Is "reform" something that has to be done in a stealthy manner?

[kentuck]

I ask this seriously after reading a post by David Zephyr this morning. If a candidate - any candidate- plans on a program of reforms, is it possible that sometimes it is not possible to be public about it? Is it something that is best done under the radar? Otherwise, the media and the establishment will either ignore you or destroy you? Would it be that we would need to vote on blind faith that a person will be a reformer after they are elected. Otherwise, if they profess to be a "reformer", they will have no chance to be elected? Is that a Catch-22 of our present political system?

[jlake]

1. Yes, I think so.

[stillcool]

2. Absolutely...

There seems to be very little wiggle room regarding what one can say in public anymore. We have so many examples of people being eviscerated who voice an opinion, or question the veracity of anything. All's it takes is one broad-cast from CNN etc., and the dogs are on the hunt until the prey is neutralized. Seems to be having a 'trickle-down' effect as well.

[Xithras]

3. Yes and no.

People fear sudden change, even when that change is to their benefit. We don't like unknowns. A local radio host I listen to in the morning pointed this out just a few days ago, using the tax system as an example. Nobody really LIKES the tax system in the United States, just about everyone agrees that it is overly complex, poorly managed, intrusive to the average persons privacy (think about audits...you're proving your honesty to the government...that's antithetical to the concept of a free society), and inconsistent in the way people are taxed. Despite the fact that everyone agrees that it sucks, nobody is fighting to change it. Why not? Because people are too afraid of possible negative impacts, so they leave it alone. Even though the system sucks, we fear the unknown even more.

The same concept can be applied to nearly any topic, from healthcare to corporations gouging for gas prices. We all think things suck, but the systems still basically work so we're afraid to change them, on the off-chance that we might screw it up.

Personally, I don't think that reform is something that has to be hidden, simply something that has to be implemented slowly. The goal is to make the "new" normal replace the "old" normal at a pace ensuring that the average Jane can be certain that we aren't all shooting ourselves in the foot. This can be frustrating for the "Change Now!" candidates and their supporters, but it's the only way to really push change through in this country.

And, for what it's worth, I wouldn't support a candidate of either party if it became public that they'd hidden their agenda and lied to the American people. Governments cannot be permitted to lie in a democracy, no matter how noble the intention.

[cabraverde]

7. I agree completely

[readmoreoften]

4. Can you name any stealth progressive campaign that has came to fruition in the past 30 years?

How come every conservative campaign has been blunt about their ideas and then gone ever further....

[kentuck]

5. I remember compassionate conservatism and...

and a humble foreign policy with no nation building. Would that be considered a stealth campaign?

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Two points:

That was not a progressive campaign, and

WE ALL KNEW HE WAS LYING ALL ALONG.

Didn't we? I sure as fuck did.

[kentuck]

10. True...

I can't remember the last time we had a progressive campaign, unless it was George McGovern - and he showed his hand.

[SoCalDem]

6. Is it "reform" when you take your broken-down car to a mechanic?

This language stuff that the republicans have carried off is stunning..

liberal is a bad word
reform is a bad word

We need to embrace the CORRECTION of the terminology and definition..

the opposite of liberal is stingy/cheapskate
the opposite of reform is decay/decompose

[KoKo]

9. What an interesting QUESTION...DU'ER "KENTUCK" ...that you ASK!

What you are asking is interesting...because for some of us, over our lifetimes we've been asked to COMPROMISE...with the "whisper" that if you just vote for "Candidate DEM A" over "Candidate REPUG B" you will be getting a "better deal for your future.

And the "bodies of dead from wars are on a Granite Stone with Imprints of the Dead...and the NEW DEAD's will have advocates pushing for yet ANOTHER ILLEGAL WAR ...to be carved in GRANITE on the DC MALL...with the DEAD OF THE WAR ON TERRA! (the damned PRES IN CHARGE couldn't spell Terror) ..so the Memorial will use "HIS NEW LANGUAGE" of "TERRA" because he didn't care about "TRADITION!"

And so our Dem/Repug Party "carries on" hiding...obfuscating"...enabling and "promoting" the CHANGE that always seems to be "THE SAME!"

Anyone remember when BILL AND HILLARY were the NEW FACES FOR CHANGE? Anyone remember when JIMMY CARTER WAS THE FACE FOR CHANGE...with "50 State TRAIN TOUR?" The NEW POPULIST WAS JIMMY! I shook hands with his Mother LILLIAN CARTER on a "Train Stop" in Litchfield, Conn. when I lived there...with HOPE that CARTER was "THE ONE TO END THE MADNESS."

It's been a "long haul" for little accomplishment when you look at the TALLY with the SET BACKS....

It's hard to deal with...but one must keep "truckin' on" to the Damned GRAVE! And who would have thought...that we had to die with so little accomplishment. :shrug:

Yep...I'm a "Debbie Downer" here.....BUT...it ain't all bad...I guess......if you can find somethings..it's good..and I can find a "little...a little" BUT NOT WHAT WE COULD HAVE DONE! NOT WHAT WE COULD HAVE DONE!

and WHY ...COULDN'T WE DO....WHAT WE HOPED TO DO? that's the question...that eats at my heart...it eats...at my ...heart.

[kentuck]

12. I think we spend so much time compromising our principles...

that we never get to achieve any of our goals or principles. When George McGovern lost, we would have been better to simply build on his progressive rather than throwing it overboard because it was a "loser" and his agenda would never win. That is what the Democratic Party did after McGovern was defeated by Nixon. And McGovern was right!

But when the Repubs lost in a similar manner in 1964 with Barry Goldwater, they went on to build on his agenda with Reagan and the conservative movement. Our mistake as progressives was in throwing our principles overboard simply so we could win the next election, in my opinion.

[KoKo]

14. I think what you say is important to look at....

and McGovern and Dukakis..and Humphrey and Stephenson...and looking back..to the point where Left & Right had chances to coalesce for "GOOD" for America...would have been a good thing...way back.

But, that Globalism THINGY...that was GREAT FOR WALL ST. and the NEW GLOBAL ECONOMY...and the DLC Coalition of Clintons (well intended, maybe...but broken by the "Law of Unintended Consequences" sort of led to BUSH II and IDIOCY of Wall ST. BUBBLES and EASY CREDIT that is killing a GENERATION...and they are now BLAMING IT ON "Entitlements BY BOOMERS!!!!" ...as the PROBLEM and NOT SOLUTION that it's the CORRUPTION OF EASY MONEY AND HOOKING SO MANY ON EASY CREDIT" to cover up ECONOMIC LIES...is the thing that eats my heart our. But, then...I'm just one of those "bleeding heart LIBERALS" who cries and moans about everything...so I could see the "attack coming" ...but no one would even bother to read...and that's okay...but it feels good to vent....even if one is considered OTT or Cassandra or as some DU'er have said KoKo...KOO..KOO. I have thick skin...and care so do the shit...and fling the crap.. One learns to deal with it.

[Didereaux]

11. maybe not stealthy so much as careful and thorough. If done sloppy it gets dismantled quickly

[OzarkDem]

13. Today its impossible, unrealistic

After nearly 8 years of near total control of the federal government by a Republican Party that has become completely assimilated into media, big business and their lobbyists, there is no area of public policy that isn't patrolled 24/7 by someone ready to sound the alarm at any hint or whisper of reform.

Its a well oiled, well funded and well trained machine. Remember how the Patriot Act and Bush's entire legislative agenda sprung fully formed, overnight into Congress after 9-11? That hasn't changed, its only grown more entrenched. Once Bush is gone, the "hidden government" Cheney developed will still be in place. They'll still have "war rooms" in place to pounce on anything they don't like, responding with fully formed opposition plans, rapid response and immediate 24/7 news coverage.

No way you can "sneak" anything past them. You're going to have to take them on directly, in public and against great resistance on any reforms. Getting the public behind those reforms now and drawing out GOP/corporate/media opposition now, while the public's attention is focused on the issues is the best way to fight them.

On edit: This is why I'm behind John Edwards. Its obvious we need a very strong, wily president who handle taking office in the midst of a hostile environment and take charge of a government that will likely resist and undermine his every effort. These people will not be negotiating, they'll be going for the juglar from day one. Not many people can do that.

[KoKo]

15. it's the creeping "fascism" of the "Good Germans" who always look the other way...and can't believe

that what you are seeing that's so horrible...can be happening.

But...maybe it just means we work harder. We've gotta be better than all this dark stuff we've lived under. And we have history on our side..we know more than they do. That they "do it better" doesn't mean that their REGIME LASTS forever. ...The PEOPLE ALWAYS RISE UP...eventually. There's hope...we have to believe that.

[OzarkDem]

16. We'll prevail, I'm sure

but it will take a lot of hard work and a strong Dem president who knows when to use the carrot and when to womp them upside the head with a 2x4.

We don't need to do reform on the sly, the public is on our side in large numbers. Whoever wins will have a pretty strong mandate for change.