Skip to main content

Piggybacking on gjohnsit's excellent diary from earlier today, I'd like to make a few points.

People keep talking about how the Republican Party is doomed in the future because of "demographics," meaning, essentially, that groups that are favorable to the Republican Party are dying off and they're being replaced with groups that are favorable to the Democratic Party -- Hispanics, young people, Hispanic young people, what have you.  The Republican solution to demographic change, right now, seems to be to slap minority faces on the same old terrible ideas (I'm looking at you, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio) and maybe passing an immigration reform bill that, if it ever actually passes, will be so watered down as to be meaningless.  In other words, Republicans aren't really going to do much of anything to appeal to people who they don't already appeal to.  Any "solution" they have tends to be limited to this sort of pandering, or just plain making it more difficult for people who don't view the Republican Party favorably to vote.

Sound crazy?  No, they know what they're doing.

Ever since the end of World War II, the Democratic Party has been interested solely in winning elections.  The conservative movement -- which these days is synonymous with the Republican Party, but that certainly wasn't the case in the days of Eisenhower and Rockefeller -- has been primarily interested in moving the country to the right.  Barry Goldwater was never going to win the election of 1964, but he succeeded in the conservative movement's goal.  By 1980, Ronald Reagan, who basically ran on the same ideas as Goldwater, was by no means a moderate of any sort, but the country had shifted far enough to the right that Reagan's ideas were no longer considered so out there.  And by 2000, George W. Bush could run on a platform similar to Reagan's and be considered very mainstream.  By 2013, Reagan almost looks like a flaming liberal (at least, in terms of his actual record) compared to the Tea Party.

See what's going on?  By focusing on winning elections, the Democratic Party has won a few elections -- but the continuous, conservative movement-guided push of the far right boundary of the Overton window has meant that the center has shifted.  And so has the far left boundary.  Because of this, even the Democrats who have won the White House have become considerably more conservative.  As much as conservatives like to point to Jimmy Carter as an example of how liberal policies fail, Carter was well to the right of FDR or even LBJ.  Bill Clinton, who agreed to gut the welfare state, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, capital gains tax cuts and free trade with China, was no liberal.  And Barack Obama?  By the time Obama entered office, the Overton window had moved so far to the right that the Democratic health care plan was the Heritage Foundation's alternative to the Clinton health care plan.  Not only is Obama to the right of Clinton and Carter, and an archconservative compared to FDR, he's arguably even to the right of Eisenhower.  Eisenhower, after all, signed the Interstate Highway system into law.  Obama hasn't even proposed anything with that kind of a progressive vision.

So, how does this relate to the "demographic change" phenomenon?  Those who focus on demographic change are only focused on which party wins elections.  Sure, demographic change may produce more voters who are inclined to vote for the Democratic Party -- and fewer voters who are inclined to vote for the Republicans.

But that's not the conservative movement's (and, by extension, the Republican Party's) goal.  They know what they're doing.  If the Republican Party moves to the left, in order to appeal to more of these new voters, they might win more elections, but they're not all that interested in winning more elections if it means electing more liberal politicians.

If they stand hard on the right, and even move further to the right, the Democrats have to move even further to the right to find the political center.  The conservative movement doesn't particularly care if they lose elections.  If they shift the political center further to the right, well, all those new Democratic voters will be electing politicians who are the ideological equivalent of Ronald Reagan.

Is that what you want?  Then, sure, keep telling yourselves that demographic change will save us all.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think demographic trends will save us, (6+ / 0-)

    but I think that they are very helpful in destroying the current Republican Party. Yet we must work for it and take nothing for granted.

  •  I live in the Southwest United States (11+ / 0-)

    and to be frank, its in the SW where what you are saying makes the least sense.

    There is a reason why NM is far more progressive than AZ, there are more Latinos there, and thus more democratic voters.

    Here's the main problem I see with your analysis

    If they stand hard on the right, and even move further to the right, the Democrats have to move even further to the right to find the political center.  The conservative movement doesn't particularly care if they lose elections.  If they shift the political center further to the right, well, all those new Democratic voters will be electing politicians who are the ideological equivalent of Ronald Reagan.
    Democrats don't have to move right.  I admit they have on many economic issues.  But looking at social issues (e.g., gay marriage), democrats have moved left.  The key is, we can help make sure Democrats stop moving right on economic issues.

    The other mistake I think you make is claiming that...

    If the Republican Party moves to the left, in order to appeal to more of these new voters, they might win more elections, but they're not all that interested in winning more elections if it means electing more liberal politicians.
    If you look at the recent history of the republican party, they were happy to take in the Dixiecrats when the democrats (LBJ) embraced the civil rights movement.  They did this at the expense of their traditional base in the midwest and New England.  They did it to win elections--and it worked.  Now the southern strategy is working against them, but that's really only started happening in the last decade.

    Demogrpahics matter, but I agree they are not the only thing that matters.  We are gonna have to continue fighting to force the democrats in a more progressive direction.  One thing that will help is that Latinos are generally far more receptive to organized labor and large social programs...so, with work, many of the rightward shifts by democrats can be brought leftward by the new Latino voters.

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:38:00 PM PDT

    •  I also live in the Southwest (4+ / 0-)

      (Texas, to be specific, if you want to include that in the Southwest.)

      The social issues, even if the Democrats are moving to the left, are a different matter.  Ultimately the people pulling the strings in the conservative movement (i.e. the Koch brothers) don't really give a shit if gays can get married or abortions are legal.  But those issues make nice little trinkets to make the rank-and-file voters angry, particularly when it feels like they're losing.  The Democratic Party has, however, been pulled well to the right on economic issues, to the point that any tax rate higher than the Clinton-era rates is considered far-left nonsense.

      As to the second point -- I should reiterate that I'm referring more to the conservative movement (a.k.a. the Tea Party) than I am the Republican Party, though they've basically become synonymous at this point.  And from the conservative movement's perspective, ditching the old-line Republicans from the Northeast in favor of the old Dixiecrats was a win-win: it helped win elections AND moved the Republicans to the right.

      Latinos may be more receptive to organized labor and large social programs, but will any Democratic politicians have the guts to propose stronger workplace regulations or expanding social programs?

      28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

      by TDDVandy on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:47:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If economic issues are what you really (6+ / 0-)

        care about, then there is little to debate between us.  Me, I give equal weight to both social and economic.  Yes, the Koch brothers don't care about gay marriage...but my gay friends do...and it really, really matters.

        I am always bothered by folks who disregard the genuine leftward movement on social issues of the democratic party.  It is important, it really does matter and it really has happened.  Gay rights matter, abortion matters, etc.

        There is a special breed of progressive I sometimes refer to as homo economicus. These are folks who focus so exclusively on economic issues that they devalue the importance of social issues.  

        In the end, it allows folks to ignore the real positives of the democrats on social issues.  Does this mean that the democrats are good on economic issues?  No, of course not.  

        But the leftward movement of democrats on social issues, often at the expense of winning elections (see LBJ and the civil rights movement) has been nothing short of brave and honorable.  It shows that we might well be able to get them to do the same brave and honorable actions when it comes to economic issues.

        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

        by Empty Vessel on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:58:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I get what you're saying (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mark Mywurtz

          I care about social issues as well, but I would like to have a Democratic Party that is strong on BOTH social and economic issues.

          Yes, the Democratic Party's leftward move on social issues is commendable.  But is the prospect of more and more people falling into poverty a price worth paying for that?

          28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

          by TDDVandy on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:17:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, of course not (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sja, gramofsam1

            but its not zero sum.  What I am saying is that the leftward shift on social issues is proof that it is possible to get the democrats to shift left on economic issues as well.

            The trick is to figure out how.

            For a long time now, I have thought that we need to very closely study the gay-rights movement.  Cause they have simply conducted the best and most effective progressive movement in recent years.  We need to borrow their strategies and use them for economic equality.

            But we cannot do that if we minimize the importance of social movements, or deny the leftward shift of the democratic party on social issues.

            "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

            by Empty Vessel on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:21:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's not zero-sum (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mark Mywurtz

              But you're comparing apples to oranges.

              On social issues, by and large, the conservative movement isn't really attempting to shift the Overton window to the right.  Part of that is a function of the fact that, especially on abortion, they really can't go any farther to the right than they already are.  It's much easier to move the Overton window to the left when there's no counter-push to move it to the right.

              On economic issues, though, it's more difficult simply because the conservative movement is actively seeking to shift the debate to the right.  And related to the diary from earlier, most Democrats are too scared of being labeled with dirty words like "socialist" to even attempt to shift the debate to the left, even though any "socialist" ideas coming from the Democrats are frankly the saddest excuses for socialism ever.

              28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

              by TDDVandy on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:33:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  There is no secret to this (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              METAL TREK, Empty Vessel

              The Harvey Milk strategy was to come out of the closet and organize. We are still working on those same lines on the question of marriage equality, but not we are past the tipping point, and it is all happening, issue by issue and state by state.

              The difference is that last year, when we reached the tipping point where a majority of Americans approved of marriage equality, it became possible for straight supporters to come out of their own closet and state their support publicly. So the shift in opinion polling has been moving several times faster than historic shifts in actual opinions.

              Organizing has had to focus on several different issues, including DADT and DOMA, in addition to the state-by-state fight against laws and Constitutional amendments against LGBTs. Depending on how narrowly the Supreme Court rules in the DOMA and Prop. 8 cases, those strategies will have to be adjusted again. But we know with great precision which states are targets, based on historic polling data and the state of the laws in each state, and we have a growing pool of activists who have been successful in various states who can help plan for further state actions, in addition to ever-increasing pools of home-grown talent.

              Now we have to get Liberals and Progressives out of the closet and on the metaphorical barricades. See my Diary Obama's commanding lead—among non-voters for the scope of the problem.

              One of the most important such GOTV projects is Battleground Texas, which demonstrates that the alleged point of this diary is itself nonsense. We can get numerous immigrant Latinos to become citizens in Texas; we can get many more Latinos registered to vote; and we can get many more of them to the polls next time. If the Black response to voter suppression last year is anything to go by, we can look forward to record Latino turnout as the Right's War on Immigrants plays out.

              The War on Women is a war on all of us.

              The War on Immigrants is a war on all of us.

              The War on Workers is a war on all of us.

              The War on Drugs is a war on all of us.

              The War on Gun Safety is a war on all of us.

              The War on Science is a war on all of us.

              The War on the Old is a war on all of us.

              The War on the Young is a war on all of us.

              The Crusader War on Non-Christians, and even on Christians who are not Winger Evangelicals, is a war on all of us.

              The Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been wars on all of us.

              The Wars on Everybody Else in Sight are wars on all of us.

              Republicans have even declared war on each other.

              Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

              by Mokurai on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 08:42:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  it reflects the party's rich donors (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AppleP, TDDVandy

          Most of them are solidly left on social issues, but for obvious reasons (they're rich) are solidly right on economic issues.  

          OTOH, blue collar voters (once upon a time the Democratic base) historically are the opposite: solidly left on economic issues, but solidly right on social issues, which they regarded as the decadence and frivolity of moneyed urbanites.

    •  Please read my post below. I think that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Empty Vessel, TDDVandy

      we need more than "organized labor and large social programs" although I do thing labor can play an important role and regain some mojo.

      One thing I didn't emphasize but is part and parcel of what I'm talking about is a robust investment in education. Please add that idea to what you read below.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:20:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  One Point... (4+ / 0-)

    Obama did too propose reinvesting in our interstate system and repairing our roads.  And then the GOP was all 'eff that noise we'll prove to you that gov't is useless by making it useless!'

    The GOP has blocked anything remotely progressive Obama has ever brought to the table.  Tyranny of the minority and all that jazz...

    I do agree with your general premise though, of the countries continuous listing to the right.

    Education is the progressive discovery of our own ignorance. -Will Durant

    by Blue Dream on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:42:22 PM PDT

    •  Yeah. (0+ / 0-)

      Obama also proposed a high-speed rail system.  But the thing is that Obama hasn't proposed anything truly progressive like, say, ditching the interstate highway system for a more comprehensive national mass transit network.  (Look at the Amtrak route atlas sometime.  Aside from the fact that the trains are slow as molasses compared to those in Europe or Japan, outside of the Northeast, the coverage of the network is just plain sad.  I mean, how is there no direct rail connection between Dallas and Houston?)

      Again, repairing the interstate system is basically status quo.  That's still 1950s infrastructure that contributes heavily to automobile dependence.

      28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

      by TDDVandy on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:05:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is an illusion of the Right-Wing noise machine (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mark Mywurtz

      The Right is definitely louder and nastier than it has been in some time, but not bigger. Polls show significant majorities for Progressive policies across the board, and when we reach the tipping point where we can take back gerrymandered states, that will translate more and more into policy and law.

      Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

      by Mokurai on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 08:45:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  To piggyback on my diary from today (4+ / 0-)

    I'd say he GOP hopes to repackage the exceptionalism and American Dream myths in such a way as to attract new immigrants.  See, government is bad, regulates too much, but if you and your wife work 3 minimum wage jobs each, good things are bound to happen!  Ain't America such a great country!

    Meanwhile they are trying to get to those young'uns who have bought into the Libertarian bullshit.  See this past weekend's FT article on the Bitcoin assholes.  

    The strongest evangelisers of Bitcoins have always been libertarians. This is broadly the political hue of the Bitcoin Foundation, set up by some of the earliest users and entrepreneurs of the currency to steward its development. But an increasing majority of the people interested in Bitcoin are only “libertarianish”, despairing of government rather than opposed to it. And they are hardly just in the US...

    Intellectually self-confident and eager to plunge into debate, Mohan is quickly becoming a catalyser of the New York Bitcoin community. He is organiser of a regular “meet-up” group which aims to connect the Bitcoin-curious, and which has helped build interest even after an apparently life-threatening price crash in April. Mohan wants to get rich, and he wants to wreck government as we know it, too. Through Bitcoin, a currency outside the purview of banks and government control, Mohan sees “a chance to build a financial business with no regulation. Government is coercion and force. You don’t fight coercion with coercion, you just ignore it. Bitcoin allows you to ignore it.”

    That's right.  Fuck the government.  Oh yeah, and fuck all those pensioners.  And Social Security recipients.  And whomever else gets screwed when your bogus currency spins out of control and tanks.  Lord help us if the Wall Street Masters of the Universe take notice....

    To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

    by dizzydean on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:51:54 PM PDT

    •  Libertarians (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Visceral, Mark Mywurtz

      are little more than conservative Republicans who think our country's drug laws shouldn't be enforced.

      On a related note, libertarian ideas seem to be induced by heavy drug use.

      Democrats and especially liberals need to stop playing into the libertarian bullshit.  Getting angry about the NSA or the IRS plays into their hands.  Don't give them any more fuel.

      28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

      by TDDVandy on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:00:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is why we need a progressive vision (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TDDVandy, METAL TREK

    that will help guarantee the demographic advantage.
    We are on the verge of a revolution in clean energy, new technology, and a 21st century infrastructure.
    It will happen.
    The economy itself needs a restoral of the middle class, for it's own sustainablilty.
    This would make "austerity" irrelevant. A rising middle class means upward mobility for the poor, as opposed to the current downward pressure on the social safety net.
    Wall Street currently is a massive tumor on the economy.
    The gop is brazenly blocking progress.
    We need a "unified field" progressive program that will take all this into account.
    We are on the cusp. If we win in the short term and break gop obstruction for a couple of years, we'll start to see the pendulum swing and the overton window will start moving in the other direction.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:56:02 PM PDT

    •  I didn't mention the effect that climate change (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      METAL TREK

      and the requirement to adapt to climate change will have. Even if we adopted "climate denialism" as the state religion, we will have to respond and adapt to the facts of climate and that is going to create massive change in the near future.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:59:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  David - how we adapt to climate change will have (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roger Fox, Mark Mywurtz

        significant political ramifications. Americans don't want to give up cheap gas, cheap energy, personal autos, AC, and travel freedoms. How those variables are politically managed could be a benefit to the Dems or give the GOP a new life.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:03:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Americans are being "schooled" right now (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, TDDVandy, METAL TREK

          most brutally about climate change. Whole cities are being rebuilt. We have to rebuild them clean and green.

          As for gas, it was unregulated speculation on gas that ran up the prices and spiked the mortgage backed security bubble and tanked the economy. We can't afford a runaway, out of control Wall STreet anymore. People understand that now. Mega utilities are trying to obstruct solar power now exactly because they fear it will become too cheap for them to make a profit.

          People are willing to drive hybrids, electrics, and use mass transportation as it becomes available and necessary. We're adapting to bike-sharing and car-sharing.
          It's not like we're going to install thousands of miles of high speed rail overnight.

          They're smart enough to know that we have to do something globally about climate change, and that gas prices are going to rise inevitably, in any case.

          Solar power on buildings is the clincher.

          My main point is that we need a unified program to sell that includes jobs, cheap energy, climate change solutions, sustainable financial sector, new investment opportunities and new entrepeneurship opportunities. Add investment in education and a restoral of the middle class that eliminates concern about austerity, and takes the strain off the social safety net. This will allow for evolving into a single payer health care system, and will that will take the ins. burden off of private employers. This is all really one basic package. We are right on the cusp. We need the gop to get out of the way for just a few years, and then we'll have transformed the political landscape.

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:40:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The biggest adaptation (0+ / 0-)

            that must be made is a shift away from low-density suburban-style living and the automobile dependence that comes with it.

            The irony of the Republicans complaining about Democrats wanting to "force" them into eschewing automobiles and giving up their McMansion with a yard is that, in reality, current policies force the opposite.  The market screams that people want the former; otherwise, tract housing in far-flung suburbs would be insanely expensive.

            28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

            by TDDVandy on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:57:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  TDDV - but most people want a yard and more space (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mark Mywurtz

              If people could have the same land and space, closer to the city, for the same price they would jump at the chance. However, it is often much more expensive to have more living space and land closer in. There are tradeoffs, particularly for parents with children, regarding safe play and better schools.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 04:19:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well, we need to design developments so that most (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mark Mywurtz

              can easily walk or bike to the store, school, etc. I don't think that completely precludes suburban living, but it needs to be designed for the people and for conservation of energy rather than the most wasteful use of the auto.

              You can't make this stuff up.

              by David54 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 04:30:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Right, we have a car centric suburbia (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AppleP

                The Big box stores, like Home Depot, they have to go.

                .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                by Roger Fox on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 06:17:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You beat me to it (0+ / 0-)

                  the destruction of the mom n pop store by the big brand names is causing the problem.  They save the consumer a lot of money, but at what cost to the local communities and worker pay?

                  Republican tax policies have led to financial conditions which have caused Republicans to demand cuts to programs they have always opposed.

                  by AppleP on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 07:11:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Well, we could morph into a hybrid of the current (0+ / 0-)

                  system  with big box stores and small outlets in well designed residential areas or even with "hot-shot" delivery vans. This could bring back "mom/pop" entrepeneurship. Maybe. Or something.

                  You can't make this stuff up.

                  by David54 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 08:18:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  David - I have been an investor in solar since '88 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            David54

            I was one of the first investors in Sun Power, now the largest US provider of solar panels. I am a big solar fan. The utilities, and the state public utilities commissions, fear distributed (rooftop) power because they are afraid that they will be only a backup and load leveling supplier with the distributed power providing cheap energy and not paying enough to cover the fixed costs for the utility's core generating capacity. Because solar does not provide reliable 24/7/365 power it has to have access to the grid to provide power when the solar panels don't. The issue then becomes what is a fair price for the utility to be the on demand backup for your rooftop solar system?

            It really has nothing to do with utilities fearing cheap solar. It is a much more complex issue.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 04:13:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, the nay-saying I've heard in general points (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              to the price dropping out in Spain and Germany. I assumed that was a talking point from the interests opposed to solar. I appreciate your knowledge on the issue. I'm aware of the need for backup generation and connection to the grid. That's why I was a fan of natural gas, but now I'm really concerned about the fracking problem, etc.

              You can't make this stuff up.

              by David54 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 04:38:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Utilities need to (0+ / 0-)

              change their business model.  If they were to embrace solar they could do the install and maintenance and make money that way.

              Republican tax policies have led to financial conditions which have caused Republicans to demand cuts to programs they have always opposed.

              by AppleP on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 07:13:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  This is partially true. (0+ / 0-)

      But, the truth is that moving the Overton window in the other window will require new ideas, or at least reviving old ideas.

      Defending the status quo on Social Security and Medicare won't move the Overton window.  Proposing that we expand Social Security and make Medicare available for all (not just senior citizens) would.

      28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

      by TDDVandy on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:02:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We need to keep working to see to it that the (0+ / 0-)

        mechanisms in the aca that will produce single payer are pushed forward. The exchanges are ultimately an opportunity for "public options" which could ultimately be made into national Medicare.
        The medical loss ratio limits the profit of the big companies and will ultimately help make Wall Street lose interest in health care delivery.
        The companies are such a big part of Wall Street that we will have to evolve into Medicare for all.

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:47:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think this is a pretty smart diary ... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slksfca, tardis10, TDDVandy, Mark Mywurtz

    because it's an astute application of the "winning elections" versus "moving the country to the right" idea. Which is pretty much the logic of today's conservatism.

    I'm very suspicious about the depth of Latino support for Democrats over the long term. I just don't see it as a given like it has with previous minority groups. The Democratic Party today is light years away from the monolith of liberal ideology that made Democrats out of African Americans, for instance. It's very easy to imagine the GOP ridding themselves of a couple of noxious positions and turning a chunk of Latinos into sort of "Reagan Democrats." I'd say the same thing about the 18-25 age group as well.

    The Democratic Party just isn't "representing" like it used to. The platform might be fairly liberal, but we don't see the elected party leadership acting consistently like a liberal party. It's not like at all like the Party of the 1960s. And the GOP-Lite aspects are maddening beyond words. It's much more easy for people to leave it than I think we'd like.

    •  The platform of today (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chrississippi, Mark Mywurtz

      is only liberal on social issues.  On economic issues, it's only liberal in comparison to the Republican Party of today.

      28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

      by TDDVandy on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:22:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I was there in the 60s (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chrississippi

      in both the Northeast and for a time in Nashville, Tennessee. (Desegregation was the law, but there was still a Black YMCA on the next block over from City Hall. The manager told me that it wasn't true any more, but he hadn't gotten around to changing the sign. Then he told me about the Civil Rights lawsuits he had been involved in during the '30s.)

      Democrats, particularly Southern Democrats, were no prize back then by today's standards. LBJ "lost" the country for a generation with the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, but in the process forced the grand realignment into the Party of Selfishness and the Party of Empathy that is still not complete. (Then he messed up totally in Vietnam.)

      As I see it, the completion of the evolution of the Party of Selfishness will be its implosion, in the manner of the Federalists in 1815, the last year they won even one election. However, in the words of Douglas Adams, there remains the possibility that they will be replaced by something even more bizarrely inexplicable, .

      Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

      by Mokurai on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:01:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think this is a funny diary. (0+ / 0-)

    A diary written about how R elites fool and fuck R voters.

    More interesting on a D site would be how D elites fuck and fool D voters.

    But then, if the point of this site (other than make Kos money) is to promote Ds, I guess that's against the FAQs.

    LOL.

  •  Dems Concentrate On Winning PASSIVELY. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mark Mywurtz

    over the last decades, mostly by wooing Republican swing voters.

    That makes them move to the right during Presidential elections, and move to the right during midterm and other off year elections.

    By contrast the Republicans have usually shown moderation during Presidential years to win Democratic swing voters, then of course they govern conservatively. But during other elections they run hard to the right and super motivate their base, in order to move the window to the right.

    Republicans definitely advanced by playing to win, but they play to win elections aggressively. They use different types of elections taking advantage of each.

    What the left, to the extent we have one any more, needs to do is go back to working the whole election cycle and trying to move the window left during those periods when the moderates turnout is reduced and base turnout is more important.

    But we can't wait for the party to do that. We've had decades to see that they won't do it.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:46:17 PM PDT

  •  The Diarist is apparently buying into the master (0+ / 0-)

    delusion of the Right, which is that continuing erosion of their base is the key to them becoming a permanent majority, and that they need to grow it by continuing to throw out as many non-believers as possible and doubling down on the hate. We saw this most plainly in Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition's recent Road to Majority Conference, at which the racism, bigotry, misogyny, and Mammonism of the movement were on full display, and speaker after speaker told the faithful that this was how to achieve permanent political supremacy.

    This phenomenon is known as Cognitive Dissonance. It was described in the 1964 book When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group That Predicted the Destruction of the World, by Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter. The prophecies of the Christian Right are failing en masse, and the consequences are exactly as predicted in the book.

    We saw this in an earlier movie: the Federalist/big business/Christian Right Party of No coalition against Thomas Jefferson that fell over and died a few years later.

    Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

    by Mokurai on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:13:36 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site