New Blog

I have started a new blog to replace Carolina Demline. I think my readers will find it to be more user friendly. I am finding it to be much more manageable as a publisher. Please check it out and feel free to participate in discussions, etc.

Thanks for your reads in the past and I look forward to hearing from you on my new site.

http://andrewjacksondem.com

In Defense of My Positions

I recently posted comments in regards to E.J. Dionne's article on the future of the conservative movement. I suggested that the future of politics would be won by the party who incorporated the need for a government that protected its citizenry, without suffocating American inginuity and overstepping its boundaries in our lives. I cautioned Democrats in thinking the current problems voters are having with conservatives are a call to return to big government programs to solve the issues facing our nation. This post produced a couple of comments that I feel I must respond in order to clarify my beliefs of what the Democratic Party should advocate in the future.

First, I was asked in one post why I won't join the Republican Party. This question has been posed to me by many political sparring partners because I tend to take a less partisan viewpoint compared to most Democrats. However, I will not join the Republican Party because I disagree with the objectives of the GOP and feel there is a place for government to do good for the American people. I have felt Republicans often work to protect the wealthiest of Americans while turning their backs on the rest of the country.

That being said, the second post dealt with economic populism. There are some valid points to economic populism. I do not disagree with the need for protection of workers, investors, and consumers. We need to do all we can to make sure the nation we live is safe and secure from both domestic and foreign threats to the people of our country. This includes making sure work places are safe, investments are secure, pensions protected, our borders controlled, and those who wish to harm our people are kept in check.

However, to provide Americans with the security/protection advocated by those who want to return the party to an economic populist message, we do not need government redistribution programs that pit class between class. President Clinton's economic policies were successful at lifting more people out of poverty, creating the largest number of millionaires in our countries history, expanding the middle class for minorities, and increasing home ownership. He did this by using tax policy that encouraged growth (growth in which each class of people benefited). At the same time, decreasing the size of the federal government. The Bush Administration, nor any previous Presidential administration prior to Clinton can boast of such accomplishments.

I am tired of Democrats demonizing those who create wealth for themselves. Why is it wrong to study the market and invest in a company, work hard to build a business, or use your brainpower to invent/find a new cure to a disease or technological advancement? Sometimes I feel Democrats are against those who do this and unfortunately the electorate has felt the same. Clinton understood that all Americans aspire to live a good life and used government as a tool to provide opportunity to all Americans. He realized those who have achieved, should not be penalized for success, while advocating for the people working hard, trying to realize the American dream.

If Democrats want to be successful in the future, they must throw away the class warfare message and return to Clintonian rhetoric. Clinton made all people understand the importance of economic mobility for all classes. He was successful at making the wealthy buy into his beliefs of using government as a tool for economic prosperity. The wealthy benefited from Clinton's policies, as did most Americans.

Democrats have the opportunity to be the majority party in the United States. By forging a platform of issues that limits the scope of government while encouraging opportunity and responsibility in our ecomomic lives. Americans are tired of the old liberal ways of big government programs, yet are distrustful of conservative ideology that promises all will benefit from a rising tide. Democrats must find a new way that adapts to the 21st Century and the socio-economic realities of the information aged economy.

Evangelicals and Ohio Politics

When people ask me why Ohio went to the Republican side in 2004 I often say, "Ohio is the most southern state above the Mason-Dixon line." Some laugh, some argue, and some do not understand. Having traveled across the Buckeye state and participated in the political process, I am amazed at how similar Ohio is to many parts of the south, especially North Carolina.

The Ohio State University has done an excellent report on the state or religion and politics in the Buckeye state. After reading this article, one can make an argument that religious organizations have more influence on the political process in Ohio, than in many states in the south.

http://www.ohioelects.com/?story=dispatch/2006/07/23/Crusade_main1.html

GOP Candidates shedding Party Label

The Washington Post reports this morning that GOP candidates are so worried about mid-term election losses that they fail to identify themselves as Republicans in advertising. Other candidates are telling voters they won't do what the national party wants them to do. Read more by clicking on the link below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/04/AR2006080401807.html

Republican Candidates struggle with President Bush

Republican candidates running for federal office are struggling with how close they want to be seen with President Bush. Read the article from The Hill by clicking on the link below.

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/072706/news2.html

Is Republican Conservatism Finished?

I wrote my college history thesis on the foundings of the modern conservative movement in the United States. I found the study fascinating as conservatives built themselves into a hardened political voting block that helped to elect Republican presidencies and congresses. So when I awoke and read The Washington Post this morning, I was very interested in a column on the future of conservatism in American politics.

In today's Washington Post, political columnist E.J.Dionne questions the future of conservatism as a political force in the United States. Dionne distinguishes the fragile link between social conservatives and libertarians who have worked in unison to dominate the political scene for the past forty years.

In this article, Dionne notes recent developments that have brought the conservative movement to the brink of fragmentation. Run-away spending, stem cell research, and the war in Iraq have worked to divide social and libertarian conservatives in a way similar to the split seen in the 1992 Presidential election, the last time a schism within conservative circles gave way to massive Democratic gains across the United States.

It is in the final piece of the article that I want to dedicate my comments. Dionne argues that political movements suffer and decline when they lose self-confidence. Liberalism crumbled as an electoral coaltition after the 1968 election. With the fall of the liberal order, conservatives forged a coalition of voters between southern Democrats, midwestern union workers, and business friendly groups and enacted systematic changes to New Deal programs at all levels of government.

As Dionne argues, the decline of conservatism leaves a vaccum in American politics. I caution Democrats who may feel this vaccum can be absorbed by shifting existing policies to big-government sollutions. Each political shift is defined by the socio-economic condition of the country. The progressive shift after the Great Depression reflected the need for an activist government. The post-1968 conservative shift reflected the nation's concern of the counterculture, high taxes, and government social engineering.

Today, our country is defined by the information aged economy. People create wealth through their own ingenuity. I believe the vaccum described by Dionne will be filled by the party who understands that Americans need a government who protects them from the evils of big business and big government, provides security to domestic and foreign enemies, and promotes entreprenurial growth. The next political movement will be won by the party who can offer pension protections, personal information protections, a real national security plan, a new approach to helath care, incentives for technological innovations, and encourages investments (both public and private) in our countries businesses and neighborhoods.

Both parties have an opportunity to forge a new coalition. The party who can shake the grip of existing special interests to write a new platform of ideas will be the party that governs in the future.

I have included a link to Dionne's column below. Click on it to read more.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080301259.html

National Dems repositioning strategy on Iraq War

Are national Democrats rethinking their stance on immediate pullout of troops from Iraq? Recent calls for withdrawl of troops incrementally have pundits believing this to be a new strategy to be employed over the fall campaign.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060802-114806-7928r.htm

Governor Easley comments on NC Investigations

North Carolina Governor Mike Easley commented on Speaker Jim Black's political problems. Though troubled with the allegations against the speaker, Easley was short in asking the speaker to step down from his current position.

In the 2006 elections, the troubles surrounding speaker Black are a political unknown. Republicans are trying to use the speaker's problems as a call for change, while national problems with the Republican party may stiffle any chance for local GOP gains in the legislature.

The News and Observer reported on Governor Easley's discussion of this issue. You may read more by clicking on the link below.

http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/467088.html

Lieberman Losing Ground in Connecticut

A new poll released this morning shows incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman has lost ground in his Democratic primary battle in Connecticut. The loss of ground comes days after former President Bill Clinton campaigned for Lieberman in the state. Read more on this story, as well as other political news from the day by clicking on the link below.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/03/mg.thu/

E.J. Dionne Commentary on Joe Lieberman

Interesting and worth reading!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073100928.html?referrer=email

The Eight Big Issues of 2006

Today's political page from The Washington Post provided me with a number of posts this morning. The Post has offered 8 issues they feel will determine key bellweather races in the battle to control Congress this fall. To learn more click on the link below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/bellwether/index.htm?referrer=email

The Importance of NC in a Democratic Congress

The Washington Post has provided some interesting reporting on the attempt by Democrats to regain control of Congress this fall. The Post looks at four states, which they lable "upper South", as a key to Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. The Post analysis states that races in North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Kentucky will help determine who controls Congress after the fall elections. You may read more by clicking on the link below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300501.html?sub=AR

Updates on Southern House and Senate Races

Click on the link below to see fiancial reports from key races across the southland.

http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/restricted/printed%20editions/spr681.pdf

Scary to Say the Least

The awarding of Iran's highest state medal to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez today for his support of Iran in its nuclear stnadoff with the west is a chilling reminder of the dangerous world we live. By offering mutual support between the two nations, Chavez, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, represent an alarming coalition that could destablize the world economy. Both nations hold their vast amounts of oil over the heads of the industrialized world. Any collaberation between these nations could send oil prices beyond the recent record highs.

I have been a strong supporter of the War on Terrorism and feel it is a vital to the national interest of the United States. However, during the past three weeks as the situtation in the Middle East has bordered on regional war, I have come to the conclusion that the War in Iraq has left Iran the only major power in the region. The toppling of Saddam Husseing removed the only check on Iranian aggression in the Middle East and has created the insurgent mess in Iraq, as well as, the hostile rebirth of Hammas.

Iran is now looking to forge alliances with nations outside the Middle East. Venezuela is a perfect fit because its President has been in open rebellion against US policy for years. The new partnership is a win-win for both countries and provides further headache to the Bush Administration on the foreign policy front. The new coalition allows Chavez, who aims to assert more influence in South American politics, a chip in gaining respect from his neighbors.

Our country, and world, is in the most precarious state since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. The United States has no foreign policy plan to deal with the ever changing situation across the globe. Condeleeza Rice is the most incompetent Secretary of State this nation has had, even outdoing Madalyn Albright. Each day, world affairs take a course that is not in the interest of our country with no response or proactive agenda from the administration.

If America was a parliamentary form of government, the 2006 elections would be a chance for change in the foreign policy apparatus. Unfortunately, a change in foreign policy will come only with the innauguration of a new President in 2008. If Bush was smart, he would remove his foriegn policy team and replace them with a proven expert who has respect. George Mitchell would be a good choice!

Christensen Column on NC Reforms

http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/465972.html