|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
My reply to Vince's reply
Hi, Vince. I'll respond point-by-point, as usual.
>From: Vince Whitacre
>Reply-To: vince@vince4congress.com
>To: terry34540@hotmail.com
>Subject: letter
>Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Hola, Redeye. Let's cut right to the chase:
>
> >1. Remember the power of so-called wedge issues. The
> >GOP uses them frequently to win the vote of non-union
> >working-class conservatives, mostly in the South but
> >not always. You are running in a very Republican
> >district, where Sensenbrenner will certainly have
> >several wedge issues to use against you. In my
> >opinion, the effect of these wedge issues should be
> >countered by developing some wedges of your own, such
> >as the Tyson boycott (assuming a majority or a near-
> >majority of the people in WI-5 support the boycott),
> >rather than by running on managerial issues such as
> >the performance of the economy.
>
>Unfortunately, the Tyson strike has not been a
>unifying theme in CD5. The town of Jefferson is
>wholeheartedly behind UFCW local 538, but the town
>itself lies just outside of the district.
>
>The way I see it, the economy IS a wedge issue. It's
>up to us to show the middle-class people of the
>district (who make up the vast majority of its
>residents) that the Bush/Sensenbrenner economic plan
>has NOT helped them. Sure, they may have received a
>$300 check, but what about health care costs? What
>about state and local taxes that have risen due to a
>lack of federal funding coming to the state? What
>about the fact that income tax doesn't matter if you
>have no income due to LOSING YOU JOB? The fact is, the
>vast majority of Americans did not receive a "tax
>cut," not in any meaningful sense.
>
>This is a wedge issue, Redeye. The trick is to make
>people REALIZE that Sensenbrenner's agenda will take
>people out of the middle class and put them into
>poverty. Especially the many workers in the district
>(and there are a lot) who stand to lose their right to
>overtime under the Republicans' plan. The small
>business owners and social conservatives also feel the
>pain of this economy -- it's time to give them the
>chance to do something about it.
Good point... but that's what I was talking about, sort of. There's a difference between talking about the economy in terms of issues, such as the issue of lower taxes vs. higher social spending, which can be a pretty good wedge, and talking in managerial terms, such as Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid." The latter will not work if the GOP has real issues to respond with; Bush Sr. didn't, but given the voting pattern of WI-5, Sensenbrenner will. For instance, if you talk too much about the USA's failure in Iraq, you'll probably get responses such as "but we were right to liberate the Iraqis" or "what better idea do you have?"; I certainly got them from would-be freepers (freepers in their fascism but not in forum membership) and other conservatives in arguments. It would be much better to attack Bush on Iraq in more ethical terms, such as saying "Why bomb the people we're trying to liberate?" Clark tried that last approach with Kosovo when he tried to persuade Clinton to let him invade from the ground, but Clinton would have none of this.
> >2. Don't be afraid to spin, in the sense of touting
> >an issue using a language that is usually used
> >against it. The whole essence of American
> >conservatism is the abuse of terms that were once
> >considered liberal, such as "freedom,"
> >"individualism," "democracy," and "rights." It might
> >help if you try and retake those words, for example
> >by framing the opposition to war in terms of smaller
> >government or in terms of protecting innocent people
> >("Do you trust the government with your life?").
>
>Oh, yes, buzzwords are huge. We'd all like to be able
>to campaign on the issues (at least Democrats would),
>but that's not how it works. We do need to reclaim the
>language. We also need to reclaim the flag, and we
>need to reclaim the very idea of patriotism itself. I
>am a patriot who LOVES his country. That does not mean
>I turn a blind eye to the actions of my government.
>Loving my country does not have a single damn thing to
>do with accepting the agenda of the extremist right.
>Those who truly love their country seek to make change
>for the better.
Again, this is exactly what I was talking about. I myself am strongly anti-patriotic, but I also realize that, say, William Pitt is not much less patriotic than Jim Robinson, if at all. Patriotism, too, is a thing that needs to be reclaimed. The danger is that if you talk too much about one thing then it can be spun against you, for example with patriotism, Sensenbrenner might try and paint it as collectivism.
> >3. How can you reconcile your assertion that "The
> >United States of America is the greatest nation in
> >the world" with a platform of change? If the USA
> >really is so great, why is there any need to make it
> >much better? As an aside, the USA is not the greatest
> >nation in the world because Canada outperforms it in
> >almost every respect except its head of state being a
> >monarch with no real power, its not having a Harvard
> >or a Princeton, and its lower GDP per capita that
> >cancels out with the lower cost of living.
>
>Of course I believe the U.S.A. is the greatest country
>in the world. Otherwise, I wouldn't want to be part of
>my nation's government. Redeye, you seem to be in
>agreement with the extremist right on this issue --
>they claim that dissent is unpatriotic, you are saying
>that my theme of change somehow belies the idea that
>the U.S.A. is not great. Where you both err is in
>thinking that greatness = perfection.
>
Actually, there is an excellent motive why someone might want to participate in a government of a coutnry he doesn't thing it is very good: to make it better. I don't understand why to partake in the administration of a country you have to love it, really.
>We are not a perfect nation. There are many things
>that we could do better. What makes us great is that
>we CAN do better, and I believe that we WILL do
>better. We live in a revolutionary country, Redeye. In
>fact, we have a revolution every two years. We need to
>embrace this revolutionary spirit and steer our
>country on toward a glorious future. I don't think you
>or I or anyone else has any idea of just how much good
>we can do.
I agree, apart from the part about a revolution every two years (in pol-sci 101 I learned that revolutions are defined as radical changes in countries and are almost always violent; in that sense not even the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 can be classified as a revolution). The USA does indeed have a high potential of greatness, probably more than any other country in the world. The problem is that potentiality and actuality are not the same thing. The USA has many structural problems and liabilities, and unfortunately it doesn't do enough to mend them. On the other hand, sometimes they are strengths, which give the USA its potential: for instance, its size on the one hand creates huge problems of regionalism, but at the same time makes it an economic powerhorse and is also the reason why Harvard and Princeton are what they are.
>I know my history. I know the United States has not
>always been on the right side (no nation has always
>been on the right side). But I also know that when we
>do good, when we act as a beacon of freedom that
>shines bright enough for all the world to see, there
>is no limit to our greatness.
Exactly. It seems that we only disagree regarding the effect of the qualifier "when we act as a beacon of freedom."
> >4. What do you think regarding agricultural
> >subsidies? You don't really say it in the farming
> >portion of his platform. This issue is important
> >because according to The Hunger Site, 24,000 people,
> >of whom 18,000 are children below 5, die every day
> >from hunger. They are mostly subsistence farmers, and
> >a lot of them will survive, albeit still in misery,
> >if more people buy their products. In other words,
> >agricultural subsidies cause people to buy more
> >American crops, i.e. less third-world crops, and thus
> >cause deaths from hunger. The question here is, is
> >American self sufficiency more important than Indian,
> >Vietnamese, Somalian, or Dominican lives?
>
>There are two issues here, which are not necessarily
>linked. One is subsidies to American farmers for
>growing (or not growing) certain crops. The other is
>third-world starvation. The real problem with
>starvation is not subsidies, it is an inadequate
>distribution infrastructure (in addition to warlord
>rule in many famine-stricken parts of the world). The
>world produces enough food to feed everybody; but much
>of this food rots in warehouses. The world needs
>effective avenues to distribute crops from those areas
>which have surpluses to those areas which face
>starvation.
That's one reason why there is hunger along with food surpluses overall, but it's also the thing about which that the USA can't do much, or at least not near as much as Europe with its crop-destruction programs can. But then again, note that even in the third world, there is enough food - the problems are that subsistence farmers often face famine and that non-subsistence farmers can't sell their crops at a sustaining price. The only solution to the former problem that will work in the long term that I can think of is birth control, but it will take it at least 6 years to take effect. The latter problem, however, has a more immediate solution: increasing demand for third-world crops by making first-world crops less competitive. But then again, it won't work everywhere, and the only way to help in, say, Somalia, is crop distribution.
> >5. Final comment: what is your position on separation
> >of church and state? More precisely, how would you
> >have voted on condemning Newdow vs. Congress, which
> >declared the "under god" portion of the pledge of
> >allegiance (on which Jesse Ventura said "mandating a
> >pledge of allegiance to a government is something
> >Saddam Hussein would do") unconstitutional, had you
> >been in Congress in June 2002? And moreover, what are
> >you going to do once elected about the creationists'
> >systematic attacks on science and rationality (a good
> >place to start is this article written 6 years ago)
> >in public schools?
>
>To tell the truth? I probably would have abstained.
>"Under God" in the Pledge doesn't offend me
>personally, but I think it is probably
>unconstitutional. That said, part of the job of a
>Representative is to, well, represent his or her
>constituents; and a huge majority of the American
>people were against the ruling of the 9th circuit
>court. I proably would have reconciled these dual
>impulses by abstaining or voting "present."
As far as the huge majority goes, think of it this way: 14% of Americans are atheists, and thus you'd expect that 14% of the members of Congress (61 members) would vote against the condemnation. In practice, only 5 did. If a similar thing recurs and you vote against such a popular but unconstitutional measure, then in essence you'd be representing the people, just not those in your district. But that's a completely different debate - proportional representation vs. districts - that we shouldn't get into.
>As far as creationism in the public schools -- in a
>comparative religions class? Sure. In science class?
>Absolutely not. Then again, I'm running for Congress,
>not school board. I hate to duck the question like
>that, but it's true. I'd love to mandate that science
>classes have to teach scientific fact, but one can
>only do so much at the federal level.
>
>To a large extent, you're talking about constitutional
>interpretation here. A U.S. Representative swears to
>"preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, but
>it falls to the judiciary to interpret. I will not
>vote for a bill I deem antithetical to the principles
>of our constitution, but it's not my job to overturn
>state and local laws -- that is the responsibility of
>the courts. This is why we need to elect a Democratic
>President and a Democratic Senate -- but I assume you
>already knew that. :-)
Good point, actually. One small counterpoint, however: some Democrats, such as Lieberman and Miller, are pretty fundamentalistic - Lieberman ensured that I'd never vote for him by saying "atheists have no morals," and Miller said he'd only approve judges if they believed in god.
> >The good as well as bad news are that you won't lose
> >or gain any votes because of any reply, or lack
> >thereof, to this email. I can't vote for you because
> >I live approximately 3,000 kilometers from WI-5, and
> >I can't contribute money because I don't have any. I
> >will most probably post the reply to this letter on
> >my site, but I'm not sure that there's anybody who
> >actually reads it, so it can't hurt or help anyone.
>
>You're expecting a reply? That's awfully presumptuous
>of you! Seriously, thank you for putting your letter
>on your site. I'm going to face a lot of darts from
>the right during this campaign. It's only fair that I
>face a few from the left as well.
>
>Regards,
>Vince
I'm sorry if my letter looked like throwing darts at you. The only point that was really intended to be a dart was 3) :-).
Regards,
Redeye.
Click here to read Vince's reply to my reply.
Click here to read my final reply.
This site has gotten
hits since 2003-12-25.