I think there are a couple clearly identifiable trends among republicans right now. There are some who are revealing the extent to which they've succumbed to political propaganda: the darkest corners of their personalities are poking through as the McCain campaign becomes more and more desperate. And there are others who, either out of some pragmatic sentiment or perhaps out of a genuine change of heart, are giving Obama a second look and asking whether he's the way to go after all.
I've been thinking about this second group, and I've become concerned by some of the rhetoric I've been reading here.
The other day, Kos wrote:
The day after the election, I want to see an electoral battlefield littered with defeated Republicans, their ranks demoralized, their treasury in heavy debt, and no real leadership to take the helm. I want a vacuum so complete, that a bloody leadership battle between the neocons, theocons, and corporate cons shakes the GOP to its core, and leaves it fractured and ill-equipped to stymie the progressive agenda, much less ramp up for an even bleaker (for them) 2010.
While I know that I don't have any substantive disagreements with Kos, I have to admit that this language concerns me, and that it's only a fine line between this and that first kind of republicans. They want to see us bloody on the battlefield, too, I'm sure.
Back in 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected, I remember the elation I had. We already had congress, and the small matter of turning everything around, reversing bullshit trickle down Reaganomics and making good on the promise of the sixties all seemed like it was right around the corner.
Yet it didn't happen. It turns out that even when you have the presidency, the senate, and the house, you still need to figure out how to govern -- particularly when you want to enact deep change. In other words, even after we've won the election, we're going to need republican support. It would be a good idea to not alienate them in the same way those frantic republicans are frightening us now.
Kos is not simply ranting. His point is that we can't slow down as we approach the finish line -- and his post was a call to action, money and time. And we should answer that call. Yet at the same time, we should switch our rhetorical stance a bit. The election IS won. Our enthusiasm is not going away. I'm donating again as soon as I finish this post. So we don't need, I would say, dramatic rhetoric to generate momentum -- dramatic rhetoric that might backfire.
If it was just the one post, it might not be a big deal. But in a recommended diary this morning from Kula2316, we have this paragraph:
I'm so proud to be associated with a candidate who inspires hope, respect and tolerance rather than hatred and fear. So are you convinced of an Obama landslide yet? No one is getting complacent (at least I'm not), but I agree with Kos on this one - this is the time to completely destroy the GOP.
Are we deaf to this inconsistency? How can we talk tolerance in one sentence, and destruction in the next? If we are deaf to this, that concerns me -- and maybe it concerns others who are perhaps hopping on our bandwagon. I don't think we need an angry sentiment to carry us across the finish line -- and now, more than ever, we have the opportunity to bring republicans on board, to inspire them to consider an alternate philosophy. We do not need to talk about battlefields, or destruction, or last nails in coffins, to achieve that.
If Obama can begin planning his transition before he wins the election, then perhaps it would be wise for us to consider a similar transition in the language we use to complete this process of changing the country.