Joe Drymala over at Not Geniuses:
For those of us involved in elections and campaigns, those of us who bat about strategies and hypotheses and wedges and frames and the like (even in an armchair capacity), it's tempting to look at the 2004 election from a tactical perspective: i.e., we got beat on issues (a), (b) and (c), and we need to work harder at appealing to constituencies (x), (y) and (z). This is appealing because it simplifies the situation, reducing the scope of the next four years to a few small, targeted goals. It's also a fundamental misunderstanding of what we're up against. Addressing our electoral troubles with this approach would be like seeing Genghis Kahn's army on the horizon and suiting up to play a tennis match against it.
[...]
Friends, this is suicide. It's also insanity - doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. This attitude is understandable among the status quo Dems, who have institutionalized jobs to hold onto and outmoded theories to defend; they have a personal stake in not facing the facts. But for everyone else on the left, there's just no excuse for it.
This article is sure to become a blogosphere cult-classic. While the wingers are using 9/11 to say everything has changed it is refreshing to see a Good Democrat like Joe Drymala so convincingly prove the point of why our Party can't be afraid of change.
We will never win by merely altering stances on issues. We will never win by merely coming up with good ideas. We will never win by merely running a charismatic candidate, or debating more effectively than the Republicans. We will never win by making deals with them. We will never win by respecting their point of view (which is rootless and devoid of principle). We will never win with moderation. In short, we will never win by using the tactics that have won for us in the past. Whatever we say into large microphones can be twisted by those with larger ones. Whatever we claim to stand for can be twisted into an endorsement of the enemies of America. Whatever candidate runs will be mercilessly smeared over the airwaves of the most powerful message infrastructure in human history.
Mr. Drymala forces us to realize that we aren't fighting the GOP that our parents fought:
Consider this universal definition of radical conservatism: "Radical conservatism demands racial, ethnic, or cultural unity and the collective rebirth of a nation while seeking to purge demonized enemies that are often scapegoated as subversive and parasitic. Radical conservatism is a form of authoritarian ultra-nationalism that glorifies action, violence, and a militarized culture. Radical conservatism can exist as an ideology, a mass movement, or a form of state government. Radical conservatism attacks both liberal democratic pluralism and left-wing revolutionary movements while proposing a totalitarian version of populist mass politics. Radical conservatism parasitizes other ideologies, juggles many internal tensions and contradictions, and produces chameleon-like adaptations based on the specific historic symbols, icons, slogans, traditions, myths, and heroes of the society it wishes to mobilize."
If this sounds like the modern conservative movement which controls all the levers of power in the United States, it is. Only the above definition was written to define radical conservatism by another name: Fascism.
Drymala expounds on this point for some time and in great depth. He examines how the far-right gained power and provides historical comparisions that will drive a shiver up your spine.
In addition, he debunks the myth that we can just wait for the Bush Administration to implode and gain power by being a moderate alternative:
After the election, I consoled myself with the belief that the Republicans were running the country into the ground, and that a military or financial crisis would finally bring them to their knees and usher in a Democratic president (and maybe even a Democratic Senate). I no longer believe such events would be enough to remove the Republican party from power. Here is why:
No accountability. Scandals require investigations, Congressional hearings, impeachment proceedings, and the like. We cannot hope for these things under the current Justice Department, Senate and Congress.
Financial crisis would inspire fear, which can easily be exploited to benefit the administration. George Bush and the Republican Noise Machine would have little trouble maintaining power for themselves in the event of a financial meltdown. Bush would likely take radical steps to further dismantle our social safety net, repackage it as a recovery plan, and be seen once again as a bold and decisive man of action. It is the same strategy over and over again; it worked in the past and it can work again, no matter what the facts are.
Military crisis, even requiring a draft, will also inspire fear and instinctive ultra-nationalism. Here they would have another opportunity to further clamp down on dissent and brand critics as offering comfort to the enemy.
The public-at-large does not understand that we have a one-party state. This is probably the most difficult obstacle to overcome. I have no empirical data on this, but feel free to take an informal poll of non-political people in your life. Chances are they don't know which party controls Congress. Or which party controls the Senate. Or which party appointed a majority of the Supreme Court Justices. The lack of awareness is very deep, and makes our situation seem far more benign than it is. Particularly confusing is the rhetoric which comes from the Republicans - listening to them speak, it sounds as though liberals hold all the keys and pull all the strings, while conservatives are fighting the evil liberal beast which threatens to engulf us all. For people to blame the Republicans for a national catastrophe on their watch, they must be convinced that the Republicans are indeed the party in power. It sounds insane, but most Americans don't know or understand this.
So everything is different, we're facing off against facists using the same tools we used to debate gentleman and the worse things get the more power our opponents yield. It would be pretty bleak, but keep reading and Mr. Drymala writes what we need to do as a Party.
And he isn't afraid to take on the vested interests. He doesn't hestitate to take on the issue of why our defense of liberty doesn't extend to the Second Amendment.
It is a must-read column, please enjoy it.
Also, I am bestowing the first ever Blogswarm Best Blog Post of the Week Award to Joe Drymala. Joe's prize is knowing that his well researched, well written and inspiring post was appreciated...at least by me. Thank you.