Liberals the world over are depressed and miserable. The wind seems to have gone out of the sails of the peace movement and proponents of freedom and equity have declared that, for the next four years at least, there is none to be found.
I say, that is a bunch of bullshit.
To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
I guarantee you, Karl Rove has read the Art of War.
We MUST not give up, as I have been stressing. In the next couple of months, protests are going to be disorganized and have few attendees. Movements for social progress the world around are going to be more like extraordinarily morbid support groups than bastions of progressive societal change. It doesn't matter. We ALL must do our part. Voting alone isn't good enough. Bitching on the internet isn't good enough. If you want change, you must be willing to be a part of it.
But I think I've said all of this before. So I want to, now go into why I feel Kerry lost and what we can do to win in 2008. And let it be known that when I say 'we,' I do not mean the democrats. I mean any person who believes in liberty and justice for all. I do not believe these people won this past election. So let's examine why:
The Failures of the Kerry Campaign
"Kerry ran a tactical campaign, devoid of vision or explicable alternatives, utterly lacking in message discipline, and riddled with misjudgments -- it was one of the most incompetently run presidential campaigns by a Democrat in my lifetime." – Doug Ireland
I think that about sums is up.
As I have been saying for a while now, the Kerry camp ran a campaign that was almost as horrid as the Gore 2000 camp, if not worse. Yes, he railed ass in the debates but do any of you remember August (I know it's a long time ago) and the weeks of not combating the devastating attacks of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? This was a gamble on Kerry's part, a plan to withhold advertising dollars until the last second so he would have a bigger war chest in the final weeks of the campaign. It was a good gamble, but they still should have done something to fight of the Swift Boaters instead of sitting around doing a 'deer in headlight' impression until the end of August and their spending freeze.
And then there is the economy. National exit polls showed voters wound up trusting Bush more than Kerry on the economy by 48 to 46 percent. How you trust a man who spent our biggest surplus and created our biggest deficit is beyond me.
"Kerry's biggest blunder was his failure to focus like a laser on the economy in the final weeks of the campaign, despite polls showing it was the number one issue on voters' minds. The lethal character of Kerry's scatter-shot, flailing, themeless campaign close can be clearly seen in the Ohio exit polls. In the Buckeye State, 62% of the voters said the economy was "not good" -- BUT asked who they'd trust with the economy, they were evenly split between Bush and Kerry, 48-48%. The national number on that question actually favored Bush, who got 48% on the economy to Kerry's 46%."- Doug Ireland
Precisely. The Democrats are supposedly America's populist party, known for their sweeping reforms for the little guy. They are the party of minorities - be they racial, gender, sexual, religious, or anything else. Getting the support of the middle and lower class has always been a given for the Democrats and getting minority support was like Super Sizing at McDonald's; it was just something that you always did.
Well, McDonald's ain't supersizing and the Dems are losing their hold over minority voters.
The Conservative Rebellion has been able to take more and more of the "class victimization" rallying cry away from the Democrats. They have found a brilliant way to bring in lower class voters without alienating their big business base - and it's us. The new class war is one in which the working and middle class [especially in the South and Midwest] is held down by the haughty, egomaniacal 'Liberal Elite.' And since the Dems have abandoned the field to try and chase down the "Professional" vote, the GOP scooped it up effortlessly, with just a few token nods to their decorative Christian values.
In addition to their utter inability in focus on the economy (or anything in specific) in the last few weeks of the campaign, they allowed the issue of gay rights to take away their minority voting bloc.
Tricksy hobitses… I have to take a moment and acknowledge the sheer calculating brilliance with which the Republican party won this election. I may despise everything they stand for, but I can appreciate their methods. The GOP used wedge issues to polarize the electorate. In laymen's terms, this means they used issues people are passionate about to drive people to their candidate. A New York Times poll from August last year confirmed the backlash Gallup found, especially among blacks and Latinos, with strong majorities opposing gay marriage - 65 to 28 for blacks, 54 to 40 for Latinos. Out of numbers like these came the Bush-Rove anti-gay strategy.
And this strategy worked like roofies at a frathouse. The Republicans let passionate liberals fight to get gay rights ballot initiatives in place in 11 states; Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah. And what were the swing states, kids? Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Arkansas, Oregon, Florida, Arizona, and Washington.
Let's see... in 2000, Arkansas went to Gore by 5%, but analysis suggests it was more because Gore didn't pursue it than any solid inclination towards Bush. Oregon, which has gone democratic 5 elections in a row now, was a win of less than a percentage point for Gore in 2000. Michigan, with its failing manufacturing economy, was another 5% Gore win in 2000.
And then there is Ohio, the Florida of '04.
"Nowhere did the strategy work better than in Ohio, where the southern tier of counties is the cultural equivalent of a Deep South state, steeped in religiously inculcated homo-hate. Ohio is also a state where traditionally Democratic working-class Catholic voters — whom Kerry failed to bind to him with an economic program that could arouse their passions — were peeled off in sufficient numbers to reduce Kerry’s margins in the larger cities. And the sweeping anti-gay referendum in Ohio — which outlaws civil unions or any lesser legal recognition of same-sex couples, as well as gay marriage — passed by 2 to 1." - Doug Ireland.
There have been hundreds of articles recently devoted to the astounding phenomenon of "moral values," which 21% of voters said determined their vote - more than either Iraq or the economy. And it's a subject that bears examining, because "moral values" is buzz-speak for "socially acceptable justification of personal bigotry." Simply put, people went out and voted because they didn't like faggots. It allowed Bush to win, as well as the Republicans to pick up more seats in Congress and more governorships across the nation. It whipped the religious right into a frenzy and got them out to vote in droves. Combined with the losses in minority and working class communities over this issue, it cost us the nation.
But this term "moral values" shows you how in line and in step the Right is. They are like Nazi shook troops or British Red Coats, lined up perfectly in rows, marching to the beat of the Drums of War. Ok, that may be a little flowery, but you get what I am saying. The point is, they are organized and locked in as a unit. Liberals are not. And this feeds into my next argument, about "the Lesser of Two Evils."
John Powers of the LA Weekly said it best.
"In a polarized country fraught with fear, the electorate will ultimately vote for something rather than nothing. Like him or not, President Bush is Something."
I've already argued my point of view on the "Lesser of Two Evils" ideology, so let me just gloss it over by saying we have lost two elections in a row by sticking to this strategy. And now that I've gone out and proven there was no third party impact at all this year (shame on us, third party supporters), we all need to accept that this "Anybody but Bush" strategy is not only idiotic but it's completely unworkable.
If the Democrats are going to win they need a new Democratic luminary, a Kennedy or a Clinton. People are suggesting Hillary or Obama and I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, we just took about 15 steps back from social equity. Do you really think the nation is ready for a woman or a minority President?
Well… maybe. If the Democrats were to be that balls out and say "Fuck you and your inability to accept social change. Let's go in '08! Bigotry vs. Tolerance. What side are you on?" they may actually pull it off. It's kind of like the "Terrorists vs. Patriots" ideology of this campaign. You're not voting for Hillary? What are you, some kind of a bigot?
But at the same time, we're going to been in the middle of a World and/or Civil War [ha, like us lazy Americans will get off our couches to start one] in 2008, never mind a fiscal disaster. People are still bigoted enough to believe a woman can't handle war and a black person cannot handle money.
When we need is a Southern Governor with a Midwestern General (or vice versa) to win it, but that would be compromising our morals to run who we think would win Middle America and we CANNOT DO THIS AGAIN!
Let's go back to crazy Howard Dean, a populist candidate if there ever was one (well, from the modern Democratic party, anyway.) He may have actually made it. He may have just been crazy and charismatic enough to beat Dubya. Whether or not this is true, the Democratic party made a conscious decision to go to bat for the guy they thought would be the most palatable to the Middle America Swing Vote. Kerry was about as Presidential as you could get; an eloquent speaker, a war-hero, and a long time senator. When the conservative propaganda machine got done with him he was a blustering, cowardly, flip-flopper. And he was French.
In the words of my big brother, "Let that be the lesson: don't do that! Next time, elect the best candidate, not just the least offensive one."
Robert Reich, one of my darling Clintonistas, made a good point. "Bush refers to good and evil as moral absolutes while Kerry discusses a 'right way' and a 'wrong way' to accomplish tasks." Most people aren't political junkies like me (and probably you, if you've read this far). They start to drift when you get away from the HEADLINE ARGUMENT, as it were. But everyone wants to be right, morally or otherwise. Bush never got deep. He just got right.
Taking more from my brother, the Democrats must become the party of "Popular Morals" just as the Republicans have become the party of "Religious Morals."
"Kerry chose to go for the head, to talk to people and reason with them. Which is all well and good, and shows a great respect for the electorate, but was clearly not the right answer. I think that Liberals need to accept that it's okay for people to want to be moral, and that people who might follow a different moral compass on some social issues can follow the same one on the direction of the country." - Quinn
Also, we need to stop attacking Bush for being an idiotic pig fucker who can't eat a pretzel without a trip to the ER (even if it is damn funny.) And here is why:
"And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. ''You think he's an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't. ''No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!'' In this instance, the final ''you,'' of course, meant the entire reality-based community." - New York Times
That's right, kids. Every time we pick on Captain Moron for his profound lack of intellect, we make the idiots that worship him even more fanatical. Sad, but true. We have to combat the marketing genius of the GOP on their home turf. Let the blogosphere and pop culture hammer the Prez. Liberal media and Liberal candidates, keep clear. And if you think about it, all of his slip ups started in the midst of the 2000 campaign, when they went for the Good Ole Boy vote. Before that, he spoke just like Yale graduate. Something for you conspiracy theorists out there…
Then there is, of course, Iraq. And Kerry failed here too.
"History will record that John Kerry lost the election on the day he voted the Constitution-shredding blank check for Bush's war on Iraq. He was hobbled throughout the campaign by this vote, which shackled him to a me-too posture that included endlessly repeated pledges to "stay the course" in Iraq and "win" the occupation. Kerry could not, therefore, develop and present a full-blown critique of Bush on Iraq, nor offer a genuine alternative to him on it. The non-existent Kerry "plan" (based on the hubris that he could con foreign allies into sending their troops to bleed and die for the U.S. crimes at Abu Ghraib) wasn't bought by the voters. Bush won by making the link between Iraq and the war on terrorism -- the Big Lie which Kerry could not effectively counter, because he'd bought into it at the beginning. And it was on that endlessly hammered lie that Bush won the country on the Iraq issue -- the exit polls Tuesday night showed that voters thought the Iraq war was part of the war on terror by 52-44%." - Doug Ireland
Now, to toss some more blame around. WHY OH WHY was Edwards the Democratic Veep on the ticket? I don't get it! Some of you may have missed all my ranting about the Nermal of VP candidates and I can't find the link to my ranting, but I'll sum it up. Edwards was a first term senator, with absolutely no legacy behind him. The GOP was able to capitalize on the trial lawyer angle while the Dems could not get the Southern Boy too deliver North Carolina, nor a SINGLE southern swing state.
Note for '08: No More Nermal.
And then there is Osama. With his perfectly crafted October Surprise, he tried to influence the election… and probably succeeded. Was he pulling for Bush or Kerry? I say Bush. If you were the head of a worldwide terrorist organization would you want to lose your number one recruiting tool around the world? It shocked everyone when he turned up, looking like he'd spent the past three years at Club Med. I really, really thought we had him.
Scary that we don't, frankly.
Now, let me take a moment to acknowledge the sheer Machiavellian grace and scope of Karl Rove's 'perpetual campaign.' We must not sink to his level, but we must learn that getting into gear 1 year before the election is too late. Our campaign to win our country back started November 3rd, 2004. Let that not be forgotten.
This win is going to be a windfall for anti-Bushies (who publish a Bush bashing book at something like 1 every 4.3 seconds) and a huuuuuuuge problem for FOX News. Sure, their boy won… but now he's going to have to face the mess he's made and it's not going to be easy, republican congress or not. (Once again may I point out that both Nixon and Regan had a hell of a time getting their second term agenda through with even more of a mandate than Dubya's imaginary one.) Let's all hope and pray for a civil war within the Republican party and impeachment by this time next year!
Of course, our beloved President Clinton already did the same thing to the Democrats starting in 1992. Be it the groundwork for the current anti-gay movement (the Defense of Marriage Act), the republican sponsored rollbacks of welfare, or the Free Trade Nightmare of NAFTA, Clinton decimated party unity. So, when you're all out praying for another 16 years of Slick Willy, go back and look at what he really did.
I'm not even going to address the whole "Kerry Really Won" nonsense that is floating around beyond this: Is it true? Probably. Does it matter? Not in the slightest. That ship has sailed, kids. The fight is that way, let us march to it with heads, swords, and spirits high.
And if the Democrats can't get their shit together in '08 DON'T VOTE FOR THEM. I've stood by my "vote for who is the best person, not who you think will win" platform for 2 elections now and I'm urging you to consider doing the same. No more Anybody But Bush, because it isn't working.
"Once the whining over Ohio dies out, what will laughably be called the war for the "soul" of the once-again-defeated Democratic Party will commence — a struggle so drearily predictable that the whole exercise can be easily scripted in advance. On the one side, the corporate shills of the Democratic Leadership Council, who will argue that the outcome demands a repositioning of the party to the right. On the other, the "progressives," who will re-float their own formula that success resides in simply moving the Democrats leftward (as evidenced by what? The 2 percent primary draw of Dennis Kucinich). Both notions are simplistic and insufficient. The Democrats have not won the sort of absolute national majority pocketed by Bush in more than a quarter of a century. The party doesn't need to be reformed or repositioned. It needs to be rethought and reborn." - Marc Cooper
This is the hope and the rationale behind the third party candidates. They aren't running to ensure Bush will get re-elected. They are running to expand the field of choice and that is always, always a good thing.
The Democrats have spent several years now trying to be Republican Lite. You can't out-hawk the Hawks, boys. If you don't present a clear alternative instead of a "not quite as bad as the loopy fundies in the corner" bid, we'll vote for someone else. The fact that anyone voted 3rd party when the "fate of the free world" was at stake proves this.
If the Democrats hope to win, they must find a way to short-circuit the overwhelming support the Right has in the very people who traditionally vote democrat. They MUST combat the Republican's 'cultural populism' and exploitation of wedge issues - sorry, 'moral values'- with genuine economic populism that will once again win back the lower and middle class. They must provide a clear alternative to the Republican party by exploiting the diversity and egalitarianism of the Democratic party. And they must make it clear the irony of the situation; those of us who are well off living in urban areas of the Coasts will profit from Bush. Those living in poor, rural areas in the middle of the country will suffer. They must not continue their disastrous shift to the Right.
Otherwise, they are going to be just as surprised in '08 when the Masses in the Middle, now poorer and angrier than ever, choose to vote for The Greater Evil once more.
My favorite quote that I have read so far comes once again from my Big Brother and I will close with it.
In the coming months, there is going to be a lot of talk about how the Democratic party can pick up from this. Don't listen to the nay-sayers that tell you that it won't, that this is the death knell of the Democratic party. These are the same people who called Pennsylvania for Bush. Your party will rise up again. In order to do so, however, it will need to change its approach, become less like Republican Party Lite, find its own "moral compass" and preach that message loudly. That's the only way that it will ever win those states that we on the coasts may not think much of, but without which no national election can be won. An appeal to the sense of moral rightness, and to the faith in America to make the right choices, can be made with reason backing it. The fact that Bush has made such an appeal successfully, twice, without any reason or fact to back him up should be evidence enough that, with the proper facts behind it, a well crafted message that appeals to the sense of what is right in everyone (or 52% of everyone) will succeed.
It seems as though such an appeal has to succeed, now that the attempt at dry rhetoric and inoffensive "at least he's not Bush"ness has failed. Maybe next time we can look for the best candidate, instead of the not-worst.” - Quinn
No comments:
Post a Comment