There are several primary things I'd like to see from the Democratic party and the new administration:

• Completely publicly repudiate the use of the military and CIA to accomplish economic or political or law enforcement goals. Pull all military out of the Middle East and Asia and all military/DEA out of South and Central America. They should sever all ties with mercenary organizations and completely shake out any influence that military contractors have over military policy. End military aid to Israel, Colombia, etc. The military should be for defending America and its allies against aggression, not making the world safe for plutocracy.

• end any other kind of corporate welfare, including bailouts, subsidies, tariffs, mandates on the use of corporate products, R&D giveaways, copyright and patent extensions, cheap timber sales, etc.

• affirm a commitment to supporting individuals' free choices by ending the drug war and removing regulatory barriers on education, marriage and other issues.

They should finally ratify the ERA, too. These are all progressive goals and would be sharp breaks from recent Democratic Party policy. Any one of them might actually get me to join the party. Is this too radical?

Liberal became a dirty when the public realized it defined politicians who put government programs in place not as a way to solve a societal problem but as a way to create a constituency dependent on their party for entitlements.

LBJ’s Great Society programs of the 60’s were a perfect example of this. As years went by the excuse became “we need more money” to make the program work, a con job the public finally caught on to by the 80’s. Had many of those programs been crafted to improve people’s lives and then allowed to expire you wouldn’t have had the backlash against liberalism that exists even among “progressives” today.

To his credit Bill Clinton recognized this and worked with Congress to reform welfare at the risk of alienating many within his party. If he’d of stayed on track he could have been one of the countries great reformers.

Fundamentally Flawed Premise

We should all welcome Jeff's suggestion that Democrats continue to engage in a robust discussion about our future direction as a Party.

But I cannot agree with Jeff's premise that this discussion has been lacking over the past year. In light of who the Democrats nominated to be their standard bearer, and given who the country just elected to be the next President, the following statement from Jeff is puzzling:

Democrats, inheritors of the reins of power, don't seem to be having any serious discussion about whether to change direction--and we seem dangerously close to charging forward under the same assumptions that ruined the GOP.

To the contrary, on both foreign and domestic policy, President-elect Obama broke sharply from the assumptions of the current Republican administration.

He opposed the Iraq invasion; he has consistently pushed for a timetable for withdrawal; he has emphasized robust diplomacy, including talking to our enemies; he has called the economic crisis a "final verdict" on the Republicans "failed philosophy" of "tickle-down" economics; and he has sharply criticized the deregulatory practices of the modern Republican era.

Again, I'm glad Jeff has opened up the floor for a discussion of big-picture issues, and I certainly agree with his initial assertion that:

The GOP was given the opportunity to run several experiments--tactical invasions, deregulation, trickle-down economics, etc.--only to see all fail spectacularly.

Indeed, I spent much of the past four months compiling and publishing a book dedicated to exposing the failures in the latter two areas mentioned by Jeff.

So I'm 100% with him on his assessment of economic policy over the past eight years, and I suspect we're of a similar mind with respect to how the massive Republican failure in that area presents Democrats with an opportunity to pursue fundamental change in the model of the New Deal, not just incremental change in the model of the 1990s.

But I cannot agree with Jeff's assertion that we are "dangerously close" to continuing the assumptions of the GOP.

Let's be clear: We didn't nominate and elect Joe Lieberman to be president.

We nominated and elected Barack Obama, and he's been crystal clear about changing direction.

Also -- the idea that the GOP has promoted genuine deregulation is ridiculous. They hate the idea of a free market as much as anyone.

Regulating the media is a liberal idea? Center-left, maybe, but liberal? No.

One thing that would certainly promote media competition would be to repeal the requirement for a federal license to broadcast radio waves, and stop censoring content -- in short, abolish the FCC. That would be liberal.

Here are some quick, impactful decisions I hope to see from the start of the new Presidency:

• Clearly and unambiguously repudiate and order an immediate cease and desist order against waterboarding and any other "techniques" covered in the entire Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and in the European Convention on Human Rights.

• Immediately cease and desist the practice of "extraordinary rendition"

• Immediately cease and desist the practice of warrantless wiretapping

These seem like actions that could be taken with little delay and immediate effect.

Longer-term items:

• Begin the process of closing Guantanamo Bay

• End/Repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006

-tl

Jeff,

In your original post, you wrote:

The GOP was given the opportunity to run several experiments--tactical invasions, deregulation, trickle-down economics, etc.--only to see all fail spectacularly. But the Democrats, inheritors of the reins of power, don't seem to be having any serious discussion about whether to change direction--and we seem dangerously close to charging forward under the same assumptions that ruined the GOP.

In my response, I agreed that you had identified three core philosophical issues, but pointed out that the Democratic nominee sharply broke with Republican assumptions on all three.

In your follow-up comment, you decline to address Obama's positions against the Iraq invasion, against deregulation and against trickle-down economics. Instead, you offer the bald assertion that Obama "ran as a DLC moderate."

Really?

Imagine a "DLC moderate" winning the Democratic nomination by relentlessly insisting that the Iraq war "never should have been authorized and never should have been waged."

Imagine a "DLC moderate" standing before the nation and ripping into "that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else."

Imagine a "DLC moderate" blasting deregulation in 2007 (before such criticism became fashionable) and arguing that "Washington needs to stop acting like an industry advocate and start acting like a public advocate."

Imagine a "DLC moderate" giving a high-profile speech to SEIU's 2008 convention pledging to "make the Employee Free Choice Act the law of the land."

If that's what it means to be a "DLC moderate," sign me up!

Look. It's one thing to argue, as you do in your follow-up comment, that Democrats should be more aggressive in considering specific policy proposals that you deem to be sufficiently liberal.

It's quite another to assert, as you did in your original post, that Democrats are adopting the same core assumptions as the GOP when the very assumptions you name have been explicitly, loudly, and repeatedly rejected by the top Democrat in the nation.

As for some of the specific failings you mention in your follow-up comment:

1. "Beefing Up" in Afghanistan.

Obama's position on Afghanistan is in the best tradition of a smart and strong Democratic approach to foreign policy. When possible, use tough diplomacy. When necessary, use force. Diplomacy wasn't an option with Hitler, and the greatest Democratic president of the last century led us in a massive military buildup for World War II. Diplomacy isn't an option with Al Qaeda, and President-elect Obama's approach to Afghanistan is exactly what one would expect from an FDR Democrat.

1. "More to the point, what's the philosophical orientation here? ... Where's the discussion of fairness."

I seem to recall Obama mentioning something about spreading the wealth. I seem to recall that comment getting a little attention during the most high-profile stage of the campaign. I seem to recall Obama going on national television and refusing to disavow his statement. And I seem to recall the Tax Policy Institute reaching the following conclusion:

The two candidates' tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise significantly.

But, no, other than all that, the issue of tax fairness really didn't come up this campaign.

1. "And what about labor? It was the forgotten man in this election."

Not to President-elect Obama. From the aforementioned speech to SEIU:

This is the most anti-labor administration in our memory. They don't believe in unions. They don't believe in organizing. They've packed the labor relations board with their corporate buddies. Well, we've got news for them - it's not the Department of Management, it's the Department of Labor, and we're going to take it back.... Our working men and women should be treated with the dignity and respect you deserve. That's what SEIU has always fought for. That's what the Democratic Party has always fought for. And that's what I've been fighting for throughout my career.

1. "[H]is health care proposal wasn't so hot. A liberal policy would recognize that the current system is fatally flawed: sick people are bad for business. So where's the liberal principle guiding that discussion?"

Here's the recognition:

We have reached a point in this country where the rising cost of health care has put too many families and businesses on a collision course with financial ruin and left too many without coverage at all; a course that Democrats and Republicans, small business owners and CEOs have all come to agree is not sustainable or acceptable any longer.

And here's the guiding principle:

I also believe that every American has the right to affordable health care.

As you may recall, Obama famously reaffirmed that principle during the debates, providing one of the starkest contrasts with his Republican opponent.

Bottom Line:

There's nothing wrong with advocating that Democratic leaders take a more aggressive approach. The progressive base did that under FDR, and I expect it to do likewise under Obama. But I don't think it helps the cause to engage in unfounded generalizations about the Obama-led Democratic Party being "dangerously close" to adopting failed Republican assumptions.

Liberal became a dirty when the public realized it defined politicians who put government programs in place not as a way to solve a societal problem but as a way to create a constituency dependent on their party for entitlements...To his credit Bill Clinton recognized this and worked with Congress to reform welfare at the risk of alienating many within his party.

Must. Find. Barf bag.

Sorry, I hold Bill Clinton up as a key culprit in turning the Democrats into GOP Lite, especially after the 1994 electoral debacle, when he tried to co-opt the GOP agenda. I didn't vote for him for re-election in 1996, and when Hillary Clinton spent the winter and spring campaigning for Bill Clinton's 3rd term, I was, shall we say, unenthused.

Liberal became a dirty when the public realized it defined politicians who put government programs in place not as a way to solve a societal problem but as a way to create a constituency dependent on their party for entitlements...To his credit Bill Clinton recognized this and worked with Congress to reform welfare at the risk of alienating many within his party.

Must. Find. Barf bag.

Sorry, I hold Bill Clinton up as a key culprit in turning the Democrats into GOP Lite, especially after the 1994 electoral debacle, when he tried to co-opt the GOP agenda. I didn't vote for him for re-election in 1996, and when Hillary Clinton spent the winter and spring campaigning for Bill Clinton's 3rd term, I was, shall we say, unenthused.

I don't think much of the EFCA, but the new Democratic majority should certainly repeal the Taft-Hartley Act.

Liberals have only used entitlements to create voters because of their minority status. It's a fundamental flaw in the non-parliamentary system. But it's a flaw that the far right may save us from and allow liberals to concentrate on goals without having to water down principles to achieve electoral victory.

Karl Rove wanted a permanent majority with the GOP and he got a permanent core block, the evangelical right. They're already touting Romney, Huckaby and Palin as the only frontrunners for the next election. They'll let moderates move to the center for a while before the bloodbath to see who's who. In the end it will be the "Party of God".

Since moderate Republicans won't just become Dems or Libertarians, they'll start "America's Party" or some such nonsense. Take home lesson would be that both right and left will have the vote split. No more "the Libertarian always costs the Dem the election" probs, since the new GOP will have the "Party of God" at their heels. The far right are like spoiled little kids. They won't go home empty handed. My best hope for true parliamentary government in the US lies with their whining.

"Barack Obama says that he plans to boost forces in Afghanistan in what appears to be a continuation of the current philosophy. "

Out of Iraq and into Afghanistan? Is that what the big Obama revolution is about? What about Hope and change - I guess that was call campaign BS..

Jeff: Yes, I agree, that's liberal. I thought you were talking about the Equal Time thing.

I don't fully agree with everything in it, but the Democrats would also do well to implement the ACLU's transition plan.

And in addition to the ERA, how about a constitutional amendment recognizing a personal right to privacy?

You guys took over Congress in 2006. You promised to get us out of Iraq and reduce gas prices.

Guess what? We are still in Iraq, and gas prices hit their highest peak six months ago. The only reason they are down is because of a global economic slowdown. And it was democrats, overwhelmingly, that voted to give Wall Street untold billions of dollars to save their asses. Republicans opposed it.

You have two years to deliver something. If you don't, it will be 1994 all over again.

anon: Well, not to mention impeachment. Didn't happen. California has become even more disappointing to me lately, but I don't know which contributed more: Prop. 8 or the failure of San Francisco to kick Nancy Pelosi out of Congress.

In the long term, delivering an alternative to gas will be the only meaningful way to reduce transportation prices -- make no mistake, Congress can't put more crude oil in the ground. Thankfully, graduate students have more control over this than does Congress. But maybe they'll deliver some money for basic research. (Congress, I mean, not the grad students.)

On labor. You mention his quote supporting labor without mentioning the policies that would increase union membership. Or did I miss those policies?

The Employee Free Choice Act doesn't count? Because I was under the impression that it was the number one priority of labor, and the number one target of the Club for Growth, the Chamber of Commerce and the RNC.

The comparisons between a medieval theocracy of petit warlords and the German war machine could not be further apart.

Well, the German war machine never managed to kill 3,000 Americans on American soil, but I'm not sure that distinction helps your argument that we should avoid a "muscular" approach to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

His economics team is hardly a pack of Marxists.... [S]o far, he hasn't done anything that anyone has regarded as a radical departure.... [His conservative admirers are] not Chomskyites, either.

Agreed. Not Marxists. Not radicals. Not Chomskyites. If that's your standard, you're bound to be disappointed. My standard is FDR and the New Deal.

A strongly liberal approach would be to radically alter the tax structure, hitting the wealthy with a 40-45% upper marginal rate

I'm confused. Republican Dwight Eisenhower held firm at 91%. How is it "strongly liberal" to make it 40%, as you propose, but somehow not "strongly liberal" to make it 39%, as Obama proposes? It seems to me you're admitting something important about pragmatic politics and the relevant baseline by proposing a range of 40-45%, but then holding Obama's proposal to to a much different standard than you hold your own proposal.

[I]f bloggers can't have a nice, family discussion without being shouted down as being "unhelpful," remind me why exactly we wanted to win the election in the first place.

Nobody's shouting down anyone. You and I have gone back and forth, point by point, in several long posts for all here to read.

If there's a place in the family discussion for you to flatly accuse Democrats of not having "any serious discussion about whether to change direction" -- essentially, a claim that Obama wasn't really serious about his central essage for the past two years -- there's certainly a place for others to disagree strongly.

I cracked up at the following comment, which was published in the Sunday NY Times Week in Review:

How bad must the G.O.P. feel right about now? It portrayed Obama as a socialist, a communist, a Muslin, and a friend of terrorists, and the majority of American voters said, “Y’know, we’re O.K. with that, as long as he’s not a Republican.” – Jerry Smith

I'm thinking what was considered radical a year or so ago may be getting close to mainstream these days, with just about everything going into the dumpster.

Did anybody notice that Harvard study released in February that showed that more Americans had a positive view of the term "socialized medicine" than had a negative view? Here's an article on it: http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/socialized_medicine_rip.php

Another study found that a majority of doctors favored a single-payer system. So I would agree with Jeff that single-payer should be on the table.

Jeff,

Volcker was not a "Reaganite." He was a Democrat appointed by Jimmy Carter. Reagan kept him on to do the difficult work during the early 1980s recession, but then jettisoned him for Greenspan.

Here's how the New York Times described the differences:

The main philosophical difference between Mr. Volcker, a Democrat, and Mr. Greenspan, a Republican, appears to be in their views of the structure and regulation of the banking system. Mr. Volcker has tended to resist deregulation of banks while Mr. Greenspan is more favorably disposed to it.

Oh. So Volcker got it right on the fundamental issue that led to the current financial meltdown, while Greenspan got it wrong.

I can't imagine why Obama might want to have Volcker around.

Cute reference to "bon mots." I'm sure labor thinks the Employee Free Choice Act is just "word games."

Jim, you seem insistent on defending Obama from non-attacks and making this a party-first debate, so I'll just leave it there.

Except, you didn't. You launched yet another one of your "non-attacks," this time on Obama's decision to consult with Volcker.

I'm not interested in a "party-first" debate. But if you continue to willfully ignore the positions of the party's standard bearer, you shouldn't be surprised when those positions are brought to your attention -- whether on the Employee Free Choice Act, health care as a right, the denunciation of trickle-down economics, a tax policy that is nearly identical to your own professed "strongly liberal" proposal, support for re-regulation of the financial industry and opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I'm curious about: "Diplomacy isn't an option with Al Qaeda, and President-elect Obama's approach to Afghanistan is exactly what one would expect from an FDR Democrat."

Why is diplomacy not an option again? If diplomacy isn't an option, then we really are in the never ending war, yes? Unless you think that we can kill Al Qaeda faster than they can decide that things like flying jets into our buildings is the only thing that will get our attention. And the rate at which we kill them (and the many innocents who get killed along with them as "collateral damage") doesn't cause their rate of recruiting to soar.

We have made more a lot more progress using diplomacy with Libya (source of the Lockerbie bombing, a real nasty terror strike) than we made by bombing them.

We used diplomacy quite successfully during the Cold War, engaging the Soviets in peaceful endeavors in a number of fields. We continue to use diplomacy in our dealings with China, a totalitarian state that rules by terror.

Whatever else you can say about Bin-Ladin and Al Qaeda, I think the words "diplomacy isn't an option" is music to their ears. If I'm in a loosely organized jihadist movement that's trying to keep middle eastern countries mired in the 7th Century, I pray every night for a Crusader mindset to dominate US policymaking -- the kind of mindset that says that there is no compromise or diplomacy with Islam.

Heck, you just have to look at Cuba to see how successful the "diplomacy isn't an option" thing works. If Fidel survives to see Obama inaugurated, that will make 11 US presidents who decided that force and isolation worked better than diplomacy.

How about the basics? War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means. War without diplomacy is brute force. No empire has succeeded, in history, using pure brute force. This administration tried. It didn't work.

At this point those that say we can't talk to Al-Quaeda are saying, then, "Brute force is the only way to deal with Al-Quaeda". That is demonstrably false. We are too corrupt to use brute force (i.e. Tora Bora), we get too much blow-back (i.e. Al-Quaeda in Iran), and we refuse to consider a draft, required if our only response is brute force to every country in the world (i.e. Pentagon assessments of US preparedness/capability to engage in another major conflict).

"I won't talk to you, I'm covering my ears" is just the kind of simple minded, childish, non-starter that you would expect of the religious controlled right. Want to send a message by not talking to someone? Start with your religious right co-workers. And all those progressives that believe in constructive engagement? Learn to say "Al-Quaeda" with three syllables. Deliberate mis-pronunciation is a Bush league tactic.

Ultimately- not to suggest it- but, IF Obama pursues "the same policy in Afghanistan", it still won't be the same policy. Inconceivable that he would condone the CIA putting people in cement pits, spaying them with a flammable fluid, then lighting and quickly extinguishing it periodically (look at the pictures of the "American Al-Quaeda"), or wouldn't come to terms with Pakistan. Bottom line, Osama bin Laden would be taking American money for banal construction projects in the Gulf, had we not insisted on building abortion clinics for the military in Muslim countries in the 1980s. Obama will NEVER be able to match the hypocrisy of an administration that would 1). use the military for minority education; 2) deal with minority births in the military by providing easy abortion, regardless of the mores of the host country, and, then 3) conduct a war to enforce our right to do so, with political support garnered almost entirely from people that want to eliminate Americans' reproductive rights!

And those that think the petroleum execs left this administration no choice will find it hard to believe that Obama is somehow immune, which would mean that his policy will be to continue to secure access to mineral resources. Good news would be that either Obama's conduct of the war will be different, or, as comments have made amply obvious, a large section of the electorate will refuse to ever entertain thoughts that electing a Dem over a Rep will make any difference.

"The Republicans told us repeatedly that Barack Obama was going to deliver unto us a radical brand of socialism. Then he won more votes than any presidential candidate in history, and a bigger margin of victory than any Democrat in 40 years. Ergo, it's clear: America delivered a clear mandate. A mandate for socialism."

Kari, don't forget about the $650Million he had, a heck of alot more dough than anyone else.

Jim, could you make that argument without the "and then they killed over 3,000 Americans bit"? Pretty difficult.

Fact is that their attack was barely more successful than any other attack in recent years. Difference was that Rudy blew the towers to keep Manhattan in business. This is not a conspiracy theory. The fact is that the report said that the floors pancaked. Get the ruler out, look at published info. on the buildings' heights, do some trig. Do the textbook, high school, g acceleration experiment. The tower is in free-fall when it comes down. Pancake and free-fall are incompatible. Then get ANY construction engineer to look at a close up of the corners of the building just before the collapse. They will all point out to you the little puffs from the charges. Listen to the firefighters conversations. Just before the collapse a number talk about hearing a second explosion. One says "I'm pretty sure a bomb just went off". Tower 7 was never hit by plane or debris. It came down just the same. The Barcelona fire was bigger, burned for weeks in a less secure structure. Nothing came down. Face it; Al-Quaeda attacked the towers again, like everybody knew they would, and NYC had a back-up plan to keep commerce flowing, just in case. How about common sense? Was there one, on the scene reporter at the time, that didn't say, "The tower just imploded. It looked exactly like those building demolitions that we show".

Point is, will Obama tell us this?

Oh, and congrats. Oz sucks.

Kari, who the hell would believe anything those Republicans said?

Buckman Res, that's exactly the pablum the right has spouted for 28 years. I mean, for god's sake, you're playing the LBJ card? That was a half century ago.

Just remember their rhetoric come January 21, when the right wing is insisting that the world began the day Obama was sworn in, and that the economy, the war, and everything else is solely the fault of Democrats. Our answer is--never mind Bush, we're still paying the price of the Nixon Administration.

After all, the most important task for politicians in time of crisis is to articulate a reason why everything is the other party's fault.

All that said I think it is important for liberals to realize that not all those who voted for Obama and other dems this time around completely buy into the entire liberal point of view on every point. Few actually do.

There are many folks out there who simply did not think Palin was qualified and/or that McCain was not the best choice for Pres. There are many who were sick and tired of the old GOP way of doing things, and wanted change.......any change.

That does not mean that every vote for a liberal candidate was an overwhelming endorsement for all liberal issues such as abortion rights, gay marriage, labor unions, or a complete buy-in to global warming. If liberals don't want the Dems don't want to fall apart in 4 years as the GOP has, they will need to be more inclusive of those with differing points of view, while still fighting for what they believe in.

Do labels really matter?

"Liberal" FDR put American citzens into concentration camps in WWII based on the color of their skin. W, has his Guantanamo Bay.

W has Iraq. "Liberal" LBJ had his Vietnam.

Locally, we have "Liberal" Goldschmidt the child rapist and Gordon Smith and Mike Erikson the uber-hypocrites on illegal immigrants and abortion.

The future is very simple: Do not become mean-sprited and obnoxious as the Conservatives were (and some still are)in thought and attitude. Do not be condescending to others simply because they either do not have money or do not have the social status that you have. And, please, do not attempt to force feed the common people any philosophical and theoretical garbage simply because you feel and belive you are automatically correct.

It is as simple as that.

I want to urge again for anyone concerned with the future of liberalism and/or the Democratic Party to read "Deer Hunting with Jesus" by Joe Bageant. Very powerful book. Even my SO, who is normally pretty apolitical, is raving about it and pushing it on friends and family.

Uh, where's Kershner when we need a reminder about the way that liberals like to bomb dark-skinned babies abroad?

Kershner: now more than ever.

I mean, for god's sake, you're playing the LBJ card? That was a half century ago.

Oh yea, how silly of anyone to think something that happened before 1980 could possibly have any relevance on today’s events. After all, the ‘60’s are ancient history! Guess we can throw out all discussion of Vietnam, the Civil Rights movement, along with World Wars I & II and how they’ve shaped the world we live in today. Thanks for settin’ me straight!

Seriously thought, if you want to facilitate substantive discourse on a progressive blog I suggest you learn an appreciation of recent history and it's relevance to current events.

You know, "deregulation" isn't the only thing that started during Carter's administration.

Maybe you guys don't like bombing foreign brown people, but your party's perfectly comfortable with it.