In replying, I want to start with a broader view, because either my original communication was unclear or my structure led to misinterpretation. My point is NOT any of the following:

- America is dead

- The Republicans are to blame

- Democrats will save the world

- The economy is toast

- I hate America

- Commie Commie Commie!

- etc.

My points are the following:

- The results of Republican leadership have been less than stellar

- There are a couple of fundamental dissonances that need to be addressed (those being: dissonance between America today and American ideals; dissonance between the platforms of political parties and the result of political advocacy)

- These problems are critical, and while they produce some immediate results that are not cataclysmic, allowing them to persist will likely have severe results

- We, as individuals and collectively as America, have the tools and ideals to solve the problems with which we are confronted

Before diving into the points on which there was discussion, let me remind you of what was not disputed:

Republican leadership has lead to:

- Perpetration of the most ill-conceived and unpopular war in our country's history

Impact: We need to solve this problem, stat. Not only do we need to fix the Iraq situation, but we also need to take measures to insure this doesn't happen again. We had Korea, then Vietnam, and now Iraq. America needs to stop getting into stupid wars.

- Rampant political scandal

Impact: It affirms what we already knew, regardless of the letter (R or D), politicians are not only untrustworthy, they are often corrupt. And the result of their corruption either takes money out of OUR pockets or infringes on the rights of Americans. This has to stop.

- Economically crippling corporate scandals

Impact: The government has either sanctioned or at least been a casual observer to the swindling of the American people. Notably, the crash of the sub-prime mortgage industry is now causing wide impacts on the economy and banking industry. I don't know if this is something specific to Republicans, but we've certainly seen more of it in the last 8 years than I remember in the Clinton term (his scandals were all personal/political scandals). This section also lends itself to some critiques of capitalism and liberal democracy, on which I'd be happy to elaborate, if anyone is interested.

- Dramatic decrease of the dollar in the foreign currency market.

Impact: While I do not claim to be an economist, I do have a more-than-basic understanding of economic principles. For example, the decrease in value of the dollar necessitates higher trade deficits. Since we run big trade deficits that we pay off in dollars, the decrease in the dollar's value speeds inflation and lowers "real wages" (it affects CPI). The decrease in the dollar raises prices on consumer goods. The decrease in value in the dollar has wide negative impacts on banking (including the increase of foreign investment in US banks - an issue presently being reviewed by Congress). The decrease in value of the dollar also has political impacts (recently OPEC announced that they would consider a proposal to trade oil for euros). Again the decline of the dollar isn't doomsday, but it's not good either.

- Record highs in CEO compensation (more on this later)

- Violation of human rights standards and disregard for claims of disenfranchisement

Impact: This violates core principles of American democracy. To me this is a very large issue; whether it is to you, at a minimum it damages our credibility to make claims of "human rights violations" in foreign countries and then back them with our military. If this current American democracy is what we want to export to other nations, I think it needs some revision first.

Points on which there was discussion and disagreement along with responses:

- 8 consecutive record years of budget deficits.

There was no direct objection to the truthfulness of this claim. The objection, as I understand it was as follows: Brandon objected that the rise in deficits relative to inflation were inconsequential.

Response: I decided not to take the time to look up the actual raw numbers, but I feel confident that if you do, you'll find that the deficits are not only increasing relative to inflation, but are also (in a word) astronomical. Either way, it's not consequential to my argument. To oversimplify, running these sorts of deficits is the equivalent of maxing out all of your credit cards, making the minimum payments, and then using your disposable income to buy a new entertainment system. Then, when you need money the next time, you go get a new credit card and max it out. Only, we've been doing that for almost 30 years. Sure, you can buy lots of great toys (super-stealth fighter planes for example), but someday someone has to foot the bill. And the bill that's footed will be MUCH larger than the price that was paid, because national debt, just like credit card debt, grows much faster than inflation. As it turns out, there are a few groups of people who look like candidates to foot the bill: A. our generation - the people in their early-mid 20s will inherit an economy with massive debt (national debt payments are presently 30%+ of the budget, and debt keeps growing exponentially) and massive trade deficits in an increasingly competitive world market. Debt is a killer to individuals, to businesses, and to nations (ask all of the African nations about national debt - it's been one of the sources of civil war there for decades, and is the subject of several humanitarian causes). This is why Greenspan recommended to Congress that the US re-invest the entire budget surplus for 3 years in paying foreign debt; B. Those receiving social security benefits in the future: presently, the social security fund faces crisis, and it appears that it could be the thing that goes if the debt continues to grow as it has. This is why Clinton put a lot of the surplus for 3 years into social security.

Basically, while the deficits are all good and well now and don't impact us too much, WE are the ones who need to be concerned about it, because we are the ones who will be dealing with it in the future. There is a special situation that makes these debts even more unpalatable to me. Most of the debt that we are accumulating now is to support the Iraq War, specifically with defense contracts and rebuilding contracts that are going to companies like Halliburton and Bechtel. So, in effect, we are taking out public debt in order to line the pockets of very wealthy people (some of whom have a more than narrow connection with the current administration). Put another way, we are redistributing wealth (in the form of tax receipts) from the middle class and upper middle class to the top 1%, and then leaving the debt burden to the future middle class. No matter whether I'm future upper, middle, or lower class, I don't want my tax dollars to go to interest payments on Dick Cheney's summer house. But maybe you do …

- Governmental Expansion (including Dept of Homeland Security - DHS)

Brandon objected that the creation of the DHS is a good thing. The "goodness" or "badness" of the DHC is immaterial to this point. The point is that it is Republicans, not Democrats, who are adding departments, offices, and agencies to the government. Regardless of whether DHS is good or not, it represents bigger government, more bureaucracy, and ultimately necessitates more taxes (or bigger deficits). Some government agencies are great things, and I support governmental expansion insomuch as it provides needed or desired services to the American people. What I am unwilling to accept is a Republican majority that decries the virtue of "small government" and then does the exact opposite. If you want big government, fine, I'm willing to listen. Don't feed me the small government BS though.

In regard to the DHS, I think having a coordinating agency for national and international security and information is a good thing. I don't think the powers with which it is endowed (by the patriot act) are a good thing at all. The DHS is allowed to monitor private meetings, track individual exercises of free speech, and compile this information into dossiers on individuals for use in future legal proceedings. There have been further reports of wire and phone tapping and other spying activities. This certainly constitutes an invasion of privacy (protected by the constitution) and seems to me to enter into a 1st amendment free speech grey area (IE am I really free to make anti-government statements when Big Brother is watching?). As implied, this sort of behavior sounds eerily reminiscent of 1984's thought police (which was a satire of the KGB) as well as the Counter-Intelligence Profiling operations of Nixon in the 60s and 70s that were all disallowed in court.

- Economic decline bordering on recession

I am guessing that this is what Jeff was referring to when he fallaciously quoted me as saying 7 years of unprecedented economic decline. Obviously that was not my terminology. However, I will state that there has been economic decline that has expressed itself in several ways. One is an economic recession in 2000-2001, which as Jeff points out was largely a product of the stock market bubble and 9/11, which was not entirely politically linked. However, presidents and parties like to run on the economy, so if they're going to take credit for it, then they also have to absorb blame. While the US is showing signs of healthy emergence from recession, there are still at least a couple of concerns: a. market volatility - while the Dow has hit some record highs, it has also taken some steep plummets too. I wouldn't go so far as to say we're in a period of sustained growth; b. serious banking industry concerns - the fallout of the sub-prime market has affected banking quite a bit, as mentioned, the declining dollar has created an issue with the increase of foreign investment, and there is presently a complete freeze on all private equity investment. These are not the "all clear, nothing to see here" messages you imply.

- Decrease in standard of living

It's also possible that Jeff referred to this with the unprecedented economic decline comment.

Standard of living is a function primarily of three different measures: income inequality, poverty rate, and income per person (also known as GDP/person). So, let's look at how the US has performed in these categories over the last decade or so:

- Income Inequality: There is some scholarly debate on this topic; what is not in question are the following: the top 20% of American wage-earners ($80k+ households) own at least 40% of the income (some estimates go as high as 60%), CEO compensation has increased (as has tax filing law that allows much of this income to be unreported and tax-sheltered, which skews the income inequality numbers some), and income share of the top 5% keeps setting record highs. Since income inequality has an indirect relation to standard of living, in this category standard of living is on the decline.

- Poverty Rate: After 6 consecutive years of increase, the poverty rate declined for the first time this year (though it was only a 0.3% decline). The primary reason was stated as decline in poverty amongst elderly. The poverty rate of children up to age 24 remained unchanged. The last substantive decrease in poverty rate was in 2000 under the Clinton presidency. Again, standard of living is on the decline.

- Income/Person - The good news is that GDP/person is on the rise. GDP/person continues to rise faster than inflation, and is right around $40k/person. In this aspect, standard of living is on the increase.

So, then how do we interpret this data? While GDP and GDP/person are on the rise, the number of households below both the average household income and median household income now exceeds 60% of the population (with 50% of the population at or below $33k per year). Also, the number of impoverished is rising (over the decade). What I see is that standard of living is increasing for a small segment of society (top 5%), and decreasing for most (bottom 60%). The conclusion we could draw (that is common-sense even without the data) is that in America, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That sounds like a far cry from such ideals as trickle-down economics, a chicken in every pot, and "The American Dream."

- Juxtaposition of Republican ideals and results

Jeff objected that I offered "short, unambiguous claims and long, nuanced responses". He did not argue against the validity of any of those statements, so I will only address the process.

- I believe the statements I chose accurately reflect the unifying principles of the Republican Party (and some of them are even more broad than just Republican). I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a substantial group of either registered Rep. or Rep. politicians who disagree with these tenets: smaller government, cutting taxes and spending to return money to the American people, national security, support for the troops, what's good for business is good for America, and the free market provides for social welfare. You may find some disagreement on the right to life is a voting issue, though it has been used with such political fervor for the past 20 years, I felt inclined to include it.

- I think that these principles are fairly self-explanatory, and have also been the subject of much conversation that has lodged them into public consciousness. I didn't feel it necessary to justify: A. that Reps. indeed advocate things like making government smaller; B. what exactly is meant by "smaller government" or "cutting spending" as I feel that we all have a reasonably good understanding of what these things mean.

- I was not attempting to REFUTE the principles; I was attempting to show that the promises were unfulfilled. It's easy to make straw-man arguments then refute them (or to offer ad-hominem arguments like PLEASE learn something about economics), yes. Obviously, I don't favor big government, think national security is a good thing, and believe that human rights are a voting issue. My point wasn't that these are bad ideals. I was seeking to provide an accounting of promised v. delivered.

However, if you feel I was in error, I would be interested to hear your criticisms, specifically on how Republicans have reduced the size of government (while adding new national departments), cut spending (while increasing spending), protected the right to life (while waging a destructive war), supported the troops (while slowing the ratification of troop-spending bills), demonstrated that big business is good for America (with the increase of scandal and the growing class gap), and shown that the free market provides for social welfare (while government services decline, record numbers of Americans are uninsured, and we sit on the brink of environmental crisis). Again, without this lengthy exercise, my point is common sense: politicians lie. The impact is that their lies now affect me, and they affect you too.

And thus, I will now, more succinctly restate my broad position. This is not just a problem with Republicans. The fact that Americans have elected this group of people who have at nearly every opportunity defrauded and taken advantage of them is a problem too. I stated that "ask not what your country can do for you" is an American ideal, and I am also concerned by the consistently low voter turnouts for national elections and the general sense of political apathy in the country. The problem is both governmental and individual. The problem is perhaps even systemic (thus my advocacy of alternate political, social, and economic frameworks). As mentioned, if the result of the marriage of liberal democracy and capitalism is massive class disparity, the rich getting richer, high-level (and high dollar) corruption, sustained war, the ravaging of the environment, and general disregard for human rights … no thanks.** That is what I see in America today, but it is not all I see.

I also see a hard-working group of people who have internalized and deeply believe in a set of ideals (that transcend political and economic theory) that have proven themselves favorable. I see a history that demonstrates an ability to overcome obstacles, and an unprecedented access to information and means of change. However, before things can change, we must first admit that there is a problem. So, a large part of my argument is that in America today, there are serious and pressing problems that must be addressed (the sooner the better). The second part is that our current system (whether it's Republican rule, voter apathy, or political system) perpetuates and worsens these problems. The final part is that the problem is not with American ideals; the problem is that we have come to this point by denying or ignoring these ideals.

And thus, my meta-theoretical solution is to first re-embrace the ideals that have proven themselves valuable, and make a concerted and principled effort at reform. You will probably not find this reform from the red or blue party yet, but politics is like any other business: it responds to demand. If we refuse to accept the status quo (whether by vote, by activism, by discourse, or by other means), things will change. In my view, a little (or a lot of) change would be a pretty good thing.

** Aside to Mark, and subsequently Brent, who offered a lemming-like vote of confidence: you're wrong about communist ideals never being part of America … I'll just list a few off the top of my head … the labor movement was largely communist, as was the formation of many of today's labor unions. While they no longer act in accordance with those ideals, their founding is taken almost straight from Marxist ideals. The labor movement was supported by an anarchist movement in the early century that peaked in the 20s and was composed primarily of communists. The movie Reds does a fantastic job of depicting this, as does the EL Doctorow novel Ragtime which is considered a top 100 20th Century novel by the Modern Library. The farm subsidies system was primarily developed as a result of communist influence in the progressive movement. The feminist movement was, and still is, widely informed by communist ideas and post-modern, Marxist critiques of power and social structures. Much of the 60s counter-culture, more than just stoned hippies, was informed by and espoused communist ideals, including the SDS. Again, communism is a much more robust socio-political-economic theory than how it was erroneously applied under totalitarian regimes. Historically, it arose as a critique of liberalism that sought to accomplish liberal ideals. So Marxist communism is actually an attempt to provide a greater sense of freedom, equality, justice, etc. These values are central to … but I've now exceeded my allotment for times using the C word … I have to be careful, lest Sen. McCarthy rear his head again.