. I think that's fine, but it's not the same as diagnosing with the same policy-empty, narrative-only style of today's GOP.

No, my main problem with both parties is that they listen to their donors over the citizens. Additionally, I think the two party system is bad because it leads to an us-vs-them political debate instead of having multiple ideas.

 

But that's beside the point of whether the Dems are offering a clear policy message. I mean, the head of the DNC has been saying over and over that the Dems will win when they "lead with their values" - a completely empty platitude. I've yet to hear Tom Perez take a stand on a policy (maybe I missed it). Again, what policies do the Dems stand for? Or what candidates have/had a policy message?

[Danny Bateman]

Ok, Red, you know I've said I support a shift towards a multiple party system. Look at the UK. The Tories have a sizable advantage in Parliament over Labour, but they are still outweighed by the other parties and don't have a simple majority. This forces them to form a coalition with the DUP, a unionist party from Northern Ireland. I'd much prefer that system, since it forces the party with the most representation to find a coalition partner if they don't have necessary strength; to me, that feels somehow more responsible than the strictly partisan governing we're seeing here. And as you've said, sometimes us vs. them doesn't lend itself to the best outcome; it political football making and doesn't force parties to improve their positions, just to make them better than the other team.

 

But nonetheless, I'll try to lay out what I see as the stark policy differences between he two parties and why I find myself leaning left more often than not:

 

- Healthcare: This one is obvious. No Democrat has ever claimed the ACA is perfect. All of them want to make it better; they all have different ideas about how. Bernie and a handful of others want to go further with their plans for single payer. Others would still prefer a multiple payer system with perhaps higher subsidies and a public option to drive down cost. They were within one vote of that happening before (thanks, Lieberman ). The GOP believes in who knows what on healthcare? Clearly they want prices to go down. But they're willing to throw the sick and poor under the bus if it means reverting to the pre-ACA state (when we still had major insurance problems). Also, compare how the ACA was crafted to how AHCA is being done. Bipartisan input with plenty of public hearing over a long period of time with a President who would field questions from real Americans about his bill vs. a rushed vote in the House leading to a secret, non-public plan in Senate backrooms and a President who calls the bill "mean" but still tweets about how awesome it will be.

 

- Environmentalism: Another no-brainer. Clinton vs. Bernie revealed some rifts. Bernie wanted a further left platform: to ban fracking and end nuclear. Clinton was more moderate on those two, but both wanted to continue to focus on renewables to wean us off the teat of fossil fuels. Both realized coal is dying as it's been replaced by natural gas. The GOP are "all of the above energy" people - coded language for they don't care. They don't want to spend money addressing climate change. They want to maximize energy usage of all types regardless of it's effect on the outcome. Trump continues to lie to coal country about their state of affairs. Of course, they're just soaking in Big Energy donation money. Look no further than the man heading the EPA. Blue states, meanwhile, are forming the US Climate Alliance to continue to abide by the Paris Accord. California just struck a clean energy deal with China. The difference here couldn't be more stark.

 

- Money in politics: Sanders was particularly fiery about trying to get Citizens United overturned and returning to a small donation, public funding of election model. Clinton also adopted his stance on CU, as it was a ruling about a film about HER, after all. She too talked about getting dark money out of politics. I'll leave it to you to decide whether you believe her, but the party has been infused with a fresh focus on rejecting big donor money. I've donated personally to several Congressional races and I've never done that in my life. Ossoff's race in GA being the most expensive in history shows that people are willing to put their money where their mouth is at the individual level right now. So far as I know, the GOP has no such stance on donor money. In my mind, it disproportionately benefits them, so why would they oppose it?

 

- Economics: This one is somewhat open to interpretation. Traditionally, the Dems have been our equivalent to the Labour party, drawing large support from unions. Unions are being weakened considerably these days by right-wing economic policies like right to work laws, and while almost all publicly lined up to support Democrats in 2016, a decent chunk of the rank and file voted for Trump. Since then, a few things have shifted. Democrats have publicly shifted to throw their weight behind a $15 minimum wage stance. Even if I don't agree with that, I still support a minimum wage increase. They also, ironically, believe more in free-market growth of the economy, since Trump has shifted the GOP towards more protectionist stances. The GOP certainly doesn't support unions or minimum wage increase. In my mind, you can sum up the difference in that the Dems would rather increase economic quality of life at the worker level while the GOP would rather focus on improving macroeconomic indicators like GDP growth and reducing trade deficits. Likewise, Dems support Wall Street and banking regulation to benefit the consume; the GOP supports deregulation to benefit the industries. The latter approach could definitely have positive economic consequences, but does little to benefit individuals and could be incredibly risky... no one wants another 2009.

 

- Taxes: The Dems support taxes as they are; they'd rather raise them on the wealthy so they "pay their fair share", as Sanders says. They would prefer to cut them for the lower and middle classes, and Obama delivered. They see tax revenue as vital for continuing funding for what they view as necessary government programs or improving them. The GOP views the tax code as overly complicated, wants tax cuts across the board as some magical recipe for economic growth (it's not... trickle down sucks. Rich people will hold their money), and would rather eliminate wasteful, unnecessary government programs, so the tax revenue isn't needed. In addition, I find it particularly galling that Trump supports elimination of the alternative minimum tax, a tax that accounted for 82% of his federal taxes paid for the one 2005 return we've seen. That would be a HUGE tax cut for himself.

 

- Justice: The Dems support doing away with mandatory minimums, an increased focus on rehabilitation over punishment in sentencing, and a national reform of our policing efforts. I saw that Tom Perez tweeted out a message of support for the family of Philando Castile. That is important. The officer who shot and killed him was acquitted of all charges Friday. Go read up on what happened. Watch the video, if you don't have a weak stomach... it is pretty graphic, but it is important to not whitewash this stuff. The guy was pulled over 52 times for minor traffic violations, and he was profiled on the day of his death: he was pulled over as a robbery suspect due to wide-set nose. On a personal note, I am sick and tired of watching Americans get gunned down by our police under questionable circumstances. I'm tired of police abuse of power. I'm tired of black people walking around afraid of the police. I'm tired of seeing them do everything right in their interactions with the police and some of them STILL winding up dead. I full well understand our boys in blue have a very difficult job, constantly put their lives on the line, and vast majority of them are the good guys who keep us safe. But I'm allowed to make criticisms too. We'll never know what led up to Castile's death, or many of these victims, unless we start getting body cams on more officers. We need to train our officers to focus on de-escalation tactics and community policing. Did you know Castile was a licensed gun carrier who TOLD the police he was carrying on the day he died? Yet he's dead, and we don't hear a damn thing about it on news programs. The NRA and the GOP certainly aren't concerned his rights as a licensed carrier were violated. I wonder why? Dems also need to continue to push for legalized weed, too. So far, only a smattering of them do, for some unbeknownst reason. They're joined by the handful of Libertarians in Congress, but a frustrating number of Dems won't support this, and approximately 0 non-Lib GOP members will. Sessions supports the return of harsher penalties for low level drug offenders and the GOP will reflexively refuse to criticize the police because it's not patriotic. I do not see them as caring about reasonable police reform, just more police support.

 

- Guns: Dems like gun control, GOP likes gun rights. You have your warring factions, basically Bloomberg vs. the NRA, with the latter being disproportionately powerful and stymieing any legislation attempts that don't increase access to guns. I've listed my thoughts on gun control in that thread - very reasonable measures that also give some the gun rights enthusiasts - but personally, I view the GOP as a bunch of cowards who will just continue to take NRA money and fall in line to loosen laws while denying the reality of a gun access crisis in America. As a superpower, we have no business standing idly by while 33,000+ people die every year due to guns.

 

- "Entitlement programs": Dems support, GOP despises. The former view them as a necessary if imperfect way of leveling the playing field for the disadvantaged; the latter views the as a waste of government resources that encourage laziness and hurts capitalism. Dems want to protect them, GOP wants to wind them down or eliminate them outright. I could support an effort to try something new in this area - universal basic income? Also, personally, I find GOP efforts to try to make these harder to qualify for by including things like mandatory drug testing insulting.

 

- Voter rights: The Dems want to increase access to the ballot box; they focus on voter registration and making it easier for people to vote. Sanders in particular is a proponent of making election day a holiday. The GOP is focused on preventing voter fraud, through tougher restrictions on the types of IDs needed to vote and tougher measures to ensure people don't break the law and vote twice or vote where they aren't registered. In addition, there are an increasing number of state district maps being rejected as unconstitutional gerrymandered efforts to give one party an edge. This is tricky, because courts have traditionally rejected racially gerrymandered maps but not politically gerrymandered ones. Basically, the case that is going to the Supreme Court soon, Whitford v. Gill, will need to establish a reasonable metric that demonstrates how much gerrymandering affected things on partisan lines (i.e., how much it benefitted one side vs. the other in different areas). Previous cases lacked this, and Kennedy, the lone swing justice, has pretty much asserted this as a standard he'd need to see met to his satisfaction before ruling against gerrymandering. I'm very hopeful, and I view this as a defining issue of our time. I'm tired of rigged elections.

 

- Foreign policy: Dems currently support more global cooperation. They would rather strengthen alliances like NATO or the EU. Trump is boorishly leading the GOP in the other direction. His America First platform is rather rapidly transforming into America Alone. His lecturing of other global leaders at the NATO summit and withdrawal from the Paris Accord are not making him many friends globally. He does, however, see benefit in trying to strengthen ties with otherwise adversarial nations like Russia, Turkey and arguably, Saudi Arabia. Many people on both sides of the aisle are saying he is hurting our international standing. I'd agree. As far as wars, Obama did his best to draw us back from conflicts, but the ones we did partake in (Libya, Syria) did not go well & drone program as an alternative is problematic. Trump campaigned on drawing down foreign conflicts, but has done nothing of the sort and has accelerated US aggression in a multitude of areas. I would hope the Dems wouldn't be as aggressive, but I guess we'll have to wait until they reassume power to see.

 

Sorry about the length. There is some getting into the weeds involved. But I believe that is what the Dems currently stand for, and I consider myself reasonably well-read in their current state of affairs. Let me know if there's another issue you'd like a primer on... I tried to cover most of the important bases.

 

I also included links on certain things if you wanted further reading.

[RedDenver]

Here's where this discussion started:

 

Would you say you think they're equally as dysfunctional as the GOP, RedDenver? Bit of a loaded question there, but feel free to explain your thoughts on both parties however you wish if you disagree.

If we're specifically talking about messaging, I'd say the Repubs and Dems are roughly equal in using platitudes and talking-points instead of describing policy and legislation. The difference is that the Repubs talking-points are fairly consistent across the party, which leads to them parroting each other, where as there's less uniformity across the Dems.

 

And when I say Repubs and Dems in this post, I'm talking the about politicians/party leadership and not the voters.

 

So dudeguyy's post with all the different positions by the two parties more or less is what I'm talking about - that the two parties "are roughly equal in using platitudes and talking-points instead of describing policy and legislation".

 

And I don't mean to disparage that long post as you obviously put some time into it, but you're explaining the differences between the parties as far as their goals/ideology - not their policies (or how to accomplish their goals).

 

Here's an incomplete list of things from your post that aren't policies:

"Single-payer" isn't a policy as there's a number of different single-payer policies. Repeal and replace ACA is not a policy as "replace" could mean literally anything. Same when Dems say we should fix the ACA - that doesn't mean anything either. Focus on renewables. Save coal. Supporting/opposing unions. Raise/lower minimum wage. Supporting free-market/socialism. Supporting nationalism/protectionism. Quality of life, workers rights, improving economic anything, reducing trade deficits. Supporting/opposing regulation. Benefiting consumers/banks/corporations. Raise/lower taxes. Cut the deficit. Balance the budget. "Pay their fair share". Eliminate waste. Eliminate unnecessary programs/spending. Focus on <insert anything>. Reforming police efforts. For/against gun control. For/against entitlement programs. Leveling the playing field. For/against universal basic income.

 

Here are the Dem policies I took away from your post:

A multiple payer system with higher subsidies and a public option. (Which Dems support this? I know Nancy Pelosi is opposed to it.)

Ban fracking and end nuclear. (Again, which Dems support this? I know that the Dem platform specifically opposed this back during the convention.)

Abide by Paris Accord.

Small donation, public funding of election model (although the Supreme Court decision may make this impossible, and again the Dems opposed it at the convention and again during the recent DNC rules.)

$15 minimum wage (is this really the Dems policy? last I heard it was "raise" the minimum wage).

Eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing.

Legalize marijuana. (I think the Dems at the national level are mostly against this)

Make election day a holiday.

 

Out of those, I think abiding by the Paris Accord is the only messaging I've heard from the Dems since the elections. Not much different in terms of policy messaging than the Repubs IMO.

[Danny Bateman]

As far as policies go, I can't speak too much about those because I haven't had time to dig into the specifics of how they would go about accomplishing those goals I laid out.

 

Do you have a source on Pelosi opposing that healthcare option? What then is her position?

 

I don't support banning fracking outright or ending nuclear. That's just a Bernie thing, and a lot of his supporters seem to entertain that stance as well (particularly the environmentalists).

 

It's hard to create a specific policy about ending dark money in politics and eschewing donors. Some want this to be a blanket rule adopted for the entire party, others are less concerned with appealing to those whom this appeals to and would rather just take the money to level the playing field with their opponent. Again, it's really difficult to unilaterally disarm completely from donor money when your opponent isn't going to make the same concession. But overturning Citizens United and significant campaign finance reform was the official 2016 platform.

 

Citation on $15 minimum wage. I was misremembering this article slightly. But 22 Democratic Senators recently signed legislation to raise minimum wage to $15 by 2024.

 

Marijuana laws are still on the periphery, sadly. Perhaps with Sessions bringing his archaic views on sentencing and the war on drugs to the fore, it will give new life to pro-pot politicians? They're too few to have much sway, though.I think the best we could realistically expect is a rescheduling of the drug from Schedule I & a national legalization of medical cannabis with the ability for states to opt for full legalization without being hassled by the DOJ. I checked the currently proposed relevant legislation and the majority of it came from Dems. I would suggest that a pro-pot voter is much better off voting Dem than GOP with what Sessions is currently trying to do as AG.

 

We've all discussed how the Democrats are woefully inadequate at messaging. I agree with zoogs that they seem better nailing down the details than the GOP, but it doesn't matter if you can't build public support for your plans.

 

Thus, you haven't heard much from them since the election. They have to weight concrete policy messaging vs. trying to combat the GOP agenda vs. attacking Trump. The latter two suck too much oxygen out of the room and they don't spend enough time getting around to the former. But I'm not sure letting the GOP issue talking points about their plans unaddressed or not attacking Trump is a reasonable alternative...

[zoogs]

I think we need to disentangle various dissatisfactions with either the Democratic Party or the 2-party system in America as a whole with the much more specific statement that Democrats run on policy details for better or for worse; Republicans run on feelings. Even their “wonk”, Paul Ryan, is relatively light on his fiscal plans that primarily rely on fantastical growth assumptions to justify fantastical and sweeping cuts.

 

Don't take this as praise, necessarily, of the Democratic Party. We just *cannot* once again fall into this trap of false equivalency.

[RedDenver]

As far as policies go, I can't speak too much about those because I haven't had time to dig into the specifics of how they would go about accomplishing those goals I laid out.

 

Do you have a source on Pelosi opposing that healthcare option? What then is her position?

 

I don't support banning fracking outright or ending nuclear. That's just a Bernie thing, and a lot of his supporters seem to entertain that stance as well (particularly the environmentalists).

 

It's hard to create a specific policy about ending dark money in politics and eschewing donors. Some want this to be a blanket rule adopted for the entire party, others are less concerned with appealing to those whom this appeals to and would rather just take the money to level the playing field with their opponent. Again, it's really difficult to unilaterally disarm completely from donor money when your opponent isn't going to make the same concession. But overturning Citizens United and significant campaign finance reform was the official 2016 platform.

 

Citation on $15 minimum wage. I was misremembering this article slightly. But 22 Democratic Senators recently signed legislation to raise minimum wage to $15 by 2024.

 

Marijuana laws are still on the periphery, sadly. Perhaps with Sessions bringing his archaic views on sentencing and the war on drugs to the fore, it will give new life to pro-pot politicians? They're too few to have much sway, though.I think the best we could realistically expect is a rescheduling of the drug from Schedule I & a national legalization of medical cannabis with the ability for states to opt for full legalization without being hassled by the DOJ. I checked the currently proposed relevant legislation and the majority of it came from Dems. I would suggest that a pro-pot voter is much better off voting Dem than GOP with what Sessions is currently trying to do as AG.

 

We've all discussed how the Democrats are woefully inadequate at messaging. I agree with zoogs that they seem better nailing down the details than the GOP, but it doesn't matter if you can't build public support for your plans.

 

Thus, you haven't heard much from them since the election. They have to weight concrete policy messaging vs. trying to combat the GOP agenda vs. attacking Trump. The latter two suck too much oxygen out of the room and they don't spend enough time getting around to the former. But I'm not sure letting the GOP issue talking points about their plans unaddressed or not attacking Trump is a reasonable alternative...

 

Pelosi hasn't supported Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, HR676. And this article has the quotes I remember her saying:

 

“No, I don’t,” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promptly said, when asked by a reporter if she thinks single payer should be in Democrats’ 2018 party platform.

“I was carrying single payer signs probably around before you born, so I understand that aspiration,” the House Minority Leader told Vice’s Evan McMorris-Santoro. She then claimed that “the comfort level with a broader base of the American people is not there yet,” with single payer.

“So I say to people: if you want it, do it in your states. States are laboratories,” the Dem leader added. “States are a good place to start,” she also said.

 

 

Again, saying you're going to overturn Citizens United or reform campaign finance is not a policy. How are you going to do those things?

 

Skimming through the Dem platform, I see $15 minimum wage and hey!, they do actually have a policy on Citizens United: Democrats support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo.

 

The fact I'm in favor of a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics and this is the first I'm hearing about the Dems having it in their platform speaks to the point about messaging. So I reiterate, "If we're specifically talking about messaging, I'd say the Repubs and Dems are roughly equal in using platitudes and talking-points instead of describing policy and legislation."

[RedDenver]

I think we need to disentangle various dissatisfactions with either the Democratic Party or the 2-party system in America as a whole with the much more specific statement that Democrats run on policy details for better or for worse; Republicans run on feelings. Even their “wonk”, Paul Ryan, is relatively light on his fiscal plans that primarily rely on fantastical growth assumptions to justify fantastical and sweeping cuts.

 

Don't take this as praise, necessarily, of the Democratic Party. We just *cannot* once again fall into this trap of false equivalency.

You still haven't given a policy or policies that Dems are/were running on, let alone policy details. (Or you did and I missed it.) We just finished a big election year, surely there are audio, video, or transcripts of interviews or speeches with examples of Dems running on policies.

 

Or maybe we're talking passed each other because when you say, "relatively light on his fiscal plans that primarily rely on fantastical growth assumptions to justify fantastical and sweeping cuts," you're talking about the debate over a particular policy. Whereas I'm talking about just having the policy even in the debate. So my response would be, "Paul Ryan's policy may suck, but at least he's got one and is talking about it."

[zoogs]

And you're still talking about messaging, but you can look up ... HRC's website, I guess, and pore over any of the pages on policy from fiscal to foreign. You can refer to the accomplishments of the Obama administration, which was staffed with experts and technocrats. We don't need a new party to spring up in order to even bring policy into governance.

 

Or, you can continue firing vague platitudes and broadsides at the Democratic Party. That's what these are, ironically.

 

So my response would be, "Paul Ryan's policy may suck, but at least he's got one and is talking about it."

We're truly not even living in the same world at this point, but it's bewildering. I suppose this is part of the answer to the question of how we end up with results like these -- because Republican lies, however incoherent they are, somehow stick.

[Danny Bateman]

Just out of curiosity, Red, are you well versed in Ryan's policies? What do you like and dislike about them or the way he presents them?

[RedDenver]

And you're still talking about messaging, but you can look up ... HRC's website, I guess, and pore over any of the pages on policy from fiscal to foreign. You can refer to the accomplishments of the Obama administration, which was staffed with experts and technocrats. We don't need a new party to spring up in order to even bring policy into governance.

 

Or, you can continue firing vague platitudes and broadsides at the Democratic Party. That's what these are, ironically.

 

So my response would be, "Paul Ryan's policy may suck, but at least he's got one and is talking about it."

We're truly not even living in the same world at this point, but it's bewildering. I suppose this is part of the answer to the question of how we end up with results like these -- because Republican lies, however incoherent they are, somehow stick.

 

Yes, I'm talking about messaging, as I've said repeatedly. Maybe one more time, "If we're specifically talking about messaging, I'd say the Repubs and Dems are roughly equal in using platitudes and talking-points instead of describing policy and legislation." So the Dems not having policy on the front plate, but instead requiring poring over pages somewhere, is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

I don't understand how you're even arriving at the bolded part. If I'm critical of the Dems, then somehow I'm buying Repub lies? Even though I'm being equally critical of the Repubs?

[RedDenver]

Just out of curiosity, Red, are you well versed in Ryan's policies? What do you like and dislike about them or the way he presents them?

I wouldn't call myself well-versed, but I don't think Ryan knows what's he's talking about on healthcare. His fantasy about $2 billion being enough to cover his proposed high-risk pools, which is actually expected to cost about $25 billion, means he's either lying or doesn't understand his own bill.

 

I don't think Ryan does a particularly good job at presenting policy (he's a pretty face and remembers what he's supposed to say), but just presenting a policy gives him a leg up when there's no other policies being presented.

[zoogs]

My argument to you from the get go has been on the existence (or not) of policy within the Democratic Party, and the high contrast with the GOP in this area.

 

And, yeah, this does seem to be a basic acceptance of the Trump camp's insistence that they were the ones running a policy-focused campaign. Is putting stock in that outright fabrication a "strategy forward" for opposition to the GOP agenda? It seems like unwittingly playing into their hand to me.

 

When I say the Republicans have effective messaging, I absolutely do not mean this to say they have policies. "Your world is being taken away from you by the [bad people] and you need to take it back" is effective messaging.