I did not expect the Republicans to pull off such a big win otherwise. In fact, I was kind of hoping they would lose the Senate to the Dems. Alas, that was not to be.
As you've probably seen already, hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing of epic proportion has ensued on the Left with the defeat of their anointed Mr. Electable. Rage and despair are the rule of the day among the Democratic base this week. They are bewildered at their resounding defeat at the polls in what has turned out to be an historic election.
I'm going to get this out of the way with some tough love: A major reason why the Democrats lost so big in this election is that the Democratic party has become reactionary, elitist, out-of-touch, smugly statist, and extremely condescending. The vast majority of reaction on the Left simply echo those problems. How do they deign to talk to their opponents? With nothing but disgust, patronization, and condescension, a tone which has been endemic to Democratic positions for forty years.
The Democratic Party--my party--has finally become nothing more than the party of cognitive dissonance. That is why, like Zell Miller and a large fraction of usually Democratic middle America, I backed the other side on this one.
I don't blame Bush for claiming a mandate based on the results of this election. He won by a comfortable margin (not a landslide, surely, but it wasn't even close by historical standards). His party increased its majorities in both houses, another very rare circumstance (particularly for a second-term victory). The Democrats were humiliated almost everywhere, and the Democratic Senate minority leader was voted out. Those candidates supported by the more radical elements of the Left (Markos Zuniga, MoveOn.org, and George Soros), came away from this election virtually empty-handed. They didn't just lose by a little bit. They were shut out completely, clear evidence that if it had been Base-favorite Howard Dean on the ticket instead of Old Lantern Jaw, it would have been a landslide for Bush.
Mainstream media bragged of being able to boost the Dems by 15 percent (do you remember Newsweek saying that?). The "blogosphere" has been crowing that MSM failed to do so (for which the blogs also claim responsibility), but I don't agree. I think the MSM actually succeeded in bringing the Dems a 10 to 15 point boost in the election (and maybe more). Before the media spin machine started systematically slamming Bush 18 months ago, he was favored at around 66% in the polls. 66% minus 15% is...well...the 51% margin Bush was re-elected by. Thing is, even the thinly veiled support of most major media outlets wasn't enough to put Kerry in the White House. The Democratic party has completely, utterly, undeniably marginalized itself. The Dems no longer have a national party. All it takes is one look at the electoral map to illustrate that. The so-called "Purple Map" may make them feel better, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. A party that can only win in the Northeast and Left Coast is not a national party anymore. A party that manages to lose by 3 percent even with a huge boost from blatantly partisan favorable media coverage is on its deathbed politically.
There is no other way to interpret that except as a colossal win with as much of an implied mandate as most big victories in American electoral history. The Dems may currently disagree, but acceptance is the first step toward recovery. Get over it.
The question, then, is: what next for the Dems? It is clear beyond any doubt now that the party must change or die. Losing by 3.6 million votes after pulling out all the stops to win (motivating the base, MSM partisanship, getting huge turnout, out-spending the opposition, etc.) makes that clear. The hardcore democratic base is now too small to win, but too big to let the party move to the center. The coalition politics that was once the greatest strength of the party has become its biggest liability. The Republicans are the "Big Tent" party now. The warring factions uneasily united under the Democratic banner have only succeeded in crippling one another: cancelling out like protons and anti-protons.
The first thing the Democratic party must do to rebuild itself is throw away the now not only thoroughly discredited but completely rejected socialist ideology and its gasping, desperate hangers-on. Let me be clear about this. Junking the socialism DOES NOT mean throwing away the core American values that the Democratic party has always done so well upholding. The Dems have always been champions of the poor, working stiffs, and middle class. Socialist ideology is as much their enemy as is rapacious oligarchy, maybe even more so. They're not stupid. They know that. That's why the increasing power of the socialist Left in the party has come close to destroying it. The Dems can continue to powerfully advocate fairness, compassion, and justice without being mired in a swamp of socialist dogma and prejudice.
Another thing the party MUST do is get free from the choke-hold of intellectual elitism. Say it with me now:
People who voted for George W. Bush are neither ignorant nor stupid. Many of them had excellent reasons for doing so, even if we see other reasons they shouldn't have. It was their decision to make, and they made it with as much consideration and deliberation as they thought appropriate. Because we might disagree does NOT make them any less intelligent, educated, moral, compassionate, or anything else. I don't necessarily know what's better for the country than they do, but we all have to make our decision based on our values and available knowledge. Supporting political opinions or candidates I disagree with DOES NOT BY ITSELF MAKE ANYBODY A BAD PERSON.I know that's a bitter pill for a lot of people to swallow right now, but without that medicine, the Democratic party will not be able to rise off its deathbed. I've already taken my dose today. Now it's your turn.
For those who refuse the medicine and continue to insist that they are intellectually superior by way of their support of John Kerry and his "plans," heaping their scorn and condescension on their countrymen: if you're so smart and right why didn't you win? Why couldn't you see outside the echo chamber of comfortable agreement and elitist moralism which led you to think you couldn't lose? If your positions are so right and theirs so wrong, why can't you convince them? If you can't even figure these things out, how can you claim to be intellectually superior to anybody?
I'm being harsh here, but harshness is needed. The reality is, the Democratic party has reached an ideological dead end. For a group of folks who like loudly proclaim their tolerance and mental flexibility, I say to you now:
Change or wither away.
For my level-headed libertarian-hawk friends out there (as opposed to the anarchists, who know how I feel about anarchism), the sorry state of the Democratic party represents an enormous opportunity in the guise of disaster. For my mainstream Democratic friends, the time has come to rebuild and clean house. Seventy years of socialist garbage has to be taken to the curb.
The party is ready to be remade. It needs a new ideology and a new platform: one which is adapted to the realities of 21st Century life, both threats and promises; which uses freedom- and market-based solutions to solve difficult social problems without leaving anybody behind; which ensures fairness and justice for EVERYBODY, not just the rich, or the smart, or the educated, or the white, black, brown, red, or yellow. There are people in this country who still need help. Let's see if we can figure out a way to help them without hurting anybody else. The American people are done with old Democratic way.
Let's give them a new one. The future of our republic depends on it.
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →
November 5 2004, 17:42:08 UTC 7 years ago
November 7 2004, 08:08:12 UTC 7 years ago
November 5 2004, 18:14:33 UTC 7 years ago
Thank you.
Well said.November 5 2004, 18:19:27 UTC 7 years ago
Deleted comment
November 5 2004, 20:44:26 UTC 7 years ago
Yes, from now until doomsday Americans will vote for what is best for Americans. Just as Frenchmen will vote for what is best for Frenchmen. Englishmen for Englishmen etc.
Personally I'd rather have a President that's hated by the entire world, then one willing to roll over and show his belly to the world.
Deleted comment
7 years ago
Deleted comment
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
Deleted comment
7 years ago
November 5 2004, 19:50:21 UTC 7 years ago
November 5 2004, 21:06:32 UTC 7 years ago
I've linked this in
November 5 2004, 21:09:19 UTC 7 years ago
{battens down the hatches}
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
November 5 2004, 21:24:18 UTC 7 years ago
i've always been pretty ignorant about politics, and this election sparked in me a real desire to learn more about the system and the issues. your writings are always fascinating, intelligent, and above all, rational (which is more than i can say for much else i read lately). thank you for continuing to enlighten and educate me.
November 5 2004, 21:39:28 UTC 7 years ago
I'm not much into politics. And this is the first election since LJ has been around. So when election season came along, I figured most people would feel as you do. I knew there would be passions stirred because of the war, and I figured there would be an extra layer of anger and frustration added to the usual one would expect during a political season.
But never in my wildest dreams did I imagine it would be like this. In a way it's been good, because it's given me an insight into the POV of people that I wouldn't have had otherwise.
The hatred (being called stupid for voting for Bush), wild theories (that this win was somehow engineered by Christians) and downright ugliness (being told that people are literally crying and wanting to leave this country because "we" are just ruining it and they want no part of it) has been utterly *stunning*.
It's easy to become guilty of the same anger when you're bombarded with this attitude day after day. Thanks for showing a more reasonable side and reminding me that not everyone who voted for Kerry feels such animosity toward those who voted the other way. For goodness' sake, we're all in the same country - we should be working together, not tearing each other apart.
Thanks again.
I'll use a post-appropriate icon, instead of a fangirly one. Don't want to frighten you too badly.
November 7 2004, 04:19:10 UTC 7 years ago
a correction ...
"And this is the first election since LJ has been around."Actually, no ... L.J. begain in May of 1999, but was pretty much a private toy of
There was quite a "spirited" exchange over the Bush/Gore election back in 2000 ... it was in the early days of the political blog (I remember how much we had to depend on WorldNet Daily for any anti-Clinton/anti-Gore info back then!) but L.J. was certainly around for that election.
7 years ago
November 5 2004, 21:39:36 UTC 7 years ago
Very nice assessment.
November 5 2004, 22:56:04 UTC 7 years ago
November 5 2004, 23:02:57 UTC 7 years ago
Great essay!
The only criticism I could offer would be to put part of your essay behind an LJ-cut. It makes it easier to read your entries for those of us who have friended you.November 6 2004, 03:38:51 UTC 7 years ago
Re: Great essay!
Actually, I have a strict no-lj-cut rule for substantive posts in this journal (like this one). Thanks for the praise, though.November 5 2004, 23:27:04 UTC 7 years ago
(It's now a verb.)
November 5 2004, 23:28:59 UTC 7 years ago
November 6 2004, 00:30:35 UTC 7 years ago
Just giving you the heads up.
November 6 2004, 00:31:08 UTC 7 years ago
I have several friends who are vehemently anti-Bush. They couldn't understand how I could vote for him. I pointed out that while Kerry had some good ideas, I can't trust him to push them through when the Democratic party can't even come together for less difficult topics.
November 6 2004, 00:54:56 UTC 7 years ago
Adding you to my friends list -- it's nice to know that there's other erstwhile liberals/reluctant Republicans in Seattle.
November 6 2004, 00:57:34 UTC 7 years ago
November 6 2004, 02:17:42 UTC 7 years ago
I agree with much of what you've written - reforms are in order in order for your country to pull it's head above water...
November 6 2004, 04:08:47 UTC 7 years ago
November 6 2004, 04:55:34 UTC 7 years ago
*applause*
Now, if only you could get picked up as a columnist and thus enabled to spread your word to the masses outside of LJ...November 6 2004, 15:05:58 UTC 7 years ago
I think this is one of most intelligent essays I've read yet, especially on the cess poll that is Live Journal. Congratulations.
I'm a Republican, though more of a moderate one. If the Democratic Party could refashion itself along the lines you suggest, I suspect the GOP would lose a lot of moderate support in the face of ever increasing levels of the Christian Right.
It's the best interests of democracy that there be a viable opposition party. For the Democratic party to be viable opposition, let alone regain majority status, it would have to abandon the whining leftist elitism you mentioned. I wish you and like minded people good luck in your quest. It would give people in the center better options than currently exist.
November 6 2004, 15:20:31 UTC 7 years ago
7 years ago
November 6 2004, 16:25:28 UTC 7 years ago
Your assessment of the Democratic Party is something I wish more people could hear. The reasons you gave for its need of improvement are most of the same reasons I left that party by the time I was 18. I'm now Independent, but usually vote moderate Republican. Ideally, I think the two major parties should balance each other out. But I haven't seen many democratic candidates I could stomach voting for in a while.
If you feel comfortable with it, I'd recommend sending this letter to a few local newspapers to see if any will run it. It's important stuff, you know - people should hear this.
November 6 2004, 21:08:43 UTC 7 years ago
November 6 2004, 18:11:23 UTC 7 years ago
November 6 2004, 21:10:00 UTC 7 years ago
It's sort of a recent neologism that started as blog shorthand for talking about certain sectors of the media (like broadcast television).
7 years ago
November 7 2004, 05:07:31 UTC 7 years ago
Anyone who can read a headline...
Can figure out that we need to change.How about coming up with some suggestions? Particularly since you seem to be a moderate Democrat.
I have posted up some of my own ideas, but, and I make no excuses for it, I am way left (and way left from New York at that).
And while you toss around cognitive dissonance, at the same time there are a number of voters (on both sides) who's mental image of the world do not match up with reality. And that is more true for Right than the Left.
For example what the moderate way of dealing with the right when they believe that 1) Saddam was in fact involved with 9/11 and 2) was a credible threat to the United States.
And, I don't buy your MSM bias theory when something like have the right and a fifth of the left don't have the proper information to work from. How much free play did the Swift Boat Vets get?
I will propose that MSM is more concerned about profits, and become largely hollow and vacous.
November 7 2004, 07:52:48 UTC 7 years ago
Sidenote on the mainstream media...
The mainstream media broadcasts what they think people want to hear, storywise. I'm not speaking of the bias (or lack thereof) in news stories so much as the definition of what is 'newsworthy.' If they don't think you want to hear about something, or it happens on a day when a lot of other things are happening, you won't hear it.This is an inherent limitation of the way news is presented. You only have X minutes or Y pages to work with, and you also are dealing with editors who look at stories with an eye to 'do people want to hear this?'
Let us not forget that the mainstream media is in business. They are not a public service. The sense of journalistic fairness is really a doomed concept when you put it into the context of what I just said.
That said, I do believe most respectable journalists try to be fair, but bias is inherent in every one of us. Every journalist is also a human being, with values and judgments of his own. When you hear reports of a brutal murder, would you react well to the reporter trying to see the murderer's side of the story?
Realistically, people don't really want egalitarian reporting - that's just one extreme example of what I'm saying. What I do think people want is to know the biases of the person speaking. This is why the talk-news format has become so popular, I think -- because you know outright what the host is espousing.
I also think that people need to realize that there are many sources for news, and that they can compare and contrast to get a truer picture. I think we have to accept that 'media' does not have one bias -- it has many, many biases.
7 years ago
7 years ago
November 7 2004, 05:52:03 UTC 7 years ago
Re: Election Post-Mortem and Manifesto for Change
Right on! Once a staunch Democrat because of that party's championing of the little people like myself, I've been voting Republican ever since the Waco disaster of 1993, everything else the Clintons pulled, the behavior of Democratic party honchos since -- and the fact that virtually no outstanding Democrats stepped forward to denounce their party's decadence and the awful behavior of many of its leaders. They really have lost touch with the American people in every important way, and if they don't change NOW they're going to commit political suicide. Which would be a terrible shame. Some of our greatest wartime presidents -- Truman, FDR, JFK -- have come from the Democratic Party, and before Johnson that party had a long, distinguished history. I really don't want to see it lost in history's ash-heap. But if they don't straighten up and fly right, and damned soon, they're toast. On top of everything else, the unspeakable behavior of Bill Clinton and other Democrat leaders during the funeral of Rep. Wellstone a couple of years ago -- Jesse Ventura distinguished himself by walking out of it in outrage, and good for him -- partying and carrying on and holding a political rally during an occasion that was supposed to have been a solemn memorial for a man who had been their friend and colleague said it all. You just don't do that at a funeral, any funeral, especially when it is for your late friend and colleague, unless you have lost all feeling for what is and what is not socially acceptable. It was as if all of those at the funeral had become sociopaths unable to feel any of the emotions most of us feel on occasions of that gravity -- and maybe, judging from certain things in the last few decades the Democrats have been responsible for, that's just what happened to them. That's not an example any of us wants our children to have of how the best people behave. Unless and until the Democrats wise up and get rid of the social and moral idiots who have increasingly plagued it these last many years, and get in touch with the American people again, they're going to lose and lose and lose and, finally, face extinction as a political party. Good for you for stating it so concisely, clearly, and elegantly -- and for having the grace to do so as a Democrat. God bless you. :-)November 7 2004, 05:54:03 UTC 7 years ago
It's not an easy decision. After all, wasn't John Kerry just criticized and mocked for changing his stand on issues to be popular, for playing politics instead of taking a stand and working to convince people? And yet... can the Party truly be said to represent American Values if it's not willing to change to reflect what the current polls say those values are?
As for other pieces... yes, we need to find more ways to make the economic engine of the US work to the benefit of its people directly, without government intervention. Part of the problem with 'market-based' solutions, though, is that the market exists purely to make money. Expecting financial infrastructure to take care of social problems is a bit like expecting corporations to be responsible for the environment. While there is a segment of the market that attempts to widen the pool of available wealth by increasing the size of the 'investor class', on the whole, it doesn't work without extensive regulatory intrusion, and frankly, then we're back to 'big government' issues.
As far as cognitive dissonance goes, this study would seem to indicate that the gap between what's real and what we believe isn't necessarily exclusive to the left. Generally, I've found that in principle, we all agree on the same values, when painted with a broad enough stroke. The difference comes when we begin to use finer measures.
Example: We all agree, in general, that freedom is important. I believe that freedom extends to the rights of all people to seek to be happy. I believe that freedom extends to the right of all people to worship in the way they see fit. I don't believe those rights extend to forcing someone else to adhere to my views, however. Just as I wouldn't attempt to force anyone to worship as I feel is right, or force anyone to engage in homosexual behavior, I believe no-one has the right to force their beliefs on me, or to force homosexuals and bisexuals to give up their 'inalienable rights', including the pursuit of happiness. This quality, tolerance, I feel is a core value of the democratic party, and 11 states in this election voted directly against that value.
(Continued in next post due to maximum character length)
November 7 2004, 05:55:07 UTC 7 years ago
Continuation
If we begin to speak of 'socialism', then where do we draw the line? Do we, perchance, tell each state that they will get from the federal government funds only up to but not exceeding the amount they pay in taxes? If we do, I fear you'll find that many of the 'red' states that decry 'socialism' will suddenly find themselves very angry at the idea of no longer getting what amounts to a federally mandated redistribution of wealth from the states that pay more than their fair share of the tax burden, most of which are in the Northeast and the West Coast. As much as the GOP likes to decry 'redistribution of wealth', they are themselves, especially as they now control the majority of elected federal positions, in the business of welfare, on the state level. Remove federal funds for law enforcement, and local schools suffer. Remove federal emergency management funds, and local roads suffer. State budgets, and through them, local budgets, are calculated and prioritized on an assumption of a certain level of federal funding. And this doesn't even begin to approach things like federal agriculture subsidies, which are themselves a form of welfare, but one that, in the end, helps the entire economic engine.
In short, the answer is not, and never has been, a removal of the federal processes for ensuring that we in the more developed states assist the states with less pure economic power to maintain a reasonable ability to see to the needs of the local community. Yet that is exactly what the 'socialism' agitators claim we need when you move from the level of states and into the level of individuals. If Indiana and Missouri are within their rights to expect the government to help them meet their expenses, why should that apply any differently to a single mother working 2 jobs to support her children?
Do we need to reform the systems of government to provide better service to our people? Yes, of course. Do I think I have all the answers, or even a majority of them? No, not at all. Open dialog and discussions of who we are, what we value, and how we hope to achieve our potential are the lifeblood of this country, and I for one applaud every initiative to bring about more of it. But an honest and open dialog can only begin when we stop resorting to pejorative labels. Saying 'socialism' conjures up in the mind of the average American an image of China, of Stalin-ism. But state-run economies have never been in the interest of the United States. Caring for our people has. Securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, and all that.
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
7 years ago
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →