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 vils 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 DLC 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.
Feingold stands for all those things.
I stand for all those things, and I’ve been banned from dkos for my troubles, even though I’ve been saying many of these same things for months. I’ve been writing on these very topics for months, more than a year.
There are others around who do too, and they get run off, or banned, or marginalized … like Marisacat for one …
i agree. this happens all too often. What in particular caused your banning from Kos, if I may ask?
the last straw was calling Tester a Republican trojan horse, IIRC.
hmmm…that would do it, I guess. You have to remember that Markos’ whole shtick is the idea that the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good, especially when it comes to getting Democrats elected in red areas. And since Tester is officially endorsed by the site, I can why they would do that.
Nevertheless, I think you should be able to make that statement without getting banned. The power to dissent is always the greatest good…
that discussion, the whole fake thing that markos pushes that we can’t have “perfect” candidates, is a distraction. Tester and Casey are “perfect” candidates for tech-based, upper middle class male children of privilege who care only about issues they deem “important”. There was a months-long project at that supposedly liberal blog to silence truly liberal, leftist voices.
It’s all about his issues, and his ego, which is fine, my blog is too. But I’m not pretending to run a “community” with a broad debate that purports to be “liberal”. MANY of the candidates that Markos and DHinMI and Delaware Dem and Armando and the rest of the thugs there push are militarists, pro-corporate center right former Republicans.
Did you write about your doubts in a constructive way? I think kos might object to providing bandwidth for pure wailing and gnashing of teeth. I’ve gotten negative feedback when I indulge in that…
well, it’s a damned public forum, not a grade school. It’s especially funny that kos’ little mob of bullies will post expletive-filled comments whenever someone pushes women’s autonomy or when someone claims votes were stolen in Ohio, Florida and other places.
Civility is only demanded if they disagree with what you’re arguing. I’ve always been blunt. People know where I stand. I became a problem when he started pushing Dempublicans who will undermine or vote against the best interests of the Democratic Party’s former base.
I don’t speak for anybody at Kos, just my own take on my experience, just one person. Did you feel that was what they objected to about your comments as well?
The reason why I went over to read Kos in the first place several years ago was because KOS got in trouble with the DNC blog “kicking Ass’, and that blog was pure propaganda. If you said anything against the party line, you and all your previous posts were purged. That purging-censorship goes against every fiber of my being, and I was extremely angry with the dem party for sponsoring such a blog. I therefore went over to KOS, and all in all, I have seen very little actual censorship over the past 2 years. Subtle pressures, yes, but no outright censorship.
If what happened to you is a new trend, then KOS has become as bad as the “kicking Ass’ mentality that he used to fight against. I hope that is not the case, but then what IS the reason you were banded??
it’s been going on for months. There are a lot of interesting and vital voices who aren’t there anymore.
It wasn’t just bannings. There is a cadre of frontpagers and commenters who bully and highjack diaries. After a while, it just gets old and unproductive.
beautifully put – thanks
I think our future efforts can be successful if we bring classic liberal ideals back. JFK, Truman, Thomas Jefferson; all of these presidents were Democrats and were enormously popular and effective leaders. Our past holds lessons for our future.
Protecting civil liberties and the environment, ensuring health care is plentiful and affordable that takes care of those who need the most help; engaging in a foreign policy that is more in harmony with our neighbors are the ideals that Democrats already stand for but never articulate to the voters. These are classical liberal positions, all we have to do is communicate these ideals.
The blogosphere is the one weapon we have in the media marketplace dominated by Republicans. With more and more people relying on the Internet for their information, we will have more opportunity to hone our message skills. Republicans know how to condense a complex, although stupid, argument into snappy, parrotable soundbites. We need to catch up in this area.
i wouldn’t describe Truman as enormously popular.
And Truman authorized the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, criminal acts against humanity for which he should be reviled for eternity.
as to the ability of the so called “opposition” party to regain power and actually follow through on making a difference on the issues we all care about.
What many of our opposition party politicians are lacking is some “wind in the sails.” It seems obvious that the “brave” ones have a fairly solid constituency behind them.
I sincerely doubt that without a massive nonviolent movement there will not be a “critical mass” of opposition political people who will find the energy to be both “brave” and successful at election time.
I would suggest that those of us motivated to action, rather than just the continuous “upload” of news items, educate ourselves on power that is inherent to the people, which can be generated by nonviolent struggle.
Historically, when political action alone has failed to address the needs of any nation’s people either armed revolution or nonviolent movements fill the vacuum.
In our case the only option left is to take up nonviolent struggle and expect the “wind” from this to push politicians, who believe in our cause, forward to a position of power.
[google the topic, or see my diaries for links to more info.]
I live in the red part of a blue state (NJ) and I hope 2006 is not a disappointment but yes, my neighbors won’t be voting for anyone we like. Even McCain is too lefty for them. They like Giuliani, set to run as an outsider. But NJ doesn’t have the pro-life base other states do.
I’d vote for Gore, Feingold, Clark. (Maybe Edwards.) People I talk to in my neighborhood would never vote for them. (Maybe they’d look at Clark.)
We do need a message. Otherwise we’ll end up nominating another candidate with an ‘electable’ and inoffensive personality/pedigree like Kerry. Maybe our message could be ‘no pre-set message here’ unlike the robots??
I refuse to be the AntiBush!
It’s especially stupid when they know they’ve been to the party before, and nobody became cmte chair when it was over.
It’s just not going to happen. Hoping that shrub screws up majorly on 10/31/2006 is not a strategy.
When I tried to write on KOS that formulating, stating, and holding to principle makes a difference in the long run because it identifys you to a cause, I was rebuffed by a crowd that says no no, win win!! When the women of America wake up to their second class citizenship and Bob casey and Harry Reid are some of the main reasons why, we will then see how holding to principle matters in the long run.
Getting ones message out is also very imprtant, but first one has to have a message and not be afraid of that message!!!!
Great yet frightening post!
Principle rarely matters to our selfish electorate until after they recognize they’ve lost something valuable through political trickery, and by then it’s usually too late to remove the malefactors and restore what was lost expeditiously.
by then it’s usually too late to remove the malefactors and restore what was lost expeditiously.
Well that hits the/my strategic nail on the head, IMO! I base my entire principled stand on the future benefits of holding to such constant principle. If dems state and hold true to women’s privacy, reproductive, and religious tolerance freedoms, well they may lose in the short term, but the blame for these lost freedoms long term will be clearly in the other party’s hands. If we compromise and put repub lite candidates in office like Casey, we can no longer state that this was a core principle of our party all along and reap the future consequential benefits! Therefore, I am hoping that you are wrong on this above statement, but we may never know if we allow the repub lites to infiltrate our principles!
I’m with you completely! The “short attention span” tactics of the Dem leadership, (catering to the public appetite for “immediate gratification” on issues they expres interest in); this purported strategy only makes the Dem party react to the initiatives of others, and only in the short term.
It’s basically a strategy designed around the idea of “putting out fires” constantly, rather than developing policies and programs that prevent those fires from igniting in the first place. (And of course when one says something about “putting out fires”, one is acknowledging that one is overwhelmed and unable to cope effectively with the problems one faces. Such acknowledgement indicates an absence of strategy, not the implementation of one.
The rightwing spent most of 25 years building their propaganda mills (think tanks), the organizations that fund them, and the network of media handmaidens that help propagate their deceptions to a self absorbed electorate. As far as I can tell the Dem party has done virtually nothing along these lines, (that is, nothing that promotes the true democratic principles the party is suposed to stand for). Instead they’ve created the DLC, the NDN, and a few other so-caled centrist gangs, groups that betray the constitution and democratic principle in favor of “winning”.
If ever there was a “lose-lose” strategy, the putative leaders of the Dem party have manifested it with their “We stand for nothing”, betrayal politics. And they’ve been losing elections since 1992.
I would support and vote for candidates from a party that understood this simple idea and would actually stand up for it.
The only legitimate reason for government to exist is to serve and defend the best interests of the all the people, not to serve the interests of some of the people at the expense of others.
I don’t see a party anywhere that embraces this simple concept pro-actively, and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people in congress who accept the core wisdom of such an ideal.
Absolutely with you, sbj.
To quote Sterling Newberry: ‘This is a fundamentally liberal notion – that the social good and the private good are welded together.’
This notion — as essential to ‘liberalism’ — having been demonized, paired with institutional confusion as to the definition of ‘we, the people’ now that this designation embraces corporate entities, it’s no wonder large swaths of our population are beyond consideration in most matters of current governance.
IOW, I’ve basically adjusted my understanding of the term ‘American people’ — when used by most politicians & pundits — to exclude the majority of our citizens; it actually extremely selective, depending on the speaker & circumstance.
In general, the term excludes most of us; it refers to a concept, rather than an actuality.
Yes! Whenever a politician uses the term “… the American People…” in public, he/she is about to propagate a lie.
And since our current political machinery operates on the “divide and conquer” principle, rather than on the “united we are stronger” principle, the “we” in “we, the people” has no real positive monolithic attribute. Our government divides us against each other so that we are harder pressed to unite with each other against them and their transgrssions against us and their failures to serve the best interests of the country.
I think you are absolutely right in all you say except for one thing. As others have said upthread, a lot of the people here at the pond, dwell here exactly for the reasons you’ve stated above. I think many of us are committed to the princpals the Democratic Party stands for, above and beyond the process that so-called conventional wisdom says it might take to win a particular election. And we’ve had many conversations about what those principals should be.
One of my favorite places to start also comes from the past, FDR’s innagual speech from 1944:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
The right of every family to a decent home.
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.
The right to a good education.
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
nice…very well put.
at the end of the Pa. primary anytime people would
post comments on the front page stories engaging
casey backers ,and pointing out what a great democrat Pennacchio was,the chickenshit would pull it off and bury it………….
obliged to run on more than just “anger” and “had enough.” I would like to see my party boldly stomp on the necks of conservatism and promote real alternatives on health care, education, the environment and foreign policy. Nevertheless, the GOP is in real trouble. It’s not so much that the country will reject Republicanism. Rather, they’re going to vote Democrat for the hell of it because they’re fed up. The most motivated voters are those who are fed up and they will be the voters that show up this November.
As for your being banned, that is utterly ridiculous. I mean, that’s the sort of crap redstate.com does. Isn’t the whole point that I disagree with you and you might disagree with me but we each learn something from the engagement?
I still cross post at Kos because let’s face it, the visibility is hard to resist. But the hubris from that community is awful. That best thing about Daily Kos is Susan G. who allows other voices to be heard when she rescues diaries. She rescued three of mine even though I’m a nobody. Thankfully though we have other communties such as Booman and My Left Wing to hang our hats.