![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Having lost a presidential election, and looking backwards, having seen a large number of electoral losses over the past fifteen years, one wonders what the problem is with the Democratic party. Based on the economy and the war, they shouldn't be losing seats.
But that doesn't speak to the larger issue I think the party has. And frankly, has been having since the latter years of the Johnson administration.
For various reasons, the old New Deal coalition just isn't holding together. And as far as I can tell, the primary effort among the party has been to try to hold together whatever they could, in no small part, by trying to cherry-pick voters with targeted efforts here or there.
What's been missing, IMHO, and what cost the last two elections, is the "Heart". When asked, almost anyone can give you a short comment on what W is about. Or what they believe the Republican party is about. And that's powerful. But can people tell you waht John Kerry's vision was? What the party's mission was? What the democratic party is missing, IMHO, is that narrative.
What's your vision of what America's supposed to be. What's the moral argument for progressivism. In the US, we have a separation of church and state, but that doesn't mean discussion of morality is absent from public life. Or should be. And in the absence of a strong vision for a civic religion foundeded in progressive ethics, morality, and community -- the Right has been free to define Morality in terms of Sex, Abortion and Otherness. The Right has a mission. A mission that I disagree with, but they have one, and it gives them power to sway.
So, I think that's the real challenge for the Democrats. What is your mission? Why do you come to serve in public life? What is your vision for America? And then, only then, do you talk about the programmatic effort to enact that vision.
I think back to my financial situation. I've got money. I've got people who are supposed to be taking care of my money. The details matter, but I don't care nearly as much about the details as I care about the overall goals that we've set. Having established that I know what the vision is, and that we're mostly on the same page, I can generally trust my guys to take care of the details I don't have the time to handle myself.
But I can look at the voting map, and say with some degree of confidence, that I don't think a lot of America is particularly comfortable with whatever passes for vision coming from the Democratic party. And consequently, they're not voting for it.
The answer isn't for the Democrats to move left, or move right, or find a fundamentalist, or what have you. The answer is to go back to the beginning, to go back to that Mission Statement. And to articulate a compelling, relatively coherent, progressive vision for public life that competes with the vision offered by the Right. Because I very much believe there's an audience. Do that, and they'll start picking up seats, counties, and votes instead of seeing old majorities continue to erode.
But that doesn't speak to the larger issue I think the party has. And frankly, has been having since the latter years of the Johnson administration.
For various reasons, the old New Deal coalition just isn't holding together. And as far as I can tell, the primary effort among the party has been to try to hold together whatever they could, in no small part, by trying to cherry-pick voters with targeted efforts here or there.
What's been missing, IMHO, and what cost the last two elections, is the "Heart". When asked, almost anyone can give you a short comment on what W is about. Or what they believe the Republican party is about. And that's powerful. But can people tell you waht John Kerry's vision was? What the party's mission was? What the democratic party is missing, IMHO, is that narrative.
What's your vision of what America's supposed to be. What's the moral argument for progressivism. In the US, we have a separation of church and state, but that doesn't mean discussion of morality is absent from public life. Or should be. And in the absence of a strong vision for a civic religion foundeded in progressive ethics, morality, and community -- the Right has been free to define Morality in terms of Sex, Abortion and Otherness. The Right has a mission. A mission that I disagree with, but they have one, and it gives them power to sway.
So, I think that's the real challenge for the Democrats. What is your mission? Why do you come to serve in public life? What is your vision for America? And then, only then, do you talk about the programmatic effort to enact that vision.
I think back to my financial situation. I've got money. I've got people who are supposed to be taking care of my money. The details matter, but I don't care nearly as much about the details as I care about the overall goals that we've set. Having established that I know what the vision is, and that we're mostly on the same page, I can generally trust my guys to take care of the details I don't have the time to handle myself.
But I can look at the voting map, and say with some degree of confidence, that I don't think a lot of America is particularly comfortable with whatever passes for vision coming from the Democratic party. And consequently, they're not voting for it.
The answer isn't for the Democrats to move left, or move right, or find a fundamentalist, or what have you. The answer is to go back to the beginning, to go back to that Mission Statement. And to articulate a compelling, relatively coherent, progressive vision for public life that competes with the vision offered by the Right. Because I very much believe there's an audience. Do that, and they'll start picking up seats, counties, and votes instead of seeing old majorities continue to erode.
Tags:
no subject
The UK's PM Tony Blair may be reviled as being the King of Spin, but it seems there is meat in there somewhere. I keep believing and hoping that my faith in his party is not in vain.
no subject
I've decided to commit myself to working harder for my party, and hopefully conveying to them that they need to step up and put in some extra effort as well.
no subject
no subject
I think that any effort anyone puts forth is better than nothing, but the most important effort has to come from those who it matters most. Our current democratic office holders! They are definitely the ones who need the fire lit under them.
no subject
no subject
no subject
We need to do something to regain the south which right now is being taken over by the religious right--their moral value position is strong. And Missouri! My god, my whole life Missouri was the Democratic state in the midwest. A friend of mine in St. Louis says the religious conservatives are very powerful there and they've convinced former Democrats that gays and women and pro-choicers are too scary to have anything to do with and candidates who support those issues need to be voted down because of "moral values" ie religion.
*sigh*
no subject
Yeah. But see, you can talk about moral arguments for policy without necessarily establishing religion or violating church/state. But you have demonstrate a moral vision.
I happen to be Jewish, and the ethical/moral teachings of my family and rabbi had as much an influence on me as my academic and professional experience. That's four different sources that make a whole: family, faith, school, and work.
And the more you talk in terms of basic progressive values that affect people every day, rooted family, work, and the community's responsibility to each other -- about how that's what's really important -- the better chance you have of crowding out all that hate speech. And to some extent, that may mean fighting religious fire with all the religion that the Right is ignoring. (like all that "love thy neighbor" and "poverty is bad" stuff)
no subject
no subject
I agree, I think the lack of heart and an inability to articulate their vision has crippled the Democratic party. I watched most of the coverage of the DNC and while I watched Barack Obama deliver his speech to the delegates, my immediate reaction was 'this is what the Democratic party has been missing'.
I know that the Democrats need more than just a charismatic candidate to make up the ground they've lost, but I thought Obama's speech was that compelling, relatively coherent, progressive vision for public life that you mentioned. I think he did articulate that vision and the vast majority of the electorate in Illinois responded to it. Now, his success there doesn't guarantee similar success on the national stage, but I know many people who were inspired by him that night and I think the rest of the party needs to follow that lead if they hope to have any success.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Before 2000 the Democrats had a mission statement posted on their website. It outlined their positions on all the major issues but also included a paragraph about morals and values and such. Sometime after 2000 I went back to reference something and it was gone. There was nothing that stated where we stood on the hot-button issues. Particularly the right to choose. This freaked me out. Sometime later I heard Tim Russert say that the Democrats were shying away from spelling out their position because they didn't want to seem like the reason for the party's existence was to counter-act, point by point, the Republicans positions. Well, that's a nice lofty way of looking at things but it's not a very practical way of addressing the matter.
This is dated info and I haven't had the heart to go to the website since. I liked Kerry very much by the time this election rolled around but initially I didn't give a hoot who he was, I would've voted for a trained monkey in order to get Bush out of office, and as animals go I don't even like monkeys. But now I feel horrible for not doing more to help the campaign, especially since the opportunity was presented to me several times. I, too, am lazy. Also not very good around a lot of people. But I'm going to have to do something. It helps to hear a well-informed opinion on the matter by someone I know on a personal level. Not that I'll rely on you to make my opinion for me, but it's a relief to read something that I don't have to run through the bullshit meter on the highest level. So keep posting, please. :)
no subject
I heard Tim Russert say that the Democrats were shying away from spelling out their position because they didn't want to seem like the reason for the party's existence was to counter-act, point by point, the Republicans positions. Well, that's a nice lofty way of looking at things but it's not a very practical way of addressing the matter.
And it's dopey as crap. Did the Republicans' "Contract with America" have anything to do with the Democratic Positions or agenda? Well, to an extent, but it was really a big thematic mission statement and program statement. This is what were about, and this is why you should join up. And that worked.
no subject
*Fishes around in purse*
Ah, maybe this will cheer you up: Scroll for Tara Reid's boobie.
no subject
I think you nailed it pretty well. I have no clue what Kerry stood for. He had plans, but he never managed to tell me what they were. How can I be expected to hand over the keys to the White House to someone who won't tell me if he's going to give it back in decent condition?
In the end, I may not agree with everything President Bush says, but at least I know where he stands. When you're trying to make a decision -- you need all the information you can get.
What I keep saying is that there needs to be a party for middle of the road folks like me. The hard core right wingers scare me and so do the radical left. And there's a lot of folks like me I think.
no subject
And the thing is -- I knew what Kerry stands for, because I worked for the guy. And I sat in that office for five months reading letters from his constituents, and telling the people of Massachussetts what we were doing for them and why. And Massachussets is doing pretty well relative to where it was when John Kerry got elected Lieutenant Governor and then Senator. Unemployment down. Crime down. Per capita income up. Lowest divorce and abortion rates in the nation. (Without having particularly strict laws) A much cleaner Boston Harbor. And Massachussetts pays more tax money in to the Federal Government than it collects back or spends out.
But did his campaign tell you that?
That he was elected to serve his state, and that he's served it well.
When you compare to Bush -- Kerry had plans, and he put them on his website. But he didn't have a Grand Scheme. He didn't have the big vision, so you knew what he was really for or about. No matter that he was a great father, or a good and conscientious man. There are things a good leader has to make people feel and believe, and JK didn't do that.
Bush didn't have a plan for guarding against terrorism before 9/11 when people in his employ were screaming for one, didn't have a plan for Iraq before he invaded when his generals needed one, and lied about his plans for the economy, health, education, energy and the environment. When he could bother to hold a press conference to discuss them. And the country would have been better off if he could acknowledge and correct for that. Which we know he won't.
But people know, by heart, what the values are that he stands for. And that's incredibly important. I could say all sorts of critical things about Kennedy, for example, but he could offer a vision people could believe in -- and it's so powerful that the Democrats have been trying to recapture it for forty years.
Regardless of his performance, people trust W to find a way to make the details work, because they know the big picture he's presenting -- and on a lot of the big picture stuff, they're values people feel comfortable with. Just like Reagan. Just like Kennedy. Just like FDR.
I don't think W's details match up to that set of values he talks about, but if Kerry can't make himself and his values known well enough to make people comfortable, then it's hard to compel folks to vote for him. Which, as a candidate, was his job to do.
If you were persuadable (and I thought a lot of people could be) but ultimately couldn't feel comfortable enough to vote for him, I can't begrudge you. he didn't do enough to earn it. The step is learning and doing what it takes to earn that 51+ the next time around.
no subject
The primary point wasn't that we didn't really know Kerry's plans, because he gave more details than W ever did. The issue is that Kerry didn't put across what the point of all those plans were. And it's hard for people to vote for a guy if he can't sell you on what his ultimate point is. (Presuming he has an ultimate point you can agree with.)
no subject
I'm not saying that I'm a simple person, but it did come down to am I better off than I was 4 years ago and which one of these two guys will hopefully help me to be better off 4 years from now.
Let me tell you, this is the first election where I had sleepless nights leading up to it. I've always taken voting seriously, but this time it seemed even more so than before.
I'm not taking anybody's comments as argumentative right now, this is a touchy issue, and one thing shown by the election is that we need to pull together more than we have been doing. We're all in this boat together.
no subject
no subject
I'm probably going to be going through another one of those phases where I beat myself up internally for squandering the capabilities I have -- because I feel I have a responsibility to use them. I owe it to myself to make more of my life. (Unless my slacking is just a defense mechanism to avoid getting exposed as a hack. Which, to some extent I am, but I think the laziness is why I'm more of a hack now than when I was younger.)
But, gahh... how the hell do you re-ignite lost ambition and motivation? Because I haven't felt really, really motivated for a very long time. And I'm so content and complacent in my daily life.
no subject
A lot of people found the outcome of the election enough of a motivation for change, but I'm expecting there will be a snowball effect, over the next year or two. The people who got motivated this week are going to get out there and start making plans. They are going to draw other people in. So, some people who aren't motivated today will be motivated next week or next month or next year. And if we begin to effect small changes, those, too, will snowball.
Hopefully, into an avalanche that will bury Bush's attempts to change this nation into a theocracy.
Diane
MleF
no subject
And, if the Democratic party was shying away from articulating its own moral vision, it is because it believed that voters didn't like or want that articulation. We have to change that. It's a two way communication.
I guess what I'm saying is that we can't wait around for the leadership of the Democratic party to come up with something. We are the party, and we have to do it ourselves.
Thankfully, as I look around the net and in my work place and at my friends and family, I'm finding there are a lot of people who are angry, disappointed and shocked enough to do just that.
As a side note, the Democrats didn't actually lose this election. As with Florida in 2000, it was stolen, There have been articles, scattered about the net, on everything from the commitment of the CEO of the company that made Ohio's voting machines to securing the election for Bush, to the suppression of minority votes, to glitches in the voting machines. One machine gave Bush 4,000 more votes than he'd actually earned or than had been actually counted (per an article on CNN.com) But, there is no question that if Kerry had been able to provide a stronger moral vision, and if the Dems had had their act together, the election would not have been so close that it could be stolen.
no subject
no subject