Centrist Democrats fear party losing middle class

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-07-31 07:05am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: The PATRIOT Act is far worse because it is in the law code, and exists as part of the legal process; it can be extended, or made permanent (and I believe some sections are, while only some sunset), while a national emergency is most definitely not permanent--it is a State, as opposed to a Law.

Furthermore, you seriously exagerrate a declaration of national emergency, which has happened before and not resulted in a loss of freedom, or even in a reduction of freedom comparable to the state of society like we lived in before 9/11.

I'm refering to martial law, not a national state of emergency. You were refering to martial law and the President becoming a dictator for a while, but now you are changing horses mid-stream.

But it did include the PATRIOT Act, and various other restrictive provisions that may have long-lasting effects on our society that we cannot yet quantify. We cannot tell if we would have avoided other attacks without them, and yet at the same time were they really worth it, when a state of national emergency could have instead been declared?

Such a state of emergency that would grant the President such powers would be worse than the PATRIOT act. People in congress have realized what a major screw-up the act was, and will let it just go away. But let me tell you how much my life changed because of those restrictions... lets see, my college ended up making a policy that all students had to go through a particular door to get into the main building and that we had to go through a certain protocol when we took out equipment from the Cage, both of which were revoked about a month later and no one took them seriously when they were in effect anyway. Plus, I think I spent about 30 bucks buying dinner for a sobbing young woman in my typography class because she was doing a remarkable impression of Chicken Little and needed a gentleman like myself to calm her down. Like you said, we aren't significantly less free than we were before and those restrictions are going to be going away.
On the other hand, declaring Bush a Dictator would have significantly effected society and would have made us significantly less free. At the very least, it would guarantee a Democratic victory in 2004, since Americans would not take well to having the President nullify their rights completely.

He was never elected Tribune. *crooked grin* He was, however, elected Aedile in 65 B.C.

He was a Tribune of the People. He just, um, requested it. But the point stands, having a dictator is a dangerous thing, especially if they've got any sort of ambition.

I think we are misunderstanding each other. Of course I seriously work at it, Gil. But I do it for a purpose--I am analyzing those events and comparing them to the present, because I believe that, human nature being constant, important lessons can be learned from such comparisons. I object simply to the contention that I'm only do it to add some aura of intelligence.

There are only two reasons anyone acts as pedantic as you do; they are trying to look smart or they've got a massive rod up their ass. You have all the ear marks of the former.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-31 07:37am

Gil Hamilton wrote: I'm refering to martial law, not a national state of emergency. You were refering to martial law and the President becoming a dictator for a while, but now you are changing horses mid-stream.

No I'm not; the two are the same thing. Do you think anyone in government would actually call martial law, martial law, when you could invent another term for it that means the same thing?

On the other hand, declaring Bush a Dictator would have significantly effected society and would have made us significantly less free. At the very least, it would guarantee a Democratic victory in 2004, since Americans would not take well to having the President nullify their rights completely.

The bulk of the provisions activated would be the same as those available to FDR in WWII, Gil, and I don't seem to recall him losing his elections in mid-war, nor do I seem to recall American society getting less free after WWII. Oh, sure, we had a commie scare in the 40s and 50s, but then we had something called the Civil Rights Movement right after that, too... Nope, no dictatorship.

He was a Tribune of the People. He just, um, requested it.

Oh, you mean when he had enough power to start collecting titles like a tin-pot dictator collects medals. Well, yes, he did have the position then. *grins* See, I can make mistakes about history.

There are only two reasons anyone acts as pedantic as you do; they are trying to look smart or they've got a massive rod up their ass. You have all the ear marks of the former.

I'm not acting pedantic. I'm just operating on a certain conclusion about human behaviour which allows me to use this wondrous thing called the historical record to analyze current events.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-31 11:06am

Comparing GW Bush to FD Roosevelt is a laughable comparison. Roosevelt held the presidency during the most important war the world has ever fought. GW Bush is fighting a self-proclaimed war against a verb, the war mostly consisting of wide-scale intelligence gathering at home and abroad combined with short-term military conflicts using up about double the amount of forces we actually needed to do the job.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-31 11:08am

Fighting terrorism is important, but it's not a war in the traditional sense (neither is the War on Drugs, a HORRIBLY misguided set of policies that requires us to make war against American citizens).

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-31 11:13am

Iceberg wrote:Comparing GW Bush to FD Roosevelt is a laughable comparison. Roosevelt held the presidency during the most important war the world has ever fought. GW Bush is fighting a self-proclaimed war against a verb, the war mostly consisting of wide-scale intelligence gathering at home and abroad combined with short-term military conflicts using up about double the amount of forces we actually needed to do the job.

Which commissurately reduces the casualties and the amount of time needed to wage the conflict, even if it does require us to rest before the next exertion. Like I said, we're waging war in pulses. Also, note that the "War on Terrorism" is simply a politically correct designation for the real war we're fighting--the war on Salafi Islam.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-07-31 11:14am

*looks to Gil*
*looks to Duchess*

You both have interesting views, and very lengthly arguments for your personal POV's. But what does this massive discussion of views have to do with who we Democrats will have to chose from in the 2004 Primaries?

I'm one of those people who makes her choice last minute, after viewing debates and enduring countless TV ads. In many elections my vote has been more *against* a certain polictian than *for* his rival, based on who would be the lessor of evils when neither truly fit with my political beliefs.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-31 11:15am

Iceberg wrote:Fighting terrorism is important, but it's not a war in the traditional sense (neither is the War on Drugs, a HORRIBLY misguided set of policies that requires us to make war against American citizens).

This is completely a traditional war. It consists of an enemy which, outgunned by a severe margin, resorts to irregular tactics, which enemies outgunned by severe margins have always done. We have responded by attacking their centres of economic power, which has been the standard response of the opponent bearing the preponderence of conventional tactical force. The "war" on Drugs bears no similiarities whatsoever to this conflict.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-31 11:18am

LadyTevar wrote:*looks to Gil*
*looks to Duchess*

You both have interesting views, and very lengthly arguments for your personal POV's. But what does this massive discussion of views have to do with who we Democrats will have to chose from in the 2004 Primaries?

My advice is that you choose someone who can work the centre and will continue to fight this conflict which is absolutely necessary for our security; you can at least have a chance of getting some of what you want, then. Otherwise you have a certainty of getting none.

I'm one of those people who makes her choice last minute, after viewing debates and enduring countless TV ads. In many elections my vote has been more *against* a certain polictian than *for* his rival, based on who would be the lessor of evils when neither truly fit with my political beliefs.

I understand voting against, rather than voting for. I, in general, have a few defined issues--they are very limited, very extreme one might say, but if they are crossed I cannot vote for a candidate (for instance, if Bush signs an extension on the AWB, I vote Libertarian. End of subject. This annoyed many friends on one conservative board I visit sometimes... *chuckles*). Otherwise one might say my evaluation is whimsy. I've actually voted for democrats before, and after I left college, too.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-07-31 11:42am

First of all, about the whole Democratic candidate thing: Hopefully, by the 2004 elections, Bush will have pissed so many people off that they would rather have anyone else than him, so it won't matter who the Democrats pick.

Marina: I don't really have a problem with your obscure references-hell, I'd make obscure references if I could, too-but your arguments are always so damn long! I'll bet you a nickel you develop carpal tunnel syndrome within the next few years.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-07-31 11:53am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
My advice is that you choose someone who can work the centre and will continue to fight this conflict which is absolutely necessary for our security; you can at least have a chance of getting some of what you want, then. Otherwise you have a certainty of getting none.

(snip)

I understand voting against, rather than voting for. I, in general, have a few defined issues--they are very limited, very extreme one might say, but if they are crossed I cannot vote for a candidate (for instance, if Bush signs an extension on the AWB, I vote Libertarian. End of subject. This annoyed many friends on one conservative board I visit sometimes... *chuckles*). Otherwise one might say my evaluation is whimsy. I've actually voted for democrats before, and after I left college, too.

The problem is that there are many that claim to be 'in the center' and very few who stay there after election.

And what is 'Security' anymore? Protecting computer passwords? Not allowing anyone but immediate family to acquire birth certificates, and then only if they have ID? Not holding a door open for a lady, unless she flashes her Work ID to prove she belongs in the building?

Still, I too have voted for Republicans and for the Mountain Party (local 'green' candidates), becuase they were very clear on the issues they supported, and those issues were the ones I care about.
What many politicians haven't realized is that the usual catch-phrases of Gun Control, Abortion Rights, and Taxes are non-issues to the intelligent voter. Decades of hearing these issues stumped about the country have shown us that they are empty air promises, spoken only for the knee-jerk reactions from voters. "Don't vote for him! He believes in Killing Babies!"
This kind of political BS has to stop, but it won't as long as voters have that knee-jerk reaction.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-07-31 12:04pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:It's just that I want that balanced out by an appointed Senate which can check that power with a more stable and considerate one, interested in the rights of States first, and the dispersal of interests.

Wait ... so people can't vote for the Senate? :(

The world is not better off for American powermongering in the last three years, nor is America.

Yes, it is. We are taking up the mantle of Empire, and with it we are restoring peace and order to the world. This current period is simply a matter of lancing the boils that were allowed to fester in the past decade, and clean up a few of the ground remnants of the prior bipolar order.

The world political situation is visibly less stable than it was three years ago,

No, it is not. The American Hegemony is exerting strength in such a way that threats to global commerce are being reduced and a central Imperial power is restoring an ordered world for general international trade. This is vital to a peaceful world. All of the situations we are dealing with existed in the 90s; they were simply ignored and allowed to gain strength.

Vietnam was a victory that was lost politically and shares nothing with the War on Drugs, and the only way we can lose this war is if people like you lose it for us as well.

What?

He has simply acknowledged the realities of the world situation.

Which are?

I'm saying that if martial law had been declared, they could have done the same things that the Patriot Act had done, and then stopped doing them when the emergency situation was clearly over, instead of putting them into the law code!

And when would the "emergency situation" be over, pray tell?

There are only two reasons anyone acts as pedantic as you do; they are trying to look smart or they've got a massive rod up their ass.

The latter can be a good thing sometimes, I dare say.

Comparing GW Bush to FD Roosevelt is a laughable comparison.

Not as much so as you might think. Roosevelt was regularly blasted for being a fascist and possibly as bad as Hitler, and Pearl Harbor had all the trappings of a Sept.11 conspiracy. Some of the political cartoons Ted Geisel (yes, Dr. Seuss before he became famous) during the war have direct comparisions to modern times. Read Dr. Seuss Goes to War, it's a pretty interesting thing.

You both have interesting views, and very lengthly arguments for your personal POV's. But what does this massive discussion of views have to do with who we Democrats will have to chose from in the 2004 Primaries?

They don't, because political parties suck and should be abolished.

This is completely a traditional war. It consists of an enemy which, outgunned by a severe margin, resorts to irregular tactics, which enemies outgunned by severe margins have always done. We have responded by attacking their centres of economic power, which has been the standard response of the opponent bearing the preponderence of conventional tactical force.

If you're talking about taking out bin Laden's financial backing, I'm not sure we've done that yet. Aren't wealthy businessmen still backing his cause like they've been doing for ages? And if they aren't, could I see something definitive on this?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-31 01:17pm

Note ON Martial Law.

Frankly Marina I feel that declaring martial Law is unacceptable in any circumstances. the potential for abuse is to great.

There may not be any recent precedent for keeping said power after war time, but what of continual wars?

Think about it, Bush has bn in conflict one way or another his entire term, first it is post 9/11 then Iraq, and now it will probably spread to various other countries. Had Shrubby declared martial law on September 12 it would ave been easy for him to extend his power, through a series of wars.

War n Afganistan over... move to iraq, when thats done... Lets invade Syria... ect..

During that time, the American people would be under the yolk of a dictatorship. And this is unacceptable.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-07-31 02:25pm

Our enemies, now. The EU is going to be our long-term enemy, Mark, and one must recognize this to seriously plan for the future. They are the only serious economic competitor we have, and the economic titans are the economic rivals for hegemony. The idea of cooperative trade is a farce; we are too far apart on many issues, not just in policy but even culturally now, and even countries which shared such points of contact, and had reasons for peace, have fought--witness the Anglo-Dutch Naval Wars. Rivalry is inevitable there, and we need to recognize it and prepare for it. My only sadness is that it is probably too late to do anything to try and foil the annexations of the eastern european countries in '04 into the EU, but perhaps we can save Bulgaria and Rumania. Certainly, now, Russia is a better ally than any of the EU countries--because we share a common potential foe. Russia needs to be cultivated, and the old NATO countries (except for ones like Norway and Iceland not in the EU yet) forgotten.

I hope you're not implying that we should declare war on the EU. Besides, if I remember my history, the Anglo-Dutch wars were primarily fought over trade issues, religious disputes, and military rivalries - three things which the US has, historically, never been fond of going to war over, at least not on the scale you seem to indicate.

Furthermore, it might be worthwhile to ask why countries want to join the EU - there's a very big carrot in the form of economic incentive to the stick of being left out to dry while the rest of Europe passes by. What does the US have to counter that with? "Do what we want or we'll hurt you"?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-31 09:07pm

Bob McDob wrote: I hope you're not implying that we should declare war on the EU. Besides, if I remember my history, the Anglo-Dutch wars were primarily fought over trade issues, religious disputes, and military rivalries - three things which the US has, historically, never been fond of going to war over, at least not on the scale you seem to indicate.

There were no religious disputes--both countries during the time of the First Anglo-Dutch Naval War were, in fact, under the control of Protestant Republics. The primary issues were in fact trade, but the war also destroyed a great deal of trade--and, indeed, that's exactly what I'm arguing. Wars can and will be fought over economic issues, between trading partners, despite the economic damage that will entail.

Furthermore, it might be worthwhile to ask why countries want to join the EU - there's a very big carrot in the form of economic incentive to the stick of being left out to dry while the rest of Europe passes by. What does the US have to counter that with? "Do what we want or we'll hurt you"?

We can offer economic incentives without the destruction of national sovereignty that joining the EU entails, and we must begin to do so. We should start by extending NAFTA to Norway and Iceland, and we should then try to organize a NAFTA-like trade bloc in Eastern Europe which is interlinked with NAFTA and supported by U.S. dollars.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-31 09:09pm

And, no, I definitely don't think we should go to war with the EU. However, I think that our interests will diverge enough in the future that a rivalry will exist of the military sort--not necessarily one that will ever lead to war, but could. We must start preparing for this.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-07-31 09:36pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: No I'm not; the two are the same thing. Do you think anyone in government would actually call martial law, martial law, when you could invent another term for it that means the same thing?

The two aren't the same thing. Martial law in America would involve the president getting supreme executive power and the military directly policing the country. Because that is what martial law is (you know what the world "martial" means don't you).

The bulk of the provisions activated would be the same as those available to FDR in WWII, Gil, and I don't seem to recall him losing his elections in mid-war, nor do I seem to recall American society getting less free after WWII. Oh, sure, we had a commie scare in the 40s and 50s, but then we had something called the Civil Rights Movement right after that, too... Nope, no dictatorship.

FDR was won two elections before he got involved in WWII and the war was a popular one. He still didn't declare martial law.

Oh, you mean when he had enough power to start collecting titles like a tin-pot dictator collects medals. Well, yes, he did have the position then. *grins* See, I can make mistakes about history.

Julius Caesar wasn't even the worst offender in that regard. His nephew was much bigger on collecting (and making up) titles for himself.

I'm not acting pedantic. I'm just operating on a certain conclusion about human behaviour which allows me to use this wondrous thing called the historical record to analyze current events.

Marina, I understand the newest edition of Merram-Webster Dictionary will feature your picture next to the word "pedantic".

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-31 09:57pm

GW Bush is fighting a self-proclaimed war against a verb,

"Terror" is not a verb, Professor Chomsky.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-31 11:00pm

Durran Korr wrote:
GW Bush is fighting a self-proclaimed war against a verb,
"Terror" is not a verb, Professor Chomsky.

SMACKDOWN!!

...Sorry. But I did want to keep an edge of humour to this; we are, after all, all friends (and Mark, you deserved that for the grammatical error! *snerk*).

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-07-31 11:07pm

Wouldn't that be

EL SMACKDOWN!

since it has Masked Mexican Wrestlers?

And since when did you hire cheap labour from south of the border?

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-08-01 03:38am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:And, no, I definitely don't think we should go to war with the EU. However, I think that our interests will diverge enough in the future that a rivalry will exist of the military sort--not necessarily one that will ever lead to war, but could. We must start preparing for this.

Hehe, that would have to mean that the EU had some sort of actual government first.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-08-01 05:11am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:We can offer economic incentives without the destruction of national sovereignty that joining the EU entails, and we must begin to do so. We should start by extending NAFTA to Norway and Iceland, and we should then try to organize a NAFTA-like trade bloc in Eastern Europe which is interlinked with NAFTA and supported by U.S. dollars.

Are you seriously suggesting that they wouldn't need to make concessions to the US, which would be calling the shots in this sort of a trade block? They'd lose out just as much at the very least, but probably more. Besides, it's far too late now to even start dreaming of that E(xtended)NAFTA. The EU is expanding, and a lot of the former East Bloc is already in or involved in negotiations for membership. Russia would not look favorably on more American influence close to it, and neither would the EU. What you suggest is driving full tilt into a huge political landmine, and the fallout wouldn't be pleasant at all.

Edi

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-08-01 05:41am

Edi wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that they wouldn't need to make concessions to the US, which would be calling the shots in this sort of a trade block? They'd lose out just as much at the very least, but probably more. Besides, it's far too late now to even start dreaming of that E(xtended)NAFTA. The EU is expanding, and a lot of the former East Bloc is already in or involved in negotiations for membership. Russia would not look favorably on more American influence close to it, and neither would the EU. What you suggest is driving full tilt into a huge political landmine, and the fallout wouldn't be pleasant at all.

Edi

I suspect that once you formalize your constitution, new countries will be much, much more hesitant to join the EU. Which means the '04 annexations will take place, but countries like Norway, Rumania, Bulgaria and Turkey are less likely--and we can make Iceland and Norway far less likely, due to their geographical position, by offering them NAFTA membership, and assuring the fisheries, which I think could reasonably be done.

Then it's the question of the Balkans: The former Yugoslavia except for Slovenia, Albania, and Rumania and Bulgaria, and Turkey. A very astute friend of mine said that "The EU will stop at the Sava", and giving a little room for poetic license, I think he's right. Yes, Poland et al, are all now on an inevitable course--but once you have to adjust to the reality of swallowing them, rather than the predictions, and combine that with implementing your constitution? EU membership for other countries will appear far less appealing--and staying out can be made to look far more appealing.

Not to mention that I suspect Russia will hardly be pleased once the EU starts to take on the aspects of a real, very large, and very powerful country to their west. There is little enough motivation for Russia to lean towards the EU, and more for former Russian republics--like Belarus, in particular--to return to the fold. The establishment of good economic partnerships with Russia is certainly a must for the USA in the future, as we must help them be able to stand on their own feet economically and plot a course seperate from, in particular, the EU; and also we should be quite willing to support the reunification of various sections of the f-USSR.

Yes, EU expansion is definitely going to happen into eastern Europe. That is unstoppable now, I have realized and conceded that. But do you really think it will be as easy as they say? Granted, they are not making it appear easy, but when you think about what they're talking about, it is truly tremendous. Combined with the creation of a real EU constitution--which in many ways is far, far more restrictive than the US constitution, demanding a much more centralized government that can only lead to a genuine State in a short order--Brussels shall have a great deal to digest, indeed.

Joining the EU will look far less appealing when the difficulties of absorbing the east are revealed, and become apparent in the European economy, and when the extent of the loss of sovereignty from the constitution is likewise revealed. That is all; and it is simply my contention that the USA should help that realization for the border states along with economic incentives to not join. The EU shall indeed stop at the Sava.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-08-01 07:35am

There were no religious disputes--both countries during the time of the First Anglo-Dutch Naval War were, in fact, under the control of Protestant Republics. The primary issues were in fact trade, but the war also destroyed a great deal of trade--and, indeed, that's exactly what I'm arguing. Wars can and will be fought over economic issues, between trading partners, despite the economic damage that will entail.

Well, I was thinking mostly along the lines of how Britain was under the control of the Puritans at the time, while historically the Dutch have been fairly liberal. Not that that had anything to do with anything, but differences did exist.

And, no, I definitely don't think we should go to war with the EU. However, I think that our interests will diverge enough in the future that a rivalry will exist of the military sort--not necessarily one that will ever lead to war, but could. We must start preparing for this.

It's a military's job to be ready for war, no matter who the enemy is. It should also be the government's job to take every step possible to avoid such a thing.

On another topic, I really don't see what's so bad about the EU. Aside from the obvious economic rivalries you've pointed out, they don't seem like the demon you're making them out to be - I should think their unification should stand as an example to the petty, squabbling nations of the Third World. And I see the blame game between Europe and America as being disturbingly childish, and not in a good way.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-08-01 10:07am

I also feel obligated to point out the obvious dangers of hegemon, in the Delian League and the Athenian impulse to spread their government. For christ's sake, Sparta allied with PERSIA against them!