~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Saturday, November 6, 2004
Self-Congratulation as a Basis of Election Strategy
There's a reason why Democrats and the progressives who rally under that banner at election time lose elections. It isn't because, as they want to reassure themselves and others, that a majority of the country is just too uneducated to understand politics and reality. The truth is that those who like to describe themselves, as "members of the reality-based community" are detached from it. That form of self-congratulation is simply a(nother) display of it.
Throughout the election and in its aftermath they hurled a variety of epithets at the Bush team, Republicans in general, and their supporters. But one word often entered my mind every time they did that: Projection. They seem completely oblivious to the venom that has become the foundation of their reality. The way they talk to each other about the rest of us who do not share their views is not hidden anymore - if it ever was. There are several recent examples of the attitude that those who do not agree with them, those who hold different views, simply aren't decent enough, good enough, enlightened enough to support them (another example of this attitude). That the reason they did not win the election is because too many people are benighted, selfish, uncaring, and uneducated. But these are just recent examples of an endemic phenomenon. Sad American put it best, explaining how they lost a vote they could have had:
I don't think you really want my vote. I actively sought out your perspective. I tuned in regularly, for months, to your biggest media project, your serious effort to get your message out: Air America Radio. I listened all day on Good Friday as host after host mocked people like me for believing in Jesus's life, death, and resurrection. I listened as Janeane Garofalo, who was one of my favorite comedians for years, expressed hatred and disgust for Bush voters so vile that I ended my live stream feeling assaulted, as if I'd been vomited on. I listened the night that Mike Malloy told a young Republican to hang up the phone and go open a vein. I listened to pure, unadulterated venom that was so intense I sometimes cut the stream and cried. Tonight, your spokespeople on AAR have been calling people like me "snake-handling evangelicals," and that was about the kindest thing I heard.
The fact is they don't think they should have to earn your vote. Their attitude is closer to the One-Party State mentality than that of Bush & Rove - disagreement from them, dissent that is expressed in the form of a differing world view, is rendered illegitimate. Yes, they will tolerate marginal dissent, dissent from the Left. But only within certain boundaries. See how they ostracized those voices among their own movement, from the old Scoop Jackson Democrats through Casey Democrats to the Zell Miller & 9/11 Democrats. Values mattered to those Democrats, but not in the form of bigotry. But they didn't leave Liberalism - Liberalism left them. Thus they became Reagan Democrats and now, if often reluctantly, Bush voters.
The main problem among the modern progressive community is that for all they congratulate themselves as being the open-minded tolerant respecters of diversity, they aren't. Perhaps they invoke such terminology so often in word for the precise reason that it is not displayed in deed. You don't have to talk so much about something like that when you're actually doing it. Actions speak for themselves. Democrats are now telling themselves that they need better packaging, as if more effective propaganda to gull the rubes is the solution. That's what passes for soul-searching and re-evaluation based on empirical evidence among the "reality-based community". And that is why they fail.
Of course, it should be said that the Right has its share of people who behave in the same way. This is often the retort of by people confronted by the above argument. It's true, but misses the point. It's just another way of avoiding confronting the problem. Because though conservatives have such people, a difference in degree can be significant enough to be a difference in kind, and apparently the electorate is not as turned off by it, because it isn't as prevalent. It's endemic among the Left, but has been marginalized (I believe - and election results back me up) on the Right. Whatever the case, even if it's true that both sides are equally guilty, the attitude that those who do not agree with their views are unworthy and their opinions are illegitimate is hurting "progressives" more. That's a simple fact the "reality based community" must confront. If they solve this problem but the Right's share of people with that attitude towards others continue, then the Left have an advantage where right now they are clearly disadvantaged.
To the better angels among the Left/Liberals, two pieces of advice for next time:
It's not about packaging, it's about persuasion. Packaging is just a means of transmitting a message. An attitude that you just need to package it better is different from one based on being more persuasive, convincing people with arguments rather than just propaganda.
Replace, displace, or otherwise marginalize what has become the voice of your movement - the Democratic Underground types, the Kos types, the Michael Moore types, the MoveOn types, the "Air America" types. Listen more to the Pat Cadells of your Party and less to the once-and-future (I hope) fringe types who have become your mainstream, the public face of the progressive/Left community.
Free advice is worth what you pay for it, and coming from someone on "the other side" you might suspect it, but it is sincerely meant - because I do believe in a two-party, not a one-party, system, and want a functioning alternative to the Republicans.
Well, after further review, there won't even be the recounting. Kerry's concession was particularly graceful, in particular the line that elections should be decided by the voter, not a protracted legal process.
Edwards' speech, on the other hand, was a boorish expression of the Endless Campaign, and helps highlight the fact that just because you're a Democrat from the South, that doesn't mean you're a temperate moderate - something South Carolinians discovered after electing him, which was one reason why he had less than full enthusiasm for trying to keep his Senate seat and was more than ready to move on. Hillary Clinton is more moderate by comparison.
If they were taking my advice, and more importantly if this were the time to give it, I would recommend that the Democrats nominate Evan Bayh in '08, or at least put him on the ticket with Hillary!!! - he's a real moderate, and could give them a better shot at Ohio and they might even have a shot at his home state of Indiana.
Anyhow, as I go forward with this site, I'm going to renew my focus on the war and the international situation. Of course, not to the exclusion of domestic events.
Congradulations to the Bush-Cheney team, I hope they'll govern well and learn from the past - no one is perfect and even supporters of Bush and the Republicans should and do know that there is always room for improvement. Lets trim the sails on domestic spending while we work on market-oriented reform of government programs and the tax code, and insure it works for Americans, not just for "our side".
Well, I was hoping Bush would win my old home State, Wisconsin, where I grew up and still think of as where I come from (when people ask where I'm from, I don't say Colorado). Alas, it looks unlikely.
You can't have everything.
Oh, I didn't blog last night because I had people over to watch the returns, and it'd have been rude to them.
Players who played for Vince Lombardi, when they talk about players who showboat in the end zone, talk about acting like you've been there before - and will be back again.
The message there is to behave with some dignity. Don't gloat, don't showboat, don't rub it in. I know that it'll be tempting when you're confronted by people who you know would be in-your-face if the shoe was on the other foot, and indeed who might say, write, or do things that provoke tempt you to come back with an in-your-face retort of your own, one that may seem smug.
But lets try to avoid that. This doesn't mean be silent. Being humble doesn't mean being reticent. But there are good ways of conducting oneself. Rebut them on the merits, without attitude or rancor. We need to try and find a way to step back from the poisonous partisanship of recent years - not from partisanship itself, but from the hysterical and venomous sort.
Which brings up another thing. Don't let people convince anyone that partisanship by its nature is bad. That is usually a passive-agressive way for them to impose their way and compell you to not disagree, to rule out of bounds legitimate disagreement on the merits. Or to say that, even though you have a majority, if you push your agenda rather than adopting theirs, you're being "partisan" (wrong) rather than "bipartisan" and "unifying" and "consensus-building" (good). Winning means you are able to move policy in your direction. It is fair to point out that if Kerry won, that's what he would work to do. Policy agendas differed, one agenda won and the other did not. Just because one wins with dignity and does not gloat, it doesn't mean victory doesn't matter. Just ask those old Lombardi Packers.
Oh, and the recounts. . .and the petulant ranting about how "we waz jobbed". But it looks like Bush has won and I am wrong - not that I mind being wrong in this case. The election seems to be just outside the margin of theft in Ohio for President and South Dakota for Senate.
Still, I was right (see my comments here and my post here) that it would come down to Ohio, and that Kerry had a better chance of winning that than he did in Florida.
More later if I get time to post, but now I'm off to PT.
