Occam’s Razor

Are people more courteous in blue states?

Over the last year and a half or so, I have taken up biking as a hobby again. Thanks to Bush’s Global Warming ^TM though we often get days during the winter that feel more like spring. Today was such a day: blue skies, temperatures in the 60s and low humidity. And since I had the day off, it was a good day for my first bike ride of the year.

I kept my bike ride modest: to Vienna, Virginia and back along my favorite bike trail: the Washington and Old Dominion Trail. The ride was about twenty miles altogether and took about two hours. It felt good to reconnect with my bike again. I mentally berated myself for not doing more of it lately. Our winter has been relatively mild so far and a bike ride is such an improvement over doing a workout at the local Gold’s Gym. In many ways when the weather cooperates, winter is the ideal time to bike. In the summer, I can return from a bike ride covered in sweat and with gnats and assorted tiny bugs all over my exposed arms, legs and face. Bugs are not a problem during the winter. The result is that when the weather is tepid in the winter like today, it is the optimal time for a bike ride.

I live in Fairfax County, Virginia. It is an increasingly cosmopolitan county just outside the Washington beltway. It is also turning from a county that tended to vote Republican to a reliably Democratic county. In general the further you live from the Beltway, the more Republican that Fairfax County becomes.

Consequently, by heading east on the W&OD trail toward Vienna, Virginia you move toward “blue” (solidly Democratic) territory. Head west on the W&OD trail and you move into “red” Loudoun County, (which is now showing signs of turning purple).

I have noticed real behavioral differences from the motorists I encounter depending on the direction I bike on the trail. The trail winds through a lot of suburbia in both directions. Therefore, bicyclists on the trail encounter many at grade crossings. (Fortunately, there are often bridges that take the trail over the largest roads.) Consequently, my fellow bicyclists and I have many opportunities to interact with motorists. The behavior I have experience has become so predictable that it is now beyond dispute in my mind: the further east I go into “blue” areas on the trail, the more courteous the drivers I encounter become.

On the other hand, head west on the trail and drivers can become ruthless. If there is a traffic light, you can usually cross safely but somewhat warily. If you have to cross a road by first yielding to the traffic, be prepared to pedal across the road quickly. The drivers are likely to try to accelerate if they see you trying to cross. I have also had drivers curse at me, even though my behavior was entirely lawful. The vast majority of them seem to drive their cars as if bicyclists do not exist. When they see us, they seem almost startled. “My goodness,” is what I imagine they are thinking, “It’s a bicyclist!” You would think we are Martians or something.

The W&OD trail crosses Hunter Mill Road between Reston and Vienna. While there are signs on the road asking motorists to yield to bicyclists, what really surprises me is that drivers routinely follow the law. Moreover, they do so quite happily. I nod or wave to them and they smile, nod or wave back. It is a nice feeling. The same thing often happens where the trail crosses Sunrise Valley and Sunset Hills Road in Reston. Once inside the Town of Vienna it gets even more courteous. It only gets a bit chancy crossing the major thoroughfare of Maple Avenue. Fortunately, there is a crosswalk there. Crossing Park Street or Cedar Lane in Vienna is not a problem. It is highly unusual for drivers not to stop for a bicyclist. Drivers in Vienna, as well as Falls Church, are very courteous and respectful of bicyclists.

Bike in “red” Loudoun County though and things can get dicey. Right now crossing Church Street is especially chancy, since the road is under reconstruction and you have to bike down to a traffic light. Further, out in Loudoun County, such as where the trail crosses Ashburn Road or Belmont Ridge Road it becomes just plain dangerous to be a bicyclist. This is SUV and pick up truck land and you are in something resembling country. The cars are going fifty miles an hour or more on a two-lane road. They really do not want to decelerate for some annoying bicyclist, particularly when they are coming swiftly over the top of a hill. I have learned the hard way to give drivers a lot of leeway out on the trail’s western side.

If you make it on the bike trail to Leesburg a bicyclist must be very careful. When you get your walk light, you had better hoof it quickly. The drivers are unlikely to be looking for you. From the looks of things, Leesburg does not get many pedestrians or bicyclists. I suspect the automotive culture is much more engrained in that city.

I have observed this phenomenon so many times now. I am starting to wonder if people are just naturally more courteous in blue parts of my state than in red parts. When I am in red territory, as a bicyclist I often feel that drivers do simply not see me. When they see me and especially if they have to modify their behavior by tapping their brake or something, watch out. That is when you are likely to get frowns, curses or their middle finger. Apparently, I am interfering with their high-speed automotive experience.

We all know that bicycles (with some exceptions) have equal rights to roads. The sad reality though is that bicyclists are wise to avoid riding on thoroughfares. It is just plain dangerous to do so. The shoulders are full of gravel, garbage and the occasional pothole, if we are lucky enough to have a shoulder at all. (They tend to appear and disappear depending on whether a housing development is nearby.) We bicyclists must exercise extreme caution when crossing any thoroughfare that is not in a residential neighborhood. It is nice to know though that my odds of survival seem to be much higher as I bike into “blue” territory. If safety were my primary concern, I would be better off limiting my biking to blue territory all the time.

January 20th, 2006 at 08:46pm Posted by Mark | Sociology | 3 comments

Red vs. Blue: Myth vs. Reality

This diary on DailyKos got me thinking, and then it sent me Googling. It posits a number of theses, but the general thrust of the arguments is that things are better overall in blue states. It also suggests that the family values so espoused in red states are not as widely practiced in blue states.

Before the 2000 election, no one spoke of red states vs. blue states. For whatever reason during that election the networks showed states that voted for Bush as red on their maps, and states that voted for Gore as blue. Because of the 2004 election, a couple states flipped colors but the map looked largely the same. Blue states covered the northeast, Great Lakes and the West Coast. Red states largely covered the rest of the country. Red state vs. blue state stuck as a national metaphor. Both sides claimed that the values were significantly different between blue and red states. Aside from red states being more likely to be controlled by Republicans, such states emphasize low taxes, religion, individual responsibility and entrepreneurial behavior. Blue states are more likely to be Democratic, tolerant of diversity, secular and progressive in nature.

I decided to spend a couple hours doing some research. I did not have time to do an exhaustive analysis of all the claims made in the diary, but I did find the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which has a variety of social statistics and a convenient engine for generating these statistics by state. I picked statistics that gave me percentages. With states varying in population it made no sense to compare the number of abortions in, say, Nevada with California. By using percentages though, I was able to smooth out the differences between states. Consequently, the statistics I present show all states equally. I believe that a state-by-state comparison, grouped by red and blue states, can be useful for inferring the real values and characteristics of red and blue states.

The engine gave me a nice HTML report, but HTML was not convenient for analysis. I managed to copy the data into a spreadsheet. My analysis was done using MS Excel.

You should know that I am not a statistician. I took a basic course in college where I learned about things like average, mean, medium and standard deviation. I am also aware that one should not read too much into any set of statistics. For example, in the south there are disproportionately more Hispanics and African Americans. Historically they have not done as well in certain fields, like academics, as non-Hispanic whites. I also realize that certain states like Ohio, which were counted as red, split right down the middle in the last election and are more accurately “purple” states. Therefore, it is probably a mistake to read too much into my analysis. Still some of my results were interesting.

Here is a HTML version of my analysis. You are welcome to download the spreadsheet and check my logic. Based on the data and the approach I chose, here are some of the results.

Abortion: In blue states, 22.3% of women aborted their pregnancies. In red states, it was 14.32%. Analysis: Since abortion services are more readily available in blue states I was not surprised to find that more pregnancies were aborted in blue states. So if making abortion difficult is supporting the right to life then red states truly are more “pro life”, or at least more pro the new life.

Out of wedlock births: Women in red states are 1% more likely to have out of wedlock births. Red states have a 4.4% higher pregnancy rate for women age 15-19 than blue states. Analysis: some would infer that teenage women are somewhat “sluttier” in red states. Other reasons that could explain the difference include that teens in red states are less inclined to use birth control, or have a harder time getting a hold of it.

Marriage: If you are a man 20-49 then you are 4.1% more likely to be single in a blue state. Analysis: This is not very surprising; although I doubt gays, flocking to blue states explains the gap. I am surprised that nationally 46% of these men are single.

Education: Men 25-49 in red states are 1.5% more likely not to have earned a high school diploma than in blue states. Analysis: I do not think this margin is statistically significant.

Child Support: Blue states do a better job of collecting child support. (25.2% in blue states vs. 21.1% in red states.) Analysis: Blue states seem to give the problem more focus. What is shocking here is that nationally only about 20% of child support is collected. This is scandalous. I am amazed single mothers are not staging massive protests in Washington. No civilized society should tolerate this.

Poverty: 5.6% more men ages 20-49 live at less than 200% of the national poverty level in red states. For women, the gap is 6.4%. 2.7% more of the women in red states live in poverty in red states than blue states. Analysis: This is probably largely due to socioeconomic factors, but all things being equal it does suggest living in a blue state means you are less likely to be impoverished, perhaps because there is more of a social safety net.

Insurance: Men 15-49 living in red states are 3.5% more likely to be uninsured than in blue states. Women 15-44 in red states are 5% more likely to be uninsured in red states.1.8% more women age 15-44 are covered by Medicaid or SCHIP in blue states than in red. Analysis: This may be cultural. Red states are more likely to embrace a “self reliant” culture.

Sexually transmitted disease: About 3 more men per 100,000 (ages 10 and older) acquire Chlamydia in red states. About 7 more men acquire Gonorrhea. As for syphilis, the difference is about 1.4 men. Analysis: probably statistically irrelevant. There may be a slight cultural bias in red states not to use protection during sex, or more ignorance of the effects of unprotected sex.

If my statistics are meaningful, which they may well not be, then perhaps the following tentative conclusions can be drawn:

• While “family values” are embraced more in red states, younger people are more inclined to get pregnant out of wedlock in these states. This suggests more “talking the talk” than “walking the walk”.
• You are less likely to be impoverished and more likely to be insured in blue states.

If I have more time and the inclination, I will look at other sets of statistics.

October 15th, 2005 at 09:16pm Posted by Mark | Politics 2005 | 3 comments

Capitalizing on the 2006 Election

What a difference a year makes. In 1972, the “silent majority” reelected Richard Nixon in a landslide, trumping George McGovern with 520 electoral votes to McGovern’s measly 17. (McGovern only won his home state of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia). Nixon captured nearly 62 percent of the vote.

A year later, at about the same point in his second term that Bush is at now, President Nixon’s approval rating was at 34 percent. According to Gallup, Bush currently has a 40% approval rating. In the summer of 1973, Nixon was embroiled in the worst of Watergate. In the 1974-midterm elections the Democrats, likely a direct result of Watergate fiasco picked up 49 seats in the House of Representatives and 4 Senate seats. In the House, this was only six seats shy of the number of seats that Republicans picked up during the 1994 “Gingrich Revolution” midterm elections. Americans did not need much convincing in 1974 that Nixon in particular and Republicans in general were on the wrong track.

A few months back I detected faint signs that there might be a political shift coming in this country. I no longer am looking for signs. I see lots of them and the consequences are now clear. The timing was premature in the 2004 election but the doubts about Bush and the Republicans were obvious even then. The most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate does not lose to an incumbent wartime president by only three percent unless the public having many second thoughts. The question now becomes, are the Democrats shrewd enough to fully capitalize on the shift that is likely to happen in 2006? If they are then they should be able to easily take back at least one house of Congress.

Sadly, the current signs are that most of our national Democratic politicians remain spineless and cowered. However, to me Cindy Sheehan is a harbinger. The winds of change are blowing and she is riding the first gust of that wind. The polls are clear: the American people have figured out that our war in Iraq is unwinnable. To win, Democrats have to embrace its inevitability too.

Bush’s poll numbers are likely to keep dropping. They will likely hit Nixon’s levels and could go even lower. As bad as Watergate was, the War in Iraq was much worse. Nixon and his cronies committed crimes, but no one died. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died as a direct consequence of Bush’s gross incompetence. Bush’s cascading poll numbers should give many Democrats the courage they finally need to come out for unilaterally withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Nevertheless, apparently most Democrats are still feeling very pussy-whipped. In 2002, they were pummeled for openly supporting President Bush on terrorism and Iraq. Despite their subservience, Bush still castigated Democrats as being soft on terrorism. Well, it is payback time.

Democrats need to put the blame for the fiasco directly on Bush where it clearly belongs. If Bush gave no credit to Democrats for supporting him in 2002 then they should cut him no slack today. Democrats need to say it often and say it loud: the Bush Administration and the Republicans who marched in goosestep with him bungled both the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. They simply need to stay on message. Americans are actively listening and these are the words they want to hear.

Yet it is not sufficient to just complain. The Democrats must have an alternative. It is foolish at this point to even pretend that the War in Iraq can be won. The Democrats should demand a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. They should let the voters know that if Bush and the Republicans will not withdraw our troops, they will if put back in power. What Congress gives Congress can take away. It can rescind its resolution authorization of force against Iraq with another resolution, noting that their previous authorization was conditioned on Iraq being a direct threat to America’s national security, which it was not. Moreover, Democrats can say that if put back in power that they will use the power of the purse to make sure the withdrawal happens. The power to make war rests with Congress, not the president. Consequently, the power to stop a war also rests ultimately with Congress.

Then the Democrats will have to say what they would do differently to win the War on Terror. I have a number of pragmatic suggestions, but of course, not all will be politically viable. However, some of them will certainly ring with voters. Securing nuclear stockpiles. Seriously hunting down and tracking those directly responsible for 9/11. Finding then capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. Focusing relentlessly on a real peace between Israel and Palestine. Improving the lives of Palestinians through generous grants that are conditioned on meaningful progress toward non-violence and democratic reform.

If the Iraq debacle were not enough, there will be plenty of other winning issues on which to run. The price of gasoline will not be going down. In fact, gasoline price increases are likely to fuel the first painful inflation we have witnessed in more than a decade. Of course, it will hit the middle class and the poor disproportionately. It will shrink the standard of living for most Americans. Democrats should be advocating for long term solutions. This will show that they have a grasp of what is actually necessary to solve the problem. These include clean alternative fuels and increased CAFE standards for automobiles. In 2006, these will be winning issues.

Democrats simply need to move to where the voters already are. The voters are no longer with Bush or the Republicans. Even in his home state of Texas, Bush can barely eke out a fifty percent approval rating. The voters are looking for mainstream and moderate politicians. They are looking for pragmatic candidates who have viable ideas on how to run our government during these challenging times. Voters know that the Republicans have failed miserably at the task. Unfortunately, it will not work for the Democrats to be Republican-lite in order to win. Given a choice between Republican and Republican-lite, there is little incentive to change the course. Democrats must return to their Democratic roots. Clearly, the Republican Party is not nor has ever been the party that cared about ordinary Americans.

What is old will be new. Just as people in Great Britain tired of Conservative government, the time is now ripe for the Democrats. A living wage will be embraced. Environmental protection will seem sensible. Cooperation rather than confrontation with the international community will be welcomed. To start, this requires the courage to demand the phased and orderly withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

August 29th, 2005 at 10:08pm Posted by Mark | Life 2005 | one comment

Pondering 2008 Election Possibilities

Because I cannot resist (and because I cannot think of anything else to blog about tonight), I am going to look ahead three years to the 2008 presidential election. For the first time in eight years, there will be no incumbent to reelect or throw out. I expect a spirited election. Moreover, it is not too difficult to assume that it will be a vitally important election. Most likely we will still be in Iraq or dealing with its detritus. The specter of international terrorism is unlikely to recede either. Citizens will have had plenty of time to judge the efficacy of our current war on terrorism. In addition, there will be many other issues to weigh in on including mounting health insurance costs, rising oil prices, environmental degradation and a skyrocketing national debt. In short, it should be an important and interesting election.

On the Republican side, it is not hard to figure out the likely candidates. Many have already made their intentions known. The Republican side is perhaps the most difficult to pick this far out. John McCain is the candidate with broadest appeal to undecided voters. Unfortunately, as a contrarian within the Republican ranks, his odds of winning his party’s nomination are not great. In 2000, he showed that Republicans had little appetite for straight talk. Nevertheless, things may change. By 2007 the Republican Party may become much more pragmatic, particularly if their party’s approval ratings keep going down. The evangelical wing may lose their advantage. Discredited neoconservatives may be lying low. If Republicans can understand that their normal message has lost national appeal then John McCain could win his party’s nomination.

More likely though their candidate will be someone who neither looks nor behaves too differently than our current president. Bill Frist, the majority leader of the Senate, is making little secret of his desire to run for the presidency. He is deluding himself. He does not have a base and he is unlikely to develop one. This suggests that younger, up and coming Republicans are more viable. My senator George Allen of Virginia often ranks well in hypothetical polls. I frankly do not understand his appeal. Like Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, he is male, rich, tall and handsome. Sadly, these seem to be important attributes for anyone running for the presidency. Yet his actual record in Congress is nothing about which to brag. Texas senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has set her sites modestly by trying to succeed Rick Perry as Texas governor. Rick Santorum could be popular with Republicans. Yet his far out family values and over the top corporation loving behavior would not endear him nationally. It is not even clear if Pennsylvania voters will reelect him.

When it comes to presidential nominees, we tend to prefer governors to senators anyhow. Most governors are not people who are well known outside their state. Since he was born outside the United States, Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot run. Nevertheless, with approval ratings in California in the thirties he would be no prize even if he were available. Arguably, Jeb Bush could run on his brother’s coattails. However, I suspect that Americans will be so Bushed out by 2008 that Jeb will smartly bide his time. Maryland governor Robert Ehrlich runs a very blue state but he has not wowed Marylanders. Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is popular in a very blue state too. He could potentially attract votes from both sides of the aisle. Yet I cannot see Republicans picking anyone from the northeast, and that includes New York’s retiring governor George Pataki. He might have presidential ambitions but has an unremarkable record and disenchanted constituents. Governor Rick Perry of Texas will be available and it is hard to imagine that he plans to play golf for the rest of his life. He is probably the most likely to win the nomination, should he choose to run. Overall the Republican governors for 2008 look to be a lackluster crowd.

One name heard frequently is former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. He was a very popular mayor during most of the time he governed New York City. His spirit and concern during the aftermath of September 11th was widely praised. In his last year in office his constituents turned almost hostile against him. His open affair with Judith Nathan hardly promoted the sort of family values that will endear him to the evangelical and family values wing. Moreover, he is still battling cancer. Therefore, if I had to pick a likely nominee this far out I would expect George Allen or Rick Perry, although neither have been forthcoming about their plans for 2008.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton polls better than any Democrat does, but she seems coy at best about running for president. Mostly she seems uninterested so I bet that she will give 2008 a pass and stay in the Senate. This is just as well. She has too many negatives to win in 2008. She has been busy repairing her image but she portrayed as a New York liberal. She needs time to make people more forgetful and more nostalgic.

John Kerry might well decide to give the presidency another shot. I would hope he would not. Most of the enthusiasm around him in 2004 was halfhearted. John Edwards may be back too, but I do not expect that he will be able to charm any more people than he did in 2004. Unless he resigns as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean is unfortunately not on the playing field. Joe Biden may be very centrist, but he does not excite many Democrats. The same is true with Joe Liebermann, Al Gore’s running mate. Speaking of Al, he may be weighing another run also. Like Kerry, we Democrats were never that enthusiastic about Gore either. Generally, if you win the nomination but lose the election you are damaged goods. Gore is probably smart enough to know this.

Looking at Democratic governors, Virginia Governor Mark Warner looks very viable. He is a centrist Democrat in a red leaning state. He enjoys high approval ratings in spite of doing unpopular things like raising taxes. It certainly would be ironic if he won the nomination and ran against George Allen in the election. Warner is probably one of only a couple of Democrats who could balkanize the southern vote. However, rank and file Democrats don’t really know him yet. He may be too centrist to win the nomination. Among other Democratic governors with some positive name recognition, there are Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Bill Richardson of New Mexico. Napolitano is not well known enough to be viable, but Richardson has distinguished national and state credentials and could be a strong candidate. Whether he could surmount the fundraising hurdles and get sufficient name recognition remains to be seen. Those Democrats who know of Richardson view him very positively.

As I said, I strongly suspect that 2008 will be another election where national security will be the most important issue. That is why I suspect that General Wesley Clark will run again. He started too late in 2003 to gain sufficient traction, but he will be worth many new looks in 2008. People will be looking for someone who will be stellar as commander in chief. Clark brings the necessary hubris to that aspect of the presidency. While he has also won many detractors during his career, he has demonstrated an ability to get things done and correctly call tough decisions. That should seem very appealing in 2008. We will want someone sober and focused on solving the terrorist threat. Whether Clark can be as convincing on domestic matters remains to be seen.

One Democrat I would love to see run for president, but who will not, is New York State Attorney General Eliott Spitzer. Of course, he is busy running to replace Pataki as governor and seems a shoe in for the office. Therefore, it is hard to imagine why he would change tracks and run for president. However, if he ever chooses to run for president he will be an excellent nominee. I suspect sometime in the next decade he will run.

Looking so far into the future my bet is that Wesley Clark will likely get the Democratic nod in 2008. Naturally, I am not willing to wager too much money on it as this election is still very far out. A Clark vs. McCain contest would be almost ideal: a contest between two sober, experienced and competent candidates. We have not seen that in decades. I will root for it, even though I think it is unlikely to happen. Nevertheless, a political junkie like me can at least hope that in 2008 we will not have to pick between two more boring, well moneyed but lackluster nominees.

July 25th, 2005 at 09:16pm Posted by Mark | Politics 2005 | no comments

Needed: A New Contract with America

Is that the earth that I feel moving beneath my feet? Probably not. But those of us with sensitive political ears can feel the political earth beginning to shift. It’s just a faint tremor at the moment. It could be nothing. Or it could be a sign of a coming political earthquake.

Those into reading political tealeaves will find plenty to read lately. They may mean nothing but collectively they suggest a trend. For example last week a handful of Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives came together to sponsor a bill. It requests that the President set a timetable for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq starting in October 2006. This particular resolution will doubtless go nowhere but it may be a harbinger. What is important here is the precedent. It makes it easier for others with similar feelings to voice them.

And these nervy Congressmen are simply echoing the opinions of the majority of the American people, who are queasy about the whole Iraq war in general. The American people have turned against the war. It remains to be seen whether these opinions have sticking power. But it is reasonable to assume that they will. There are no short-term expedients that are likely to change the fundamental situation in Iraq. And the situation will be that Iraq will remain an anarchistic mess, with insurgents having the upper hand controlling the country.

Even Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove will have to feel queasy at some of the latest polls. For example, a recent CBS/New York Times poll shows that Bush’s approval rating at 42%, one point from an all time low. When you look at the numbers for other questions Americans were asked in this poll you can see the bigger cracks in the pavement. 45% of Americans say going into Iraq was the right thing versus 51% who say we should have stayed out. This is the first time in this poll that the public has decisively flipped on the Iraq war.

On Bush in particular the news is not good. 56% of Americans disapprove of Bush’s handling of the economy. 51% disapprove of his handling of foreign policy. 59% disapprove of his handling of the War in Iraq. 62% are upset about his attempts to reform Social Security. Democrats are trusted 48% to 31% to come up with a better plan for saving Social Security. Overall 61% of Americans say that Bush does not share their priorities for the country.

So the news is not good for Bush, even though our economy is not in recession. The sole area where Bush gets higher marks is in his overall handling of the campaign against terrorism. Here he gets 52% approval and 40% disapproval. But Congress’s ratings are in the toilet. 71% of Americans say Congress does not share their priorities.

Political prognosticators like myself who are wondering if there is a political earthquake coming in 2006 and 2008 look at two factors. First, is this a transient shift or a permanent trend? It is difficult to say for sure. The American people don’t have much trouble drifting toward apathy as Election Day approaches. When that happens the turnout is depressed. And when that occurs the status quo is likelier to be maintained. Second, can Democrats successfully translate general unhappiness into new political power? That is also problematical. A coherent and widely embraced Democratic message is needed.

But it can be done. Ironically the Democrats have an ideal model to follow: the Newt Gingrich Contract with America. In 1994 the Contract flipped the House of Representatives from Democratic to Republican. With incumbents virtually certain to win reelection in normal years, it takes a mighty effort to convince voters to change the status quo. That is why the time has come for Democrats to organize much the same way that Gingrich organized Republicans for the 1994 elections.

The House of Representatives can be switched back from Republican to Democratic. To succeed it requires only a moderately pissed off public. Fifteen seats need to flip from Republican to Democratic in order for Democrats to regain the majority. Before the 1994 elections Democrats ruled the House: 258 to 176. After the Gingrich revolution Republicans ruled 230 to 204. It was a stunning election. Forty-four seats shifted, over 10% of the total seats in the House! Only fifteen are needed to change things in 2006. This is very doable with the right message and the right organization. The Senate is less likely to flip. Republicans control the Senate 55 to 44. However it only takes one house of government to flip Democratic and to bring back divided government. And that bollixes up much of the neo-conservative agenda. So as Democrats our focus needs to be on the House of Representatives. 2008 of course offers the opportunity for a presidential election and for the Democrats to retake the White House.

So if this broad discontentment against the President and Congress can be maintained and if the Democrats can present a new coherent plan for America that addresses the actual concerns of moderate America then Democrats can at least begin to move back into political power. On the surface this should not prove that hard to do. Republicans have proven themselves no friend of the middle class. Poll after poll shows that the public understands that Republicans are shifting wealth away from them and into the upper classes. And they don’t like it.

What is needed now is leadership. It is heartening to see liberal blog sites like DailyKos.com come up with a progressive vision for America. Such a vision should clearly contrast what the Democrats will do if given power with what we can assume the Republicans will do if they remain in power.

The difficulty will be coming up with a coherent message that will attract moderate and independent voters. Progressives will be gung ho on issues such as abortion rights and gay marriage. These are important and defining issues for Democrats, but they need to be reframed. Kos did a good job of doing it. However in order to gain political power these issues should not be highlighted. The seven plus or minus two rule should be used. This is the number of different ideas we can keep in our mind at one time about a particular area. Democrats need to focus on items that moderate and independent voters care the most about. This is not a time to be shrilling for gay marriage. We should not be against it, but it should not be highlighted. Pragmatism needs to be the order of the day.

If we let him Howard Dean, the current chairman of the Democratic National Committee, can help us focus on what is important for Democrats to win. It’s important to concentrate on a few important factors that will swing independent voters. If I had to name some I would name universal health insurance, living wages, secure borders, respect for international law and environment-friendly policies as some of them. But these issues should be research driven and focus group tested. And once we have positions they should be hammered relentlessly and embraced widely by Democrats. The contrast of the Democratic vision with the Republicans record should be crystal clear.

But the key to winning this election is also attitude. Newt Gingrich had and continues to have plenty of attitude. Howard Dean has attitude too. Although their philosophies are different Gingrich and Dean are really two of a kind. Having an attitude can be a good thing when leveraged at critical moments. Voters pick up the larger context from attitudes that are poorly expressed in words. The context is simply this: Republicans have bungled big time. It is time for people grounded in real life to run the government again. And this is best communicated through attitude and simple slogans. If we are looking for leadership I trust that Howard Dean will be able to distill it for us into a simple message. We need to be wise enough to trust him.

June 19th, 2005 at 12:16pm Posted by Mark | Politics 2005 | no comments

To Win, Democrats need to be Inclusive

I have a friend, a good Democrat, who is more than a little upset with Howard Dean at the moment. Dean is the former presidential candidate and new chairman of the Democratic National Committee. What raised her ire? It was this statement that Dean made to Democrats in Mississippi:

We are going to embrace pro-life Democrats because pro-life Democrats care about kids after they’re born, not just before they’re born.

Her concern is that the future Democratic Party will tilt away from supporting abortion rights. In a quest to win at any cost the party might not stand for its principles. She sees a future Democratic platform sounding more like a Republican platform, at least when it comes to abortion rights. To her anyone would try to legislate what a woman could do to her own body should not be part of the Democratic Party.

While I agree with her pro-choice position I disagree with her contention that only those who are pro-choice belong in the Democratic Party. As unpalatable as it may be for many Democrats, to regain power we need to be more inclusive. By acting insular we essentially isolate ourselves as a party. The Republicans are using it to great effect. They peel off single issue voters right and left. Pro-gun? The Republicans are not wishy washy on the issue: no gun control ever. Against gay marriage? They always will be too. Pro life? No Republican will make it into the White House anymore without being strongly opposed to abortion, including repealing Roe v. Wade.

But there are plenty of voters out there with strong feelings about issues like abortion who would otherwise be very accommodating to Democratic positions. We need to bring these people in, not turn them away at the gate. In other words Democrats need to be inclusive as we traditionally have been. If we value diversity then it is okay to be a party where we won’t see eye to eye on everything. That same pro-life voter might also be very environmental for largely the same reasons. Do we turn these citizens away because they want to take away a freedom that women have taken for granted? Or should we invite them in and be grateful that they are accommodating on many of our other issues?

I say bring them in. If they are against 8 out of 10 of the primary positions of the Democratic Party then perhaps we should encourage them to stay with the Republican Party. But if we can find a fair amount of common ground with these voters then we need to work on what we have in common rather than getting all upset about what divides us. As much as I hate the idea of overturning Roe v. Wade, I sure don’t like the idea of our environment being increasingly fouled either. If we wait until we all share mostly the same ideology then the Democratic Party will be increasingly marginalized. We need a better strategy, which is why I favor inclusiveness and I like Howard Dean’s approach.

Our Democratic governor Mark Warner here in Virginia would probably appall many Democrats. Virginia is a conservative state that is getting only more conservative and more Republican. It was amazing that Warner got elected at all with our legislature in firm Republican hands now. How did Warner do it? I can assure you it was not by coming out in favor of gay marriage. To many Democrats, Warner looks and smells like a Republican. He is also for the death penalty, against gun control and has backed some new restrictions on abortion in the state. He connects with the NASCAR crowd. In spite of his success in the technology field he persuaded Virginians that he was a good ol’ boy. His campaign preached fiscal conservatism and pragmatic approaches to our problems as a Commonwealth. In short he reached across traditional party lines and brought in a lot of people who typically would lean Republican. These voters can be persuaded by a moderate Democratic candidate in touch with Virginia’s traditional conservative and some would say anal retentive values.

Had Warner run as a pro gay rights, pro-choice, vegetarian, anti-gun San Francisco liberal he would have lost decisively. But because he won things are much improved here in the Commonwealth. He exercised leadership where it was sorely lacking. Instead of tax cuts that the state could not afford in lean times he succeeded in getting a half-cent increase in the sales tax. We desperately needed the revenue. Our schools were dying from a thousand cuts. Our roads were not being maintained adequately and new road construction largely wasn’t happening. In short we needed someone to look out for the state instead of yet another ideologue in the governor’s office cutting taxes and services right and left. And Warner delivered. It’s true that on his tenure we now have yet another defense of marriage act that is truly reprehensible. But sadly that would have happened even if he had not been elected governor. But we also moved forward in a progressive fashion on many other things that mattered. And that does count for something.

Democrats need to wake up and smell the coffee. Inclusiveness will bring us power. Bill Clinton was not the ideal Democratic president. He was pro NAFTA and pro death penalty. But in hindsight he was far better than his successor. If someone like Mark Warner runs for the presidency in 2008 and wins we will have a sensible, moderate, middle of the road man in the White House. This beats the heck out of another right wing extreme conservative in the George W. Bush mold. And while someone like President Warner would likely appoint moderates to the courts, at least they wouldn’t be wacko right wing conservative judges.

So Dean is right. We need to be inclusive even if it hurts and scares us a bit. The game is to regain power. If we are not a whole lot more inclusive we can look forward to decades more of the Republican rule we are experiencing now. Democrats need to avoid their own ideological biases and be unafraid to embrace pragmatic, middle of the road candidates and solutions. Most people will vote for common sense candidates over extremes at either end.

March 16th, 2005 at 03:20pm Posted by Mark | Politics 2005 | no comments

No More Mr. Nice Democrat

The problem with us Democrats in general is that we play by gentlemen’s rules.

What dopes! What morons! No wonder we seem to be a declining party. Large numbers of Republicans may not believe in evolution, but they certainly believe in natural selection in the present. They are predators, devoid of civility and any sense of fairness. Did it bother Sen. Tom DeLay one bit to try to reapportion congressional seats in Texas in 2003, even though it had never been done before? Not at all. While those “play by the rules” weenie Democrats whined, he pressed Gov. Rick Perry of Texas to reapportion congressional seats again. Traditionally states do it every ten years based on the latest census results. Democratic members of the Texas legislature tried delaying tactics by taking up temporary residences in hotels in New Mexico. In response DeLay called the Department of Homeland Security to have their flights tracked. Eventually of course the Democrats had to go home. Once home the state legislature reached a quorum, the bill was rammed through both houses and Perry gleefully and without one moral qualm signed the bill into law.

Did Attila the Hun ask permission before invading and pillaging all those cities and countries? Of course not. Those with the power and the means make the rules. Charge ahead. When you control all three branches of government the likelihood of paying a price is low anyhow. The good news is that Republicans don’t usually kill or maim people in the process these days. They just roll over the rest of us like a steamroller. Perhaps that’s why they admire Israel so much. The Israeli solution to the settlements issue is to keep creating facts on the ground. The rule of law is for weenies. What matters is whether you can get away with it. If you can then it must be okay, is how Republicans apparently see things.

Liberals are morally squishy? Hardly. Republicans are far more morally squishy than Democrats could ever hope to be. It seems Republicans were born with dichotomy in their brains. Liberals who support a woman’s right to choose do so knowing if a woman chooses abortion that the embryo or fetus is killed in the process. Most of us recognize the Hobbesian choice. We are not entirely comfortable with our position. On the other hand it’s not a problem at all for a Republican to be both antiabortion and pro death penalty. State sponsored murder is perfectly okay. And everyone has complete freedom except of course when they find it personally disagreeable. So for those women who operate under the illusion that they control their own bodies, Republicans decide they must choose for them. However that certainly doesn’t mean they will also pay the costs of rearing these unwanted children. I mean, that would be socialism or something.

And on most other issues Republican say one thing and do completely the opposite. They say they want smaller government, but keep expanding the size of government. They say they are against payola but hand it out to their friends. Remember the Contract with America? How many of these congressmen and women elected in 1994 are still in the Congress, despite vows going in on the importance of term limits? Line item veto? Gone. It became politically expedient to do away with it when Clinton wielded it. Fiscal responsibility? Don’t make me laugh. This year alone deficits are expected to be over $400 billion dollars. Personal responsibility? Okay for others, but not for Congress and, oh, red states apparently get a lot more federal dollars than blue states. Laws are still routinely passed that exempt Congress from their provisions. They can’t even get into a war without double checking their intelligence. Their ideas of personal responsibility are charge up our credit cards to the max and pass the debt on to our grandchildren.

If there was excitement a couple years back with Howard Dean’s run for president it was because, finally, there was a Democrat willing to retire fire. Dean is no namby pamby wishy washy liberal. In fact, he’s not a liberal at all. While governor of Vermont he was far more fiscally conservative than any Republican you can point to in Congress.

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery. The reason Democrats rallied around Dean was not because our party is suffering. We rallied around him because we know he won’t let Democrats get pushed around anymore. If Republicans insist on playing on their rules the Democrats will finally learn that game. And the signs are out there that we are beginning to wake out of our dogmatic slumbers. Where we have political power, and there are plenty of blue states, it is time to use it. Republicans apparently are now trying to redistrict Republican Georgia out of turn. We learn today that Democrats like House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer are realizing two can play this game:

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has spoken with several Democratic governors in recent weeks about the possibility of revisiting their states’ Congressional lines in response to the ongoing Republican-led redistricting in Georgia, according to informed party sources.

Faced with the prospect of Republicans redrawing Congressional lines in a third state since the initial 2001 round of redistricting ended, a faction of national Democrats is urging an aggressive strategy aimed at striking back at Republican House Members in states like New Mexico and Illinois.

“We have to stop playing defense and go on the offensive,” said Howard Wolfson, who served as executive director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the 2002 cycle and is now a consultant with the Glover Park Group.

“The only way to stop them from doing this is to make them pay a price for it somewhere else,” said a longtime House strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Democrats believe their best opportunities lie in Illinois, New Mexico and Louisiana, where Democrats have seized control of all the levers of state government in those states since the 2001 reapportionment and redistricting.

Democratic Govs. Rod Blagojevich (Ill.) and Bill Richardson (N.M.) as well as high-ranking Louisiana elected officials have been contacted by members of House leadership led by Hoyer since the Georgia legislature began their re-redistricting.

“Some of us who believe Georgia is going to happen think that it will help us strategically, to motivate some governors that weren’t interested in doing it to help us,” said one source who works closely with House Democrats.

At least a few D.C.-based Republicans privately acknowledge they are concerned about the possibility of Democratic retribution over the maneuvers in Georgia, but are not in a position to change the situation.

Politics is no longer a fraternal game of tennis, if it ever was. The Republicans have shown it is a game of rugby, and the referees are very absent minded. Republicans have gained clout and influence by bending and breaking rules left and right.

We were fooled once. Hopefully we are smart enough now to realize we have to dish it out like we are getting it. We can see it emerge clearly from the blogosphere. With the election of Howard Dean as the DNC chair we will also see it on the national level.

I wish it had not come to this. While Democrats played nice guy and tried to do the statesmanlike thing, we were figuratively slapped, kicked around and abused by the opposition. We were given no credit whatsoever. But the times, they are a changing. The Republicans have become the overbearing abusive husband. The Democrats have played the role of weak and submissive wife. The Republicans are about to find out how it feels to have what they have served to us daily for years sent right back at them.

I just hope when this is all over we can revert to our better and more civilized ways. But now is not the time.

February 22nd, 2005 at 04:49pm Posted by Mark | Politics 2005 | no comments

Howard Dean for DNC Chair

It looks like what passes for our Democratic leadership is at long last waking up and realizing that the Democratic prospects are pretty bleak and getting bleaker. Perhaps it is for this reason that erstwhile presidential candidate Howard Dean looks likely to win post of chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

This is an exceptional opportunity for the Democrats. During the 2004 campaign Howard Dean apparently reported to intimates that he really didn’t want to be president. What he wanted to do was to shake up the Democratic Party. He wanted to get it to refocus so it could win elections again. In becoming the Chairman of the DNC Howard will be where he will do the most good for the Democratic Party and the country.

Us Deaniacs know that Howard Dean is one unique and tough dude. I suspect Howard Dean at the DNC makes the Republicans smile. If they were more politically astute they would not smile. Instead they should be very worried. Because Howard Dean is really the only person right now who can revive the Democratic Party. But he’s not just the right person; he’s the perfect person. So beware Republicans. Howard Dean is no ordinary man. He will give a shot of adrenaline directly into the main arteries of the Democratic Party.

He starts with a passionate and committed base of people who were estranged from their own party. These people drive hundreds of miles to come and see him give speeches in the back rooms of hotels to a handful of members of the DNC. He has already moved many of them from the Dean for American website into his reconfigured Democracy for America web site. And many states have formed their own offshoots of his organization. Here in Virginia for example we have Democracy for Virginia. And although there are only a few Dean meetups where there used to be dozens, Democracy for America meetups are still available locally. In my case they are a bit out of easy commuting range: I would have to travel about 30 miles to Occoquan, Virginia. But I expect there will be more Democracy for America meetups coming soon.

The droves of youth who came out to vote for Kerry in 2004 weren’t there because they were passionate for John Kerry. They were there because they believe in Howard Dean. Although he lost the primaries he told them they had to work to elect John Kerry. Love him or hate him his network was new and it was powerful. At the time (mid 2003) I thought I was the only person I knew who liked Howard Dean. Then I found two young friends of my wife who had been to his rallies when I was still checking him out on the Internet.

And it was Dean who was Internet savvy. He showed he could bring new people together online, get significant wads of money and huge amounts of volunteer time from them. One of the more astounding statistics from the 2004 campaign was that Democrats matched Republicans dollar for dollar in campaign spending. Typically Republicans outspend Democrats two or three to one. That new money didn’t come from the old party faithful. It was largely new money from passionate people who were fed up to here and, like Howard Beale, weren’t going to take it anymore. That we Democrats lost was a shame, but in many ways we created a new base. All it needs now is the right person to leverage that base. And Dean is the obvious person to do it.

So Republicans should be scared. Because Dean is focused, he is passionate, he is savvy, and he is very, very shrewd. It’s hard for a Democrat even to get on TV these days but Howard will be in everyone’s faces. He will be so outspoken, so passionate and so full of common sense that the cameras will just naturally focus on him. The story will be the Dean personality but through the personality will come the true ideas that need to get heard and permeate the brains of more ordinary Americans.

And you can bet he will have his eye not just on the presidential race but also on House and Senate races. He’ll leverage the power of his network to bring in the serious money to create competitive Democratic candidates. You’ll see him Sunday after Sunday on the TV talk shows putting out the message. John Kerry thinks he can leverage his mailing list for a run in 2008. Here’s the thing: most of that mailing list consists of Dean voters like me. And we think Kerry is as exciting as milquetoast. It’s not until Howard backs a candidate that it will truly mean anything. An endorsement from Dean will be money in the bank for these candidates.

Of course this means Dean won’t be a presidential candidate in 2008. I’m okay with that. And so is Howard. The presidency is really not his thing. Shaking up the country and changing minds, hearts and votes is what he was meant to do. I don’t think my faith in Dean is misplaced. Democrats lost the presidential race 48% to 51%. What’s amazing is how close we came with a less than stellar candidate who was voted the most liberal senator in the United States Senate. Dean, despite his perception, is a strong centrist who is as politically savvy as Bill Clinton. He will bring together disparate parts of the Democratic Party and unite them. He stands a decent chance of doing what no Democrat has done before: uniting us under one common banner.

Go Howard! Go!

February 1st, 2005 at 09:22pm Posted by Mark | Politics 2005 | no comments

Fairfax County Turns Blue

Lost among all the election gloom for us Democrats was this story in the Washington Post. The county I live in, Fairfax County voted 53% to 46% for John Kerry. Fairfax County is a bedroom community in Northern Virginia largely outside the Washington beltway going about as far west as Washington Dulles International Airport.

What’s the big deal you ask? Simply that the last time a Democratic candidate won the presidential election in Fairfax County was 1964. Yes, it’s been forty years since my county voted yes to a Democrat in the Oval Office.

Why is this happening now in 2004? It is because this bedroom community is becoming more and more urbanized and cosmopolitan. In 1964 most of the county consisted of woods and farmlands. The only farms left in Fairfax County are run now run to show visitors what the agrarian life once looked like in the county. There is Kidwell Farm in Frying Pan Park just down the street from me run by the Fairfax County Park Authority. We also have the Claude Moore Colonial Farm in McLean that is run by a nonprofit organization.

Today in 2004 Fairfax County is a mixture of bedroom communities and high tech businesses. Pseudo cities like Tysons Corner and Reston draw huge numbers of skilled workers, most of who are in the technology business. There are still lots of single-family homes in my county. But what land is still available for development is more likely to be multifamily dwellings like condos, apartments and townhouses. If a single-family community is developed in my county it is likely populated with overpriced McMansions set eight feet apart. While not as expensive a place to live as San Francisco, housing is pretty pricey around here. My modest single-family house with three bedrooms would likely fetch $350,000 if I put it on the market.

But mostly the county is drawing the well paid, well-educated, highly literate and culturally sophisticated knowledge worker. You can see them all over the place in Reston. Surrounding Reston’s “Town Center” (an oxymoron, since there is no incorporated town of Reston) are increasing numbers of tall apartment buildings and condos. People are shelling out $300,000 or more for a condo within walking distance to the Reston Town Center.

And for what? For the buzz of the city I think. Yes, in many ways Reston is very much a city now. It feels like a city. The tall buildings are everywhere. We have Oracle. We have Microsoft. We have large international consulting firms. We have hundreds of national and international organizations and institutions headquartered here. Twenty years ago when I moved to Reston it was hard to get to, only half developed yet a cool place with lots of trees and walking paths in the woods. Thankfully many of the trees and trails are still there. But now there is also this significant urban presence centered around its downtown. Within easy walking distance of the Reston Town Center are all the essentials for the modern, upwardly mobile urban professional. The Starbucks are ubiquitous. In the Town Center there are trendy places to eat and drink, a first class mega-cinema, a Barnes & Noble, Best Buy as well as upscale stores and restaurants.

Fairfax County has also become a very diverse place. Forty years ago it was overwhelmingly white and largely agrarian. Today you have every hue in the human rainbow living here. Our population recently topped one million people. While we have our share of poor people they are increasingly hard to find. You have to go hunt them down along the depressed corridors of Route 1. In addition to a high contingent of WASPs we also have large numbers of Orientals, Indians, Muslims and Hispanics. I was surprised to find out that in my own community of Oak Hill nearly 10% of the residents are of Oriental ancestry.

Our increasing diversity and growing population density matters. We’ve gotten used to each other. As I mentioned some time ago I’ve become color expectant. It now feels odd for me to be in a crowd of WASPs. It is so peculiar that when it happens I feel like the odd man out, like I don’t belong, even though I grew up in a Wonder Bread community in upstate New York.

Over the course of my twenty years of living here in Fairfax County I have been forced through the course of ordinary life to encounter a plethora of different kinds of people. In the process I have gotten to know them and their various cultures. Because I live in an increasingly diverse county I am no longer shocked or surprised to find out a coworker is gay. In fact as I get to know people of different cultures, outlooks and sexual orientations I see them all as just folks. They seem entirely ordinary to me. And when I make friends with openly gay people issues like gay marriage suddenly take on new meaning. I can see with my own eyes and judge through my own daily interactions that they are no different from me in any way that matters at all. So the whole fuss about gay marriage seems increasingly bizarre to me. I don’t understand what motivates people to be upset about it. If they knew my gay friend Wilson for example like I know him they’d realize that all their fears are entirely specious. The world would not come to an end if he were allowed to marry. My marriage and no one in my community would be threatened in the least.

And I am not alone. My county is now full of people like me whose values have changed through exposure to a diverse culture. So really it is no surprise that in 2004 the demographics finally changed and we voted for a Democrat for president. I suspect it will be a long time before a Republican presidential candidate wins the vote in my county. Why? Because I live in a progressive county that is ten years ahead of much of the rest of the country.

And knowing this I feel better. I can see the trends and while certainly areas like the South will continue to grow, opportunities and excitement can often be found at or around major metropolitan areas like Washington D.C. Liberalism, which has its base in major cities is spreading out to suburban areas. Increasingly the red counties surrounding major cities are becoming purple, then blue. Fairfax County has joined nearby (and closer to DC) Arlington County in becoming a blue county. Much of the rest of Virginia will stay red but over time the demographics favor the Democrats. People move to places where there is energy, jobs and money. The more people in an area the more connections happen and the easier it becomes to move from job to job. This energy builds on itself. As people move in they begin to adopt many of the values of their community. The long-term prospects for us progressives are positive, and certainly not as bleak as the pundits would suggest. Come live in Fairfax County and find out for yourself.

November 5th, 2004 at 09:38pm Posted by Mark | Sociology | no comments

No Time for Deaniacs to Sulk … Time to Get Busy

Many of us who supported Howard Dean should be having a mixture of feelings right now ranging from hurt, anger, rage and general sulkiness. But if we withdraw from political life at this time we are making a deep mistake. The country, and particularly the Democratic Party needs our talents and energy now more than ever.

Dean always said the campaign was not about him but about us. By “us” he means the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. If we fail to assert ourselves now within the party then we have failed in our true mission. Getting Dean elected was a great goal but the odds were always very long. There were lots of candidates out there and only one can be the nominee. We wanted a revolution but we got an evolution. This should come as no surprise. Now we must complete the mission: we must bring progressives back into prominence in the Democratic Party. We must make the Democratic Party the Democratic Party of old again.

We should not descend into an internecine war. We should not try to topple the Clinton Democrats, or those who follow the Democratic Leadership Council. In truth the DLC has not done well either. Its poster child Joe Liebermann never polled out of the single digits. The DLC wing of the Democratic Party is already a fading memory. We Deaniacs can be proud that we have rushed in and occupied their space.

To start with we need to continue occupying this space. Howard Dean told us it is important to keep voting for him even though he is no longer campaigning. This is because this gives us delegates at the national convention, and that gives us a say in the party platform. It is there that we can make our voices heard. It is in Boston that we can assert that our party should be passionately committed to equal rights for all (and particularly for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trangenders). There we will also stand up and fight for platforms that call for progressive energy policies that emphasize renewable energy sources and conservation. We can insist that our nation do something real to reduce global warming and respect the world ecosystem. We can also press our party to be fiscally responsible and to work for true universal health insurance for all Americans. We should insist on a fair tax code that does not penalize either the poor or the working poor and requires the rich to provide more of their income in taxes again. In doing we also show that Democrats are truly a party of the people again.

It is also crucial that our country become mainstream again. Our country must be eager to work with the United Nations and other countries to create pragmatic broadly supported international solutions to world problems. We must lead the party and our country toward a longer vision that is not so parochial and recognizes the complexity of the world we live in.

In the short term it is important to work to elect not only a Democratic president but to elect a Democratic congress. We should enthusiastically endorse and fund John Kerry’s campaign, if he turns out to be our nominee. We should work among ourselves, but also with progressive networks like MoveOn.org to turn the election into a rout of Republicans in general. We should be inclusive and let bygones be bygones. We should work with the Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich and even the Sharpton camps to push common goals and values. We need to assert our progressive values, but we need to be nice and persuasive about it.

We need new goals. Our short-term goal must be to remove Bush from office and to elect a Democratic congress. We have the ability to seriously tackle both of these with our existing network. Our long-term goal should be to keep America moving in a progressive and mainstream direction.

Dean for America needs to evolve. It needs to become the Democratic Progressive Network. We need to promote the DPN as an alternative to the Democratic Leadership Council. Howard could be our spokesman, but he doesn’t have to be. There is plenty of new talent among us that is there and could be easily harnessed.

As for Howard Dean, John Kerry would be wise to work to have him on his team. Howard Dean has unique talent and energy that no other candidate has. He would be ideal as the new head of the Democratic National Committee. He should be stumping the country not necessarily for Kerry, but to stir up activists to vote for Democrats in state, congressional and senatorial campaigns. If Kerry were elected, as I fully expect, Dean would make an excellent cabinet secretary. He would be a natural as the head of Health and Human Services, but let’s not rule him out for other key posts. I could see him as Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State. From my perspective Howard Dean’s future continues to look very bright. His talent should not be allowed to atrophy.

February 21st, 2004 at 09:59am Posted by Mark | Politics 2004 | one comment