GregsOpinion.com

At the risk of joining the ranks of the dude that said the Beatles were just a fad and the guy who said "man would never fly," I'm going to take the contrarian stance on this one.

It's absolutely true that the American people want both smaller government and bigger government simultaneously.

I strongly believe that tapping into the libertarian strain in American politics is absolutely essential to the long-term success of the Democratic Party.

I think Cherney's political instincts are spot-on. On the other hand, I think his policy prescriptions are not quite so hot.

Where I really was lost was in the discussion on Social Security; specifically, when he starts discussing Clinton's 2002 proposal, which appears to have the biggest downside of the Bush plan (the trillion dollar transition cost) without all the "choice" that the Bush plan provides.

I'm worried that if we go too hard on this choice thing, it'll end up resulting in political me-tooism and policy that sucks.

I think the very simple distinction between "us and them" is that for Republicans really bad policy and "choice" are part and parcel. The right-wing think-tanks are horizontally-integrated: politics and policy are born together. It's sort of like a business that creates a product in order to justify a marketing strategy. There seems to be a preference among Democrats, however, to develop good policy, and then add choice around the edges. Policy precedes politics. We build our policy first, and then we worry about selling it.

The Republicans are Crystal Pepsi ("We need clear pepsi because clear is the color this year!"); The Democrats are Dr. Pepper ("We'll spend 100 years making this wonderful product before we go nation-wide!")

Frankly, I would like to see both more choice and more governmental activism. But I really loathe Crystal-Pepsi-Politics. Quite honestly, I think any attempts to inject choice in Social Security or public education will fail miserably.

I'd rather have a one-size-fits-all policy that works than a choice-based system that flops.

As a Dr Pepper (there's no period in there, Jim ... for SHAME!!!) Democrat who has long fought the evils of Crystal Pepsi, here's why you're entirely offbase:

The long tradition of the Democratic Party has been to innovate, create new policy, experiment, and essentially strive for the goal of continued improvement in the everyday lives of American citizens. That hardly suggests that one sits in idle waiting for others to once more glom onto your retro charm. Yet, in truth, both sides take a nod of approval in suggesting they're consistent and back-to-basics.

We may yet still always disagree on the benefits of private investment as a part of Social Security, as well as adding increased choice options for education. For my own part, I'd suggest that the increased trend in younger people investing on their own without aid of a stock broker is a telling trend that policymakers ignore at their peril. Likewise, I count myself as a fast-forward reformer when it comes to education. I see no gain in telling an 8th grader to wait 5-years for the full funding of school improvements to kick in. I see no benefit in telling a 16 year old to give teacher pay raises a shot. Not that those means aren't worthwhile to a longer term end, but they do nothing to affect those currently trapped in failing schools. I'd likely agree with many of the education reforms you may support, but I'd not stop taking ideas when the traditional constituencies of my own party are done with a laundry list. Objectivity and demands for excellence in the name of a higher college enrollment rates are no vice.

But be that as it may.

Choice and government activism are not good in and of themselves. They still must be harnessed, reigned in to prevent the excesses that both can lead to, and then aimed properly so that they have a beneficial impact. Saying you want both is all good and well, however, that's only because I trust you care that they both deliver a net positive. Democrats can still question government activism and advocate an increase in personal choice just as they can advocate less choice and more activism. The key isn't how much of each, but the proper targetting of both. I don't advocate increasing options that allow for greater personal control of government because it's a flavor of the month or because I want to head off a political land grab by Republicans. I advocate it because it's the right thing to do ... period.

Greg-

You are exactly right on this. I think the issue transcends the question of choice itself. The central theme is what policy alternatives are we as a party going to put forth. Social Security as it currently exists can not be sustained because of demographic and societal changes. We are all familiar with the economic problems surrounding it. The core of the Clinton proposal has already been adopted by the Canadians and Brits. It is a real alternative to complete privatization.

Locally, we have a similar problem. I have often complained that we as a party have done a poor job of defining a local governance strategy and set of policy intiatives--particularly on tax issues. We have all but given the issue of providing tax relief to the local GOP. Bill White is the first Democratic officeholder I can recall making the progressive argument for tax relief.

In the end, I think both issues are a part of the larger question of what our vision is.