Markos is an idiot. Obsessive image marketing for old corrupt policies does not an idea make

[jpgray]

Again, someone catches Primary Fever, fawns over a candidate, and ties himself in circumambulatory knots to rationalize bad statements. Here is the first of his brainless posts on the issue:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/182537/491/236/439126

Why am I bashing Kos for this? Here's why: The GOP didn't have more "ideas" than the Democrats, they simply poured billions into mass-media marketing for their 1920's era right-wing policies. They propped up a desperately unpopular economic platform by retreating from campaign discussion of policy into questions of "character." The Democrats had (better!) policies on all the same issues, and their policies were more popular. Progressive policies could -not- benefit from such a business-dependent approach -because- they were progressive, and had no ability to rely on billions in Scaife/Coors/whomever-funded think-tanks and business orgs.

The increasing coverage of campaigns based on "who you want to have a beer with" trivial image nonsense is concurrent with this supposed flowering of GOP "ideas," no? It's a clear indication that we're talking about real "ideas" when Bush can lie baldly about his own tax plan, yet the debate coverage is about Gore sighing, right? Hardly. The only tangible GOP "idea" in the described period was to camouflage a very unpopular platform with a brute-force marketing campaign that relied on subjective character issues, glittering platitudes and trite generalities. And that shouldn't be called an "idea" by Kos or anyone else--it was a shameful, deceitful mask only made possible by an unholy alliance with the wealthiest and most selfish power brokers in the country.

Ask yourself a basic question. Was the GOP dominance about their "ideas," or the successful marketing thereof? And since that marketing was -only possible- via an unholy alliance with big business and the monied elite, how can any progressive hold that up as an example of "ideas?" A "party of ideas" need not be a party that sells out to big business to cover up its policies, no matter what the DLC may tell you.

[FrenchieCat]

1. So name some new ideas from the Democrats that

challenged conventional wisdom...because that writer doesn't.

He only plays with semantics of calling ideas...propaganda. But propanda is what was used to market the ideas. I guess, the writer, whomever he is (and obviously he ain't no one really) doesn't even understand that.

How is Vouchers propaganda? Voucher is the idea. How vouchers are then marketed to the public is what this dude is talking about. Might be by saying that vouchers offer choice to students who live in poor neighborhoods with inferior schools.

Get it? :shrug:

and if you don't get it, then maybe it is not Markos who is an idiot.

[Mythsaje]

2. I sense a major schism developing here.

I'm reaching the end of my tolerance for this happy horseshit about the Reagan era and the Republican love going on here.

[FrenchieCat]

3. You sense nothing.....

which is part of your problem, really.

You want so much for this to be about the Reagan era and Republican love. This is about reframing the debate, gaining a majority and whipping their asses.

[cloudythescribbler]

4. Avoid the confusion b/t WHETHER the party has "ideas" and whether they are the WRONG ideas

Over the last quarter century, the Repuke Party has cohered around a set of notions called, in our era, conservatism. Some of them are plainly mislabelled, as in strategic megadeficits masked behind rhetoric about fiscal responsibility, but this general framework has guided their party around a fairly consistent platform OF IDEAS (however noxious).

The Democrats have, on the other hand, not lacked for individual or perhaps small group pursuit of ideas, but even "ideas" like a single-payer health care system (a la Kucinich, with a non-profit health sector) have in no way united the Party AS A PARTY. The platform of the Democratic Party is a conglomeration of Repuke lite, and, in some areas (like health care) a "lite" version of a full-throated "idea". The Democratic Party has been REACTIVE to what Repugs have put forward, rather than pursuing any kind of program.

Remember that FDR came to power merely on the most general sort of rhetoric (other than promises to balance the budget). The New Deal itself emerged, largely by trial and error -- and one of the central "ideas" of the first half of the New Deal was essentially a corporatist model of economic development that did not (for the most part) last, although other forms of corporatism have emerged (eg the military-industrial complex). The New Deal emerged as a set of policies with the ideas (eg the embrace of Keynes) coming AFTER the practice largely, rather than before it. Once the New Deal was established, followed in the 50s by the Civil Rights movement and the "Great Society" extension of the New Deal in the 60s, and basically the maintenance of the New Deal held the Democratic Party together for a long time.

In particular, the Democratic Leadership Council approach to the Democratic Party, triangulation and betrayal of both the Left and the Great Society on many fronts (with Al From pushing for dropping the pro-choice platform of the Democratic Party after the 2004 elections) is NOT an "idea" in the same sense as the conservative demiurge of the same period.

I don't understand why people on DU have so much trouble grasping the lack of an overall approach to politics that has characterized the Democratic Party, while the Repugs have pursued WRONG-HEADED ideas which have led the country into a ditch (like they did in the 20s).

The camouflaging of their actual program (eg "Death Tax", to cite one particularly egregious scam) has proceeded with success in large part based on the at least passive complicity (and OFTEN more than just passive) of the Democrats in their programs, including the most unpopular. The Repukes NEVER controlled the House of Representatives under Reagan, yet Reaganism still managed to be 'transformative' and change the direction of the country. When The Democrats gained control of the executive AND legislative branches of the govt (93-5), the Repukes only had to mount a consistent policy of filibustering EVERYTHING and the Democrats (specifically the Clinton "Democrats") accepted it without seriously trying to call the Repukes on it. The Democrats to their eternal shame WERE NOT EVEN ABLE TO MUSTER THE VOTES TO MAKE NEW COLUMBIA A STATE -- indicating the COMPLETE lack of will and GOVERNING ideas for the Democratic Party.

The mere existence in some minds of "ideas" is NOT what is being discussed as ideas; it's IDEAS AS OPERATIONAL IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT that we are talking about -- ideas-in-practice.

[jpgray]

10. Their policies are not new. Their new "idea" is the Powell Manifesto

Which relies on authoritarian domination of party members, ensuring tight message control and lockstep voting. Do we want that for our party? It also -requires- large trades of policy for money to be made to big business, which requires selling out the less fortunate in exchange for campaign advantages from the most fortunate. Do we want that for our party? And are these even "ideas" so much as "corruption?" If it's the latter, why should -any- progressive propagate the myth that corrupt successful marketing and draconian message control = more/better ideas? Shouldn't we challenge that ugly falsehood at every opportunity?

These are the only truly "new" ideas tied to the Republican Party in modern times. All recent "new" -policies- are variations on exalting the private over the public, the upper classes over the lower classes, and making themselves and their friends wealthy while staying in office. These are not new ideas. Especially not the occasional round of bigotry exploitation to win elections. Or is bigotry also one of those "ideas?"

[cali]

5. What on earth makes you think that calling someone an idiot

makes your argument a good one? Whatever else he is, kos is no idiot. And as he said, a bad idea, an idea you don't like, is still an idea. Sure much of what the GOP think tanks spewed out in the eighties and nineties was largely recycled and tarted up. They played off democratic corruption- and yeah, the dems became pretty damned corrupt after 40 years in power, and presented "solutions" that DID appeal to a lot of Americans. You may not want to admit that but several elections provide the evidence. kos doesn't say they didn't market their ideas effectively and he doesn't say that they didn't play to the worst in the American psyche. He says they persuaded people to buy into their vision. In part they did this by tarnishing the opposing party, but in part they did it by convincing Americans that they had better ideas. They didn't, but they were successful.

[jpgray]

6. But how does successful marketing of old, corrupt policies make them the "party of ideas?"

If I post the respective platforms from 1992 on, you will see "ideas" from both parties on each issue of the day. Are you saying the GOP's are better? Do they have more stances? More proposals? Is being for a lousy policy more of an "idea" than being against it? I should hope not. So what is it? Is it the marketing that is "the idea?" The marketing that is only made possible by selling out the taxpayer to win influence with the power and money centers of the country? That's not a new or Earth-shattering idea, it's as old as politics. Taking it to this uniquely extreme level of corruption is hardly evidence of a party of ideas. It's a party of corruption, or a party that doesn't value the lower classes except as a means to their own enrichment. When you look at the GOP, do you really want to say:

"That's the party of ideas! That's the party of change!"

You shouldn't.

[cali]

7. It doesn't matter what I think

It matters what the majority of Americans think- or more accurately, the majority of voters. And it's absurd to ask if I think GOP ideas are better. Clearly, I don't. You know that.
We could get into a philosophical discussion about whether there are ever any truly new ideas. Let's not. The point Obama, kos and virtually all political historians make, is that the GOP placed gov't in an alternative frame and sold it to the American people successfully. Why were they so successful? There's a myriad of factors involved, from the disillusionment of many Americans with the status quo, to marketing, to such ideas as vouchers and economic transformation. Those ideas suck, but to say they aren't ideas is just denial.

[jpgray]

8. But why help sell the myth by -repeating- their dishonest marketing?

"Yes, the GOP is the party of ideas! Wow, Reagan sure was all about change! Took care of those excessive 60's and 70's, and led us into the austere, monastic 80's!"

Why not attack those myths? Why not puncture and deflate them at every opportunity? Failing that, can't we at least stop repeating them? Obama is not the only one guilty of this (by far!), but this Kos article really was remarkable to me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Overzealous Advocacy Can Make Intellectual Peasants Out Of People

~

[cali]

11. Only the last thing kos is

is an overzealous advocate for Obama. If you read kos regularly you'd know that he's frequently and recently directed withering criticism at him, and is about the most reluctant supporter you can imagine. Not like you and your zealous advocacy for Hillary= at all.