The Gingrich Democrats

[papau]

Seems conservative David Brooks believes the new DNC Chair should make liberals unhappy because there are today more conservatives out there than liberals ("three conservatives in this country for every two liberals") and more moderates willing to vote for conservatives, contradicting Gov Dean who believes that Democrats have a natural majority out there they're not tapping into because folks sense Democrats don't believe in their causes and that the media has allowed the GOP to dupe socially conservative economic populists.

Who to believe? :-)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/opinion/18brooks.html?oref=login

ED COLUMNIST
The Gingrich Democrats
By DAVID BROOKS

The Social Security debate has exposed interesting differences within the Democratic Party between those who are inspired by Bill Clinton and those who are inspired by - wait for it - Newt Gingrich.

The Clintonites oppose President Bush's plan to carve out private accounts. But infused with those reconciling "third way" instincts, they are quick to come up with alternative plans they hope will win bipartisan support.

Clintonites like Gene Sperling or Representative Rahm Emanuel still tend to have a governing mentality - even in the minority, they are always proposing things, rarely just opposing.

The Democratic Gingrichians are different. They feel that Social Security is to Bush what health care reform was to Clinton - the big overreach that will allow the opposing party to deliver a devastating blow to the president, and maybe even regain control of Congress.

Their core belief is that Republicans have won of late because they have been ruthless and disciplined while Democrats have been responsible and wimpy. It is time, the neo-Gingrichians say, to scorch the earth. "I believe that the Republican majority has acted in such a dictatorial fashion that a full-scale revolt is the only solution," the Democratic consultant Howard Wolfson told Michael Crowley of The New Republic.

That means waging a Gingrich-style war on the entire Congressional power structure. That means furiously opposing every other Bush initiative. That means giving up any hope of trying to work with Republicans, but staging an all-out effort to crush and delegitimize them. <snip>

[kentuck]

1. A Gingrich Democrat is no Democrat at all...

end of story.

[Ravenseye]

6. I'm a Gingrich Democrat

I think what they're saying is that a Gingrich Democrat is not a democrat who agrees with Gingrich in any way, in fact they'd hate him most likely. He's scum. A Gingrich Democrat are ones that want to fight tooth and nail and oppose everything, like Gingrich did with Clinton.

So are you saying that democrats should roll over and let the Republicans destroy the country, maybe even find ways to help them do it so it doesn't look so bad?

In the context of this article I'm a Gingrich Democrat. Fight them at every turn. Don't let them destroy this country. Stand up and have some cahones.

[atommom]

2. Democratic Gingrichians? That's the funniest thing I've read

in a long time!

Taking back power doesn't mean we have to turn into Newt, after all. We just need to get our shit together.

[TwentyFive]

3. It makes sense to me. Democrats need their own version of Gingrich.

But, this takes years. Grass roots planning. Drafting people to run in congressional districts, training them, funding them, etc.

But, it may be the only way we can do it. The Clinton health-care issue in '93 was only icing on the cake for them. They still would have won seats that year.

[Ganja Ninja]

4. Gingrich Democrats!?!?! Democratic Gingrichians!?!?!?!?

Is it too early to start drinking yet?:beer:

[Fovea]

5. Atten Prof. Laskoff

Would you please respond to Brook's naked attempt to convince the Dems not to fight?

[fertilizeonarbusto]

7. self-delete

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. I think he has a point.

We need to act like an oppositional party. That means, defining our core values and getting the message out, and not watering down our positions. The Grinches got what they wanted by refusing to compromise, while the Dem instinct is to always find common ground, to compromise. When one side compromises and the other does not, the other always wins. The only give and take is we give, and they take.

We need our own Contract with America, and a broad base of leftie candidates to seize the House based on that contract.

We need to remind the American people that the great advances in American society were products of the left, not the right. And the future advances, such as guaranteed universal health care as a right - not a privilege - and affordable post-secondary education for all citizens can and will only be enacted by a Democratic majority.

We need to fight for strict controls on the powers of corporations which now drive so much of the politics on both sides, and eliminate the legal fiction that a corporation is a person. CEOs need to be held responsible for the actions of the corporations that they direct, so that when the corporation is sued, it is the people in charge that pay the price, not a fictional entity that feels no pain and can write off judgments as business expenses.

We need to establish an independent agency to run elections, and another to review those elections, as separate bureaucracies under congressional oversight, rather than leave the electoral process in the hands of partisans. There should never be an election that cannot be recounted and verified.

We need to re-establish regulation on the media to guarantee diversification of media sources because a free press owned by a few giant corporations is not a free press. The internet, as a voice of diversity, is easily ignored because there is no accountability and extremists of all stripes have equal voice to responsible journalists. It is an adjunct, not a primary source, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. TV, radio and newspapers must be regulated in order to share the market.

We need to show people that monopolies create a sick economy, and labor unions promote a healthy economy.

We need to re-affirm that social security is not a retirement program but an insurance program which most of us will need, and diverting the next generation's social security funds will guarantee that in 50 years there will be no social security for them to look to -- only the vagaries of the market. Private accounts is a redistribution scheme that enriches corporations and Wall Street money managers, while jeopardizing the future of today's young workers.

We need to demonstrate, by historical example, that the only way to protect both the secular state and individual religious freedom is to maintain a distinct wall of separation between them.

We need to emphasize that no one should be accorded special privileges, despite their wealth or religious affiliation, nor should anyone be denied their fundamental rights due to race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or any other excuse that is promoted by those who fear equality.

We are Democrats, and we need to start acting like democrats.

[robbedvoter]

9. Yup. Always take advice from your enemy. If Brooks sez it...