Arthur asked me some questions and my reply got a bit long for a comment, so I decided to make it a diary.
I am saying you are right, Arthur
Redefine is about understanding. But it’s about presentation, too.
Any politician, as you so eloquently point out, must make compromises.
And so must his supporters.
Sometimes those compromises may not be easy.
That’s why Redefinition is important.
And successful Redefinition depends on understanding.
Understanding what’s important to you, to many people right here.
People who have a lot to give. Not just money, but the kind of enthusiasm, faith, hope, support that not even money can buy. But understanding can.
And that’s where Presentation comes in. To present the Redefinition in a way that I will understand, and support, you have to understand me. It’s a mutual understanding, if you will.
Take child killing, for example. It sounds well, bad. Even the Republican candidate, whoever he may be, is hardly going to stride up to the podium and say “Vote for me, and I promise, more child killing.”
That’s not going to sound good even to the people over on Free Republic. That would be an example of ineffective presentation.
Those folks have a shall we say, more tolerant attitude toward child killing than most of the people who participate here, or maybe some other blogs you or I may visit. They may have a more pragmatic attitude about it, like certain body functions, it’s a necessity, a certainty, but one does not discuss it at a cocktail party. Or a campaign fundraiser. But your typical Republican candidate doesn’t have to worry too much, even if he doesn’t have a hand-picked audience, that anybody is going to put him on the spot: “So what do you plan to do about all this child killing?”
You’re a nation at war, Arthur. A very different kind of war, and one that yes, does involve a considerable amount of child killing. In Afghanistan, in Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine.
For the Democratic candidate, he has a different sort of challenge, as he Redefines this very different sort of war. Political strategists have to think ahead. Right now, what you have is Bush down in his numbers a bit. Not so much because of child killing, though. Other things. Now the thing that Feingold appears to have picked is an interesting choice. It’s a very important Other Thing to some sectors of his target audience. But it’s not really high on the mainstream list. The “if you don’t have anything to hide, you don’t have anything to worry about” mainstream. And some of them are Democrats.
It’s also an interesting choice because Bush has essentially decreed that to do what Feingold did is a crime. It is a crime to say that the president committed a crime. So it’s safe to assume that wanting to talk things over with party officials is not the only reason there were so many ducked down Democrat heads and reluctance of any substantive statements to issue from so many Democrat mouths.
One of the rules of politics, as well as of life, is that one should choose one’s battles.
I’m no expert, but Feingold may have made a better choice than it might seem, on the surface.
Maybe that mainstream I keep talking about doesn’t have your grasp on a lot of issues, including this one. In fact, my hunch, my instinct, tells me that most of them don’t know, and don’t care too much if it’s a crime. A nation at war, a very different kind of war, must do all it can to Prevail over the Enemy that Lurks. And if I don’t have anything to hide, I don’t have anything to worry about. And, let’s face it, there’s a healthy dollop of all politicians, especially all presidents, commit crimes at some point in there too.
Maybe that mainstream sees the whole domestic spying thing through a glass darkly. But the essence that comes out is Against Bush. And with more people displeased with Bush, Feingold may have shown more understanding than I might have immediately perceived. Whether he talked it over with Dr. Dean or anybody else.
Right off the bat, he has made one big point. Not only is he not Bush, he’s against Bush.
In this very different kind of war, that’s a pretty bold position to start your engines with.
But there are more challenges to come. Strategists have to think ahead.
That fringe, those people who went to the protest marches before, and even a few since, the launch of the crusade in Iraq. The Democratic party, let’s face it, doesn’t really need those people. They’re a minority, like any other minority, and the way the game is played is two parties, with distinctions largely symbolic, scrap like feral cats for the same little gaggle of voters.
People like to say that the Democrats take minorities for granted. And maybe some do, but mostly, it’s just not on the radar. Indifference I guess you could call it, they aren’t really needed, aren’t really relevant. Strategists, thinking ahead, must also look back. Abu Ghraib: Joseph Darby (Abu Ghraib whistle-blower) – he and his family get so many death threats, they’re still in hiding. Lynndie England (leash girl scapegoat) has fan sites. Operation Crescent Cleansing: 4 days, Americans watched Americans slow-cooked alive, live on CNN. Mostly poor Americans. As old AIPAC hand Leslie Blitzer rhapsodized, “so poor, so black.” Nobody stormed anything.
But strategists not only have to think ahead, they have to look closer.
Let’s take this place, just as an example. When people found out there was a place that they could criticize crimes against humanity, denounce torture, even criticize Democrats, basically a place where they could express unvarnished, outright, outraged opposition to US policies, look how they flocked to it.
The majority of the people here, not all, but most, are the ones most likely to be that boor, that oaf, who goes to hear a candidate speak and yells out a question about child killing.
And this place is on the radar. It is so on the radar. There are “former” CIA operatives posting here. you can bet there are current and active Democratic party operatives, strategists, lurking here.
Not just here, but it’s my example, since we’re both here.
And what do they see, these strategists? They see people who are not only willing to send money, but willing, EAGER even, to give that can’t buy it with money donation – themselves. Their commitment, their support. There is a hunger, an almost palapable hunger, for the promise, even the hope, of a way out, of a candidate they can believe in, a candidate who will be the vessel and the source of that hope, a candidate who will understand.
Strategists have to think ahead. This sector, these hungry people, have the potential for being in many ways, a much more valuable asset to the right Democratic candidate than what BooMan referred to the other day as the DC cocktail party Dems (quote not exact)
And to that sector, domestic spying was a damn good choice of battle. And there are several little items on Feingold’s voting record that look very good to those folks. So far, it looks good for Feingold and that sector.
The strategists purse their lips. Could Russ be the one? Could he have what it takes to bring this asset back into the fold? Some of them have been openly talking about third parties, Through with the Dems, they are saying. Not many of them, but if you count quality and not quantity, definitely an asset. If he can understand them enough to make them understand. Redefine the party for them.
An asset, but not enough. Touch reality base. The party’s base. Not that idealized base that our asset sector is always waxing nostalgic fantasies about, the real base. The yellow ribbon nothing to hide I’m a Democrat not a radical base.
Not much chance of questions about child killing from them. They understand Iran is a danger. America cannot permit these anti-American Muslims to have weapons, it’s the war on terror, a very different kind of war, move the troops to one of our bases and just bomb from the air, that’s the only way they’re going to be able to crush the insurgency, impose our will, bring them to heel, take them down a peg or two, put a stop to this anti-American sentiment. Protect Israel.
Feingold understands all that. He understands it so well, he just might be electable. And he just might be able to Redefine it, to make that hungry asset sector, like so many people who post here, understand it too, and be proud to be a Democrat again. A Redefined Democrat, a supporter of the Redefined war on terror, who unlike those mainstream Democrats, cries real tears over the child killing, but understands. You have to start somewhere, a step in the right direction, sometimes they have to say things just to have a chance, he’s our only chance, he doesn’t really think that way, he voted against the Patriot Act, he’s all we’ve got.
Is he the One?
Does he have what it takes to unify the party?
It’s all in the presentation.
