Are you happy with the state of your party?

[angus]

I'm curious.

I personally am not happy with my party. It is too controlled by people unwilling to compromise, and has become whiny as of late.

On the other hand, if I was a Republican, I'd be disturbed by the lack of fiscal responsibility and religious rightists.

good question.  I voted no, but then I'm not a loyalist.  From about 18 to 30 I was a democrat, and fairly dissatisfied as I grew older, then from about 30 to 36 I was unaffiliated, and dissatisfied at not being able to bitch about the parties with the convictions of a partisan, so a little over a year ago I joined what I considered to be the slightly less offensive of the two (in CA, you actually state, D, R, other, or DTS), but was somewhat dissatisfied.  Nowadays I'm technically an unregistered non-voter, and no idea where I'll vote next or what party (if any) I register with.  But one thing's for sure:  Dissatisfaction is a constant.  I'm either a partisan dissatisfied with the party I support, or a non-partisan dissatisfied voter.  I'd have chosen I don't have a party(yes) if it were an option.  Since the only way to vote Dissatisfied was to pick a party, I chose the one I was last in.  R(yes)

Ford, don't knock the NY Times.  Try reading some of the trash that passes for newsprint around here sometime.  Spend a week with the Village Voice, the NYPress, The NY Herald, etc.  You'll quickly see that the NYTimes readers are the most informed readers in New York.

[angus]

I was unhappy enough to leave and join the green party.

I tried that for a while too, but they're worse than the Democrats in many ways.  At least they're purists.  Gotta respect that.  Much like the libertarians, but on the opposite end of the spectrum.

"Maybe I'm just like my mother.
 she's never satisfied."
    --Prince, from when the artist was formerly known as Prince

[angus]

Miller is one scary Democrat, though.  My guess is that "good riddance" is the general feeling there.  Actually, Clinton is fairly centrist, if you define left as 70s democrats and right as Reagan.  I think if they could come up with another clintonesque (centrist hillbilly intellectual) candidate, they could win the swingers.  But, as you said, much of that depends on what the GOP does over the next few years.  Bear in mind that what congress does or doesn't do is often taken out on the presidential contenders.

[angus]

Dave, Scoonie's comments are a bit overkill, but it brings to mind the important phenomenon that, among US voters, "social" issues are very important.  This must be borne in mind when discussing US politics and US politicians.  I tend to forget that too, as these issues don't much affect my vote, but I suspect that scoonie, for example, doesn't forget that.  That said, yes, he's "moderate" by the standards I'd expect you consider, but because of his general weirdness, volatility, and positions on "social" issues, many American voters will consider him a right-wing democrat, less desirable than many republicans.  This is what I meant by "scary"

[angus]

well, that's true that democrats like Miller, Lieberman, even people like Mayor Koch, and others, were increasingly concerned with the lack of security among many in their party, but Miller himself has talked repeatedly of "lack of faith" and his general disdain for social mores in the USA.  I think that, combined with his (and Lieberman's et al) support for vouchers and tax-cuts have earned him the right-wing nut label.  yes, if he were in the GOP he'd be considered more mainstream, but then that's the whole point of parties having "wings" to begin with.  The right wing of the GOP does not necessarily equal, and in fact usually does not equal, the right wing of the Democrat party.  And, for that matter, their left wings are somewhat dissimilar as well.  I do not fit the mold, for example, of a right wing democrat or a left wing democrat, but I do generally stereotypify what "left wing republican" brings to mind.  (e.g., very low on the up/down, or social, issues, and in the middle on the left-right issues.)

[angus]

Domestic Policy

One of the fundamental purposes of government is to promote the public good where the marketplace does not work to that end. Therefore, the government will assist lower and middle-class Americans to achieve basic American goals (like higher education, home ownership, investment and retirement) by providing incentives (not entitlements) to those, who (as Clinton said) “work hard and play by the rules”.
              - in the areas of land use, suburban and rural development, environmental pollution, urban planning, preservation, and housing, and open public spaces: ballot proposals and legislative consensus at the national, regional and local level should have a larger role in determining policy, and financial incentives (rather than regulations) should be primarily used in implementing it.


Foreign Policy

America is still the best example to the world of what a democratic and diverse society looks like in terms of opportunity, tolerance, and basic inalienable rights. Our foreign interest should be to promote world political stability and opportunity for the poor by opposing tyranny and supporting true democratic political movements that support religious and ethnic tolerance and freedom of markets and the press. We should achieve our foreign policy goals through alliance and diplomacy when possible, but should pursue our goals unilaterally and through military strength when necessary.
             - our military must grow, and its members accorded respect in the society at large. It must therefore be invested with the best selection process, training, equipment and discipline.

Really, policies like these are a pre-Vietnam American attitude associated with classic post-industrial liberalism, and articulated by the great 20th century Democratic Presidents: Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy.

I'd support that (mostly).  I agree that this is the best example of a widely diverse people living in harmony the universe has ever known, and that our military might and military technology should be second to none, and that we must generally be responsible stewards of the ecology (though a mix of federal and local control is necessary in some cases).  I especially like the conspicuous (intentional?) absence of "wedge-issue policy"  Both parties would be wise to get out of the business of "social" issues.

"all scientists are pawns of the military.  you might as well have a choice in which one."
  --Albert Einstein (upon defection from Germany to the USA)

Goddamned right, albert!