Ancient Chinese Curse: "May you live in interesting times."

It is an interesting time for politics, my friends. Not necessarily a wonderful time, but an interesting one.

Long ago and far away, after the Civil Rights Act cost Democrats the Solid South and Democratic voters supposedly helped elect Reagan, a bunch of Democrats, mostly Southern white males, got together. Most or all of them had personal Presidential ambitions (or so it seems, in hindsight). They apparently grokked that they were going to have a very hard time getting the electoral vote if and when they ran. These men (and Hillary) were founding members of the Democratic Leadership Council, officially formed in 1985.

Supposedly, they modeled the DLC after the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, an organization formed in 1972 by the neocon wing of the Democratic Party, in reaction to McGovern's stunning electoral loss to Nixon. http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=coalition_for_a_democratic_majority_1 (We no longer acknowledge or admit that the word "neoconservative" originally described Democrats.)

As best I can tell, again in hindsight, the founding members of the DLC seemed to think that the way for a Democrat to get elected President was to behave like a Republican while registered as a Democrat. I grant you, that is an oversimplification, but it will do for now.

Supposedly, the DLC was the brainchild of Al From. Maybe. In any event, From was the nominal founder. He and Will Marshall were the only two full time employees of the organization. In 1989, Marshall formed a think tank called the Progressive Policy Institute. In 2003, Marshall signed the PNAC memo. The DLC philosophy is espoused by most Democratic think tanks today and bears names like Third Way and New Democrat.

Democratic Presidential nominees for the last 21 years (an entire generation) have been DLC. Clinton was founding member of the DLC. So was Gore. Before running for President in 2004, Kerry was a founding member of the Senate New Democrat coalition. (Yes, New "Democrat" Coalition, not "Democratic.") And, our current President says he is a New Democrat--AND about the same politically as a moderate Republican of the 1980s. The last two heads of the DNC have also been New Democrats, both Southern, at that.

But, all that is just background. Fast forward to the historic Republican losses of 2012.


The Republicans did not do horrifically at the state level, but Numbnuts Romney lost by a huge amount of electoral votes and, while Republicans expected to pick up seats in both the House and the Senate, they could not even keep all the seats they already had. Given the Unitary Executive and the federal power of the purse, this was not good news for Republicans. Besides, politicians who lose elections don't exactly inspire big bucks donors.

So, since the election, Republicans have been engaging in self-flagellation and soul-searching, much of which has been very public, and promising change, also very publicly.

David Brooks was a protege of William F. Buckley, a prominent conservative Republican author and spokesperson of the 1950s through 1980s, stepping down from the National Review in 1990. Brooks is now opining on how Republicans might win more electoral votes. Brooks seems to be suggesting that the New Republican return to the conservative Republicanism of the 1980s.

How very interesting. Both parties seem to think that the way to win the Oval Office, home of the Unitary Executive, is to be more like Republicans of the 1980s.


Democrats talk "forward." Republicans have begun to talk about a viable "path forward." But both apparently really mean "Back to the Future." And Back to a Republican Future, at that.

If Republicans execute on this, how ever will voters tell one moderate Republican Party of the 1980s from the other? And, if Republicans execute on this, will Democrats manage to be better 1980s moderate Republicans? Or will Republicans manage to be better 1980s moderate Republicans. And will voters care, or lose interest entirely? Will Harry Truman's famous prophesy mean that Republicans will win every election?

Just like Harry said, I don't want a phony Democrat. To me if a Democrat wants to cut entitlements they are a phony Democrat. Or, is that pony Democrat? Because if we want assurances that Social security and medicare will be preserved we are characterized as whining for a pony. Interesting times suck.

President Jackson).

People who want Democrat to be Democrats are supposedly seeking a pony.*

DINOs are often referred to as Trojan horse.

And I know unicorns figure in somehow, but I never figured out how, even after I googled.



Maybe Leopold's Ghost knows?

Anyway, I'm glad I am not in charge of mucking out that stable!



*It is said of Reagan that he was the type of person who would walk into a room full of poop and start digging because he believed, with all that manure, there must be a pony in there somewhere. That is the story of which I am always reminded when I hear the tired, tired pony meme.