Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Not everyone thinks America has chosen wisely. Here is one such point of view:

"One British paper asked how could 53M Americans be so DUMB? Here's how.

Written by a woman in Cleveland the morning after the election--

It would be difficult to fully communicate my disappointment in a simple email. On the other hand, slipping out into the hall and drowning myself in the mop bucket would mean that someone else would have to feed my dog.

Kerry has not yet conceded defeat, but I have. Even if someone finds that crate full of votes for Kerry bobbing down the Cuyahoga River, the American people have spoken, and they have sent the world a message:

"We're barely bright enough to chew our own food."

Incompetence, incoherence, inarticulateness, pettiness and random savagery apparently do not deter the majority of Americans. The thing that really, REALLY matters to Americans? Homos. And foreigners. Both must be stopped at any cost.

Americans voted overwhelmingly in favor of bigotry, amending state constitutions around the country to prevent same-sex couples from having any rights beyond the right to live on the margins of society. We clearly have far more to fear from The International Homosexual Conspiracy(tm) than we do from North Korea and the collapse of the American health care system.

Apparently, we are truly a nation of slackjawed yokels, awed only by grotesque displays of wealth and violence, reverent only of the bossman and beholden not even to our children, since we seem content to mortgage their future in favor of a $300 tax refund that we have traded for decent jobs, healthcare, an d a just society.

We make pious noises about worshipping a Just and Merciful God, while doling out destruction and horror upon the innocent, pausing only to pat ourselves on the back for waging a "just" war to rid the world of tyrants that audaciously aspire to exist after they lose their utility to us in endless low-level conflicts to control the world's oil supply.

We seem to have become cheap, venal, vulgar and petty while we apparently don't have the ability to reason our way out of the dilemma of taking care of the sick, watching out for the elderly, and teaching our children not to be credulous, callow dupes.

To my friends from the UK, France and anyone to whom they choose to forward this, I feel that I owe you an apology. It is as if I have brought an orangutan to high tea. While he flings **** at you and tries to snatch pastries from your plate, I am left wondering how I might make it up to you.

The world's richest and most powerful nation seems to have lost its moral compass. We have lost interest in leading by example in favor of taking by force. I would like to say that I believe that one day in the future America might regain its senses. Unfortunately, I am not terribly optimistic. The best I can offer you is to remind you that Nixon also won a second term."

Apparently the Uniter still has some work ahead of him.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

Intersting take from 'The Backseat Philosopher'

To My Fellow Democrats

[..]

I am not saying that all these arguments should win. But I do not hear enough Democrats elucidating reasoned counterarguments to these positions. "Bush insulted our allies and the UN," "Bush lied, people died," "We have become the aggressor," "Homophobia," "Religious nut." These are not responses, these are dismissals. When Democrats start actively responding, we will succeed. Until then, we will be increasingly ignored as irrelevent.

I'll join Steppenwolf here. Like him, I disagree with the policy/programme changes the author is hinting at. Yet I do see that these are some of the exact topics that kept a narrow majority from supporting the Democrats. And especially the point about taking these arguments seriously, at least - and "taking them not seriously" not equating with "finding the best forceful counterargument and pushing it" is well taken. We can keep on dismissing everyone who ultimately chose the other side "nuts", religious or otherwise, but not just does that do nothing to win them over, it also prevents us from finding out what motivates their choice and how it can be changed in the first place.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

You're leaning again.

Yes, but I lean upon it lightly.

0 Replies

I wonder if any of the European anti-bush, anti-American crowd or that woman from Cleveland are bright enough to understand that they win no friends by accusing mega millions of people of being dumb?

How about it those of you who voted for Bush. Should you turn in your applications for public assistance due to being mentally challenged? Do you feel your moral compass is out of kilter? Should we engage in flagellation and a year of penance as suggested for the error of our ways?

I rather highly resented a British and Canadian press who presumed to trash the choice of the majority of America.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

...I disagree with the policy/programme changes the author is hinting at. Yet I do see that these are some of the exact topics that kept a narrow majority from supporting the Democrats. And especially the point about taking these arguments seriously, at least - and "taking them not seriously" not equating with "finding the best forceful counterargument and pushing it" is well taken. We can keep on dismissing everyone who ultimately chose the other side "nuts", religious or otherwise, but not just does that do nothing to win them over, it also prevents us from finding out what motivates their choice and how it can be changed in the first place.

Nimh is showing characteristic common sense. Questioning one's assumptions is almost always a wise step following any setback. Rejecting the need for this is almost always a sign of one who will not learn - a reliable precursor to failure.

McTag,

Are the beliefs expressed in the letter of the unhappy woman from Cleveland yours as well? Appears to me that she has a somewhat jaundiced view of the country, and of the possibilitires in life as well. (I might feel bad too if I lived in Cleveland.)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I rather highly resented a British and Canadian press who presumed to trash the choice of the majority of America.

Wasn't it mainly tabloid types or columnists?

Either way, ignore it. Some will always want to reduce complex opposing viewpoints to simple ignorance. It's a simple, ignorant way of dealing with diametric opposition.

0 Replies

Yeah, you're right Craven.

Quote:

The idea of increased immigration by unhappy Americans is triggering some amusement in Canada. Commentator Thane Burnett of the Ottawa Sun newspaper wrote a tongue-in-cheek guide to would-be new citizens on Friday.

"As Canadians, you'll have to learn to embrace and use all the products and culture of Americans, while bad-mouthing their way of life," he said.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=616225

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Fedral wrote:
Intersting take from 'The Backseat Philosopher'

To My Fellow Democrats

[..]

I am not saying that all these arguments should win. But I do not hear enough Democrats elucidating reasoned counterarguments to these positions. "Bush insulted our allies and the UN," "Bush lied, people died," "We have become the aggressor," "Homophobia," "Religious nut." These are not responses, these are dismissals. When Democrats start actively responding, we will succeed. Until then, we will be increasingly ignored as irrelevent.

I'll join Steppenwolf here. Like him, I disagree with the policy/programme changes the author is hinting at. Yet I do see that these are some of the exact topics that kept a narrow majority from supporting the Democrats. And especially the point about taking these arguments seriously, at least - and "taking them not seriously" not equating with "finding the best forceful counterargument and pushing it" is well taken. We can keep on dismissing everyone who ultimately chose the other side "nuts", religious or otherwise, but not just does that do nothing to win them over, it also prevents us from finding out what motivates their choice and how it can be changed in the first place.

nimh

First, a very sad nod to you re van Gogh.

As you may have gathered from my preceding posts, I think the post you allude to has it dead wrong and Krugman has it right. What forceful counter-argument is even available against Norquist, who told the Denver Post,
"We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals - and turn them towards bitter nastiness and partisanship. Bi-partisanship is another name for date rape." Norquist is NOT some peripheral figure, an odd-man-out extremist. He sits at the very center of the new right and this administration, having linked up in college with Ralph Reed and Bill Bennett, having been the key force in removing Republican moderates from power during that period and each period on up, having been Gringrich's right-hand man in the Contract For America, having survived Gringich's fall to go on and become Bush's key figure to bring all the various parts of the modern party into line. He is no moderate and he is not interested - at all - in compromise. Nor are the other figures we might turn to, Reed, Cheney, Kristol, Wolfowitz...none of them. That is what liberals are up against. The liberals mistake has not been over-estimating the radical tint to this group, rather the opposite.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

nimh

First, a very sad nod to you re van Gogh.

As you may have gathered from my preceding posts, I think the post you allude to has it dead wrong and Krugman has it right. What forceful counter-argument is even available against Norquist, who told the Denver Post,
"We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals - and turn them towards bitter nastiness and partisanship. Bi-partisanship is another name for date rape." Norquist is NOT some peripheral figure, an odd-man-out extremist. He sits at the very center of the new right and this administration, having linked up in college with Ralph Reed and Bill Bennett, having been the key force in removing Republican moderates from power during that period and each period on up, having been Gringrich's right-hand man in the Contract For America, having survived Gringich's fall to go on and become Bush's key figure to bring all the various parts of the modern party into line. He is no moderate and he is not interested - at all - in compromise. Nor are the other figures we might turn to, Reed, Cheney, Kristol, Wolfowitz...none of them. That is what liberals are up against. The liberals mistake has not been over-estimating the radical tint to this group, rather the opposite.

0 Replies

steppenwolf I think you misunderestimate the vehemence and determination of a few key players in the Bush administration.

0 Replies

Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me! But this thread has been hijacked. You people who are here for any purpose other than to help us think about "What went wrong and How Can We Fix It" please stand up and leave. Honest reflection on anyone's part is fine with me, but this incessant, carping in order to disrupt the discussion is maddening.

I'm disgusted with you all.

Let's either get back to the topic, or leave the crashers to their own discussion. They have no conception of respect for the needs and feelings of others.......not even themselves.

A new thread anyone?

0 Replies

On reflection, I beleive I have found one important component of the Democrats' loss. It's that after the convention, the Democrats lost the courage of their conviction and voted for a candidate whose track record was inconsistent with their message.

If the Democrats really believed in that Iraq was the "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place, wrong reason" -- and personally I am convinced this is true -- the locical candidate would have been Howard Dean, not John Kerry. And if the Democrats really believed that the Bush tax cuts set America on a path to an Argentina-style fiscal meltdown -- again, a belief which I totally share -- it didn't make sense to pick a candidate who pledged to replace a tax cut (for the top 2%) with a spending increase (on broadening health care coverage), a maneuver that would have left America on the road to fiscal meltdown. Again, the logical candidate would have been Howard Dean, who had pledged to repeal the whole tax cut.

Therefore, among the assumptions underlying the Democrats' strategy, the first one I would reexamine as a Democrat would be the one that it's a good idea to sacrifice your convictions on the altar of electability. More likely than not, you won't gain much electability this way, because swing voters aren't stupid enough to be fooled that way. If your own ranks know that John Kerry was really "Mr. Electability" rather than the candidate you truly wanted, swing voters will know it too, and you will loose their respect. But your convictions stay sacrificed, and that must be bitter.

0 Replies

Those are good points, Thomas. Dean seemed a little bit crazy to me, but some of the Democrats' best arguments were lost on a candidate with a flimsy stance and an inconsistent voting record.

0 Replies

The problem with Dean was that he had a lot of good ideas , but was a lousy organizer. The country is not Vermont and while you can do retail electioneering in that small rural state. Running a national campaign as an insurgancey is a certain road to failure. Kerry may have been a less desirable candidate but he knew how to put a national campaign together and won the crucial primaries. Perhaps we should look at how we choose our presidential candidates.

0 Replies

I can't disagree with you more, Thomas. It wasn't the candidate, it was the Dem's failure to recognize that any candidate or conviction must be sold to the people.

We (those of us involved in this discussion) are all busy reading and keeping up with the issues.......but most Americans have to work and they don't have time to take care of themselves (which includes having fun) and spend long hours informing themselves of all the facts. They depend, rightly or wrongly, on the easiest news source they can find. A sentence or two of argument a few days before the election is good enough for them. For those who actually go to the polls........they depend on something easy and fast. This easy and fast is provided by Rupert Murdock.

The Dems will have to come up with something easy and fast. And with a news outlet that can deliver it regularly in large doese. High ideals are good.......but unless they're packaged in a sound marketing strategy....... forget it.

Ideals don't have to be sacrificed for getting elected..... the Republicans haven't sacrificed, they've simply hidden the ultra extremes of their ideals well enough from the average voter.

That's what we should be doing. And we should start immediately. Does anyone know a Democratic Karl Rove or have a television station to offer?

0 Replies

The first thing we have to do is eliminate the Iowa caucusses as the vehicle by which we select our candidate. No more of this pathetic primary system. Starting in March, there should be a weekly series of televised debates amongst the candidates, but not all eight or nine at once. Do a lottery and have no more than three of them appearing at one time. From March to mid June that would give them four to six appearances apiece. There ought to be ONE, count it, one primary election day wherein all the states participate. The most votes nationwide gets the nod. Let's say the second Tuesday in June. Screw off having a convention, but do have a major televised one night event wherein the new crowned Candidate will lay out his positions for the coming campaign.

Then get to work campaigning for those mid-west votes.

Bush took the South by more than five million votes but he barely squeaked by or lost in the other 39 states. This country is not covered in red and if we organize, energize and proclaim our solid ideas we will return this country to it's rightful path.

Joe.

0 Replies

good point Joe

0 Replies

Lola thinks that we can get through if we just keep saying the same things, but louder. That if we just grab a bigger, smarter, meaner megaphone, those people in North Carolina, Florida, North (or is it South) Dakota who didnt just vote for Bush, but voted off their Democratic Senate candidate too, will suddenly like everything we say.

I think thats dangerously naive.

If we look at, say, West-Virginia. This is a state the Dems could and should win. Its been theirs for decades, until recently. Its got an overwhelming majority (I believe) of registered Democrats. There is astounding unemployment, and people are getting by on very little.

But West-Virginians are also fiercely religious. They dont like gay marriage. They dont like abortion. They dont like anything whatsoever that they construe as an attack on religion. Its a coal-mining state - environmental regulations are a turn-off. Everyone's got a gun. They dont care what France thinks.

Now theres two ways forward for the Dems. Either continue along the present path and on the one hand, de-emphasize issues of social justice and the poor/rich divide ever more, by following up on Clinton's welfare reform and disassociating yourself from all those "social programmes" - while presenting yourself ever more staunchly as the representative of "enlightened" America, the America that likes its secularism and tolerance. This will haul you in some libertarians, turned off by the Ashcrofts of this administration, and will get you more of the classic, "North-East", Jeffords Republicans. As a strategy, its not been without its merits. Maine, New Hampshire, Washington, Oregon, all "blue states" now, some solidly so. Didnt use to be. But there's not much more to be gained that way anymore. And its just not enough.

Or one can become the party of the people again. Nothing wrong with a bit of populism. Make clear that the polarisation here is between the party of the tax cuts for the upper 1% and the party of the working man. This can only be done if you revert or neutralise the other polarisation: that between the culturally conservative, religious and rural America and the "enlightened" cities in the North. The cultural polarisation embodied by Kerry, still and despite his best efforts the Boston Brahmin, and by Howard Dean's off-hand condescendent remarks about those Southerners with their Southern flag on their pick up truck - talking about them like an anthropoligist observing some alien people. I doubt that even finding the meanest, smartest, Karl Rovist of megaphones will cloak that polarisation or suddenly make Missourians identify with the Dean/Kerry line and image.

Its a real enough clash of values. Deal with it and find a way to communicate across the divide. My bet is: its better to look for a Woody Guthrie than a Barbara Streisand. And my bet is that communicating across the divide Not Equal

finding a still better-financed, meaner-managed megaphone to yell at them with.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Quote:

Lola thinks that we can get through if we just keep saying the same things, but louder. That if we just grab a bigger, smarter, meaner megaphone, those people in North Carolina, Florida, North (or is it South) Dakota who didnt just vote for Bush, but voted off their Democratic Senate candidate too, will suddenly like everything we say.

I think thats dangerously naive.

No no no no no no no no no no no.......that is not what I said at all. Marketing...........I said. you do know marketing, right?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

I can't disagree with you more, Thomas. It wasn't the candidate, it was the Dem's failure to recognize that any candidate or conviction must be sold to the people.

We (those of us involved in this discussion) are all busy reading and keeping up with the issues.......but most Americans have to work and they don't have time to take care of themselves (which includes having fun) and spend long hours informing themselves of all the facts. They depend, rightly or wrongly, on the easiest news source they can find. A sentence or two of argument a few days before the election is good enough for them. For those who actually go to the polls........they depend on something easy and fast. This easy and fast is provided by Rupert Murdock.

The Dems will have to come up with something easy and fast. And with a news outlet that can deliver it regularly in large doese. High ideals are good.......but unless they're packaged in a sound marketing strategy....... forget it.

Ideals don't have to be sacrificed for getting elected..... the Republicans haven't sacrificed, they've simply hidden the ultra extremes of their ideals well enough from the average voter.

That's what we should be doing. And we should start immediately. Does anyone know a Democratic Karl Rove or have a television station to offer?

I don't see how that contradicts Thomas. To "sell convictions," you need a compelling salesman. Kerry had to tiptoe around his previous statements and votes in order to make a stand on any particular topic. The "convictions" couldn't be conveyed by such a candidate. Now, I voted for Kerry because I saw many of the problems that Thomas also appears to have seen in Bush's administration. However, many of my fellow swing voters could not distill a coherent message from Mr. Kerry's speeches because he was unable to strongly take a stand on any of the issues that formed the basis of his campaign. Like Acquiunk, I doubt that Dean would have been the ideal messenger, but Kerry could neither connect with many of the voters, nor could he firmly make a stand on many of the issues.

0 Replies

Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know