The Politics of Evasion

[CADsortaGUY]

I remember reading this when it first surfaced, but was too wet behind the ears regarding politics to understand the real impact of what this document means. I heard it mentioned again in an article I was reading and decided to find it and read it again. All I can say is WOW.

**Warning - very long read**
Democrats and the Presidency

<snip>
Democrats have ignored their fundamental problems. Instead of facing reality they have
embraced the politics of evasion. They have focused on fundraising and technology, media and
momentum, personality and tactics. Worse, they have manufactured excuses for their presidential
disasters -- excuses built on faulty data and false assumptions, excuses designed to avoid tough
questions. In place of reality they have offered wishful thinking; in place of analysis, myth.

This systematic denial of reality -- the politics of evasion -- continues unabated today, years after
the collapse of the liberal majority and the New Deal alignment. Its central purpose is the avoidance
of meaningful change. It reflects the convictions of groups who believed that it is somehow immoral
for a political party to pay attention to public opinion. It reflects the interests of those who would
rather be the majority in a minority party than risk being the minority in a majority party.
</snip>

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Thanks for the warning. There was enough BS in the preview so I'll skip the rest. See no evil and all that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Thanks for the warning. There was enough BS in the preview so I'll skip the rest. See no evil and all that.

What? I thought you were a "Third way" type of guy?



CkG

 

[Crazee]

Wow thanks CkG. This site has some interesting stuff that is far more up to date than the 14 year old paper you cite. Stuff like:

The National Security Case Against George W. Bush

<snip>The immediate cause of Bush's woes is, of course, Iraq, which has turned out to be much tougher to pacify than the administration reckoned. But on other critical fronts as well, the White House seems to be losing control of events. Consider the bill of particulars:

First, the president has been unable to put an effective check on the dangerous nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran.

Second, his Middle East "road map" brought only a momentary respite in the bloodletting between Palestinians and Israelis.

Third, after early successes, even the war on terror seems to be bogged down: Taliban remnants are launching bolder attacks in Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden is urging his followers to go to Iraq to kill Americans.

Fourth, the White House has yet to fashion a long-range strategy for changing the conditions -- harsh repression, blighted economic prospects, endemic corruption -- that breed extremism and make terrorism seem like a rational career choice to some young Muslim men.

There is trouble on the home front, too. Significant gaps remain to be plugged in homeland defense, especially in intelligence, information-sharing among law enforcement agencies, bioterrorism, and port security. Meanwhile, the economic news has been mostly bad on Bush's watch, with more than 3 million lost jobs, ballooning budget deficits, and a serious breakdown in the world trade system.

The mounting costs of rebuilding Iraq have heightened the glaring contradiction at the heart of the Bush fiscal policy: The president says we are at war, but instead of calling for shared sacrifice, he insists on cutting taxes for the rich. This policy is driving America deeper into debt, undermining business and investor confidence, and eroding the economic foundations of U.S. security and global leadership.

Overarching all these problems is a more general worry about the president's leadership style. No one doubts that Bush will confront America's enemies; the question is why that should also require alienating America's friends and potential partners. The Iraq crisis has thrown into sharp relief the president's shortcomings -- an unreflective nature that sees the world in black and white and retreats easily into platitudes; a tendency, when challenged, to assert his good intentions rather than argue the merits of his case; and, above all, a reluctance to engage skeptics in the hard work of persuasion and compromise.
<snip>

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Crazee
Wow thanks CkG. This site has some interesting stuff that is far more up to date than the 14 year old paper you cite. Stuff like:

The National Security Case Against George W. Bush

<snip>The immediate cause of Bush's woes is, of course, Iraq, which has turned out to be much tougher to pacify than the administration reckoned. But on other critical fronts as well, the White House seems to be losing control of events. Consider the bill of particulars:

First, the president has been unable to put an effective check on the dangerous nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran.

Second, his Middle East "road map" brought only a momentary respite in the bloodletting between Palestinians and Israelis.

Third, after early successes, even the war on terror seems to be bogged down: Taliban remnants are launching bolder attacks in Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden is urging his followers to go to Iraq to kill Americans.

Fourth, the White House has yet to fashion a long-range strategy for changing the conditions -- harsh repression, blighted economic prospects, endemic corruption -- that breed extremism and make terrorism seem like a rational career choice to some young Muslim men.

There is trouble on the home front, too. Significant gaps remain to be plugged in homeland defense, especially in intelligence, information-sharing among law enforcement agencies, bioterrorism, and port security. Meanwhile, the economic news has been mostly bad on Bush's watch, with more than 3 million lost jobs, ballooning budget deficits, and a serious breakdown in the world trade system.

The mounting costs of rebuilding Iraq have heightened the glaring contradiction at the heart of the Bush fiscal policy: The president says we are at war, but instead of calling for shared sacrifice, he insists on cutting taxes for the rich. This policy is driving America deeper into debt, undermining business and investor confidence, and eroding the economic foundations of U.S. security and global leadership.

Overarching all these problems is a more general worry about the president's leadership style. No one doubts that Bush will confront America's enemies; the question is why that should also require alienating America's friends and potential partners. The Iraq crisis has thrown into sharp relief the president's shortcomings -- an unreflective nature that sees the world in black and white and retreats easily into platitudes; a tendency, when challenged, to assert his good intentions rather than argue the merits of his case; and, above all, a reluctance to engage skeptics in the hard work of persuasion and compromise.
<snip>

Hehe - Thread title="The Politics of Evasion". Irony or just predicability?

Anyway, ribbing aside - yes - it is a good site and provides alot of good insight into the thinking of the new modern progressive Democrat. The document's age has little to do with anything although some of it's commentary uses specific references to what was happening around the time it was written, but the principles and ideas still hold true today.

CkG

 

[Crazee]

Hehe - Thread title="The Politics of Evasion". Irony or just predicability?

Unlike some people, I can admit when I am posting a diversion Irony or just predictability

Anyway, ribbing aside - yes - it is a good site and provides alot of good insight into the thinking of the new modern progressive Democrat. The document's age has little to do with anything although some of it's commentary uses specific references to what was happening around the time it was written, but the principles and ideas still hold true today.

CkG

Actually it is a good site that is providing some insight in that particular article to the failings of the Bush administration The document's age has a lot to do with everything since many of the principles and ideas have changed (notice I didn't say all )

 

[chess9]

George Washington was too liberal. He freed his slaves. How'd he get elected?

Lincoln was awfully liberal, especially for a Republican.

Did the parchment on that paper fall apart when you scanned it?

But, hey, at least you aren't a trendy kinda' guy.

I did find it an interesting read, as irrelevant as it is.

-Robert

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: chess9
George Washington was too liberal. He freed his slaves. How'd he get elected?

Lincoln was awfully liberal, especially for a Republican.

Did the parchment on that paper fall apart when you scanned it?

But, hey, at least you aren't a trendy kinda' guy.

I did find it an interesting read, as irrelevant as it is.

-Robert

"This paper is an exploration of three pervasive themes in the politics of evasion. The first is the belief that Democrats have failed because they have strayed from the true and pure faith of their ancestors -- we call this the myth of Liberal Fundamentalism. The second is the belief that Democrats need not alter public perceptions of their party but can regain the presidency by getting
current nonparticipants to vote -- we call this the Myth of Mobilization. The third is the belief that
there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Democratic Party: there is no realignment going on,
and the proof is that Democrats still control the majority of offices below the presidency. We call
this the Myth of the Congressional Bastion."

Irrelevant eh? OK - whatever you say, I don't mind - it only helps to further my cause if you choose to dismiss this.

Thanks...and thanks from Rove and Bush too

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Considering how the Bush apologists routinely evade around here, it is no wonder.

Notice the failure to address the title topic and to divert from the substance here

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Considering how the Bush apologists routinely evade around here, it is no wonder.

Notice the failure to address the title topic and to divert from the substance here

Did you read the document?

Did anyone read it and have comments on it?

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

LOL, Bush Apologist this and Dean Apologist that. I'd be embarrassed to defend either POS.

 

[smashp]

The Politics of Evasion should be About how Politicians evade real Problems and Try to Separate The electorate in half using ideologs , Place them against each other, and Rob the Country Blind.

 

[Vadatajs]

They have focused on fundraising and technology, media and
momentum, personality and tactics. Worse, they have manufactured excuses for their presidential
disasters -- excuses built on faulty data and false assumptions, excuses designed to avoid tough
questions. In place of reality they have offered wishful thinking; in place of analysis, myth.

Like bush started fundraising for reelection right after being chosen the first time. What has he done about the media? Stonewalled and censored at nearly every step. Even Fleischer, it seems, couldn't keep up. I remember 16 little words that were blamed on faulty intelligence, then George Tenet. And of course we won't know the truth about 9/11 as long as Bush is in office (28 pages of the final report are blacked out).

Your idol fits that description you offer perfectly. Wait, as for myth, he thinks god chose him to be president. That's not true, the supreme court did.

If you really despise that sort of behavior from the president CAD, you owe it to yourself and your fellow americans to vote him out of office.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

They have focused on fundraising and technology, media and
momentum, personality and tactics. Worse, they have manufactured excuses for their presidential
disasters -- excuses built on faulty data and false assumptions, excuses designed to avoid tough
questions. In place of reality they have offered wishful thinking; in place of analysis, myth.

Like bush started fundraising for reelection right after being chosen the first time. What has he done about the media? Stonewalled and censored at nearly every step. Even Fleischer, it seems, couldn't keep up. I remember 16 little words that were blamed on faulty intelligence, then George Tenet. And of course we won't know the truth about 9/11 as long as Bush is in office (28 pages of the final report are blacked out).

Your idol fits that description you offer perfectly. Wait, as for myth, he thinks god chose him to be president. That's not true, the supreme court did.

If you really despise that sort of behavior from the president CAD, you owe it to yourself and your fellow americans to vote him out of office.

You don't seem to understand what was written, nor do you take time to understand who it was written by and for whom it was written.

Keep evading the tough questions though. It's all quite amusing.

CkG

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I remember reading this when it first surfaced, but was too wet behind the ears regarding politics to understand the real impact of what this document means. I heard it mentioned again in an article I was reading and decided to find it and read it again. All I can say is WOW.

**Warning - very long read**
Democrats and the Presidency

<snip>
Democrats have ignored their fundamental problems. Instead of facing reality they have
embraced the politics of evasion. They have focused on fundraising and technology, media and
momentum, personality and tactics. Worse, they have manufactured excuses for their presidential
disasters -- excuses built on faulty data and false assumptions, excuses designed to avoid tough
questions. In place of reality they have offered wishful thinking; in place of analysis, myth.

This systematic denial of reality -- the politics of evasion -- continues unabated today, years after
the collapse of the liberal majority and the New Deal alignment. Its central purpose is the avoidance
of meaningful change. It reflects the convictions of groups who believed that it is somehow immoral
for a political party to pay attention to public opinion. It reflects the interests of those who would
rather be the majority in a minority party than risk being the minority in a majority party.
</snip>

CkG

Interesting part to me was the conclusion that the Democrats would not be able to win the Presidency because of these problems. Paper written in 1989 only to have Clinton decimate the Republican candidates in the 1992 and 1996 elections. Shows how valid the thesis was/is.

When talking about systematic denial of reality it would seem to me that both Parties have this problem in spades. Look at the Bush Administration constantly changing rationalization for the Iraq invasion. Look at the Democrats voting for the moronic tax cuts and the invasion authorization.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I remember reading this when it first surfaced, but was too wet behind the ears regarding politics to understand the real impact of what this document means. I heard it mentioned again in an article I was reading and decided to find it and read it again. All I can say is WOW.

**Warning - very long read**
Democrats and the Presidency

<snip>
Democrats have ignored their fundamental problems. Instead of facing reality they have
embraced the politics of evasion. They have focused on fundraising and technology, media and
momentum, personality and tactics. Worse, they have manufactured excuses for their presidential
disasters -- excuses built on faulty data and false assumptions, excuses designed to avoid tough
questions. In place of reality they have offered wishful thinking; in place of analysis, myth.

This systematic denial of reality -- the politics of evasion -- continues unabated today, years after
the collapse of the liberal majority and the New Deal alignment. Its central purpose is the avoidance
of meaningful change. It reflects the convictions of groups who believed that it is somehow immoral
for a political party to pay attention to public opinion. It reflects the interests of those who would
rather be the majority in a minority party than risk being the minority in a majority party.
</snip>

CkG

Interesting part to me was the conclusion that the Democrats would not be able to win the Presidency because of these problems. Paper written in 1989 only to have Clinton decimate the Republican candidates in the 1992 and 1996 elections. Shows how valid the thesis was/is.

When talking about systematic denial of reality it would seem to me that both Parties have this problem in spades. Look at the Bush Administration constantly changing rationalization for the Iraq invasion. Look at the Democrats voting for the moronic tax cuts and the invasion authorization.

Do you know who wrote this?
Do you not realize that this is EXACTLY why Clinton was successful?
Do you not realize that THIS is exacltly why the DLC has not taken to liking some of the candidates?

I find it hilarious that people are trying to say this document has no meaning since it was written in 1989. This document was basically an internal assessment by Democrats who tried to honestly critique their party and find out why they failed to win. Clinton was a part of this - he helped start the DLC, he most definately was part of the critiqing of the party, and he most definately reaped the benefits of this assessment.

I think people need to actually read this and try to understand this document instead of constantly "evading". But like I said - keep trying to find ways to dismiss this or turn it on someone else - it only helps "my side"

CkG

 

[Crazee]

Do you know who wrote this?
Do you not realize that this is EXACTLY why Clinton was successful?
Do you not realize that THIS is exacltly why the DLC has not taken to liking some of the candidates?

I find it hilarious that people are trying to say this document has no meaning since it was written in 1989. This document was basically an internal assessment by Democrats who tried to honestly critique their party and find out why they failed to win. Clinton was a part of this - he helped start the DLC, he most definately was part of the critiqing of the party, and he most definately reaped the benefits of this assessment.

I think people need to actually read this and try to understand this document instead of constantly "evading". But like I said - keep trying to find ways to dismiss this or turn it on someone else - it only helps "my side"

CkG

People you shouldn't argue with CkG on this - afterall he is an expert on the politics of evasion and the politics of denial. First he evades then he denies

 

[chess9]

CAD:

We haven't had a tradition of liberal fundamentalism in this country since about 1940. We had a brief mind altering experiment with a few social issues in the '60's, but that is the exception. Americans, being predominantly English by cultural history are hopelessly middle-class. Which means a strong tendency to be conservative.

However, even the English didn't embrace the far right wing as was popular in Europe for about 40 years. Churchill was today's American moderate. He was too smart to be a Karl Rove or Bush. Too practical to be a LaFollette.

The author of that paper is complaining about an issue that is non-existent today because guys like Dean know they have to at least appear to move towards the right after winning the big primaries. No one wins Iowa or New Hampshire as a real liberal. The author paints with a very broad brush, so I found the article sophomoric at best.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Oh, and something else. One wag said that Philosophy was the search for truth. If politics is the art of compromise, then political philosophy (the nature of your article) is the art of compromising the truth. And making it appear as TRUTH. We hear it every day from guys like Matthews, O'Rilesome, Hannibal and Clumsey, etc. ad nauseam.

-Robert

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: chess9
CAD:

We haven't had a tradition of liberal fundamentalism in this country since about 1940. We had a brief mind altering experiment with a few social issues in the '60's, but that is the exception. Americans, being predominantly English by cultural history are hopelessly middle-class. Which means a strong tendency to be conservative.

However, even the English didn't embrace the far right wing as was popular in Europe for about 40 years. Churchill was today's American moderate. He was too smart to be a Karl Rove or Bush. Too practical to be a LaFollette.

The author of that paper is complaining about an issue that is non-existent today because guys like Dean know they have to at least appear to move towards the right after winning the big primaries. No one wins Iowa or New Hampshire as a real liberal. The author paints with a very broad brush, so I found the article sophomoric at best.

-Robert

PS - incase you haven't gotten the hint yet - the DLC wrote "that paper" which you call "sophomoric at best" You know...The democratic Leadership Council. Yes they are the "third way" people who got to moonie.

Oh well, just don't blame me for not trying to help you all. You(democrats) have a chance here to prevent what you so timidly fear...the question is - do you(democrats) have the stones to admit, grow, and learn so you can stop what you fear.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

bump

 

[Bleep]

but the principles and ideas still hold true today.

Yeh right! Live in the past and rely on old info and believe the party line. Republicianism is becomming a religeon to you.

Bleep

 

[chess9]

CAD:

I just saw your post above. Yes, I know, I read the bloody thing. I never said Democrats can't be wrong. But, I can understand why a neo-con praying for Bush to get lucky might find the paper edifying in light of Dean's then lead in the polls. We both can have a good chuckle if Edwards snags the nomination.

-Robert

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: chess9
CAD:

I just saw your post above. Yes, I know, I read the bloody thing. I never said Democrats can't be wrong. But, I can understand why a neo-con praying for Bush to get lucky might find the paper edifying in light of Dean's then lead in the polls. We both can have a good chuckle if Edwards snags the nomination.

-Robert

Ever notice who my two "choices" out of the gaggle of Dems are? Inspite of what most here probably think, I am not as partisan as you'd like to believe. Yes, I have definite stances on many things - and that's what I talk about here for the most part - which is why others butt heads with me.
Also inspite of Bleep's assertion that Republicanism is some sort of religion to me - it's not. Politics is a passion of mine - and I make my own decisions. It's funny though - people love to have all these headline arguments(I love them too) but fail to want to dive any deeper into politics and it's inner workings and theories.

If the Republicans had something like this - I'd be posting it too, it's just that they haven't seen the need(I guess) to take a hard look at themselves and consider why they are winning and why they lost before so they don't go back to their old ways of doing things. I think the DLC was atleast 5-10 late with it's idea and thesis. Clinton ushered a new wave of Democrats in, but it was too late - the ship was underway.

Oh well, I guess there isn't a "third way" for too many people

CkG

Edit - Link to the thread with 'The Politics of Evasion Revisited'