Wedge Issues: National Defense

The Democratic party, and liberals in general, are often portrayed as being weak on defense; the spirit of the label is often true, as the Party and the left-wing idealogues tend to find that social causes are more their forté, both in terms of expertise and ability.

But, of course, the undecided moderate conservative doesn't care as much about social issues as she does about national defense - very often the conservative base can be well-riled up by having a guy say things like "Forces armed with what? Spitballs?" More to the point, they're often willfully ignorant when such a speech is 98% untrue.

The party failed to respond to Zell Miller's speech in any way, shape or form in August, instead choosing to trumpet John Kerry's own Purple Hearts and say "He's big on defense! He got shrapnel in his buttock!" What the party failed to do in any way, shape, or form, was to come out and accuse Zell Miller of lying (which he did) or to back up their own members and candidates' records on defense spending (which they didn't).

It's time for the party to give up. The military-industrial complex is here to stay, and if I may say so, it's a good thing. While our armies and navies may not be the most agile weapon-bearing force in the world, they remain the best-trained soldiers this planet has ever seen, and our military remains the most powerful in the world...greater even than China's 100-million-man army. We have the best equipment, the best training, and generally, the best soldiers on Earth. While I hate to admit it, those are all results of Republican efforts at continually increasing defense spending.

Nevermind that the increase in the defense budget is hard on other programs - the money can be found pretty easily if we're willing to look for it. At the very least, the Democratic party must stop caterwauling about defense spending, and must instead attempt to keep it steady, at the rate of inflation. While I don't agree with the war in Iraq at all, we are there, and spending money on the military is the only way to keep our men and women who ARE there safe.

Now, that said, there are ways to keep costs down while at the same time appearing strong on defense.

• Keep contracts open
 - Very often, the Pentagon will award a contract to a company in a no-bid, noncompetitive contract program because "They're the only company that can do it." Well, if that's the case, then there's no harm in soliciting bids, is there? If they're the only ones who can do it, then they'll win the contract. ALL defense contracting should be competitively awarded.


• Contract Accountability
 - Overcharging the Pentagon, and really the entire government in general, must be an enforced crime. Companies that engage in this act should, if convicted in a court of law, be heavily fined, banned from doing business in the United States, and/or have their assets broken up. This makes us hard on crime, as well as defense-friendly, and attempting to thwart such a bill would make anyone who stands in the way look like they care more about campaign donations than government accountability.


• Increased funds for body armor
 - This should be a no-brainer.


• Visit the troops
 - When was the last time that, say, Nancy Pelosi visited the troops? When was the last time Tom Daschle spent time in Bosnia, or Kuwait, or Germany? Why is it always Republicans who spend time carousing with our boys and girls in uniform? Trust me, there are plenty of Democrats in the armed forces, and they'd be plenty happy to see politicians of their stripe.

Being "strong on defense" has too long been a Republican tagline. It's time for the Democratic Party to get their act in gear. There's no reason not to oppose overboard Pentagon spending, but at the same time, "Support our Troops" is a rallying cry for the right - it should be a rallying cry for everyone.

Wedge issues: gay marriage

One of the factors that perhaps managed to swing a lot of undecided voters towards Republican candidates in this most recent election cycle was the topic of gay marriage. After a federal judge ruled in March of 2004 that marriage in his district (which included Boston) could not be limited to man and woman, a floodgate was opened that really revealed how much animosity towards homosexual rights this country has.

The Republican seized the momentum, going so far as to actually push a proposed Constitutional Amendment onto the floor of the US House of representatives. It failed, but it left liberals and those who viewed themselves as protectors of the constitution on the defensive.

Left with nothing to do but oppose whatever the Republican majority supported, the Democrats got stuck with the position of supporting the idea of civil unions. No major Democratic candidate for the presidency came out in favor of gay marriage itself - but the labels applied by conservatives stuck. And John Kerry, once he earned the Democratic nomination, didn't do a damned thing to support the idea.

Then came the state constitutional amendments during this most recent cycle, all 11 of which passed, and all 11 of which banned gay marriage as such.

Who would have thought that a Federal district court ruling in favor of gay rights would set gay rights back so far?

The thing that the Democratic party must do, in order to both protect the rights of gay Americans and to protect itself, is to come out strongly supportive of civil unions. More than 70 percent of Americans are opposed to the idea of gay marriage as an institution, and while it's not fair, the party and its supporters must understand that the US simply isn't ready for wedding bells to ring for Adam and Steve, as well as for Adam and Eve.

In order to make this work, the party is going to have to work with civil libertarians and gay rights leaders to make them understand that this is a case where baby steps are needed. This is a case where, if the movement starts small, eventually the equality will be achieved that should be achieved. It may take a while, but eventually, equality will be there waiting.

In conclusion: The party, and gay rights leaders, must come out united for Civil Unions. The rights of gay partners who lead committed relationships must not be sacrificed for political gain - they must instead be gained piecemeal for the Democratic Party to earn the respect of liberals and moderates, as well as moderate rightists, alike.

And so it Begins

This is the first official post of this blog, so I thought I should flesh out how I'm going to run this thing.

Every week, preferably Saturday, I'm going to put up a bit of a treatise on how I, as a Democratic-leaning voter, think the party should address certain issues. I'm going to focus, at least at the start, on what are traditionally considered "wedge" issues. I'd like to address things like gay marriage, God in the classroom, and tax policy.

While it is currently about as much of a wedge issue as any other, the War in Iraq (or Operation Iraqi Freedom, depending on which side of the fence you're on) will get its own separate chapter in this blog.

So, here we go. I'm kind of curious as to what I'll cook up around here.

They Certainly Are Out of Touch, Aren't They?

I was reading the Drudge Report, and I noticed a Terry McAuliffe quote from an article on BlackPressUSA.com, saying, and I'm quoting here from the article:

"This party is stronger than its ever been. Were in the best financial shape," he says. "We now have, unlike four years ago, millions and millions of new supporters of this party. We're debt-free for the first time ever and were beginning to build towards 2008."

Did I read that right?

Terry, I know you're a good guy and all, but dude, it's time to stop living in fantasy pink world, or wherever you are. Your presidential candidate lost, giving George W. Bush his first truly legitimate election victory for the White House, and you lost seats in both houses of Congress. Oh, yeah, and you only broke even in gubernatorial races.

Stronger than it's ever been? I don't want to be mean, but how weak did the party used to be?

(Here's the article)

And so another four years begins

Even before this most recent election, I had been noticing, especially among potentially sway-able voters, that a lot of people simply didn't understand the general Democratic Party platform, or what John Kerry's oft-mentioned plans were to improve the well-being of United States citizens and residents.

The more I read or heard statements like, "The Democrats don't have a real platform," or "Kerry's just answering to the polls, not to the people," I began to realize that one thing that plagues Democrats, as well as Republicans, is that they simply don't have a connection to John Q. Public.

That's not to say that I don't think that Democrats care about the people - on the contrary, they are a populist party, and as such they have a natural tendency to be, well, populist. Sort of the nature of left-wing politics, really.

But the party as a whole, and many of its top-flight candidates, tend to not be able to get that across. And I think that most of the party's platform in't well-explained or particularly well-defined.

So I'm creating this weblog. Really, it's just for me. It's just a way for me to put my thoughts onto paper, or something like it, and for me to have a place to ponder how to best explain what I believe that moderate-liberal politics ought to be about.