2006 will be a major disappointment. So will 2008.
POST VIA THE NEWS BLOG AND THE DAILY KOS
LIBERALS ARE GETTING A BIT CRANKY. MY MAN WAR WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS POST!
Color me pessimistic. Call me a chicken little. Tell me I’m a naysayer. Say I’m a buzzkill. But do hear me out.
We’re going to be in trouble: Markos can sense it. I can sense it. Joe Klein can sense it (but for all the wrong reasons). Nearly every prominent Democrat is extremely wary right now that, while the polls may look good now, we will be horribly disappointed come this November.We’re going to be in trouble because–to this day–WE REFUSE TO TAKE A STAND. We’re fighting back alright–finally–but we’re not taking a stand.
And what do I mean by taking a stand? I’ll tell you…
Even here on the blogosphere, we do not take a stand. Not really. Not most of the time.
Oh, yes, don’t get me wrong: we scream about the evils of Iraq War until our lungs give out; we decry the Imperial Presidency and the shredding of our beloved Constitution; we lambaste the incompetence born of heartless indifference that created the Katrina disaster; we vent over the mind-numbing corruption and salacious scandals; we fume at the depradations of the Christianist right; and we weep at the evils done in the name of America–in our name.
But that’s NOT called taking a stand. It’s called fighting back. It’s what a schoolkid does when he’s finally had enough of the neighborhood bully–and it’s good when it happens–but it’s not remotely enough to win over the country. And if we don’t do what it takes to really win over the country, we’re going to lose. Again. We won’t lose to Bush, but we’ll still lose.—————————————————-
We’re going to lose because PERSONAL TAINT IS EPHEMERAL in politics. Basic corruption and incompetence are bad, but not insurmountable. And personal dislike of a single, or even multiple politicians, may spell doom for them personally–but not for the ideology that put them there in the first place. Attempting to ride personal taint and corruption to victory at the ballot box is stupid, myopic and shortsighted–even if it works in the short-term.
For all the brouhaha and cheering celebrations here in the liberal blogosphere about Bush’s eternally sinking poll numbers, we seem to have forgotten something of extraordinary importance: Bush once had approval ratings of over 50%–even before 9/11. And the public voted overwhelmingly for Republican congressmen and congresswomen in 1994, 1996, 2000, 2002 and 2004. And that is important–it is a lesson forgotten at our peril.
For a lesson in contrast, one has only to look to Bill Clinton. Despite his personal foibles, Bill Clinton was and remained an extremely popular president–personally. But that personal admiration on the part of voters did not translate to an admiration of Democratic politics, and we lost seats. In the same way, voters can hate and reject Bush personally–and even many congressional Republicans–but they will not reject REPUBLICANISM.
———————————–
And what IS Republicanism? Any average voter can tell you: smaller government, stronger military, and “moral values.”
The fact that Republicans have failed entirely to shrink the government; the fact that they have wrecked our military; the fact that they have failed to foster anything but amorality; these things are irrelevant. The only thing that IS relevant is that the GOP machine has sold the idea of Republicanism to the average voter.
And the corollary of that premise is that, if a Republican fails to deliver on the promises of Republicanism, it can only be for one reason: he/she wasn’t Republican enough.
Or, to put it another way: When you look at Bush’s 32% approval rating, have you ever asked yourself how many of those people hate him because he’s not far enough to the right? I know I have–and the answer scares me.
Right now, the public is disgusted with their elected leaders. But as campaign season rolls around again, the sheeple will be inclined to forigve the actual practitioners of the greed and corruption, so long as they stay on message: the message of Republicanism. The message of smaller government, stronger military, and “moral values.”
And all the screaming in the world won’t change that.———————————————-
And what–pray tell–do WE stand for? What reason on earth does the public have to vote for a Democrat?
If you asked Joe Sixpack on the street how he thinks his life would change if Democrats controlled the House and Senate, do you think he would have a coherent answer?
If you asked Joe Sixpack on the street what the Democrats’ equivalent of Republicanism is, do you think he would have a coherent answer?
I certainly don’t see an answer. But I know what I DO see.
I see one wing of the party kowtowing to Republicans and playing at being Republican-lite: the DLC, Harman, Joe Lieberman wing.
And I see the other wing screaming bloody murder at the various depradations of this administration and its cronies–by sending message bills, threatening impeachment, and demanding investigations: this is the Conyers/Boxer wing. And of the two, this is FAR preferable.
But I see NO ONE actually taking a stand. I see NO ONE standing up for DEMOCRATISM.———————————–
And what would that even look like? I can tell what I think it would look like. 
For starters, it would mean shaping our policies around Liberal Rhetoric again. In my diary A Memorial For What We Have Lost, I tried to remind people of the REAL values that American stands for–that are ingraved and tattooed onto its very being:
The Common Good.Equal Opportunity.The Right to Privacy.Accountable Government.Respect Abroad.
It would mean standing up for single-payer healthcare.
It would mean standing up for a SERIOUS increase in the minimum wage.
It would mean standing up for SERIOUSLY higher taxes on corporations and the extremely wealthy, in order to actually SHRINK the income gap in this country.
It would mean standing up for re-regulating all the corrupt, vampirous industries that were deregulated by Reagan and Bush.
It would mean standing up strongly for the separation of church and state, and heaping scorn on those who would tear it down, rather than running in fear of them.
It would mean standing up for SERIOUSLY higher pensions and funding for our military personnel, and for our veterans.
It would mean doing all these things and much more–AND MAKING SURE THAT JOE SIXPACK KNEW WE MEANT IT.
———————————————–
We can talk impeachments until we’re blue in the face. We can call for investigations until our hearts give out. And we can seek indictments unto our political graves. And these are things we MUST DO.
But until we actually make a stand–until we stand up for Democratism–we will ALWAYS be playing second fiddle to Republicans–even if they do end up hanging themselves with their own rope here and there.
Because, when push comes to shove, the disgusted voters may throw out individual Republicans from time to time–but they will eternally vote for Republicanism. Until and unless, that is, they are given a serious alternative. An alternative that grasps their imaginations and the better angels of their natures, rather than simply tapping into their frustration and disgust.
It’s time to do more than just fight back, folks. It’s time to take a stand–because I’m tired of losing.
And it would mean pulling defeat from the jaws of victory. Why? Because this isn’t a debate over issues, I wish it was, but it’s not.You pick a fight on these issues, Bush will change the subject and win, because he’s already defined the terms on which they will be fought.Raise those issues and the GOP has a rallying point. They’re attacking churches, they want socialized medicine. Nope, sorry, not this time. Trying to redefine issues in an election year is bad politics, when the issue is the other side’s utter incompetence.Kerry lost because Rove had gay marriage in his pocket. He could drop his code words, throw Kerry off and appeal to the base and they stormed into the polls to protect marriage and vote for Bush. Why hand them another issue at this point?You can’t win any of those fights until you hold office. But if you raise them, the GOP and friends will hand you your head and laugh.The place you stand is on ground you define, Bush’s failure, and Democratic competence. Bush has failed, and that is a powerful meme to frame an argument in. But you can’t roll back anything until you control Congress and saying you will changes the subject.I don’t worry about how many people think Bush isn’t conservative enough, those people aren’t going to change much, I worry about the Independents who must be convinced that this isn’t working any longer. Dems first have to stand for fighting back and resisting Bush, because that is what is on the table.It’s the people who could support Bush because they thought he agreed with them on any number of issues, who think they’re moderates, are the people who make the difference. The people who wanted to believe him after 9/11 and have been disappointed.People largely support the Dems on social issues and that hasn’t changed. What they don’t trust is Democratic weakness and appeasement. You hand the GOP a battleground on their issues, they win and if you frame it as single payer and reregulation, that’s their wet dream.Instead, you frame it as weakness, betrayal of common principles and failure. Americanshate failure, more than anything else. They cannot tolerate it.It sounds great to stand on real issues, but this time, I want them to defend failure and corruption, make them define where they stand.After they lose, then you fight about what the values are. But you have to win first.
![[Valid RSS]](http://politicalpartypoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
May 21st, 2006 at 2:31 am
Well, I have to say, after reading that post, I am almost giddy with glee. This is too good to be true! If this theory catches on, I for one will be a lot more optimistic going into the November elections. lol One can only hope that the Democrats take this fellow’s advice and get in everyone’s face and remind them just what sort of liberal ideas they truly believe in. ;)
He’s right. Democrats as a rule avoid telling the people where they really stand. Haven’t I been saying that all along? I encourage them to speak “*truth* to power” as they say, and when they run for election, stop camouflaging themselves as Republican Lite. Get some spines, and run like the true socialists you really are. I think that’s a super idea!
And Joe Klein can sense impending gloom, all right, but not, as this fellow says, for the wrong reasons. From some of Klein’s articles that I have read, it seems to me that he has a pretty good understanding of what it is his Party is doing wrong. The poster shouldn’t dismiss Joe like that.
As far as this “Republicanism” and “Democratism” labeling, I’d much prefer to use the terms “conservative” and “liberal”, because just as not all Republicans are very conservative, not all Democrats are ultra-liberal. I will say, however, that the Democrats seem to be much better at keeping their members in line than are the Republicans. I’ll give them that. For example, notice how few times Harman or Lieberman go against their party line, compared to RINOs like Spector, McCain, Snow, Hagel, Collins, Voinovich, Graham, Dewine, Chafee et. al. go against theirs. Sometimes I wish these RINOs would just do a “Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords” already, and drop their Republican label aready. What’s the use of having a majority when it’s such a weak one?
May 21st, 2006 at 3:59 am
Barry Casselman weighs in on the way “voters traditionally express themselves in mid-term elections.”
Calls For GOP Defeat in ‘06 May Still Be Premature
“First, in order to vote out long-time incumbents, they have ro be very, very unhappy. And they have to be unhappy on election day itself, not one, three or six months before. Furthermore, they have to be unhappy about basic issues. Finally, they have to have a sense that the alternative is somehow better.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/post_9.html
May 21st, 2006 at 4:06 am
“Sometimes I wish these RINOs would just do a “Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords” already, and drop their Republican label aready. What’s the use of having a majority when it’s such a weak one?”
I think it’s less a function of ideology than of power, however. When Reagan was pres, he had a whole bloc of Boll Weevil Dems who crossed the party line far more than the GOP did. Why? Because if you’re in the majority, those on the margin have the power to make or break. If your majority is 55-45, what does it matter if 5 of the minority switch? But it makes a huge difference if 5 of the majority swap. Often switching is not even about the legislation under discussion, but about power moves on other legislation.
Jeffords: Ha! He ought to be on one of those Inside the NFL “Where are they now?” segments.
The funniest thing in the article wasn’t the admission that the liberals can’t simply be ‘against’: it was the phrase “our beloved constitution.” What a riot! Aren’t liberals the ones who have been telling us for years that it’s a living document that needs to be interpreted in light of modern (i.e. big government) needs? Though I’ll admit that they have backed off that a bit since they’ve been out of power…something about having your opponents interpret it as liberally as you have seems to make words-on-paper attractive.
But when they admit that only gold and silver shall be used for payment of debts, that public use means “use by the public,” and that there is no right to abortion emanating from the penumbra, then I’ll believe that they care about the Constitution itself rather than just using it to bash the GOP.
May 21st, 2006 at 10:17 pm
(El Borak said…)
“Often switching is not even about the legislation under discussion, but about power moves on other legislation.”
You’re right, El Borak. Many times it’s a matter of, “You vote for my bill this time, and next time I’ll vote for yours”, regardless of voting one’s conscience. Politics is indeed a dirty business.
As for Jeffords, once he left the Republican Party in 2001 to be (ahem) an “Independent”, the result was to give the Democrats Majority status in the Senate, and made Tom Dashle the Majority Leader, because of course, from that point on, he caucused with the Democrats. He’s decided not to run for re-election in ‘06. I’m sure self-professed socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders will most likely win his seat.
May 22nd, 2006 at 12:56 am
Yeah, I know where he is… my point was that as soon as his switch was no longer the swing vote, he went from being arguably the most powerful member of the senate (one who could by his actions assign all leadership posts) to being, well, nobody. A pariah. Another failed wannabe author jetting off to a well-earned obscurity.
Boohoohoo, and good riddance.
May 22nd, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Yes, you’re right. Jeffords bet the wrong horse. lol And the Republicans were offering him pretty good incentives to entice him to say, too. I forget the details of whatever it was the Dems promised him for making the switch. Didn’t it have something to do with the dairy industry? In any case, it was a very disloyal act, and at the worst possible time, so I’m glad it worked out the way it did.
Of course, on a purely human level, I sympathize with his family’s personal health problems. I think his wife has breast cancer, and he was dealing with health issues as well, so at this point, it’s a wise decision to take his leave.
May 22nd, 2006 at 5:36 pm
“Many times it’s a matter of, “You vote for my bill this time, and next time I’ll vote for yours”, regardless of voting one’s conscience. Politics is indeed a dirty business.”
Dirtier all the time. But compromise has to be part of the process in order for it to work at all.
Anyone who knows me can attest to my deep and abiding dislike of politics in general (if not downrightloathing), I have known and seen enough of the law making process, up close and personal for the last 20 years, to be able to say that without a doubt, if you can’t compromise on some things NOTHING will ever get done…… Which in and of itself would probably be a good thing in the lawmaking arena…(given my strong Libertarian leanings).
However, the incredible rancor and lack of civility currently evidenced in most law making bodies (and society in general) probably owes some of its dues to the fact that lots of people have a severely diminished ability to “see the other side” as anything but evil, and thus to engage in civil debate and settlement is seen as weakness.
This lack of common sense and civility is, in my opinion, one of the causes for lack of trust in our public officials. Where once we had some faith that even those with whom we did not agree would not deliberately do too much harm, and could find a safe middle ground, we now believe that anyone who “gives in” is automatically selling out their (and thus our) values and even souls.
There are times and issues that call for drawing a firm line in the sand.
However, if we want our elected officials to only stick to a set script of outcomes, we might as well replace them with voting boxes in each of our homes (so we all give a thumbs up or down vote on each item).
Leaders who lead are becoming as rare as pastors who practice what they preach.
May 23rd, 2006 at 3:07 pm
All I have to say is I could barely make it through
that badly written tripe. I got a headache trying.
Although I recognize my writing isn’t always that great either, I
at least try to be clear.
What I could make out of the piece was 1,000 plus words
of more WISHFUL thinking on behalf of the
Right no matter the source of the article. Too bad it’s only baseless wishing.
The Right wishes for a lot of things that have nothing to do with reality.
Remember, “major combat operations have ended?”