I think it's worth emphasizing loudly and repeatedly that the "political center" of the US in many regards is to the left of the "political center" of DC politicians and pundits.

Ending the Occupation of Iraq, universal health care, aggressively addressing climate change, encouraging development of alternative energy, restraining the gross excesses of corporatism, abortion access, civil rights ... polls seem to consistently show that most people support these things. Yet you wouldn't know it to listen to most politicians and pundits. These ideas are constantly framed as if it's politically risky to strongly support them.

The first politician -- dare I say "leader" -- or group who somehow manages to do an end-run around the punditocracy (and around the timidity of their own supposed allies) will, I think, get huge public support. But of course it's damn near impossible to make oneself heard over the noise of the so-called "common wisdom".

We’re not ready to implement extensive conservation standards, like 40+ per gallon fuel efficiency tomorrow.

why not? Americans overwelmingly have gone out and shopped for Priuses and the republicans, stupidly, didn't expand the tax credit for those Toyotas and, while I haven't checked, congress still supports the massive tax breaks for SUV's and hasn't, as it should, turned the prius tax break into a national security issue.

instead, those dudderheads turned to ethanol which, because of it's chemistry, contains less energy than gasoline so you have to buy more of it-- so I'd presume your mpg rating goes down on E85 cars.

America is absolutely ready and, more specifically, my Honda Civic, made in 1991, gets-- sometimes, 36 miles-per-gallon and a 40 mpg standard would have required Honda to increase it's fuel efficiency by about 0.60 percent each year. (i.e. a 10% gain over 16 years where 0.60 = APY)

If I were an economist, I'd have to conclude that economic policy was failing to provide the right incentives.

as I've ranted about in the past, the US was the only "major country" to consume the last Harry Potter book on non-recycled paper and I think that the reason had something to do with propping up raw materials market.

To boldly go...

I suggest two changes.

First, the effect of large money donations distorts political decisions. The amount of money permitted in elections should be greatly constrained and probably should be funded by government. This almost certainly requires a constitutional amendment.

Second, the gerrymandering of election districts can be manipulated to make elections safe for one side or the other. That distorts politics by consigning inordinate influence to the committed activists that control primary elections. The result is the vitriolic factionalism we see today. Districts should be drawn with the principal purpose of making them as competitive as possible and the subordinate purpose of making them as geographically compact as possible. This would be easier if, for instance, congressional districts could cross state lines. This also requires a constitutional amendment.

Right you are. You'll be burning about 30% more E85. But that doesn't mean the CAFE ratings are 30% lower. Get this: they roughly DOUBLE the EPA ratings - or at least the rating the NHTSA uses to asses fines. It means, for the makers CAFE average, a Chevy Tahoe that gets 15mpg on gas, and 11mpg on ethanol is credited with getting about 30mpg - see how that works? No wonder GM wants us to "Go Yellow."

Toyota's in on it too. Next year their mega sized Tundra will be E85 capable, and it actually gets worse gas mileage than domestic pickups.

One obstacle is that, while the people are to the left of politicians, and while I think the new Congress has done a lot right, such as putting the war up to a vote, Congress still has as low an approval rating as Bush.  Wish we could do something to turn around this usual distrust in government with a capital G, since the GOP always mobilizes it to the usual ends.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Let's find common ground instead of staking out our little duchies.

And I'm sure "common ground" would just happen to be essentially the same old straight-, white-, Christian-, and male-, and money-dominated mono-culture. No thanks. I prefer lots of little duchies over one huge imperial state.

The bold claims that the public is to the Left of Washington politicians are interesting but what do they mean? To the Left of Bush that is hardly a dynamic claim. If it means that Americans would like various benefits provided by the Federal Government as long as they are paid by other people there is no doubt that this true.

Both the Left and the Right share a mythical view of this country. Outside of the Depression there has never been a large stomach for Americans giving up their income to provide benefits for others. What has been very successful are universal social insurance programs.

Most Americans see government as neither the cause of all problems nor their solutions.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

And most Americans would be right.  But if you add health care reform, as I would, to the social insurance agenda, you'd be advocating a large and important change--one that has both a social (hth care as basic human right) and economic (more efficient provision) rationale.

Bearpaw,

The thing is, we're talking about what people might vote for - what would bring them together. If it's 'male' - well that's already a loser if you ignore, literally most of the population. I personally think Nancy Pelosi is the best thing to happen to America in about fifty years - she is an emblem of Democratic party fairness and decency.

When you want to be the mainstream party with term after term of ruling majority, you can't say "Hey we're the party for the misfits!" That's defining yourself as a minority party - as the losing party - right from the getgo.

Rejecting 'multiculturalism' also means that Christians don't get to sequester themselves in their little insular world either, just as "La Raza" might convinced to ease up a little. So many of the 'liberal' causes of multiculturalism go way, way beyond the absurd. Think about Jesse Jackson complaining about not enough black TV stars - Jeez buddy, that's the least of your worries.

I think Democrats could appeal to traditional GOP voters who vote on culture, but it would have to be sincere - it would have to center around the values of being a good citizen and a good neighbor - communitarian values that we really believe in.

Second thought on this as well....

The attempts to politicize nativist concerns against 'outsiders' has a long and sordid history in the US. Almost every single immigrant group into the US has faced these types of attacks and desperate political groups (i.e. modern Republicans) are quick to latch onto as a last resort.

Look, the US could somehow survive the entrance of massive numbers of Irish-Scots, Italians, Bulgarians, Poles, Swedes, Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese and every other group you can imagine.

I think we can manage to survive the Mexicans. Maybe even if the show up in souped-up bass-banging Buicks.

America is strong and we should not live in fear of the almighty taco.

Ok, nothing is universal. It was a guess. But I find your comment on rewarding hard work attached to a conversation on immigration and Mexicans a bit of a problem.

Does anyone in the US work harder than Mexican immigrants? I mean can you be serious? Making such broad generalizations is a fool's game, but if we have to make one I would say all the transient Mexican laborers I know work much harder than most any good red-blooded American.

To try and salvage some common ground here though, I agree that positioning the Democratic party as one, to use Edwards phrasing, that rewards work over wealth is incredibly smart and good policy to boot.

Frankly, right-wing attempts to divide the working middle-class along racial and cultural lines is a strategy that stretches back to Jim Crow. The most successful thing the Southerners have done is to convince lower- and middle-class whites, blacks and other minorities that they are natural enemies.

You are absolutely right that rewarding work is important. I am just afraid by what you have said here that you are falling into racial/cultural stereotypes that are designed to have you concerned with anything but rewarding work.

"Multiculturalism" -- when it's not being redefined by the echo chamber -- means having communitarian values that accept that your neighbors might not look or act like you. And beyond that, it means that having neighbors that don't look or act like you can be a good thing, for you and them and for everybody's kids.

What preceded multiculturalism in most places was not some oh-so-happy mix of lots of different people, but a society in which there was one dominate culture and "toleration" meant that people who didn't fit that culture usually didn't get attacked as long as they "knew their place".

I grew up in that. I prefer here and now -- I'm less likely to get beat up, and the food's a lot more interesting.

I would agree with this to a point, but we need to be careful not to let the right-wingers off on the deficiencies in their ideology. Almost every problem that has arisen in the Bush administration and under Republican congressional control is not a result of incompetence, but rather in their ideas.

They really believed that a bankrupted government that didn't do anything except reward its loyal supporters is better than a government funded and ready to help its citizens. They really thought that the international problems could all be solved with more 'resolve,' torture, and curtailing constitutional rights of Americans.

This isn't incompetence, its their ideology. If you don't think the government can do any good you don't have a problem putting a horse lawyer in charge of FEMA or a second-rate property lawyer as Attorney General.

We need to point that out I think.

I'm married to someone who is in part, 'Mexican' - what I'm talking about is a two way street where we don't turn Chicago into Mexico City.

Besides, I've seen plenty of 'white' guys with the bass thing going. I'm not sure if you deal with it much, but Bass is a real assault on the senses - perhaps you're wealthy enough not to have to live near minorities - or the people you live near are all affluent.

I'm talking about finding areas where people can come together - to be 'good neighbors' and not just a bunch of cultures that really, really hate each other.

I think you could argue that actually if we made immigrants greater stakeholders they would be more eager to embrace the values of their new country.

I grew up in a small town annexed out of the middle of the Wind River Indian reservation. Maybe I'm just speaking as someone who was 'priviledged.' Yet we often attended mass on the reservation. There were some inter racial tensions, although most Indian violence was intramural "Hatfield and McCoy" type ongoing feuds.

Let me be specific though: My next door neighbor is Salvadoran and he's like the world's best neighbor. It is for him that I weed and mow and fix the gutter. If I'm going to do that - if I'm going (gasp) 'conform' I think I have a reasonable expectation that others respond in kind. This sense of the debt each of us owes to his neighbor - that's the essence of being 'communitarian' - that's a civic virtue that could mobilize voters - you know, the ones who pay water bills and real estate taxes.

Nin, I'm afraid you are feeding into exactly the kind of '60's mentality about 'causes' where every outrage gets to be excused because of 400 years of slavery.

Not all smart ass, foul mouthed jerks are 'caused' to be that way becasue of 'the legacy of slavery.'

If past sins are an excuse to threaten teachers - literally driving them away from black schools - well then why don't the Chinese do it? You should read the history of the way the Chinese were jerked around in the 19th Century US, but do they use that as an exuces to be 15year old Marlon Brandos?

Exactly - lets have Universalist values. I totally agree with that.

I noticed you didn't answer the question. Let me phrase it slightly differently. Why do you think these kids behave the way they do?

You seem to think it is a defining trait somehow and not just your everyday random percentage of idiots, loud-mouths and jerks which is universal.

Incidentally, I know very well how the Chinese were treated in the 19th century. But does this really help your case? Were the Chinese enslaved and forcibly imported to the tune of half a million? Did an entire sub-culture of the US devote itself to the political, social and economic subjugation of the Chinese up until only 40 years ago?

I am not saying the historical reality of centuries of slavery, changed only by the very recent phenomenon of liberal equality under the law, accounts for every cultural difference or bit of bad behavior, but are you saying it is completely irrelevant? You can pretend all this did not happen or that it was somehow all washed away in 1968, but I don't think these massive historical realties can be simply discounted as an excuse.

For me, the biggest problem across America is the breakdown of the families. This is not some moral problem though, but rather economic. How many families can afford to have one parent work and one stay home with the kids? Massive poverty and even lower-middle class struggles lead to all sorts of problems we see in society.

To get back to the point of this thread, if we do actually reward work and begin to actively speak to the massive pressures on working families, I think we might have something. Even if along the way you still find time to complain about the music kids listen to these days.

Emphasize the message (and put it in practice in legislation) of being the party that rewards playing by the rules and responsibility. That means penalize those who get rich off exploiting illegals instead of hiring legal immigrants and Americans, those who outsource American jobs and those who avoid/evade taxes by stashing their money in the Caymans. I'm sick of businessman big and small who think they're above the law because they've put together a roofing company, a couple of car dealerships, or a medical practice.

Another point. Senator Conrad is debating some of those points right now on CSPAN with Gregg. Conrad is great but he lauded the cooperation and comity of Gregg and his staff in creating this budget and then Gregg stands up and starts ridiculing him and calling his budget the "Land of Oz". Made Conrad look like a fool for complimenting him. We've got to start bitchslapping these clowns. For far too long our guys have just ignored the lies and insults. That looks weak. It's been said before, stand up and defend yourselves or nobody else is going to believe you can stand up and defend them.

Yes,
If you look at opinion polls, people want higher CAFE standards - what do they get? Ethanol snake oil.

Something like 2/3 of voters support Universal Health care - even if taxes go up - so that's...that's what we um...have...right?

Do you think there was this hue and cry from the public to have more draconian bankruptcy laws? Of course not. Deleware, home of the usurer, got Biden on the case, and whammo - now you pay for "debt counseling." The great defender of states rights, the Supreme Court, recently ruled that some states laws on usury wouldn't block out of state companies in pro-usury Deleware or South Dakota from exploiting the people in their states.

Here's my mental picture of the electoral process.

Wild herds roam about the land.

Cowboys (politicians) cut out as many from the herds as possible and then corral them into fenced areas (this is called gerrymandering districts) where they are sorted, rated, and branded (this is called polling).

"Polling" has more than one definition with the alternate definition probably being just as relevant.

Then the cowpokes go about displaying their political hides (or bulls) in their intramural play-offs to get ready for the big rodeo.

This is the part where it becomes more of a beauty pageant than a serious appraisal of where we are as a country and what needs to be done.

Once ensconced in their Ivory Towers in Washington,D.C., they go about their business unhampered by any feeling of duty to the country. They've got their "constituents" neatly penned and primed to bleat out answers to pollsters, who really believe they're learning something of value from pinging the points in the constellation of "ranches" of citizenry.

Bushies stampede the herds to cover their tracks leading away from the scenes of their crimes against our country -- most notably, their looting of the treasury.

From cradle to grave, we're invited to join the Big Race to Nowhere. As long as the race is more important than the journey, we'll keep getting the same results.

I believe there is a tremendous amount of unemployed AMERICAN intellectual capital that has been deliberately side-lined in favor of promoting the profit margins for the few. Bill Gates wants to bring in more workers from abroad based on the ridiculous and UNPROVEN assumption that Americans aren't as competent in the math and sciences as those from India. Anyone out there testing this assumption? NOPE. Yet politicians will slop this nonsense up without critically reviewing the premises.

If you are serious about finding a new paradigm, you will have to get serious about challenging a good deal of the frivolous assumptions upon which these candidates have pegged their careers.

As for the rest of us, we will have to quit acting like cattle and more like citizens if we want to be taken seriously.

Of course, all this is very top down, and for any progressive agenda to have a chance, it’s got to be met by bottom-up demand, and that means serious grassroots (and netroots) organizing.

The only reason why I believe an opportunity for Transformational Change---as John Edwards calls it---now exists is because the Press finally became disillusioned with The Republican Promise at about the time of Katrina. That debacle wrapped around the debacle of the Iraq War finally did it. This is very, very important because it is the press that always determines who takes the White House. (Remember Cronkite and the Viet Nam War). The Democrats need to remember that The Press is always the target audience that really matters.

With this in mind, I think the Dems need to understand that the 'left-leaning centrist' paradigm is no longer the best approach, politically. The press has become frustrated with the Republican solution; the majority no longer identify with them. They are now open to a new sense of direction that they can invest their identities in. Caution is not their biggest concern; having a vision they can get excited about is far more important. I believe Edwards is right that they are ready to "feel patriotic about something other than war."

If the Dems can focus their attention on pointing out to the [upper-middle-class and upper-class] members of the press how they will benefit from a new Democratic Agenda, they will not only be able to win Congress and the White House in a big way in 2008, they will also have the political capital to drive transformational change down the throats of the Republican opposition. The Republicans told them that they would benefit from tax cuts and they believed it. Now, the Democrats should be able to point out how the money from tax increases will benefit them as a consequence of how the money is spent.

If the Dems can wriggle themselves away from the 'centrist' paradigm and recognize the big opportunity they now have, both the press and mainstream Americans will be able to proudly identify with the achievements that an enlightened government would be able to provide in their names once it is able to get the funding it needs.

I'm trying to think about what needs to happen to move policy closer to where most people may well be already.

I think that the federal reserve was created to protect us from sudden changes and that sort of economic manipulation is a very difficult layer to surmount.

The downside of "being protected" is, seemingly, that the economy has all this management that impedes change because power is taken away from the people-- for better or worse.

It's been very interesting to watch GOP candidate Ron Paul because his clarity of presentation makes him a great teacher and, even if I'm only partly libertarian, I can really see why structures like the fed can impede progress.

You talk about "progressiveness" and I'd say perahaps, getting rid of the fed would both force and allow people to make progress? although it's a scary proposition to "remove protections."

Wouldn't it be interesting if "capitol holders" felt as threatened as labor does now, once again?

Another "Ron Paul" idea is to get rid of the IRS and, at first thought, that sounded pretty crazy to me but then the states would get more power over resources and the federal government would have to "beg from the states" rather than the other way around. it seems like the fed gave the federal government a lot of "purse string power" over the states.

so, in my mind, making progress might mean making political adjustments so democracy is from the people rather than from the federal government and it's fed filled, illusionary bottomless purse.

this sounds unsurmountable, but isn't latin america doing this with chavez getting out of the world bank and IMF and setting up a latin american bank? I was wondering if wolfie was forced out because of such defections and uprisings?

To boldly go...

Those are very interesting points.  When I wrote that, I was thinking about the six (I think) state minimum wage increases that passed in the last election, many of which I believe were largely grassroots initiatives at first.

Great stuff--simple, clear, and resonant.

Hydrocarbon fuels get their energy from oxidizing carbon. So, switching to a fuel containing less carbon per gallon must necessarily require the use of more fuel per mile. The only exception to this that I know of is a fuel that gets much of its energy from oxidizing hydrogen, such as methane or pure hydrogen. But the density of those fuels is much lower than carbon based fuels, so, again more gallons of fuel per mile are needed.

Meaning nothing whatever except all you reactionaries calling yourselves progressives are not real good at math. :-)

Methane recovered from manure and converted to natural gas or even used as a fuel for buses or autos actually helps the environment. The more you burn the better the polar bears do. :-)

Sierra Club reactionaries are plumb against such liberal ideas because like Hindus they want a better life for cows and a poorer life for untouchables.

The secret to a bountiful and secure future is not restricting growth and impoverishing the population but increasing wise use of available energy. The supply is abundant but largely untapped. Intelligence is obviously less abundant but scarce supplies are even more underutilized.

Best, Terry

If you look at opinion polls, people want higher CAFE standards - what do they get? Ethanol snake oil.

Could you kindly explain to us liberals what you reactionary progressives have against turning pizza boxes and orange peelings into ethanol with the use of landfill gases for warming the vats?

Do you then hate polar bears so much?

Best, Terry

in Nicaragua, why would they want you, a foreigner, to take money out of their country? that can only drive down their wealth.

I think that chavez is being smart and building schools, etc..., in his country and keeping control of resources.

his development process might take a little longer but, in the long run, he isn't owned by foreigners like you and his country has the dignity of standing on its own feet.

Cuba, who the US government doesn't trade with, apparently has a vaccine for cancer!

hugo chavez sees this and sees that even isolated countries can outperform an empire!

in my mind, they don't need your stinkin investment!

To boldly go...

KingElvis manages to grasp at straw, but he also shows the power of GOP spin to rule the world. First, where in goodness name did this idea of the Democrats as the party of secularism and gay marriage come from? And what are those alleged "values" that turned things around anyhow? As far as I know, no one in 2004 mentioned gay marriage, except insinuations of insidious plots if Democrats won. Even out here in the netroots, as we imagine ourselves, EJ Graff's posts don't generally stir up huge positive responses. I recall John Kerry's show of attending church and now lots of talk of values from everyone, but Clinton and Obama especially and, I'm even willing to admit, sincerely and probably effectively. 

Second, let's face it: the left won the culture wars. Judging by polls, the GOP intolerance exists mostly to mobilize turnout among the base, but statistically is not a match with most American opinions. I don't know how we can pander to that base. It also depended on Rove's ability to capitalize on the base illegally, by, say, making sure which districts got voting machines and had registration claims denied in an election. Meanwhile, while politically Clinton certainly does well by her claims to make abortion safe, legal, and minimal, it doesn't reach the GOP base either (because minimal means making condoms available and thus not punishing women for sex), and it'd be political suicide for a Democratic candidate not to stick up for abortion rights. 

Third, what would cause the Democrats to campaign on right-wing values if they sincerely believe in tolerance and abortion rights? Elvis is advocating either hypocrisy or recruiting Lieberman to run. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Democrats as the party of secularism and gay marriage come from

I think secularism == freedom of religion and seperation of church and state. I think that the NyTimes recently noted that "reglious organizations" raked in $318 million dollars last year and employ lobbyists. So the charge of "secularism" is probably a way to defend religious pork.

As far as "gay marriage" goes, I think that's also a "keyword" to protect "regligious pork." The cartel known as the "religous right" seems to use "gay marriage" as a wedge issue since it ensures their pork payments. i.e. when the constituency becomes agitated and calls their congressman, the congressman probably pay the instigators off to get them to back off.

To boldly go...

I responded to Nindid today in the middle of the thread, and I think part of your answer is there, but I wanted to respond to your quite legitimate points.

I'm not proposing turning the GOP/Bush dead ender 'base' around to our side, but rather to split off a sizeable chunk of voters who MIGHT be voting for the GOP because they see it as a 'mainstream' party.

I don't want to turn this into some kind of focus group for marketing mavens, but building a party platform on basic civic principles could attract - let's say a more 'uptight' voter.

So you have the principle of 'good neighbors' - that could extend to foreign policy in matters of war and peace, but also in environmental cooperation.

You have a principle of fair play that extends to consumer rights and a return to sanity in the credit industry. You have a sense of public decency so that parents can keep their children safe from filth - and that 'adult' activities are safely sequestered.

You have a principle of mutual respect that brings people together. It means Bill Maher doesn't get to call anyone who's ever skinned a deer a murderous cracker, just as it means Bill O Reilly doesn't get to call Mexican immigrants potential terrorists (that one is a real riot) and filthy wetbacks.

in Nicaragua, why would they want you, a foreigner, to take money out of their country? that can only drive down their wealth.

What wealth?

You think that Nicaragua's geothermal resources are of huge benefit to Nicaraguan's poor while undeveloped?

Capital (both monetary and intellectual) will be required to tap those vast resources. Capital must flow in rather than out.

Goethermal development in our country lags badly though oddly the U.S. is the world's largest producer of electricity from geothermal sources despite vast ignorance and even active opposition from opponents. Canadians are a primary source of funding while their own development is zilch. Go figure. It is a Canadian company that is making the main effort to develop Nicaragua's geothermal resources and an Israeli company that has revived a geothermal power plant that had greatly deteriorated under government neglect and abuse in the past.

Your hero Chavez BTW would like to drain some more funds out of Nicaragua for his dreams of empire. Not all Nicaraguans are delighted at the prospect of being poorer but Chavez could make them wiser - and warmer with more greenhouse gases.

Best, Terry

I think I hear Obama stress some of these themes, yet he somehow manages to do it while genuinely tipping his hat to groups who feel marginalized. 

He seems to get both: the need to appeal broadly based on civility and true civic values, and the need to signal non-mainstream groups that you understand their plight.

did you read economic hitman? yes, capital flows in but then the tide reverses...

To boldly go...

yes, capital flows in but then the tide reverses...

Obviously the only reason for investing in developing a project like geothermal power production in Nicaragua or anyplace else is to make a profit.

It is no different when Canadians or Israelis invest in developing America's geothermal resources that Americans are loathe to do than when the same furriners invest in developing Nicaragua's geothermal resource.

The end result is that America and Nicaragua have more green power, the foreign devils have more money and polar bears have more ice. Mining heat is considerably different from extractive industries that may leave nothing behind except an environmental wasteland.

Having your ideological lust against capitalism satisfied with continued subservience of Nicas to Ticas and extermination of polar bears is a rather steep price to pay wouldn't even you and hitman admit?

Best, Terry

The success of (near) future progressive ideas hinges squarely on the success of the existing Democratic majority. If they continue to allow themselves to be compromised by the Republican minority and White house, the American people will see them as ineffective and deserving of the label "weak". Regardless of the number of issues and the complexity, in 2008 people will listen to whatever lie the Republican challengers come up with if they promise action instead of ongoing debate that results only in business as usual.
Right now progressives are feeling a sense of vindication about how wrong the opposition was over the Iraq war. But Democrats falsely believe this means support for themselves. Division between the white house and Democrats will have no lasting value if it results in anything short of change. Progressive ideas future is in the hands of Democrats and rather than seeing this, they are posturing for themselves. But short of ending the war and opposing Bush steadfastly, the Democrats will lose the people who most actively supported them into a majority in 2006.
If the Democrats lose the left, progressive ideas will be lost with them. Opinion polls on the war will not translate into Democratic support if the Democrats cannot affect a change in Iraq. Opinion polls on Congress will not translate into who voters support if being handed the mantle in 2006 didn't make a difference.
This rule applies now and will apply as far into the future as we can hope to look. "He who has the biggest cahoonas wins." If our representatives don't demonstrate their prowess now, our ideas will lose out with them.

I've seen what's happening in Africa with their oil and other resources

Have you bothered studying the development of geothermal power in Kenya as opposed to oil in Nigeria. Big difference.

geothermal is great but let the Nicaragian people fully own the economy. As you noted, they're poor and don't have money to give to "outside investors."

And Nicaraguans will stay poor and dependent on predators like Chavez if you do not allow them to develop their geothermal resources. The U.S. would be poorer without Canadian and Israeli investment in its geothermal resources though it is obviously far more capable. Fortunately Nicaraguans are more intelligent than certain gringos like yourself who think they know best what Nicaraguans should do.

Best, Terry

What an interesting discussion. If I'm reading the tea leaves here correctly, most would opt for some "fundamental changes" in both domestic and foreign policy. While I share the same sentiment, based on our history, absent some energizing event or circumstance, that's not likely to happen.

Take the mundane issue of railroad safety, recently outlined on one of the History Channel's various clones (forget which one). Even though it eventually proved economically advantageous to them, rail barons adamantly refused to pay for such basic safety items as telegraphs to avoid collisions on single-track lines, air brakes to avoid runaways, and so on, until they were forced by "public outrage", as expressed in the press of the day and resulting political demagoguery, to modify their behavior.

And, of course, it took the disaster of the Depression and the fear of revolution to create even the modest social safety net in place today.

As a political entity, America seems to operate on a principal of collective inertia, occasionally stampeding itself, based on a perceived danger, into making those fundamental changes, rather than applying the wisdom of experts. Sometimes the outcomes are good, sometimes not. Witness the effective loss of civil liberties and rejection of international law based on post 9/11 hysteria. That pushback should start with demonization of Republicans in general and the Bush administration in particular is instructive, regardless of one's personal political perspective.

As America becomes an increasingly complex organism -- 300 million people speaking hundreds of different languages, still hording at the coasts but beginning to spread into formerly Scandinavian territories; a formerly manufacturing- and agribusiness-based economy where health care now accounts for almost 1/5 of all economic activity -- I think SamThornton above is kind of right, but not completely. It's not a matter of collective inertia; it's that the synapses haven't yet fully made all their connections with all the various acupuncture points of the American body politic. We're more like the toddler these days who's just gone boom to the floor. The howl of pain only comes eventually and only when we feel and realize we've been hurt.

The good thing, to extend the biological metaphors a tad more, is that unlike the proverbial frogs in the pot of water set on the kitchen stove to boil, we've started shouting before it's gone too late.

A testimony to the stealth of the Reepubs is that it took us five years to feel the change in temperature and a sixth to start hopping.

For policy starters, I'd like to see the ultimate anti-surge in Iraq and then assemble a constitutional convention-scale gathering to address and resolve health care with single-payer as the goal.

I suppose it may be partly why I chose my userid to be CtrlAltDel, but I intuit that the Country is ripe to reboot.

That said, what does "starting over" mean? I'm not really sure myself, but I think it means that just about anything and everything could be on the table.

Take the issue of global warming for instance. I think the Country is ready to go headstrong on this issue. After all, we are at a race with time on this one. Perhaps it is just a matter of educating the public on the urgency, as Al Gore has done an exceptional job doing. Democratic candidates want 80 percent CO2 reduction in 40 years, from 2010 to 2050. I think 2050 would be a day late and a dollar short myself - that is 42 years away. The warming took place in the last 25 to 27 years or so, one degree warmer based on NASA's average global surface air temperature records. 40 years could very well bring another one degree rise. Why not go for broke and target 80 percent CO2 reduction in 20 years? That should be enough time for everyone to buy a clean car and to make changes wherever we can (which in my opinion 80 percent reduction seems to obviously imply that fossil fuels will be out for most intents and purposes.) For more detail on my thoughts on CO2 reductions see my blog.

Why not go for broke in all areas?