| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Conservatives are supposed to be the stick-in-the-muds, the ones who just want to keep everything the way it is; Liberals are supposed to be the ones who want to change with the times.
I’d just like to point out, that somewhere along the way, our two leading political parties have traded places in this regard.
They call themselves the party for change, but the only “change” Liberals seek is to vote themselves into office. Other than that, they offer few strategies for improving the country. They’re the party of wanting to stop everything. They’re the “anti” party—against the war on terrorists; against missile defense; against the making of profits by business. What are they for? Kerry certainly couldn’t articulate it.
Per James Carville:
“The party needs a narrative,” he said. adding later that one possibility would to become “an aggressively reform, anti-Washington, anti-business-as-usual party.”
So Carville thinks the Democrats need to define themselves still more as the party that’s against things. And he’s one of the leading strategists on the Left.
The Conservatives are the ones who want to improve things for people, and offer a lot of ways to do it, including:
How can you argue with goals like those? The Libs make as big a deal as they can of the costs involved, and ignore the massive payoffs of success.
