May 18, 2003

What would I expect from a Democrat

Joel asked a very good question in response to my earlier post, "Playing Political Games":

I would like to see more discussion of actual policy. The conservatives are right: our disgust of George Bush does dominate our political talk these days.

And this progressive asks "So, if the Democrats come into power, what's going to change?" No dumb monkey stares. I've been getting enough of that from the conservatives and you folks claim to be better.

This is a partial response - basically a quick list off the top of my head of the kinds of things I'd expect to see if a Democrat were to be elected. I'm working from a "generic" Democrat and not any particular candidate at this point, and this isn't a complete list by any means. But it's a start.
  • I'd expect to continue paying at least as much in taxes as I do now, if not a bit more - but I'd also expect that everyone else in the country would do likewise, including the rich. I'd also expect that we'd start reducing the size of the budget deficit each year, and, hopefully, be able to return to having budget surpluses.

  • I wouldn't be nearly as worried that we were going to go invading other countries as a matter of course unless there was 1) obvious need, 2) a request for help from the people and/or 3) general support for the action from our allies. I would also expect that - even if it means I have to pay more in taxes - we'd start to uphold our commitments to rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq (hopefully with the assistance of our allies and/or the United Nations) and help them establish strong, stable, democratic governments.

  • I would expect that the sunset provisions of the USA PATRIOT act would be allowed to run their course, and (hoping here) maybe we'd see the PATRIOT act as a whole repealed. More generally, I'd expect to see and end to the assault on our civil rights that we've been experiencing recently.

  • I'd expect an end to the government's attempts to give public funds to religious organizations for charitable work, unless those specific programs do not prostylize to the participants and do conform to federal non-discrmination hiring laws (as has been done in the past). I'd also expect that the government would stop trying to find ways to fund church-building and the publication of religious materials.

  • I'd expect "Big Business" to still have more influence over the governement than I like, but not nearly as much as it has right now.

  • I'd expect there to be more concern for environmental issues and for businesses to be held to a better (though probably not good enough) level of responsiblity for environmental damage that they do.

  • I certainly wouldn't expect the US to become a utopia - it wasn't before Bush and it won't ever be - but I think a Democrat could at least start leading us back to being the country we were before Bush took office. I do expect that there will continue to be more restrictions on my civil liberties than I'd like because of security concerns, and recognize that a Democrat will also have to find a way to help people feel safer. I think that a Democrat, however, would find a better way to distribute the federal money available to help states with providing their own security, rather than having the "red" states get disproportionally more per-capita than the "blue" states - especially since many of the "blue" states have large population centers that are more likely to be targeted (such as, say, New York City or Los Angelas) than, for example, Casper, Wyoming.

  • I'd expect some attempts at better health care being made available to more people, but I don't know how successful they'd be - universal health care, in any form, especially given the current state of our health care system, is going to be very tricky.

  • I'd also expect there to still be scandals, favouritism, influence peddling, lies told, opportunistic photo-ops, decisions that boggle the mind, wasteful spending and the other problems that seem to go with any politician. And I realize that the changes I mentioned above will also take the cooperation of Congress, and that as long as the Republicans have control, some of that may be very difficult to achieve.
No President will ever be perfect. While I certainly liked Clinton a lot better than I do Bush, I wouldn't call him the "perfect" president, or, necessarily, even a "great" one. But he did a decent job, and I was certainly better off at the end of his term than I was at the beginning and far better off than I am right now.

I'd also like to hear what other readers think they might see from a Democrat President. Please take a minute and post your own lists - or, as Rayne has done, a link to a post in your own blog on this topic. I think Joel's question is a good one, and am curious what others think as well.

Posted by thorswitch at May 18, 2003 06:10 PM | TrackBack


Comments

I guess I have higher aspirations when I choose candidates. :)

You know, to tell the truth, I don't see Clinton as being the "great president" that many Dems insist that he was. Better than Bush, it is true (but is that hard), but policy-wise, his administration set us up for much of the hell that we're going through together. Likewise Democratic Congresses -- which didn't have the nerve to give the likes of Scalia and Thomas the "unacceptable" stamp bear much of the blame.

I want a candidate who is going to be thinking about the future and thinking of our people as our nation's most important resource. Your comments sound like more of the same "Well, we'll be better than Bush, but don't expect too much." That's been the Democrat line for years and, frankly, I want a better one.

Posted by: Joel at May 18, 2003 07:57 PM

Several points:

One of the biggest government expenses is entitlements, including Social Security. The Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement Reform (see http://www.dolf.com/homestead/entitlement/report.htm, run by a conservative guy who at least wants people to see what is going on) reveals that the biggest reason for the cost itself (versus the *rate* of increase, which is driven by longer life-spans) is the lack of means-testing (you don't get them if you already have plenty of money) of the benefits. Republicans, George Will, Rush "Loombowel " et al, have always resisted reforming this aspect. R's also don't fight Corporate Welfare enough, but only pick on that earmarked for the poor.

Another: Bush's administration is highly secretive, blocking attempts to know what went on at meetings, after 911, etc (like the reports of the Congressional Committe), etc. They also continue the efforts of DEA to block medical use of marijuana, etc. - something I was very disappointed to see Clinton doing. (I also mistrusted him for NAFTA, and other globalization sell-outs, as Nader et al complained.)

Finally: Nader caused harm, despite having some good critiques, by drawing votes from Gore. Realistically, one of the two major candidates is going to win, and you can only pick the best one.

Neil

Posted by: Neil at May 18, 2003 09:08 PM

Joel - I would like to expect more, but with as often as our government changes, it's hard to ever get much accomplished. I want to be an idealist, but the cynacism has sunk in very deep.

Neil - excellent point about the secrecy - I would very much like to see a great deal less of it. I have to admit, I haven't thought a lot about means testing for Social Security, but it's not necessarily a bad idea, though I'll have to do more research.

Posted by: kriselda jarnsaxa at May 18, 2003 09:53 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?