New Democrat Slogan....'Common Good'

[sirs]

Lowest 'Common' Denominator
The Democrats have a new slogan, the Associated Press reports:

Ned Lamont uses it in his Connecticut Senate race. President Clinton is scheduled to speak on the idea in Washington this week. Bob Casey Jr., Pennsylvania candidate for Senate, put it in the title of his talk at The Catholic University of America--then repeated the phrase 29 times.

The term is "common good," and it's catching on as a way to describe liberal values and reach religious voters who rejected Democrats in the 2004 election. Led by the Center for American Progress, a Washington think-tank, party activists hope the phrase will do for them what "compassionate conservative" did for the Republicans.

"It's a core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives," said John Halpin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "With the rise of materialism, greed and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community--sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty."

Isn't this about the 87th slogan the Dems have come up with? Remember "culture of corruption," "America can do better," "enough is enough," etc.? Maybe the Republican slogan should be "slogans are not enough."

Then again, maybe they are enough. It now seems within the realm of possibility that Democrats will take one or both houses of Congress in three weeks, even though they are campaigning on not much more than not being Republicans.

But the Republicans are campaigning on not much more than not being Democrats.

To our mind the Republicans have the better of this argument, but there is something to be said for punishing the party in power if its performance has been subpar.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009107

[BT]

...... sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty."

That certainly explains the low-laying fruit remarks about military enlistees and the fear of a return of the draft.

[sirs]

...... sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty."

That certainly explains the low-laying fruit remarks about military enlistees and the fear of a return of the draft.

It does indeed

[_JS]

I'm not sure what you all want.

We don't have party manifestos as they do in the United Kingdom, which are legally tied into mandated legislation (via the House of Lords and the Salisbury convention). In effect, the Democrats are offering no more and no less than the Republicans as far as policy goes. The only reason one could claim that the Republicans are offering more is because they control the executive branch through President Bush.

Yet, even then policy seems a bit off. The Whitehouse has supported candidates who voted against the Iraq war and do not support the president's views on abortion, the war on terror, or immigration. You claim "big tent" but then claim to want specific pinpoint policies.

As for slogans, they are what they are. The Republicans use them as much as the Democrats. They are an historical part of politics and are worth what you paid for them.

As for twisting logic, I read just the other day an interview with Ken Mehlman where he links border security with mexico to September 11th. By the way, show me a campaigning Republican who avidly supports the draft.

[BT]

By the way, show me a campaigning Republican who avidly supports the draft.

My current term doesn't expire for another three years, unless for some odd reason i decide to run for mayor, but i have advocated the return of the draft for at least going on 5 years.

[_JS]

Apologies,

Show me a campaigning Republican Congressman or Senator advocating military conscription.

[BT]

Show me a campaigning Republican Congressman or Senator advocating military conscription.

I doubt we will find one. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea, nor does it discount the dems use of the draft issue as a political scare tactic.

[Plane]

Why are the Democrats bringing up the Draft?


Do they really want one?

[_JS]

I doubt we will find one. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea, nor does it discount the dems use of the draft issue as a political scare tactic.

I agree on both counts, but if we're honest both sides have political scare tactics and some really awful lies they perpetuate.

Personally, I'd love for the parties to be much more open and honest about their plans for the future. I think we need a manifesto system as they have in Britain, as opposed to the platforms we have, which very few voters bother to read.

[Brassmask]

Personally, I'm excited to see this "slogan".  It best describes what it is I want to see government accomplish.

[Plane]

"Personally, I'd love for the parties to be much more open and honest about their plans for the future. I think we need a manifesto system as they have in Britain, as opposed to the platforms we have, which very few voters bother to read. "


Hear hear!


That is a great idea.



Could we call it a "contract with America"?

[Universe Prince]

"It's a core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives," said John Halpin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "With the rise of materialism, greed and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community--sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty."

This reveals a lot about how Mr. Halpin thinks of the American people. Apparently he thinks we need government to enforce a shared sacrifice and to return us to the ethic of service and duty. Why do we need this? Because, according to Mr. Halpin American society is becoming more materialistic, greedier and more corrupt. Mr. Halpin apparently believes it is okay for "progressives" to do what he and others would scream about if conservative Christians were to do it. And that is, to impose their moral preferences on everyone else. And it is just as wrong for "progressives" do this as it is for Christians. Indeed, Mr. Halpin's vision of America seems little different than that of the fundamentalist Christians who see America as carnal, self-centered and morally corrupt. And his solution is basically the same as that of the "religious right", to forcibly remold society to suit his moral preferences. And his reason is almost exactly the same, to "return" to a society that better reflects his moral preferences because it's good for people. The problem with this, whether from Christians or "progressives", is that it is not a selfless attitude but one of selfish desire for control over others. And there is nothing progressive about that. Quite the opposite, it is regressive and oppressive.

[sirs]

Could we call it a "contract with America"?

Or more accurately, the "Contract on America"     

[sirs]

It now seems within the realm of possibility that Democrats will take one or both houses of Congress in three weeks, even though they are campaigning on not much more than not being Republicans.  But the Republicans are campaigning on not much more than not being Democrats.  To our mind the Republicans have the better of this argument, but there is something to be said for punishing the party in power if its performance has been subpar.

[Plane]

"It's a core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives," said John Halpin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "With the rise of materialism, greed and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community--sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty."

This reveals a lot about how Mr. Halpin thinks of the American people. Apparently he thinks we need government to enforce a shared sacrifice and to return us to the ethic of service and duty. Why do we need this? Because, according to Mr. Halpin American society is becoming more materialistic, greedier and more corrupt. Mr. Halpin apparently believes it is okay for "progressives" to do what he and others would scream about if conservative Christians were to do it. And that is, to impose their moral preferences on everyone else. And it is just as wrong for "progressives" do this as it is for Christians. Indeed, Mr. Halpin's vision of America seems little different than that of the fundamentalist Christians who see America as carnal, self-centered and morally corrupt. And his solution is basically the same as that of the "religious right", to forcibly remold society to suit his moral preferences. And his reason is almost exactly the same, to "return" to a society that better reflects his moral preferences because it's good for people. The problem with this, whether from Christians or "progressives", is that it is not a selfless attitude but one of selfish desire for control over others. And there is nothing progressive about that. Quite the opposite, it is regressive and oppressive.

Good Post!