Here are some article excerpts I've accumulated for a while now, waiting to be inspired to add lengthy commentary, I guess. But I think their points are pretty fully expressed already, and worth reading; thus, I'll just dish 'em up in combo, with brief remarks from yours truly.
Economic Populism
www.ideosphere.com
Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg agreed that Democrats can use economic populism to trump GOP social conservatism.
"Where the Democrats have had a challenge is on the social issues and moral values," Greenberg said after making a presentation to the Southern caucus.
"But in this economy I think we can actually have something to say to some voters in the South. If you look at older white men -- not generally a target group for Democrats -- they are very anti-corporate, very populist, very worried about manufacturing jobs going overseas. I don't think a Democrat is going to win without a populist message."
The "older white men" thing fits my boss to a "T". He sounds like Kucinich on economic issues; but he stubbornly votes Republican because of his hawkish stance on the military.
In a Divided Nation, Pitfalls for Dems
PBS Newshour
MARGARET WARNER: So what are the implications of this more polarized and divided electorate for the 2004 campaign? We take that up now with two veteran political players and watchers: Mickey Edwards, a lecturer at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. He was a Republican congressman from Oklahoma for eight terms, and was chairman of the Republican Policy Conference.
And Andrew Hernandez, executive director of the 21st Century Leadership Center at St. Mary's University in San Antonio. He was president of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project for six years, and then ran the Democratic National Committee's outreach project for key voting blocs.
[...]
MICKEY EDWARDS:
There's a difference on the role of government. There's a difference on a lot of social and cultural issues -- there's a difference on a lot of economic issues and the tax cut. I think there really is a very great polarization.
However, I would say in the terms of poll itself, one of the things the poll showed that even though Republicans and Democrats are relatively close in party identification, in the last three years since September 11, 2001 - or two years - there has been a significant gain in party identification by the Republicans. And that's especially true in states like Michigan, Florida, the swing states. And the poll shows that.
MARGARET WARNER: How significant do you think that is, Andy Hernandez, for the 2004 election?
ANDREW HERNANDEZ: Well, I think it makes the Democrats job more difficult. I think there's a lot of structural barriers and hurdles that they're going to have to overcome in this upcoming 2004 election: one being the large gap in fiscal resources that will be available to both parties. The Republicans will probably outspend the Democrats if you add all of it together by close to $150 million when all is said and done.
MARGARET WARNER: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but what about the party ID, the thing that was in Andy Kohut's poll. It was only a few points -- is that really significant?
ANDREW HERNANDEZ: That's the point I was going to make. It's significant in that Democrats have lost some ground. Now, whether or not this is a long term trend or this is just a fluctuation of party affiliation because of September 11, because of some of the high marks the president has been given over the last few years, we don't know yet. We don't know if it's a realignment of the electorate yet. Those things take a decade to figure out and to sort out. I think it does make the Democrats' prospects more difficult in 2004. You always want a larger lead in party affiliation going into an election.
I still have faith in the Judis & Texeira "Emerging Democratic Majority" thesis. But I'd be a liar if I said that suggestions of that Rovian wet dream, a shudder Republican realignment, don't nevertheless strike some fear into my heart. Over time, as judges get replaced and decades of progress gets rolled back, that would make this country an intolerable place. I'd have to seriously look into fleeing to Canada or someplace.
MARGARET WARNER: Andy Hernandez, When the candidates are also talking a lot about the war they think they see an opening. If you were the strategist for the Democrats, whoever that person might be, would you be putting a lot of emphasis on the war? ANDREW HERNANDEZ: No. I really believe that Iraq is dangerous ground for Democrats to make a fight on. I don't think that's where their strength lies.
People have a lot more confidence in the Democratic Party when it comes to their economic security, educational opportunities for their children. The polls show that also. And so I think by trying to make the war the issue it distracts from the larger questions where Democrats do well, which is the economy, which are the kinds of things, positive things, that government does in the lives of people -- everything from good education prospects for their children to educational prospects for their children that are going to college.
So, I think that is where the fight has to be. I think people are asking the question, the public is asking the question: are the costs, both fiscal costs and human costs, associated with our present policy in Iraq and with our present foreign policy, worth the gains we're making in keeping this country safe and secure, and what are the costs -- those costs we are incurring -- how are they distracting or weakening our other strengths as a country such as our infrastructure, jobs, economic security?
So I think we have to make the argument around economic security as much as we have to make the argument against whether or not our policies in Iraq are proper.
As I've been arguing: quit with the war issue! It's not going to help Democrats to keep flogging it.
Human Rights Groups Criticise Antiwar Left
Salon.com
More than two years into the Bush administration's lurching war on terror, William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, is aiming some of his sharpest criticism not at the White House, but at the American political left. His message: Take on the terror threat, or risk irrelevance.
[...]
Follman: A recent Gallup poll showed two-thirds of Iraqis think that the ousting of Saddam "was worth any hardships they have personally endured since the invasion," and two-thirds said they believed that the country will be better off in five years than it was before the invasion. Do you support the invasion and occupation of Iraq?
Schulz: Amnesty International took no position on the military action itself. We had been highlighting for more than 20 years the human rights violations by Saddam Hussein. No one who cares about human rights can help but be grateful that he is no longer in power.
[...]
Follman: Michael Ignatieff, director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, supported the Iraq war on human rights grounds. Recently he said in the New York Times, "What always drove me crazy about the [war] opposition was that it was never about Iraq. It was a referendum on American power."
[...]
Follman: In the book you say that supporting human rights does not require being pacifist. When is the use of violence appropriate?
Schulz: I personally believe that in the face of genocide the world community should intervene militarily. That situation clearly trumps national sovereignty. I think it was the Clinton administration's greatest shame that it blocked the United Nations from intervening in Rwanda. I think the intervention in Kosovo is defensible on human rights grounds, and there may be others.
[...]
To the best of my knowledge, neither Amnesty nor any other human rights organization had documented active genocide going on in Iraq. There were profound human rights violations going on, and I think there's an arguable case that those violations may very well have justified some sort of international military intervention. That's a case I'm certainly prepared to discuss.
That's Amnesty Int'l talking, people--not some PNAC bogeyman.
Buck Up! Good News from 2003
[I pared the list down a bit, as I consider the histrionic opposition to ousting Saddam to be an unfortunate, regrettable episode in the annals of progressive activism.]
10 Good Things About a Bad Year
Medea Benjamin, AlterNet
December 31, 2003
No two ways about it, 2003 was a demoralizing year for those of us working for peace and justice. With George Bush in the White House...it was a chore just to get out of bed each morning. But get out of bed we did, and we spent our days educating, strategizing, organizing and mobilizing. As we greet the new year, let's remember and celebrate some of our hard-fought victories in a time of adversity.
- Over the last few months, mainstream Americans have been buying progressive books by the millions. Authors such as Michael Moore, Al Franken, Molly Ivins, Paul Krugman and David Corn have seen their books soar to the New York Times bestsellers list. With humor and biting exposes of the Bush administration, these authors helped our movement gain legions of new converts. No more preaching to the choir this year!
- When the World Trade Organization met in Cancun in September to promote global rules that give even greater power to transnational corporations, they were met by well coordinated opposition from countries in the global south, hundreds of non-governmental organizations and thousands of activists. When our movement's sophisticated inside-outside strategy forced the talks to collapse, there was "gloom in the suites and dancing in the streets." And as a counter to these corporate-dominated global institutions, the fair trade movement had a stellar year.
- The poorest country in South America, Bolivia, proved that people power is alive and well. Sparked by the Bolivian president's plan to privatize and export the nation's natural gas, an astounding grassroots movement of peasants, miners, workers, and indigenous people poured into the streets to demand his resignation. After five weeks of intense protests and a government crackdown that left 70 dead, Sanchez de Lozada was forced to resign. Now that's regime change!
- The silver lining in the budget crisis affecting the states throughout this nation is that from Louisiana to Texas to Michigan -- and even in Arnold Schwarzenegger's California -- state governments are cutting prison budgets by releasing non-violent drug offenders. The year has been marked by a steady move toward treatment instead of incarceration and a greater understanding that drug abuse should be handled in the doctors' office, not the prison cell.
- In an unprecedented outpouring of local opposition to the assault on our civil liberties, over 200 cities, towns, counties and states across the country have passed resolutions against the Patriot Act. In fact, the outcry has been so profound that plans for a successor act, dubbed Patriot Act II, that would further broaden federal investigatory powers, have been scuttled.
- Despite the conservative takeover of the courts, this year produced several landmark rulings we can be proud of. The Supreme Court upheld affirmative action, giving a sweeping victory to the University of Michigan and colleges all over the country. It struck down sodomy laws criminalizing gay sex, affirming the constitutional right to privacy. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that gays should be able to marry. The Appeals Court ruled that the US military could not detain American citizen Jose Padilla as an "enemy combatant", and in an even more significant decision, found that all 600 detainees at Guantanamo Bay should be granted access to lawyers.
There are many more -- the immigrants' freedom march that crisscrossed the nation to counter the anti-immigrant backlash, the amazing youth movement that is bringing new culture and vibrancy to organizing, the renewed women's activism through groups like Code Pink, the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to an Iranian woman, Shirin Ebadi. And each one of us could add to the list.
