Let me admit this right up front: this sucks. It’s depressing. And it makes things harder for the immediate future.
The big mistake the Democrats, and most of the left, made was to believe that by winning elections we will change the country.
Just the opposite is true. It is only by changing the country that we will win elections.
We need to stop thinking in terms of winning elections, and start thinking about persuading more of the country to believe our ideas. If we do that, elections will follow.
What does that mean for the left? We still lack an effective left counterpart to the Heritage Foundation and the Fox News Network; by which I mean, we lack effective institutions dedicated not to pushing our candidates but instead to pushing our ideas. And that’s killing us.
Some lefty blogger just sent me an email saying that we should say “We’re preparing for 2006 and 2008 and 2010 and 2012 now.” To which I say, stop thinking in terms of even-numbered years. We need to build institutions that change the way our society thinks, and if that program doesn’t fit into a two-year electoral cycle, then throw away the cycle.
Nader has the right idea – he’s out there running a campaign for progressive ideas. The problem with Nader is that presidential elections aren’t an effective platform for progressive ideas. By concentrating on being a presidential candidate, Nader guarantees that the only thing that anyone discusses about him is his “spoiler” potential. I admire Nader enormously, but we have to get away from thinking that elections are how we advance progressive ideas.
I’m not saying people shouldn’t vote for Nader, or for Cobb, or for Kerry. I’m saying we should stop thinking that “Nader vs Kerry” is a pressing issue for us to argue about. Elections must stop being the center of our political universe.
Measure this fight in generations, not in elections. In 1984, marital rape was still legal in most states and not even Walter Mondale would have dared come out in favor of civil unions. In 2004, even with control of all three branches of government, pro-lifers are waging war on “partial birth” abortions because they don’t think they can win a fight against the other 99.9% of abortions. Massachusetts has same-sex marriage, and with the failure of the FMA that’s not going away.
I’m still thinking about what this all means for reproductive rights, for lesbian and gay rights, for women’s rights, and for gender freedom in general. I’ll be posting more about this in weeks to come. But I remain confident that – despite hard times to come, despite Bush’s re-election, despite the loss of gay marriage measures throughout the country, and despite the Supreme Court’s likely change in the next few years from “bad” to “Holy Fuck!” – the momentum of history remains on our side.
In 1986, Ronald Reagan won re-election, and the world seemed pretty hopeless. Look at all that’s happened since then – not all good, but real progress has been made. Not all of the next twenty years will be good, either – but that doesn’t mean that we can’t move forward a lot between now and 2024.
Measure in generations, not in elections.
“We still lack an effective left counterpart to the Heritage Foundation and the Fox News Network…”
Other than Air America, thousands of blogs and the Daily Show, you mean, right?
Good on you, Amp. Been enough doom & gloom around these parts (gestures at entire left blogistan). I think you’ve got the right of it. Take back the media! Even if it’s one letter to the editor at a time.
Ampersand, I think you have the right plan. Ideas make changes not elections. Elections help impliment the change.
Right after Clinton left the White house and even before people started saying the weakness in the Democractic Party was that they had no voice. We need someone like a Rush to “push our agenda”. But not just push it but to explain it.
However, for that I feel that the Democrats need to come to a decision on exactly what their platform is. Kerry didn’t do that. I think it cost the election.
So I have to ask. What is the Democratic agenda? Does anyone truly know?
As near as I can tell, the Democratic Party’s agenda is to firmly establish themselves as the Not-Republican Party. This is, as Amp touched on, something that lends itself to thinking in terms of elections: it’s not the agenda that’s passed by which success is measured, it’s the offices that are held.
The “left-liberal” agenda, meanwhile, can be summarized fairly easily: maximize the individual rights of the people while securing them against the fluctuations of the market. As near as I can tell, this encompasses every aspect of the “liberal” position: equality for minorities, multinationalism, environmental protection, social securities, universal health coverage, encouragement of cultural diversity, etc.
At least, that’s my stab at a definition of what makes a liberal a liberal.
Totally! We need to learn to listen and respond with convincing information to “Middle America”. And what about finding an effective way to protest? Demonstrations and rallies are so easily ignored by the press and those we are trying to reach. What about boycots based on solid evidence of a corporation’s neglect of the average citizen’s self-interests (health, economic or moral)?
Totally! We need to learn to listen and respond with convincing information to “Middle America”. And what about finding an effective way to protest? Demonstrations and rallies are so easily ignored by the press and those we are trying to reach. What about boycots based on solid evidence of a corporation’s neglect of the average citizen’s self-interests (health, economic or moral)?
no don’t forget CNN, CBS and ABC plus all the idiots in hollywood, jackasses like eminem (Kerry said it is “Important” to listen to hip-hop)
With most of the media, guys like “the Boss” (man I can’t stand that guy) all pushing against Bush, he STILL won! Good grief, doesn’t that tell you that your ideas are flawed?
Good point. I also think we need to hold the Democratic Party leadership responsible. It’s too bad about Kerry and Daschle and Edwards, but they rolled over in the Senate whenever Bush woofed. They were still having tea with the White House while Rove and DeLay were unloading the howitzers. Further, this country instinctively distrusts Senators wearing $800 suits and $200 haircuts – something Bush repeatedly managed to bring up. Every President in recent history has been a governor, not a senator. Why did the DLC crush Dean? I weep for this country, but not the DP leaders. Aaahnold was right — we need some real leadership (male and female) on the Left — not girlie men.
Good grief, doesn’t that tell you that your ideas are flawed?
Because a slim majority of Americans who think banning gay marriage is a more pressing issue than the giant clusterfuck Bush has made of Iraq and fighting terrorism? Not a very convincing case that left-liberal ideas are flawed.
But I think PinkDreamPoppies put it best: maximizing individual rights while securing people against the fluctuations of the market ( to which I’ll add the abuses of the State and Big Business).
We need to dump a bucket of lukewarm 3-day-old sewage on the next person who uses the phrase “girlie men.”
1. Given that voters had lost touch with reality, how can you say that the media pushed against Bush? They didn’t even do their job! We have an actual study confirming what the infamous memo said — Bush needed lies to win. Did you hear any McNews anchor say so?
2. Liberals need a shorter message. See here. To summarize: “Do you want the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or rule by an elite?”
You’re too kind, alsis. I vote for summary execution. Perhaps we could drown them in three-day-old sewage.
Anyway, great post.
Al Gore bought a cable news network back in March 2004. Does anyone know what happened to that? I haven’t heard anything since the original announcement
Actually, remove “the right to” from my summary. “Do you want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or rule by an elite?” Get people to see the choice in those terms. Meanwhile, recognize the Second Amendment. I have mixed feelings about this, but gun control does not follow logically from the PinkDreamPoppies agenda. Let’s not allow the conservative elite to confuse the issue.
But I think PinkDreamPoppies put it best: maximizing individual rights while securing people against the fluctuations of the market ( to which I’ll add the abuses of the State and Big Business).
I would classify the abuses of the State as violations of individual rights and the abuses of Big Business as the fluctuations of the market. By “fluctuations of the market” I meant more than the usual boom and bust cycle of the stock market (and the resulant loss of jobs, income, etc.); I wanted to include in that the abuses of Big Business (the cutting of benefits, the strip-mining of mountains) that are commited for temporary market gains.
[bows] Happy to be of assistance, Sally.
BTW, I have to say that for me, Air America is kind of like the second Star Wars trilogy. To wit: It was something I looked forward to for years and years, only to find that its arrival was a big letdown;Not so much because it was different than what I had imagined, but because I myself was no longer the person who had originally been looking forward to it. Too much time had passed, too many changes in my perspective had happened, and I’d gotten too grumpy and too “fringy” and too hopelessly skeptical to really appreciate it as much as I was “supposed” to.
part of me is thinking… in one small ray of hope in a very gloomy day…
that perhaps the right will start getting complacent, being in power in all branches of government. I see it already as they gloat over their win in the blogs and the talk shows.
That will give us time to regroup, rethink and change the country while they go about ‘governing’ (everything from now on is pretty much their fault).
we’ve got a decade or two, lets change a few million minds.
Elayne has a point–the huge steps in that direction have been started, with Air America, the blogs, etc.
We need to reimagine a left wing movement. Imitating the right is not enough. I am heartened by what I see, though. Air America is not much like right wing talk radio, since they openly use comedians and other entertainers instead of blowhard morons or former politicians. Their talent line-up is true to the left–1/2 women, racially mixed, smart and funny. The blogs are still emerging in a hierarchal way, but the constant pressure to embrace diversity might help there, too.
But Amp’s right. These things grew in response to the crisis of Bush’s re-election. Air America is all election all the time. I feel that if they hang in, their quality will improve dramatically now that’s off the table. One step at a time with your eyes on the prize is a great philosophy and I hope that I can live up to it myself.
I just want to say that it is so great to see the exact same words my husband and I came up with as the clear message the Democratic party needs:
“The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happinness.”
I think the “right” is actually the keyword here. Conservatives are bent on taking rights away from Americans, and this country is about freedom. The patriot act bothers many. This is a message that would get to most Americans.
A uniting message must be clear and consise. This line is right out of the constitution and would resonate with all Americans. It would drive home to Republicans what it means to be a liberal. “Liberal” is now somehow a swearword. Define it and make it so that the word “liberal” would make people feel energized and proud again.
Today I watched a Bush supporter come out of the booth and say, “I am so proud of the president that he is not afraid to express his beliefs and he lives like a good Christian.” The democrats need something equally inspiring that a person can say when they come out of the poll. “I am so proud of my candidate because he stands for freedom.”
I’d second the point about gun control–background checks are good, but the assault weapons ban was purely cosmetic. “You can have a pistol grip OR a folding stock, but not both!”
On abortion: A few days ago, some newspaper was talking about the late-term (e.g. viable) abortion ban Kerry was promoting during the mid-90s which had exceptions for the health of the mother; unsurprisingly, the Republicans in Congress wanted to keep abortion an issue more than they wanted to prevent ten thousand abortions a year. Let’s get a couple of Democrats to revive this bill, maybe put in some more health exemptions so the ACLU won’t be too pissed, and put in a decent sum of money to fund birth control. Then, when we have some goodwill with moderate Republicans, we start borking.
I winced at the term “girlie men”, but would it be possible to gently point out the phrase is offensive, rather than openly fantasizing about drowning someone in sewage? How is that sort of thing better?
I say this as someone who jammed his foot in his mouth in a private email recently. I’m glad the recipient just calmly pointed out that the phrase I used was jarring, rather than condemning me to a watery death. But hey, maybe it would have been better to drown me–I can’t be objective.
Amp’s post was superb, which loosely translated means it’s roughly what I’ve been thinking when not wallowing in anger.
instead of blowhard morons
Randi Rhoades isn’t a moron, but she is for damn sure a blowhard. Blecch.
You say that the public needs new institutions, something that changes the way people think.
I agree. I really need some help promoting this, but I think this is where we start:
http://www.techmocracy.net
If you would kindly make a reference to this idea in your blog, at least we could define a central place to start discussing these instiutitions. Currently the blog world is too disconnected. Techmocracy aims to act as a central portal for the goal of enhancing the communication and education of the politicians and the voters.
Something I also just posted over at Matt Y. – I started out thinking about how we may eventually start organizing transportation from prolife to prochoice states, and ended up with this idea of little community (real-world, but with internet access, so to speak) organizations intended to help preserve our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the face of anything Bush might try to do to it, by
1) gathering and spreading information about primarily local issues, since there will be many fronts in this war –
2) working to influence opinion on the community level
3) engaging in nonviolent action if necessary
I’m imagining these as very much neighborhood groups, almost a formalization of all the spontaneous knots of conversation – “ok, I’d like two cupcakes and – no, I can’t believe it either” until everyone in the bakery is bemoaning the election and worrying what will come next – sort of thing, but with a goal and purpose.
Any ideas?
Dan S.
Nice post, nice points. I agree, and the only reason I’m posting anything is to point out that Reagan was re-elected in 1984, not 1986.
There ARE institutions. There are actually quite a few progressive think tanks, and there are more popping up. We’ve made a TREMENDOUS start, but it’s just a start.
We need to fund these babies to keep them going:
Center for American Progress
Center for Defense Information
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Commonwealth Institute
Economic Policy Institute
Food First
Progressive Policy Institute
Rockridge Institute
The Center for Public Integrity
The Institute for Policy Studies
I’ve made a new blogroll on my blog called ‘Progressive Think Tanks’ just for these.
We Democrats tried being moderate and reasonable, we got our asses kicked (so to speak) on Election Night. It seems that reason and moderation were no match for fear and deception.
That’s the bad news. The good news is that now we Democrats don’t have a hell of a lot to lose, and there’s something oddly liberating about that fact. So now that we’ve lost in the White House and Congress, we’re pretty pissed and we’ve got a lot of time on our hands. I say the best use of that time is looking into the MASSIVE government cover-up surrounding 9/11. I absolutely believe deep down in my heart of hearts that the Bush administration had a hand in 9/11. I am by no means the only person who thinks this, and the truth is slowly coming out. (See http://www.911truth.org). There are just so many things about the “official story” that don’t add up or make any sense. “Farenheit 911” only told half the story (as Michael Moore has strongly hinted).
Well now the Bush administration will have four years to answer to us pissed-off muckraking Democrats – and to some very angry grieving relatives of 911 victims. This could be the biggest blow to the Republican party in our nation’s history.
A slogan needs to be more personal.
Defending your right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Put it right out there.
The beginning of this thread is right on target. But how do we get a Fox network, and media that speaks for us?
To Astarte’s list I’d add:
Public Citizen
Citizen Works
Common Cause
The Center For Responsive Politics
Money Is Not Democracy
Opendebates.org
Beyondvoting.org
Also, any city that’s fortunate enough to have its own Indymedia board should get involved with it as much as he/she can.
Dan S., what you’re talking about sounds to me like our local IWW anarchist cafes, like Redwing or the Red and Black. One of my favorite local activists is talking about starting a citywide “Living Wage” party and I’m pretty excited about that.
I agree that we need to concentrate on changing the country. One of the things that needs to take place is to put effort into understanding the opposing positions (this means everyone, not just the left or the right) and trying to find something to agree about. This doesn’t mean compromising, just agreeing about something to give us some common ground. Then work from there.
I think the biggest challenge in this is that politicians use these wedge issues against us. Dividing the american people benefits none but the politicians. In this, they fail us utterly and completely because this is NOT leadership. While dividing us may benefit them, it cripples us. And that is the point. If they can get people to concentrate on their differences in these wedge issues, then less attention is paid to other issues like war, economy, health care. It becomes more about us versus them.
I agree with changing the country, but y’know, we don’t live in generations. We live here *now*. The idea that my children’s lives may be terrible but my grandkids will probably do OK doesn’t comfort me a lot.
you know the media is saying that because Bush won that the religious right (right off the mark) is going to want a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, but I think they are over simplifying things. I don’t think that everyone who vote for Bush is going to want that.
These are the things that both parties are missing they are taking things for granted on both sides and the Democrats are doing it more so than the Republicans.
I think when it comes to that type of things you may find a number of people against gay marriage, but that doesn’t mean they want it in a constitutional amendment.
But then it’s like they assume that everyone in the military is voting Republican. That’s not true either. And I wonder if anyone takes the time to find out what the concerns of our Military are when it comes to public policy.
Understanding some of this I think will make the will help make the changes we need in this country
As a guy from Czechoslovakia, I am very grateful for Reagan who helped to stop socialism in my country and the whole Soviet bloc. The voters’ choice in 1986 was great, and I hope that it will become clear that the choice in 2004 is very good, too.
Let me tell you that if you want to win any elections, you should not be trying to change the country: first of all, you should change yourself. The left-wing rubbish that all of you are writing is simply annoying for most Americans – most Americans prefer fair and balanced news.
Concerning your future.
You should listen to Kerry, your candidate. He may be the most left-wing senator, but he is still a mainstream reasonable guy compared to virtually all of you.
He said, for example,
“In the days ahead, we must find common cause.”
Bush said similar things in his speech. So you should follow Kerry’s words, and help your president Bush to lower taxes, stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, simplify the tax code and other laws, and help to strengthen the moral values in the society. By his nature, he is the uniter, not a divider – the divide is YOUR fault.
Lubos,
This country is a democracy, and is free. It is within our own rights to dislike this president, to dislike his policies, and to not stand up for it. If the positions were reversed, I find it doubtful that you’d be standing up for progressive values and a “common cause”.
What President Bush and others are really saying is that we should give in and allow this country to be a one-party country. That we should give up our fights for the rights, liberties and freedoms that we’re supposed to have because we lost an election. This is not a one party system, and this is not a system where, as soon as you lose an election your opinion should suddenly be silenced.
Being from Czechoslovakia, I’m sure you can understand why we find it important to ensure that every individual in this nation retains the rights and freedoms that the conservative government wishes to strip away. I’m also sure you can understand the real and sensitive interest of free speech.
I understand what you are saying. No one wants to fight all the time. It gets tiring, but we can not put down our convictions that easily.
How is it that we can know so much about our own history, not just the last 50 years of struggle bewtween the conservatives voics of the status quo (i.e. white protestant America) and the voices of dissent and protest (i.e. nearly everyone else) and still be so fuddled as to what happened? Is anyone out there really confused in any way as to how the GOP won this reelection? That their power base was created in the early 60’s by corporate CEO’s that saw socialism in the Left and the end to their arena of free market trade as the American way, but they realized they were too few to run on a platform of more money for the rich so they went in search of allies? They found them in the registration lists of Pat Robertson’s failed run at the presidency in ’88 and went directly to the pulpits of middle America and threatened them with homosexuality, Godlessness, gun control, and presented themselves as the saviors of the nation. Isn’t it clear to any Democrat what happened?
The Republicans created a base and the Democrats ran from theirs, vying for “middle America” and leaving progressives, environmentalists, minorities, the working poor, homeless, mentally ill, anyone whose voice was never heard or shouted down by the new union of God and money.
God give me a microphone and a broadcast and I will take on Fox, Norquist, the Weekly Standard, Rush, any Republican who claims some mandate in this election. 51% is not a mandate and the general agreement (by both Left and right) is that America is more divided than ever doesn’t support any mandate. But what’s the difference? Bush had no mandate in 2000 and didn’t care, went through his job as if the populace had annointed him king, so what’s the difference? Now that he doesn’t have to get reelected watch as he tears this nation apart even more.
The Weimar Republic was optimistic too.
And Lubos (and Amp), Reagan was reelected in 1984, not 1986, AND he didn’t have a majority in both houses and majorities in two thirds of the state legislatures. I would think a one party system might resonate badly with someone from the former Soviet Bloc, but as we have seen with several such countries, the longing for participatory democracy was short-lived.
I really think that a Federal Marriage Amendment is feasible and desirable for politicians, because the wide margins of the state votes, even in Oregon, show that this is a feel-good issue for people (and most people feel good when they make other people feel bad). All those Sens that voted against it the first time around will vote for it when it is put up for a vote again. And it is likely that half of the Representatives that voted against it the first time will vote for it – only the Representatives that come from districts with large gay voting blocks can ignore the pressure to vote for FMA.
If we want a Fox network we’re going to have to buy one. Plain and simple. Soros could do it. Maybe get all those celebs to invest. Right now, the Repubs are making the rules and capitalism is still king. Sure AirAmerica and the blogs are a great start – they’ll be good for unifying & motivating the base. But they’re not going to reach the gun-toting Lemmings of Middle America. We need more Ed Schultzes to do that.
And yes, think tanks of our own. Specifically, we need to figure out how to peacefully undermine and marginalize the power of the religious right without compromising our own dedication to freedom of religion. That’s what stumps me. We won’t be able to count on the courts for very long with Bush back in office.
We need hearts and minds, people – as distasteful as it is. It shouldn’t be that hard. These people are prone to brainwashing – they crave it. We just need to figure out how to substitute our message for that of the Repubs. I think a new religious movement is in order.
Absolutely we need to reignite the Age of Enlightenment – remind folks what “American” morals really mean: Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness. This bullshit that “America is a Christian Nation” has become cemented in the mainstream. That needs to change. People need to be reminded that America was founded to provide religious freedom. We need to start crying “religious persecution” every time they initiate legislation that is at all based on their biblical ‘morals’.
More than anything we need non-Christians to stand up and be counted. Make ourselves visible, and more than anything else – vocal.
Nancy, I doubt that we’ll see a Federal Marriage Amendment.
First of all, the existence of the state amendments makes the Federal version seem less necessary.
Second of all, people take amending “the” Constitution much more seriously than they take amending a state Constitution.
Third of all, most (not all) of the State amendments came from “low-hanging fruit” – states that are without question strongly anti-gay. I don’t think they’d have as easy a time in states like New York and New Jersey as they did in Georgia or even in Vermont.
The federal Constitution is, by design, incredibly hard to amend. Of course, I’ve been wrong many times before – but I don’t think an FMA is nearly as much of a shoe-in as you think.
Where I wrote “Vermont,” I meant to write “Oregon.”
Amp I think you are so right. The one thing I have wondered is how would someone write that amendment so that it wouldn’t be so ambigious that it might not include other forms of differnt marriages. Like interracial or inter-religion?
It’s easy to write a pretty much non-ambigous ant-SSM amendment – the Oregon amendment, for example, pretty clearly bans SSM, probably doesn’t ban same-sex civil unions, and certainly doesn’t ban anything else. Here’s what it says:
The reason they used a tightly-written, narrow amendment in Oregon is that they knew they were facing a real fight in Oregon – a broadly-written ban might not have passed.
In other states, they’ve used more broadly-worded bans because they know they can.
Okay, I’m sorry, but even with the best intentions, I don’t like to use terms like “brainwashing.” :(
I’ve been looked down upon as “trash” by certain more-Liberal-than-thou Yuppies in my hometown. A Tri-Met flack came out once to a neighborhood meeting I was attending, to hear complaints about shoddy service in untrendy parts of Portland. She took note of my rumpled blue jeans and frizzy hair, not to mention my tedency to speak in weary monosyllables after the joys of an eight-hour workday in customer service. She took note of the fact that the meeting was held in St. Johns, once a blue-collar bastion in the Portland Metro area. She talked to me and the rest of the residents as if we couldn’t rustle up five brain cells between us. She condescended to the people she was supposed to be serving and it did not, to say the least, score Tri-Met any popularity points that night. I got in a barb or two at her obvious lack of rapport with and understanding of the area, and I will never forget her astonishment at discovering that I had a brain.
It’s not easy, but I’m gonna’ try like Hell not to turn around and do to anyone else what the Tri-Met flack did that night to a roomful of people that were her fellow citizens. I hated being talked to that way and it was clear to me that the rest of room didn’t care for it, either. Even the “unedjamacated” have feelings. :(
Good call, newbie, but a movement needs an ememy. And people hate the conservative elite anyway. The spin system has made them associate the term with liberals, but surely we can find a way to point out who really hurts them. We just need to combine this with non-violent solutions. Class warfare, you say? It’s happening anyway; how long do you think the elite can keep diverting that hate? In the long run, they need liberal solutions to survive.
I can understand your distaste, Alsis – but what you describe sounds to me more like condescension or patronization. Not brainwashing. Brainwashing is much more subtle than that – you don’t even pretend to be asking for mental buy-in/engagement from your subjects. It’s just presented as fact and in a way you don’t see coming at all. Maybe propaganda is a better word? If your Tri-met flack had just shown you a smarmy video detailing how wonderful Tri-met was and presented you with a bogus survery that said 9 out of 10 of your neighbors thought Tri-met was serving them wonderfully – that would be brainwashing.
I think that’s been our problem. We refuse to stoop to their level. We want to educate and open the minds of the right wing, confident that once they ‘see the light’ they’ll come around. But the thing is, they don’t *want* to open their minds. They don’t want to think critically. If they did, they wouldn’t be so blindly religous and we wouldn’t need to have this conversation.
Maybe it makes me an elitist but I do believe there is a substantial part of the population that is scared of change. They’re scared of confronting their safe little world view – even if it is based on lies and propaganda. The more we try to get them outside their comfort zone, the harder they’ll resist. So I think the only way to reach these people is the same way the Repubs have been doing it. Don’t engage them directly. Propaganda and brainwashing instead.
I know a lot of people don’t like Michael Moore but I think he’s on to something. We need more fuel like Fahrenheit 9/11 – only subtler.
PS: Alsis, thanks for the extra organizations. :)
I can add to Astarte’s list too —
The Center for Law and Social Policy
Brookings Institute
Urban Institute.
But I disagree that the problem is that they have the Heritage Institute and we don’t. Heritage does a good job of pushing their agenda among receptive audiences, but they don’t convince anyone who wasn’t already on their side. What we’re missing are the grassroots organizations that consistently get both their message out and recruit voters and volunteers. Churches are doing that for Republicans, their tax-exempt status be damned. Unions used to do that for Democrats, but there are hardly any union members in the US anymore.
The other thing that is missing from the discussion is moral values- We need to show the connections between the left’s moral values and progressive policies. For instance, I value the fact that a child has the chance of being covered by medicare more than I value $50 in my pocket.
Each time I hear someone say this election was one by “moral values” I feel like I have been punched in the gut- it says to me that a large portion of this country sees me as lacking moral values.
We need to make it clear what the left values and how that matches up to moral values. As much as anyone says that gay marriage was the key factor here is wrong. It was one of the factors. It is more that the country has been sold the idea that Bush and the Right are “moral” and therefore, the left is not.
If they want to talk about values let’s talk about values. They want to talk about a culture of life- let’s talk about a culture of life- one that respects all life- not just potential life.
We need for the liberal religious organizations to make their voices more heard- to remind the country that the right doesn’t have a majority on being “good.” That the values of the left are founded in a profound concern for the betterment of all people not just the priviledged few.
I think mustangsally has it right, it will take brainwashing to break through but even that is only a start. When Joe Trippi said the internet would change politics he was right and the change has begun. Blogs such as this put so much power in hands of progressives everywhere. How would a group such as this communicate these ideas without it? This, the liberal/progressive community will grow and become a force to be reckoned with. This isn’t going to happen in one or two years though we may begin to see results by the midterms if George holds his course and the 18 – 30 demographic stays engaged. If that group’s participation could be increased again by as much as it increased for this election it would be huge! The talk of lackluster turnout for that group is just talk their increase was just camoflaged by the higher turnout in general.
Sam the girl said: We need for the liberal religious organizations to make their voices more heard- to remind the country that the right doesn’t have a majority on being “good.”
That’s what I meant when I said we need a new religious movement. Something to counter the Evangelicals. I think a lot of people who turn to fundamentalist Christianity due so in communities where there really isn’t another choice. I know that I (like a great many Liberals) don’t like or enjoy organized religion, but to a lot of people it serves a very basic need for community and spirituality. We need to offer something comparable.
I’ll probably get reamed for this elitist analogy as well but what the hell. If we can’t wean the masses of their opiate then we need to give them a new drug. Religious methadone.
Elizabeth, you bring up an excellent point. Unions used to serve a non-religious need for community involvement. Before that, there was the Grange. In fact, the Populist movement took root with the Grange and other agricultural fraternal-ish organizations. We’ve abandoned those early non-religious based organization, leaving folks in rural communities – which used to be such a strong Democratic base – with no other alternative besides churches.
There are liberal churches out there. But they don’t have much growth, because the message does not provide clear cut scapegoats, and therefore church membership does not fulfill the “boundary” function that many people want from religious participation – I am holy, you are not. To be fair, that is NOT the only or even the predominant reason that people go to conservative churches. Also, liberal churches aren’t as good at presenting a packaged product of simple rules and canned interpretations. If what you seek is certainty in life, liberal churches don’t do a good job of providing it. Both liberals and conservatives may have equally strong religious impulses, but the liberals acknowledge that they might be wrong in an interpretation, or that people differ on interpretation, or that the churchgoers might have to make up their own minds.
splain to me how social institutions are damaged by increasing the number of people participating in them. Exclusion carefully rapped in the rodmontade of morality is malediction. It’s anathema to freedom. It is utterly repugnant to me. Shame on them. It is possible to be in the majoirty and to be wrong. Disenfranchising minorities is wrong. Excluding gay people is wrong. As soon as these “holy” people have raised a few children on minimum wage, I’ll be happy to consider what they have to say about abortion. Culture of life my ass. If they represent a culture of life, where’s their registry of volunteers to adopt and raise all these precious people? Where’s the support for collective education? How can you be against abortion AND against contraception? Are these people retarded, or what? It’s Orwellian. Right is wrong. Moral is immoral. War is peace. The level of penetration of this claptrap is revolting. 55 million people think they did the right thing! They’re infected with the crabbed malice of these maundering witches.
You’re damned right I’m an elitist. I can draw obvious conclusions from observed facts. I refuse to seek shelter in comforting falsehoods. I demand to live my own life. I stand for these principles. I’m a patriot. And I am not alone.
Here are some obvious facts. These Democrats suck almost as much. Now they will be cowed into a period of squishy bipartisanship. This is a critical time, because anytime you hear the word “bipartisan” being bandied about, it is a clear indication that a larger-than-normal deception is about to occur. Lets face it. Republicans are the party of bad ideas. The current Democrats are a party of no ideas. It usually goes something like this. A Republican will stand up and congress and holler “Praise Jesus!!! I got me a really bbbbbbaaaaaaddd idea!”; Then a Democrat will stand up and holler “And I can make it worse!”
We need to realize we’re lost in the woods the way the Republicans did starting in 1964. Start from scratch and redefine what it means to be be a Democrat. And in the mean time, we have to stave off the Republicans from damaging what makes this country great.
Jim K said:
“As soon as these “holy” people have raised a few children on minimum wage, I’ll be happy to consider what they have to say about abortion.”
&
“It usually goes something like this. A Republican will stand up and congress and holler “Praise Jesus!!! I got me a really bbbbbbaaaaaaddd idea!”; Then a Democrat will stand up and holler “And I can make it worse!”
Ahem, if you’re going to quote Lewis Black and paraphrase George Carlin you should at least attribute to them. I do agree with the sentiments though.
I am not a big name person, not someone that is going to get people to say, “I know him!!!”. I don’t have money and my life is one filled with struggles to live like all below the poverty level and who has served this nation and gotten hurt thanks to it.
However, I haven’t quit fighting and I ask that we get together and organize to fight for campaign and voting reforms that will be real and meaningful. We can’t expect the parties to do it, because it isn’t in their interest so now let’s organize and be active to make the media and all branches of the Government to have to listen to us.
Here is my group and I hope you will join us to fight. http://www.aimoo.com/forum/freeboard.cfm?id=623069
In 1963 Nobel-prize winning physicist and Manhattan-Project collaborator Richard Feynman gave 3 speeches in Seattle. The central speech was titled “The Uncertainty of Values”. Sound relevant?
In that speech he stated that the way he judged whether a man knew what he was talking about was to ask him simple, lucid, “naive” questions on a subject in which he was not an expert- and see whether or not that person had ready, clear answers. Feynman said that the person who answers the question with “I’m not sure- I need to check with someone who knows about that,” as opposed to, “Of course I can fix that!” seems to him to have a higher degree of understanding of both the problem and the steps necessary for its solution.
(Aside from the obvious, this too is relevant. Stay with me here.)
Feynman said a paragraph later that he was pretty certain that “such a man would never get anywhere in this country”. It’s just as true today as it was in 1963, and it is emblematic of the great divide between those who accept uncertainty as a consequence of knowledge and those who fear it because uncertainty demands a readiness for change.
When Kerry replied to a question in the 3rd debate with, “It’s not that simple,” I was dumbstruck. I’d never before- and may never again- hear a politician openly acknowledge that reducing a complex question to simple English doesn’t reduce the structure of the problem. Unfortunately, I’d forgotten (or willfully ignored) the fact that an unwillingness to acknowledge uncertainty and complexity is an integral part of what has become the American national identity.
Before I’m crucified by a great many intelligent, indignant fellow Americans, let me state that I don’t mean that every single person in America operates this way. I mean that the search for the lowest common denominator in advertising, programming, and public life has reduced the common denominator to a pair of eyes with a 30-second attention span and a craving for spectacle.
Yes, we all know this. Yes, get the hell on with it. But wait.
We know it, but no one wants to talk about it. We on the left have consistently failed to swallow our idealism and prepackage our ideas because to do that would be to acknowledge and internalize the mediocrity we try so hard to fight. Laudable and consistent.
Also ineffectual. Because no matter how hard we try, we are not going to succeed in getting those who don’t think the same way we do to give us a listen if we don’t talk in a way they can understand. We can have integrity or influence. Not, it seems, both.
I’m not suggesting we whore ourselves like Rove the Repellent. I’m suggesting that we try to speak to a population who has just elected a President with the depth, sincerity, intelligence, and complexity of a Pepsi commercial in a language which will hold their attention.
Prepackaging isn’t pretty. A lot gets lost along the way. The question the Democrats have to ask themselves is, “Is what we lose worth what we gain?” Loss: the White House. Gain: integrity.
Is it?
As soon as these “holy” people have raised a few children on minimum wage, I’ll be happy to consider what they have to say about abortion
You know what those ‘holy’ people say: abortion is wrong, unless it’s their abortion. Then it’s Different.
Since the election I have been reading the reactions on a lot of liberal blogs and especially that most infamous message board of tolerant liberals where every dissenting voice is tarred with “FREEPER!” (democratunderground)
As entertaining as these reactions are, as a conservative Republican I really have mixed emotions about it.
One hand if the main lesson learned from this election is “How can we convince, trick, or brainwash these hate-filled, ignorant, redneck, backwards, bible thumping, moronic assholes to see receive our wizened enlightenment?” the next election cycle should be VERY good for my party also.
On the other hand the “conservative” in me wants a strong opposition to keep the Republicans honest and looking over their shoulder. I am definitely more conservative than I am Republican so really do hope after the initial blood bath in the Democratic party they can get behind someone who understands, even if they don’t agree, rather than condescends to that large swath of red in the middle of the country.
[drift] Does anyone besides Larry know anything about these scores of nasty bullet holes that aparently rained down upon Republican headquarters all across our great land ? Just wondering… [/drift]
Maybe “across the country” was a slight exaggeration, but I prefer to see it as artistic license. In any case, here are a couple articles on the subject:
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/2004/September/03/LNtop2.htm
http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/015798.html
I’ve heard about it in a few places; I’m sure Bobert could provide a couple of documentary links.
Of course, firing guns at even an empty building is not just incredibly stupid (there could have been a janitor, a tired worker asleep on the floor), it’s morally disgusting.
However, I don’t think that a handful of incidents across the entire nation is a fair way of judging the larger democrat party, unless there’s proof that the DNC arranged for the shots to be fired. On the other hand, blaming the Republians for vote-trashing efforts that they paid for out of official RNC funds strikes me as fair, unless the RNC can show that it fired everyone responsible and has taken steps to avoid such “mistakes” being made in the future. As far as I know, that hasn’t happened.
The WV incident, the only one with a gun, is suspect, since a Republican with a track record of claiming he got beat up at rallies by Dems was in the immediate vicinity of the shooting – turned up at the headquarters about 2 minutes after the bullet. Many think this guy is like those scam artists that intentionally fall down in grocery stores and threaten to sue – only his payoff is to appear like a hero to the party. Or an asshole to party members who don’t appreciate histrionics or getting shot at.
The rest of the incidents look like rude and public protests without potential damage to life or limb – barging into a headquarters and depositing 500 unwanted letters of protest, or as Max Cleland did, rolling up to see the Pres., hardly qualifies as anything other than street theater. And most of teh described incidents aren’t linked to news organisations but are present only as blog items, so, in need of verification.
in response to “measure in terms of generations” not elections…i applaud this attempt to view what is happening in our country from this perspective.
with an eye to the future, it is true that while we did not win this election, political gains can still be made later on; all is not lost in that regard. political developments occur in cycles; an appreciation of why things happen as they do, current trends, patterns, fads, etc. helps us understand what may be possible in the future.
we must also take into account the factor of “resistance” to progress; fear of change which lies in the heart of america, particularly in the “bible belt”. we must find out how to have influence upon this section of the country and its values…so the rest will follow us.
ellen t.
“The WV incident, the only one with a gun, is suspect…”
Yup, that guy arrested last week for trying to run down Kathleen Harris in his Cadillac was probably just another Republican pulling a stunt also. I am not going to google and spend the time to list them all, but there were other gunshot incidents also, including:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5060075.html
Look there are plenty of loonies on both sides. I haven’t heard this confirmed, but supposedly you had a republican passing out fliers telling people that Kerry wanted to ban the bible. You had democrats slashing the tires of vehicles that were to pick up the elderly in the get out to vote effort. You had democrats from activist groups calling elderly republicans telling them their polling place had changed or to give them wrong directions to a polling place. I am sure some republicans were doing the same thing. I don’t think the Kerry or Bush campaign or even the parties are responsible. Every election some left and right wing crazy takes it upon themselves to further the cause in their own pathetic way.
Sure do. And nobody is excusing the guy who tried to kill Kathleen Harris.
But it’s not the loonies we’re focusing on. Were there mainstream Democrat activists handing out anonymous flyers saying ‘if Dubya is elected, your children will be forced to go to church’?
If they were, they certainly aren’t “mainstream”. Those activities have no place in the Democratic party. We must be inclusive and tolerant. Sure, Bush is horrid, Cheney, etal are even worse, and Rove is a lying scheming hypocrite, but if we do the things they do we are no better than they are. That’s not my Democratic party! Yes, they won the battle but the war has barely begun. It’s time to begin again. We have barely two years to organize, recruit and plan how to retake the Senate and House along with many state legislatures to work on. Will Bush hurt us more? Yes but his each and every mistake are now his own. There is no previous president he can blame and his party controls both houses. Everything that happens in the next four years will be because of George W. Bush and the Republican party. I don’t think the midterms will go his way in 06, he’ll have too much baggage.
I’m in rural Wisconsin, a barely red region in a barely blue state though, thanks to the 18-24 demo the margin is twice what Gore had. Our state houses tilted even further Republican this time and that worries me, but, there is some good news. Russ Feingold was re-elected handily. Dave Obey ran unopposed by the Republicans though he had two 3rd party opponents. My state rep Mary Hubler won her race, and openly lesbian Tammy Baldwin won her race despite the “family values” candidate they put up against her. We have hope and time so let’s go to work!
Mustang wrote:
I can understand your distaste, Alsis – but what you describe sounds to me more like condescension or patronization. Not brainwashing.
Well, I would certainly need to feel superior to another person as a logical first step to deciding that they needed brainwashing. So it’s all part of one continuum, wouldn’t you say ?
Brainwashing is much more subtle than that – you don’t even pretend to be asking for mental buy-in/engagement from your subjects. It’s just presented as fact and in a way you don’t see coming at all. Maybe propaganda is a better word? If your Tri-met flack had just shown you a smarmy video detailing how wonderful Tri-met was and presented you with a bogus survery that said 9 out of 10 of your neighbors thought Tri-met was serving them wonderfully – that would be brainwashing.
Well, it would have been subtle if the folks attending the meeting weren’t already attending with the knowledge that our day to day surroundings actually conflicted with the “reality” that the flack was selling. Actually what you describe is pretty close to what her presentation was like.
I’m not sure I’m making my point clear. My point is that even the most conservative people might not all have the same exact rationale for believing as they do. And I think that assuming that they are and speaking down to them is going to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. At an instinctive level, I have experienced firsthand what it’s like to be adressed in that manner and I don’t like it. I can’t, at my gut level, believe that the solution is to practice on others tactics that I myself have responded to with anger and hostility in the past, when our positions were reversed.
I don’t know what to say about the rest of your post, Mustang. You know I like you even when we don’t agree very much, but frankly the sentiments you express here are seriously giving me the fantods and shivers. As for Moore, well… don’t get me started on him today.
I am so glad Larry is posting here. Unfortunately it is extremely hard to find in America anybody who is willing to talk about their political views with someone who has an opposing view. Politics is taboo in social situations, in case someone may get upset, unless one is absolutely sure that the people present share their views. This pretty much rules out learning and understanding each other’s views.
I am from Hungary and politics there is national pass time. Everybody talks politics everywhere. In America it is the most touchy subject there is. If you disagree with someone they take it personally. I had some major blow-ups before I learned to shut my mouth.
Larry is right. The Democrats need to learn the point of view of those who voted Republican this year. This could be their secret weapon. Both sides are unwilling to listen but conservatism by default shuts its ears, and liberalism opens it. The Democrats just need to get back to being liberal.
Here’s my optimistic take on the results (my pessimistic takes are elsewhere): The Democratic party was essentially recreated in the last two years through grassroots efforts, through blogs, and through some new institutions. We shouldn’t really expect two years to be long enough to change things, even if the president is an asshat. The investments we have made will start bearing fruit in the future. Look at the results for state elections this year. The Democrats did much better there and in fact cut back on Republican numbers overall. So what we have are the beginnings of something new, and things could get much better. The problem was that Bush is so terrible that not winning this election seemed like the end of the world. Which it may still turn out to be. But if the world doesn’t end, we have a much better base now. And we can kick out all the Democrats in Washington who are no good.
I’m new to this site-
A lot of the points that have been made on this site are absolutely true- but I think there are at least some heartening facts to take into consideration about this election.
While the media made the point that many Kerry voters were not overly enthusiastic about their candidate, not every person who voted Bush did so out of unbounded love and admiration for him and his policies- they just felt they had to stick with him, lumps and all.
Many, many people were unhappy with both candidates, and a vote for Bush does not automatically count as a vote for a boundless right wing ideological Volksgemeinschaft. Therefore Bush does NOT have as clear a mandate as the media say he does
Surely Democrats can win over some of these reluctant Bush supporters over the next few years by appealing to their essential moderation on most social issues, by making more obvious the essential union of liberalism with core American ideals.
Liberals could potentially influence even the “moral majority” itself, by taking sustenance from the Bible itself- as Will Safire (or was it David Brooks) wrote recently, there is more in the Bible to back a liberal interpretation of Christianity than a narrow, restrictive, repressive corruption of it.
My Bottom line, gut feeling: All is not lost. Moderates still exist in both parties and will make their voices heard
I’m not sure who said the statement I’d like to address, and I’ve only skimmed the responses following, but I’m a liberal who lives in Ohio. I like the Midwest, all things considered. It’s got a low cost of living, some pretty neat-o cities, and generally the people are okay when I deal with them face to face :) When I read language like “gun-toting lemmings in Middle America”, it makes my skin crawl. I am no different than you, except that I live in fly-over country. I resent the blanket assumption that anyone who willfully chooses to live in the midwest is a yokel, or an idiot, or a rabid Christian conservative.
If you want to make a difference in Middle America, you need to stop ridiculing them at every turn. Reach out to them, help them reach out to their neighbors.
Grace, I agree with both you and Joel. Just because that map shows more red in middle American does not make them Gun toting, rabid Christian Conservatives. Just like all that blue doesn’t make those folks bleeding heart Godless liberals.
The press, both liberal and conservative have come up with these lables and we use them way too much.
One of the first things we need to do is start referring to everyone as Americans.
But I do have a question and if this is not phrased properly I apologize because I’m not trying to belittle anyone.
Do the Democrats of the North and West seem to be a little too intellectual? I mean do they seem to talk to much about ideology than practical things?
I ask because I think one of the other things that help George Bush was that folks reacted to him on a more basic level. More of a everyday kind of guy. Whereas Kerry seemed to be a little too aristicratic.
Kelli is right, the best way for the Democratic Party to win is to be Democratic. LA’ites and New Yorker’s and wannabes give an air of superiority that is also apparent in Western Europe in regards to fly-over country. Christianity is actually a liberal religion. Just because someone is christian and voted for GW does not mean they are Christian conservatives. The Evangelicals are a small sect in the Christian religion. There are many people that believe this country is founded on the rule of law. That rule was based on someone taking a moral stand, i.e. don’t murder. The vocal minority of the Democratic party (outside of “Jesusland”) it seems despises those who say what they believe is right or wrong. The question of many religious Democrats and Democrats who have moral convictions is “where does the “progress” in progressive stop? Do we roll back murder (done)? How about adultery (done)? How about honoring Parents and elders (done)? So many of those who have grown up with these principles find conflict with their desire to spread the love with the Democratic message sent by Whoopi Goldberg.
The Democratic party will fair much better if so called liberals stop saying they when referring to Christians and those of some moral conviction, because that also includes people who voted Democrat, but GW was so bad for them they would rather be associated with Whoopi than GW. If the Democratic Party and Democrats do not distance themselves from the hateful rhetoric that attacks people of moral conviction (I BTW am not one of moral convictions — Mardi Gras 1992 will keep me from ever running for office), they will find themselves all alone in LA, Boston and New York and the people of strong democratic values of the midwest, south, north west, southwest will leave them behind in our aweful one party system. Once the Republicans completely open the tent for those social liberals who believe that the country needs some moral compass there will be nothing left of the Democratic Party.
That is just my analysis of the possible fallback if the Party does not look forward to what the next generation has to offer.
To be honest, I think it is more of a problem that peolple encounter with people, if that makes sense. If every Kerry supporter a “swing voter” meets talks about how stupid and backward the Midwest/Middle America is, it’s going to put them off. Hell, it puts me off and I’m not a swing voter by any stretch.
Although it’s a minor problem, I think regionalism is something the Dems/liberals are going to have to deal with sooner rather than later. Liberalism is percieved as a coastal thing by people in Middle America. That needs to change.
One thing that struck me in particular is an op-ed I read from the New York Times about how so many “red states” vote against their own interests. I wish there was some magical way for us to make everyone see how traditionally liberal social and economic policies help everyone, but I don’t know what that is. I think in part we need to start controlling the dialogue.
“Intellectual” and “everday kind of guy” and “aristocratic” are just as much labels as “rabid” and “bleeding-heart”–and they’re just as misguided.
Somehow “intellectual” became a bad word. I’m not quite sure how, but it probably came about to discourage doubt and nuance and make blind obedience seem like an admirable quality. So if Democrats are too “intellectual,” well, that’s a good thing, or so I thought. (I mean, the opposite of intellectual is thoughtless. Do we really want to vote for a thoughtless person?)
The other thing is that groups of people and individuals get painted with words that simply don’t reflect reality. Bush isn’t an “everyday kind of guy;” in fact, he’s the exact opposite. Kerry isn’t “aristocratic;” he’s just an articulate speaker. How can we combat labels like these? Well, by pointing out that they aren’t true–but that requires a bit of analysis of facts and representations and how information gets to the public, and analysis falls under the dreaded rubric of “intellectualism.”
One problem that Democrats face isn’t the way groups and people are portrayed, it’s the fact that they’re portrayed in a particular way to begin with. Somehow the Republicans have usurped the ability to define words and phrases for mainstream America, and they’ve certainly taken advantage of it. (See liberals’ famed “superiority complexes” and “anti-religious attitudes,” for example. In truth, I doubt most liberals would fall under either of these categories.)
I don’t know how to break this to js and anyone who might be kibbitzing this discussion, but there are working class, poor, and working class poor folk in N.Y.C. and L.A., much as there are in most major cities. Hell, there are even still middle classes there despite the best efforts of the duopoly.
These generalizations conceal more truth than they reveal, which is why we should beware when using them. :(
P.S.– WTF is an LA or NYC “wannabe,” for pity’s sake ?
I agree with you Alsis and am well aware there are working class poor folk in N.Y.C. — I think the vast majority.
But, the media fails to show the working class poor. Middle America gets the vision of the “starving artist” who “chooses” to follow his dreams instead of working the farm or getting a good job like his or her big brother. “Middle America” sees N.Y.C. “intellecuals” (I think “theoreticals” probably more accurately defines their view, but it does not sound as elitist) as taking their young boys and turning them into some “crazy socialist” artist. The other “working poor” in say Brooklyn is not recognized by the midwest as an “intellectual elitist”.
The question as to why the working poor in middle America consistently vote against some of their intersts is answered by putting their interests on a scale. The moral downfall in America is blamed on the liberal agenda. Blacks blame welfare for the destruction of the Black family, committed people blame the high divorce rate on no fault divorce, there are many others that I have heard in my enlightening 5 years in Indiana. Each of these social ills has been blamed on liberal agenda — the Republican party effectively tagged the Democratic Party as the party with the liberal agenda. So when the scales are weighed between jobs and values — they will pick the Party that stands for values. They feel there is opportunity in America to be happy and satisfied with a little hard work. They also believe that the government must protect them from people that want to go — “too far”.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, js. What show or shows/films are you referring to here ? I see plenty of treacely happy “father knows best” scenarios on TV, not to mention lots of shows where “cops know best.” (I think it was Pete Hamill who quipped that almost no one on TV was ever actually depicted doing their job– except cops.) Mainstream movies are full of one-dimensionally adorable children, wars where the America is unfailingly heroic –if flawed–, comedies where every woman must have a man at the end of the flick or our two hours are wasted, etc etc. These are basic tenets of mass media and are, in fact, very traditionally conservative values at the core. Whatever could be said to be “liberal” in there (men and women having sex out of wedlock, the grudging acknowledgement that maybe a few “bad apples” did nasty things to civilians in Vietnam) are largely window dressing on the same old plots and themes we’ve had marketed to us for the last fifty years. Don’t even get me started on the bizarre mixed signals created by the fact that while sexual activity is common among TV characters, almost nobody ever has an abortion or discusses birth control.
Not to drift too far affield from the original discussion, but I hear plenty of complaints from fellow Lefties about how TV (and other mass media) is a steaming pile of poo that doesn’t reflect our values. This is one of the reasons I try to consume very little of it.
I think most mass media inspires apathy, greed and self-loathing, not socialism or artistry. Even the rare show that reflects any humanistic values at all is going to be liberally (no pun intended) sandwiched between hours and hours of advertising that serves to drown out any such values.
Hell, you only have to look around this blog to find critiques aplenty of mass media’s values.
I think it is so funny how both sides are pissed at the media for being too liberal/conservative.
Anyway, my point was what Middle America sees with respect to N.Y. and L.A. NYPD Blue — the only working class poor are the Cops (where do they live anyway?).
Of course My Wife and Kids abound in the media, but think about the people who did not have a job, where are the “homosexuals” depicted as living? Never would you see Will and Grace — live from Witchita! That only makes mid-westerners feel those people over there depict the Northeast and the “Left Coast”.
These are just my perceptions growing up a “snobby” East Coaster who moved to the midwest. It changes your views on life and what is important. It is a different way of life when the nearest mountain is 1500 miles away and your neighbor is 2 miles. I am trying to give my perspective of why “those” people voted the way they did. Not scientific, just observations from an outsider. Anyone who grew up in the midwest and lives on the coast now feel free to provide your observation on how the Democratic Party can win back the “workers” of America.
Alsis38 you are dead on about the media. What’s that old saying? “believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.” When it comes to the American Media you really have to work that way. Especially now because everything has a spin. They do any more damn spinning and a day will only last an hour.
Anyway I don’t think intellectual is a bad word I do think it implies something that working class people find negative. That is when you hear the word intellectual you think of people sitting around and coming up with ideas not people working hard and sweating to earn a living.
Now I have to admit that Kerry is articulate, but he is also and intellectual. I do believes he spends time pondering life and how to make it better and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. But let’s face it Kerry did not come from the “working class” and that effected how some in Middle American viewed him. And I am quite sure Teresa didn’t help. I still haven’t figured what either Kerry or her first husband saw in her, but that’s just me.
Now as for GW being an “everyday kind of guy” I am by no means saying that he is. But that is the image that he gives. That sort of person who can stand up and lead, but at the end of the day can sit back with a beer (or near beer in GW’s case) and hang with the guys.
I think those perceptions that people have of each Candidate is what helps to make the decision on who to vote for. We all know that the President (no matter who he is) has the upper hand on the leadership perception. So most people evaluate the leadership of the incumbent. But the newcomer well now he has to prove that he’s a leader. I think that’s why we like people who have been incharge of things.
I mean think about. We elect people who are former govenors or heads of things (like the CIA) heck even Reagan was the President of the Screen Actors Guild (hard to imagine that man as a union member) before he was President of the US.
But Dole and Kerry, they didn’t seem to have appeal and I wonder if it was because they were senators. Who was the last Senator we elected? Nixon? And he was at least VP prior to so that would make the last true Senator JFK.
When you try to think about why we elect who we elect there are so many factors and so many people see things in very different ways
But I have to say I think those evangelical voters who came out for Bush may find out the truth about their main. When it comes down to it for GW it’s all about the vote an promises are just something you use to get it.
I am trying to give my perspective of why “those” people voted the way they did.
Some of us grew up among “those” people and know perfectly well why they voted the way they did.
Yes, it’s silly to assume that anyone within 100 miles of the ocean is liberal and wise and anyone in the middle of the country is a shotgun-toting yahoo. It’s equally silly to assume that anyone who lives in a ‘blue state’ only gets their information about ‘red states’ from the New York Times.
Now Jsteveson I can see a little more of where you are coming from. But I think that even on the east coast there are those who see and understand more of middle American than others suspect.
Now there are two new “dirty words” East Coast and West Coast.
At the moment I’m living in VA (that could change if some very rich man comes along pays off my husband and lets me live in the lap of luxury for the rest of my life, but I digress)I am originially from PA.
Pennsylvania is the land of the worker. I swear if the US was a behive, PA would be nursery for the worker bees.
So when I hear east coast and intellectual in the same sentence I think must be someone from Massachuetts. Now I know that Mass has a lot of workers, but they aren’t who you think about when you first hear the word Mass. You think Harvard and Yale those intellectual bastions of America. (like you can’t get a true degree somewhere else).
Any who (and I have to admit the allergy medicine is effecting my thoughts) I do think Middle America’s perception of the East and West coasts are driven by the Media. And that is very sad because the Media, both liberal and conservative have not painted a true picture of either coast.
There are many of the poor and working poor on this coast. Heck, West Va is a prime example of that and yet they still went the same as middle America.
So how do you get Middle America to see that the Republican Party is not out to help them? How do you get America’s blue collar workers to see that they have been betrayed by the Republicans
Heh heh. mythago’s comments remind me of one of the few shows on TV that I still go out of my way to watch: King of the Hill. I once had a Texan Lib on another board rail at me about how this proved that I was just another snotty Yankee looking down her nose at the South. I tried to explain– rather poorly I guess– that it wasn’t the “exotic” elements of the show that I find most appealing. It was the similarities between the Hill family’s suburbia and the N.J. suburbia I grew up in. There are more commonalities than some people might imagine. I suppose my own little enclave was “diverse” and “liberal” as far as that goes, but it was just one little enclave in a sea of all kinds of other suburbs. Hell, even “liberal” N.J. went for Nixon both times IIRC, and possibly Reagan as well.
Kelli, my point is that it’s unfair to claim that Kerry lost in part because he’s too “intellectual” and that Bush won in part because he’s an “average guy,” because Kerry isn’t an “intellectual” (as people usually understand it, i.e. as a negative term) and Bush isn’t an average guy. Better to say that Bush won because people think he’s “everyday,” even though it’s completely untrue.
It’s like advertising: You buy a product based on what you’re told it is. If it turns out that what you get isn’t quite what you expected, it isn’t the product’s fault; it’s the ad department’s.
And after re-reading your post, Kelli, I think you’re saying the same thing I am, essentially…
I’m not sure how to get control of the metaphorical ad department, though. There probably isn’t a single answer.
PS. I don’t quite understand your “I still haven’t figured what either Kerry or her first husband saw in her” comment. I don’t know much about Teresa, but from what I’ve seen, she appears strong and committed to her beliefs and won’t put up with any crap. Those seem like positive attributes to me.
Ah, most of us Texas liberals would prefer it if people from outside the state watched “King of the Hill”–just to understand us, if nothing else.
She’s very high maintance from what I understand, but that’s neither here nor there I was just rambling from my allergy medicine
Left, right… Why are so many birds flopping
around on one wing, beating themselves silly?
Why does everyone seem to need a ‘movement’,
‘party’, ‘glorious leader’ to take ’em to The
Promised Land, whatever the fuck that might mean
at any given moment in some pol’s lies?
No, there are 115 million dumb fucks out there,
not just 59 million.
The very idea that 20% of the population voted
for some asshole to rule them and the other 80%
boggles the mind. That that dumb 20% will take it
up the ass and not realize it no matter who wins
makes smoke come outta my ears.
Putting on his best face, jomama sez, “You’ll
hafta excuse me. I don’t know the customs here.
I’m from another planet.”
Sorry, Amanda. The guy who was railing at me was “Lib” as in “Libertarian” not “Liberal.” :o
But, hey !! Texas Liberals –or something like them– made the front page of Public Citizen’s Oct/Nov house organ. I counted at least seven or eight in the photos if you include the kids ! :p
Pingback: Basal Questions
Pingback: Marriage Equality: State by State
Pingback: Preposterous Universe
Pingback: farkleberries
Pingback: HungryBlues
Pingback: green gabbro
Pingback: The Political Puzzle v2.0
Pingback: Grouchy's Liberaltopia
Pingback: thisblackgirl.aroundthewaygirl.org » sound advice