What I *got* was a slew of information for something called the "New Democrats." All of the documents are pretty out there, but I figured I'd post the main "where we stand" bit, along with my comments.
----------------
We are the party that JFK, Harry Truman, FDR, Andrew Jackson, and Thomas Jefferson would be proud of. Indeed these presidential leaders would find themselves at odds with the leaders of the modern Democrat Party.
The New Democrats are dedicated to righting the Democrat Party if their members are open to such reform, and to otherwise replace it. Leftist leaders have taken the Democrats away from its once-solid moorings. Too many old Democrat leaders forsake the desires of their constituents in order to get media attention, hoard campaign contributions, and win re-election.
The New Democrat Party is founded on the beliefs of leaders, from Jefferson to JFK, who respected individualism, free markets, free speech, and limited government. Our party embraces public servants who are responsive to THE PEOPLE. Thus, traditional liberals, conservatives, populists, and libertarians can find a comfortable home here.
We abhor statism and socialism. Not only do they wreak economic havoc on countries that attempt them, they are moral evils, inconsistent with American ideals.
So here's the beginning. One of the few rhetorical devices that bugs me as much as the "the majority of Americans" position (from either side, that drives me nuts. This position is good and we feel that "the majority of America" supports us) is the "founding father" approach, where dead, cherished members of the political past endorse you from beyond the grave. Apart from the odd discontinuity of having Andrew Jackson show up in the midst of a slew of 20th-century presidents and Founding Fathers, you'll quickly see that this is nothing of the sort.
I also find it intriguing that they namecheck "statism and socialism."
Next up:
The New Democrats will field candidates in at least 4 gubernatorial races in 2006 and at least 5 Congressional races. All candidates are challenging incumbents who have proved themselves unresponsive to the populace and whose service is hurting their states and America generally.
The New Democrats will mount even more challenges upon incumbents in 2008, and will almost certainly offer Americans a Presidential choice.
In certain races, our candidates are running WITHIN the Democrat Party primaries. In others, the candidates are running as Independents, or where the state rules permit, as a third party. Whether as Democrats, Independents, or New Democrats, we seek the endorsement and/or nominations of all parties, including the Republicans.
The New Democrats also are endorsing incumbents who have proven themselves responsive to the public and are seeking re-election in 2006. At this time, the incumbents are:
Et cetera. Now on to the positions document.
What all Democrats Value
A Strong Economy
Liberal Democrat
Fails to realize that the best engine for a strong economy is private enterprise. Prefers wasteful regulation that hurts private enterprise. Continues to feed bloated government programs that do not invest, and yield negative returns on the money they take in. Spurs more companies to lay off workers due to restrictive compliance policies. Increases gas prices by keeping refineries and nuclear energy plants from being built.
RESULT: MORE LAYOFFS, MORE JOBS EXPORTED OVERSEAS, LESS PENSION SECURITY, HIGHER PRICES FOR ALL CONSUMERS.
New Democrat --
Knows that more American workers stay employed when companies don't have to spend excessively to meet bureaucratic regulations. Respects the consumer, helps keep things affordable by letting industry produce power, products, and services consumers want. Demands that pension contracts are properly funded, and would empower workers to get more money NOW and not rely on flimsy pension promises.
Wow! That sounds like...the Republicans! And also economic libertarians. Not really Democrats at all. Reading between the lines, it sounds like this would remove corporations from government oversight (that pesky "bureaucracy"). Yay? Uhhh, OK, so we're off to a bit of a weird start.
RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT
Liberal Democrat
In the name of “compassion”, turns a blind eye to officials who sell out the public for campaign contributions by developers and lobbyists. Lets federal and state government grow enormously, giving more power to bureaucrats who are more interested in their own welfare than in public welfare.
RESULT: LESS RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT; A RETURN TO MACHINE POLITICS (OR WORSE: BIPARTISAN SELL-OUTS).
New Democrat
Puts PEOPLE first, as Jefferson intended it. Works to defeat any politician engaging in secrecy, trading favors for campaign contributions, or avoiding the will of an informed majority. Rails against narrow special interests and their lobbyists having undue sway in federal and state legislatures.
Well, that's fine, I guess, although the way it's phrased sounds awfully strange...as if there's something hidden between the lines. I don't particularly think that the Left is currently the high profile lobbying abuser, but whatever...I would certainly prefer my elected officials not be in the pockets of Disney, etc. Thing is, I get the feeling that they're not talking about business interests, but social interests.
And since when is there an "informed majority?" And since when is legislating against lobbyists a libertarian position?
1. Good Education
Liberal Democrat
Gives Schools monopolies.
Removes choice from parents.
Wants teachers tenured after only 3 years.
Dislikes merit pay. Result: WORSE EDUCATION.
New Democrat
Allows choice in school. Parents whose schools are failing their children can remove them to another public school. Puts responsibility on school administrators – shape up or you’ll lose students.
Desires merit pay and bonuses for good teaching. Excellent teachers will earn $100,000+ per year; bad teachers will be fired.
Our colleges provide the best education (foreigners seek it).
Oh wow. Firstly, now's a good a time to say it as ever: I really dislike the declaration/conclusion approach. It's obnoxious when Rumsfeld does it, and it's obnoxious here. Drawing a conclusion from your carefully constructed strawman scenario doesn't make you a master of Socratic reasoning.
There're tons of pitfalls in the above, and remove the word "public" from "another public school" and it sounds like every far-Right plan to destroy the public schooling system by raising costs and removing support.
2. Opportunities for the poor
Liberal Democrat
Believes in government welfare that rewards people for staying poor. Rewards single girls getting pregnant, having kids, staying unmarried, and neither finishing their education nor going to work.
ResultOOR STAY POOR
New Democrat
Believes PRIVATE welfare does a much better job than government handouts. Wants people who are down on their luck to KNOW the church or the philanthropist who is helping them out, which speeds the recipient to self-sufficiency. Knows that getting pregnant before finishing high school is a barrier that might never be overcome.
Dislikes minimum wage laws, because hey prevent the youngest and the least skilled from getting a low-wage job that starts them toward self-sufficiency.
Knows that $4,000,000,000,000 in welfare in the last 40 years has not lessened poverty.
What the fuck gwine on heah? There's so much ridiculous that I don't even know where to begin. OK, so it repeats the usual far-right (yes, far-right...I think the regular right as long since abandoned this particular position) "welfare queen" bogeyman, which is built on the position that the poor are some sort of fascinating alternate species that deserves to be poor (shades of predestination here) and loves it, and is willing to sacrifice self-respect for living off of government handouts and pumping out stupid poor baby after stupid poor baby to keep the cheques coming. The fuck? The FUCK?
And what the fuck is private welfare? Oh. Religion and "the philanthropist," whatever the hell that is (is it a Coldplay song?). Welfare isn't about "lessenign poverty" statistics, but about helping those who're poor to, y'know, not die and possibly get out of wherever they are.
The "pregnancy" bit is a weird interjection, given what's coming up.
Again: how does this have anything to do with "Democrat" at all?
3. Less Crime
Liberal Democrat
Coddles criminals. Thinks criminality stems from being poor. Society is to blame for their crime.
Likes early release; opposes the death penalty.
Insists that cops need to read constitutional law to an arrestee rather than pursue other criminals in flight.
Enacts stiff gun controls, making it hard for average citizens to protect themselves, and leaving only the brazen criminals with guns. Result: MORE CRIME
New Democrat:
Believes that bad values cause criminality. Does not blame a good society for the waywardness of criminals.
Believes jails should be places for teaching criminals a hard lesson, and in any case keeping them off the street for a long time.
Thinks laws that hinder police from capturing criminals have gone way too far.
Knows that in a society where good people can own guns is a safer society than where only criminals have them.
The "liberal Democrat" bit above is such a hilariously transparent strawman that there's no point in even engaging it. I trust people here can see what I mean.
"Bad values?" The fuck? The FUCK? Jails as detention? Laws that hinder police from capturing criminals? WHAT LAWS? Like the 4th-fucking amendment?
And then the gun bit. Look, I'm not terrifically anti-gun (well, I am conceptually, but I find it hard to argue against the 2nd amendment without sounding like a rank hypocrite), but again: how the hell is this even sorta connected with the *democrats*?
4. Environmental Protection
Liberal Democrat
Uses the power of the state to punish corporations for being big, even if they are being responsible. Enacts silly laws at the whim of front groups who are anti-capitalism.
Entrusts the bureaucrats at the EPA to decide which violators deserve prosecution, often based on which corporations lobbied them for exemption, and not environmental science. Result WORSE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
New Democrat
Would enact policies to make corporations more responsible by punishing INDIVIDUAL corporate officers who violate their environment.
"Individual corporate officers?"
*speechless*
5. Helping workers
Liberal Democrat.
Insists on powerful unions even more powerful. Takes money from workers to be spent as their union bosses please. Antagonizes owners. Insists on workplace demands that make it prohibitive to employ more people. Result: employers shift work overseas.
New Democrat
Respects that the Free Market lets workers be paid what they are worth. Does not insist on regulations that make union bosses happy, but jeopardize American jobs.
HAHAHAHAHA. Yeah, JFK would love that one.
Let's skip to my favorites. I will present these without comment.
8. Opportunities for Women
Liberal Democrat
Holds stay-at-home-moms with disdain, giving scorn to a choice that most women find more fulfilling than corporate work. Likes policies that hurt men, even if they don't directly help women. Likes using the courts to rectify every perceived injustice. Makes indiscriminate use of outcomes to apply the “sexism” label to well-meaning companies and institutions.
RESULT: FEWER OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN. DISSATISFACTION WITH BUSINESS AND SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES.
New Democrat
Knows that feminism means letting women flourish, as women. Celebrates differences instead of tries to eliminate then. Knows that women can at times stand up to pigs with a good slap in he face than by an attorney and a drawn-out discrimination suit.
(OK, not entirely without comment. The bolding is mine. What century is this from? Intriguingly, this sounds exactly like my boss's writing style, leading me to believe he wrote it. This is the same guy, BTW, who advocates using the line "The NEw York Times recently reported" even if it isn't true, because nobody will check, y'know, and also emphasizes that the SAT will never say anything bad about blacks or women. A lot.)
Good Values
Liberal Democrat:
Insists that students be exposed to sex at an early age.
Insists that multi-cultural values carry more weight than those of that community. In the name of “compassion”, will not admit that children by and large are advantaged by having a mother and a father.
RESULT: CONFUSED VALUES
New Democrat:
Believes sex education should be optional, at the parent’s choosing, and in no case do students need to be exposed to condoms, be fearful of aids, learn about lesbianism in 3rd grade.
Believes that school should limit the values taught therein to citizenship, American citizenship. Glorifying unseemly cultures is for outside the school.
(again, bolding mine. This is why I'm glad I'm not out at work)
I will finish with my favorite quote from the entire thing:
FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK all were Democrats who fought wars with hard-headed realism.
JFK fought wars with hard-headed realism? Yes. Between Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs...
