Christian Exodus is trying to un-purple the country by getting conservative Christians to move to South Carolina.

This is interesting, because it reflects that in spite of a stunning string of political victories over the past 24 years, hardline religious social conservatives are unhappy, and are actively trying to create larger regional differences in ideas as a result. Interesting to think where this goes over the next 50 years, assuming it works out as a generational strategy.

They claim to be "an authoritative magazine of liberal ideas, committed to a just society, an enriched democracy, and effective liberal politics." Let's check out their take on the problem widening income inequality, Bush's shifting of the tax burden, and how it effects local government services...

In order to afford half-way decent public services, property taxes in poor and working-class towns have to rise more than property taxes in wealthy places. But as they rise, a tax revolt is brewing, because these families just can't afford it. Yet if they don't pay more, they won't get better schools or other services.

Here's a radical suggestion: Abolish the property tax. Substitute another form of tax on wealth that's fairer. For example, instead of a local property tax, how about a national wealth tax? Say, one-tenth of one percent of someone's total wealth, per year. The proceeds would be sent back to towns to pay for schools and other services, according to a very simple formula -- the number of people living there. Simple ... and fair.

Robert B. Reich, "The Trickle-Down Tax Revolt", The American Prospect Online, Oct 27, 2004

Wicked awesome. You average out every concentrated city of the affluent and the ultra-rich and then give it back by population. The result means that in order for the wealthy in our world to keep their kids schools up to snuff, their roads as pothole-free, and their police departments as well-heeled, they'd have to fund everyone else's schools to the same extent.

In effect you're tapping into all the high quality (often white-flight) suburbs, where a few working and middle class families have traditionally made huge sacrafices to live "for the good schools," along with nationally-known places like Beverly Hills, Scottsdale and Palm Beach, as well as all the wealth that's sequestered away from local services in places like Aspen and the stock market and making it responsible for what goes on in everyday American life. That, my friend, is social justice. We're all in this together. Time to start acting like that: money where mouth is, dig?

The problematic part is setting up such a national program without being heavy-handed. I mean, if I had my druthers I might stick some standards for transparency on, an "open books" policy, and maybe some requrement about keeping services Public (e.g. accesible to all). Anything more than that would start to queer^* the deal, especially if you get into specific restrictions on how states spent their share of the national wealth tax, and to what extent they were allowed to levy additional taxes to support additonal services. That then leads back to affluent communities adding money to their own area, but on some level that's something that's unjust to prohibit. The trick is passing a hefty enough wealth tax to cover the meat and potatoes of local services regardless, which means negotiating it with the states so that property taxes are simultaniously lowered.

There are some good philosophical underpinnings here, relating to the modern realities of highly mobile labor, declining heavy manufacturing, the need to nurture markets, the ascendent importance of local government, etc. And hell, it's a Big Idea. If the Republicans are going to push scrapping the income tax in favor of a consumption tax -- which is an awfully regressive idea -- we have to push back with something equivalently outsized. A wealth tax makes a lot of sense.

^* The verb "to queer" is the appropraite term here, and doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality.

Once again I find myself cheering for Jessie in his latest post on the GTA thing o'er at Pandagon:

I know we want to get in on the moral values debate like the nerds of Zeta House want to get in on Kappa Omega Kappa's kegger, but if we need to disingenuously stand up to a videogame marketed to adults in order to find our moral backbone, we might as well just start screwing the sheep and giving the kids heroin now.

His reasoning was near and dear to mine. To wit, we agree that it's disengenuous to grandstand against a problem you're not really going to make an attempt to solve. However, Ezra also weighed in again, making more clear his point that there are people who are concerned with violence in culture, and in videogames, and that the Democratic party would be well adviced to somehow address their concerns. To my mind his advice remains tactical:

I'm tired of ceding all cultural ground to the Republicans. We have our demoestic message, we have, unfortunately, our foreign policies. But we don't even enter the cultural conversation, except to tell people to turn the channel, or not play the game, or not get the marriage. It's laissez-faire morality, and it leaves our party looking spineless and remote in the affairs that, rightly or wrongly, occupy much of the mental space in America. And it helps us lose elections. And that is why we should care.

He's right that the complete and utter lack of cultural message on the part of the Democrats is an issue. I just think he's coming down on the wrong side of the debate. While saying "video games where you can fuck and murder prostitutes is something we should find offensive enough to oppose" may be an ok soundbyte, it's essentially spin, and the direction it takes you will lead you away from what you really believe and cost you more votes than it would win.

What the Democrats should do is develop some culturally-relevant message that goes beyond laissez-faire morality but doesn't establish itself by condemning certain cultural products. This is more difficult, but more broadly appealing as well, not least of all because it will help distinguish D's from R's on the cultural issue. You don't win the culture war by being Republican lite...

I don't relish the position of being a naysayer, and anyone who knows me knows I'm an eternal optimist. However, my fundimental optimism rests on my faith in human beings to make the right choices through reason and insight, and as such from time to time it becomes necessary to say things that seem very negative. The point of this isn't to say that all is lost. On the contrary, the point is to say, "Hey! We need to take stock of what's really going on if we want things to get better!"

In that spirit, here's something that's bound to be unpopular: if there is such a thing as a global war on terror -- and for the record I don't think there is; we need better language here -- we are losing. In fact, we are playing directly into the hands of those who are convinced the US must be destroyed. Daily Kos -- Pentagon: Bush's 'hypocrisy' lost us hearts and minds

• Muslims do not "hate our freedom," but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.
• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that "freedom is the future of the Middle East" is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World -- but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.
• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination.
• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack -- to broad public support.
• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of "terrorist" groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.

That's from the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, people, not Dennis Kucinich. It's for real, and the longer the president and his administration insist that we're living in some comic book reality, the further we travel down the path towards failure and defeat. Full report PDF.

In Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the globe, we are engaged in 4th generation warfare (4GW). The important thing about 4GW is the it essentially about moral conflict. In other words, if you do not "win the hearts and minds" you loose, unless you are willing to commit genocide.

I'll say it again, and not because it makes me happy. We. Are. Losing.

(NOTE: I learned to read and write phonetically, though not w/hooked on phonics. Sometimes that puts me in a loose/lose situation. Please pardon my lack of rigor.)