Is Dean liberal?

I want to dispose of this in poll form. Many say Dean is liberal - some say too liberal. Some say moderate. Some even say he tilts right. What do you think?

Unlike Clinton, there's a chance he could do something very leftist, such as oppose the IWR (however gradually), and then he can do something that's ever so *slightly* conservative, such as his death penalty position, or his views on gun control. So basically a solid, likeable moderate with a few crazy anomalies.

:)

...a pragmatist who compromised to get results guided by a liberal north star.

Dean is a libertarian at heart, who campaigns as a liberal, and who would probably govern in a way that moved America to the right.

I've researched Dean, so I thought I was reasonably informed as to his politics based on what is known of his Vermont record. I'd appreciate hearing in what areas he would move us more to the right, if you don't mind.

(saves me the effort)

(and now I really am going out, but I'll be back later)

I think at heart, he thinks that what makes Wall St happy is right for America. That's what he did with energy deregulation, and cutting social programs/reducing taxes, and building a loop for IBM.

I don't think he's on board with the idea that we need to transfer WEALTH to the middle class.

He says, "you have the power", but the fact is, we don't get the power because anyone says we do.

We get the power when we get out of debt, when the tax burden shifts off of us, when we accumulate wealth, and when we have more social mobility and more options about what we do with our lives and labors.

I really, honestly think Dean isn't on board with those ideas because, unlike other candidates, he never proposes anything concrete which does any of that, and one of his few concrete plans -- his education plan -- does the oppositie. Not only that, he doesn't stand as a symbol of those things.

And the symbolism is important. Gore may have been for those things, but it was difficult to convince Americans that the son of a senator who grew up in a hotel and went to the greatest schools without getting the greatest grades, and floundered through life until he went into the family business knows about middle class opportunity. Dean has the same problem. Even if he understood those issues (which I don't think he does) he can barely stand up for them considering where he came from and what he did with his life.

"We get the power when we get out of debt, when the tax burden shifts off of us"

Deficit spending gets us further into debt, so I'm not sure what you mean here. Bush has given a tax cut to the rich and is deficit spending like mad. He is trying to advance PNAC and get re-elected by artificially pumping the economy, a short term fix, with no sustainable, economic benefit.

Dean is against deficit spending. Deficit spending IS a severe tax, since it defers taxes to a later time, incurring long term interest, and at an elevated interest rate, since foreign countries will not hold our mounting debt, unless the interest rates are raised. There are numerous analyses by financial gurus, such as Robert Rubin, Warren Greenspan (Grrr), that show that this is so.

I think Dean understands this. Don't let Bush pull the wool over your eyes.

which allows the middle class to be the engine of economic growth.

Get out of personal debt by having your tax burden reduced, by participating in a funcition economy, and NOT through an education plan which encourages peopel to take out even more loans.

Also, defecit spending which is an investment in the economy is good. Defecit spending which buys you stuff that makes the economy less competitive is bad.

Deficit spending can only be used if it actually has a return on the investment. Bush totally failed at this. No surprise there, eh?

"Defecit spending which buys you stuff that makes the economy less competitive is bad."

Or deficit spending to fund military adventures around the world is bad. There is no return on the investment.

We are in a time paralleling the 1930's IMO (the roaring 90's are done), so whoever makes it in to office will have tough spending decisions. Deficit spending to create sustainable jobs is OK within reason, sort of like how FDR did, but made appropriate for where we are in time.

I certainly support progresive taxation, and I think Dean does (I am a middle class tax paying Vermonter). He has attacked Bush's tax cut for the rich. He realizes that these tax cuts are not sustainable for the reasons discussed.

I think that if he is asked (and I would venture that as a debate question), he would say he would allow limited deficit spending, if there was a return (sustainable infrastructure jobs, health care, education grants, environmental jobs, etc.).

As I've said before, be careful in thinking that we're going to be able to grow out of our jobless situation by massive deficit spending. We're already against the ropes, because Bush has put us there. Much more and we can't pay the interest on our debt.

Dean was a fiscal conservative in the roaring 90's, but will probably have to bend to accomodate the depressing era we're headed into. We can't just do a time warp back to Clinton era, it doesn't work like that.

I'm a fiscal moderate so it doesn't bother me terribly.

I always thought he was slightly more left wing or left of center than Gore and Clinton were, but his policies that he's promoting are starting to move a little to the center-right.

his anti-iraq war position places him within the penumbra of the social stances of most liberals a lot more than than his economic positions do.

Dean == Bush I == Clinton == Bush II == Reagan

The Republicrat Parties and the media always cooperate to make sure one of their own is elected President.

His campaign to repeal all the tax cuts, his anti-Iraq-war stance, his big new socialized health program and reregulation will get him painted as a tax and spend peacenik liberal who will strangle the economy. Not to mention the civil unions and lax remarks regarding religion.

If he manages to get past that and into office, then we'll see a conservative Democrat because that's what he really is. Class not race, states' rights, cutting services to balance the budget, a compromiser on environment and business, etc.

That's why I don't get the appeal of this guy. He's taken the most difficult positions of the Democratic party that will be hard to 'sell' in next year's election, but offers the most conservative in an actual Presidency. What's the point?

He's sensible and I like that.

Julie

Between Rove and the corporate media--Dean will be defined as a NE liberal who is the darling of the anti-war crowd. The image trumpeted by the media and Bush's millions will trump reality. And I believe this will cause Dean to lose next November. If he gets the nomination, I will pray to be wrong.

Deficit spending is an injustice. Current deficit spending is, to the extent available, financed by surplus payroll tax. Taking money from the Social Security fund, which should be in surplus and saved to pay for boomer retirement costs to cover the cost of tax breaks for the wealthy is unjust. It literally takes money from the minimum wage earner by force of law to subsidize the wealthy few.

A liberal would eliminate this deficit by raising income taxes across the board, with special attention paid to the wealthy few, so that the SS surplus is retained for future costs.

Response to an economic emergency by temporary deficit spending can be justified on occasion. These emergency responses should be limited to non-recurring costs. Funding routine and ordinary costs (like school construction, as an example) by charging it to future generations, more aptly termed a structural deficit, is a social and economic injustice unworthy of support by liberals.

Greater integrity, which I have always believed liberals stand for, involves bearing the cost of creating a more just society. This means you pay the bills as you go.

Underfunding of social justice programs is just one of the tools the conservative movement has used since the 60's to defeat the progressive agenda. What they do is cut funding and staff to any program they wish to kill. After several years of this, they then study how 'ineffective' the program is. Finally they propose to abolish it as a 'waste of money' and because of tax cuts 'we cannot afford this'.

The only way to defeat this paradigm is to fully fund and properly staff progressive programs from the outset, and more than that, pay the bills as you go.

As a civil servant, I can assure you of a particular coping strategy adopted by repugs and those who accomodate them. It is government by the 'we have a program for that' rationale. It is politically unpopular to do nothing about problems, be it homelessness, environmental protection, child protection.... Because of this, we have 'programs'. However. because it is also politically unpopular to collect taxes, we never properly fund and staff the 'programs'. Thus they are never truly effective at addressing the problems.

However there is an upside for the elected official in all of this. Having a 'program' means that there is some underpaid and understaffed civil servant to investigate and fire when the media starts nosing around. Once this scalp is collected, the media moves on, and no long term improvement is made. The mechanism is only further enhanced by the republican bent toward outsource contractors, because there is none of that messy civil service protection - right to appeal wrongful termination stuff.

Restoring honor and integrity to civil service as well as passing and successfully implementing progressive programs go hand in hand. You can do niether sustainably without collecting the necessary revenue.

A responsible fiscal policy is in fact the more liberal course.

In tone, a centrist in reality. Which means he'll scare middle Americans, and piss off anyone not actively apologizing for him.

I don't think Ralph Nader would be considering another stab at the presidency.