Reason Writers Around Town

In the New York Times Nick Gillespie reviews Matt Bai's The Argument—a profile of a political party facing a new century utterly bereft of ideas. Guess which one?

Comments

[Marcvs]

The two parties may almost be identical, but having the Democrats in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency is terrifying.

[shecky]

Having the Democrats in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency is terrifying. And entirely deserved. If that power shift becomes the reality, it's not because the Dems won, it's because the Reps lost. And worked hard to do so.

[Ken Silber]

the Republicans, whose would-be presidential candidates have mostly publicly rejected evolution

3 out of 10 (Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo) raised their hands at a debate in May when asked if any of the candidates there didn't believe in evolution. A few days, later, Tancredo waffled that "Evolution explains changes in life. Creationism explains its origin."

So, let's say 2 or 3 out of 10--nothing to be proud of, but not "mostly."

[joe]

Ideas can't possibly be good, if they aren't novel. Social Secuirty, universal health coverage, working with allies, cleaning up the environment - booooooo-ring!

Now, unilateral preemptive war - THERE'S an idea for you!

[prolefeed]

Ideas can't possibly be good, if they aren't novel. Social Secuirty a government-run Ponzi scheme, universal health coverage a government takeover and monopoly of a huge chunk of the economy, working with allies people who hate us, cleaning up the environment eco-pandering - booooooo-ring!

Now, unilateral preemptive war - THERE'S an idea for you!

Yeah, joe, left-statists are sooooo much better than right-statists.

[Rex Rhino]

Ideas can't possibly be good, if they aren't novel. Social Secuirty, universal health coverage, working with allies, cleaning up the environment - booooooo-ring!

Now, unilateral preemptive war - THERE'S an idea for you!

Either the Democrats, or Republicans, would pretty much destroy the U.S. if they ever had their way. The saving grace, so far, as been that neither one has gained absolute power.

But then again, you are a Democrat true believer, so I am sure you see things as a battle between black & white, good & evil.

[joe]

Yawn. Oh, look, he misstated commonly-understood terms using negative language.

Boy, you really got me there.

Rex,

You and your buddies Ralph Nader and David Broder can pretend that your third-party brand of partisanship (ie, the two parties are always and everywhere equally bad, and any attempt to distinguish between them is a fool's errand), but it's become a fairly obvious dodge.

[LarryA]

The book describes Soros, after Bush's victory in 2004, coming to the realization that (in Bai's words) "it was the American people, and not their figurehead, who were misguided. ... Decadence ... had led to a society that seemed incapable of conjuring up any outrage at deceptive policies that made the rich richer and the world less safe."

Typical political "everyone who disagrees with us is stupid, therefore we don't have to listen to their side of the argument" position. Soros thinks like joe.

Neither have noticed that as our rich get richer, our poor have become the envy of the rest of the world's middle class, and folks not involved in criminal gangs are safer in the non-urban (and non-Democrat) U.S. than in most other countries.

[Geotpf]

The Democrats would have to completely fuck things up to lose in 08. In fact, it is quite possible that they will win the presidency, keep the House and Senate, AND gain enough seats in the Senate to have a filibuster-proof majority (that is, a gain of nine or more). I don't think that complete domination of the Federal government by one party or the other has occured in quite some time (maybe during FDR's reign).

Of course, the Democrats are known for blowing sure things, so...