I was having a discussion (or argument, if you prefer) with another kossack about the merits of Democrats taking a stand. This diary isn't about that specific argument, or about that specific kossack. It's something I've been thinking of for a long, long time, and the discussion / argument tipped me over into the icy waters of "Time to Write About This" lake. And for that, I thank him.
But onto the point of the diary. It's going to be an opinion, not a fact; it's going to be written by someone very new to the political scene, not incredibly well-informed about the inner-workings of politics or political strategies; and, most important of all, it's written by someone who never saw the purpose of voting.
I do now, so calm down.
Who is TheBlaz?
Little background about me to give everyone reference. I'm a 25 year old male, living in Chicago, working in a law firm as an entry-level paralegal. Went to decent schools, got decent grades. Wrote on the college newspaper for 5 years, worked in a grocery store, then in an espresso bar, now in a law firm. I have the normal friends, I smoke and drink, go to bars a lot, hang out.
In short, there's little extraordinary about me. I'm a pretty regular guy.
Before I was introduced to politics by someone very close to me, I never cared. I actually used to support Bush. In 2000, I bought into the hype of the media, I swallowed the talking points like a fish snatching a worm-covered hook out of the water. In 2004, I still supported Bush, still believed the talking points and the news.
I thought of myself as a social libertarian with very conservative fiscal views contrasted sharply by very liberal social views. I was fully in support of gay marriage, fully in support of abortion save when used as birth control, and felt that we were spending too much in the military.
I also never voted.
Never once in my life have a voted in a county, state, city, or country-wide election. I never saw a purpose to voting, never thought it mattered. It wasn't so much a mentality of "It's only one vote, it won't make difference;" it was more of a "There's no difference between Democrats and Republicans."
And this brings me to my point, for those of you who made it beyond the above tedious writing without blacking out.
Back then, me thinking there wasn't a difference between Democrats and Republicans; that's an accurate assessment of the average apathetic voter. We get our news from TV in half-hour segments once per day if even that much, we dabble in newspapers, we hit up cnn.com for some quick peeks at how things are going in the world. In short, our political knowledge is shaped by the main stream media, a media we know is incredibly biased against Democrats.
This is what we hear, what we read, what we see. We've heard the Republican talking points about family values, societal morals, tax breaks and smaller government. We've heard the Republican smears of Democrats, painting them to be hardcore PC hippies, all about raising taxes, killing babies, being so open-minded to everything on earth that their brains have fallen out. This is the Democrat the average apathetic voter sees.
It happened through a very solid foundation created by the Republicans and supported for years by the Republicans. They went to great lengths to paint this picture and make it into "common knowledge." Only the most well-informed, only the people who spend hour after hour, day after day digging through the news stories and putting together the puzzle could see the truth. They were definitely not in the majority.
So I never voted. I never thought there was a big difference for me. Obviously, there was a difference in idealogy, but bottom line to me: "Either the Republicans will fuck me over or the Democrats will fuck me over; why spend any time picking which pipe they use for the fucking?"
That's what I thought until I was introduced to blogging about politics.
Where has TheBlaz been?
I started at Political Cortex, writing a few things, nothing major or good, really. Then I came here, and got more involved. I read more, followed more links. I wrote more comments, engaged in more discussions. As my knowledge increased, so did my anger and disappointment: anger at the government, disappointment in myself for being so blind for so long.
I went out to my friends and told them what I'd learned. I went to bars and talked to some people I played pool with.
Some agreed. Most just repeated Republican talking points back at me, as if I was looking at myself before I learned so much. It was not a pleasant mirror-image.
I'll cut off that sort of thing there, because this is getting out-of-control-long and I have what I think is a good point.
The bottom line is that we can't think short term. Lots of people are saying "The end of 2006, the end of 2006." Some are saying "In 2008, in 2008." We need to concentrate on those times, definitely. But focusing SOLELY on those without recognizing the necessity of building a solid Democratic image in the minds of apathetic voters like I used to be would only ensure future losses, not future wins.
What is TheBlaz talking about?
As a party, the Democrats have to realize that the American people are craving more knowledge as the days go by. More and more people every single day become dissatisfied with the main stream media and turn to other sources, such as sattelite radio shows and the internet. People are unhappy with the government, so they're starting to pay more attention, they're starting to think for themselves, they're starting to look for alternatives to the Republican culture of corruption. They are looking towards the Democrats.
Unfortunately, the Democrats aren't showing them what they're looking for.
Some are. Feingold is. Murtha is. Boxer and Pelosi are, as is Slaughter. Kennedy is. Obama and Durbin are. But most are not.
What these newly informed, craving-knowledge people are looking for, is a party that stands in opposition to the Republicans. Obviously, this party is the Democratic party.
But they're not SHOWING it.
Democrats have a fiercely-supportive net-base in dkos and sites like it. But if they rely on the dkos and demo-blog community, they will fail and they will lose time and time again.
I'm not minimalizing the contributions sites like this have given. They're nothing short of spectacular. The members here are highly intelligent and unnaturally informed. But that's the problem I see.
They've forgotten what it's like to be uninformed, uncaring. They can't remember what it felt like to demand an alternative, see an alternative, and then see that alternative not being...well, alternative.
The acceptance of Hayden is a prime example. It was the perfect opportunity for the Democrats to stand up and say "No, not on our watch. We won't stand for this." Laudably, some did. But most didn't. Most just waved Hayden on through, never giving a thought about how that would look to someone who doesn't know what's going on, who's not well-informated about the inner-workings of the political scene.
All that uninformed person saw was Democrats laying down, agreeing with a nomination, accepting it. They would see that the Democrats SUPPORTED a man who INITITATED the illegal domestic spying program. We know this to be slightly-not-the-case. Hayden would have gotten in regardless of how many Democrats voted against it, and if by some miracle he didn't, Bush would have found some other scrub to foist upon us anyway.
That's an excellent point, and a reasonably accurate way to look at things.
It's also not how the voters I'm speaking of see things.
They saw Democrats acting like Republicans. So now, they think "Why vote Democrat? What's the difference?"
Democrats need to SHOW that they're different. A big part of this is fighting every step of the way. Let no nomination go unchallenged, no law unchallenged. Let no Republican seat lack for a Democratic challenger.
This serves two purposes. First, it makes the Republicans fight harder. They'll have to work hard to keep their seats, to keep their legislation going through, to keep their nominations coming in. Every challenge weakens them. Every single one. It brings things to light, it makes them argue for their bills, it allows people to SEE what they're doing. The more apathetic voters like I was see, the more they get angry. The more knowledge of the Republican actions brought to light, the more anger in the general populace.
The second purpose is the more important, I believe. It forces the Democrats to review the image that Republicans have been slinging onto them, and forces them to rework it, to SHOW people that they ARE different, to SHOW people exactly what they stand for. The more challengers out there, the more meetings, the more rallies, the more campaigning. More of all three of those things shows the Republican-induced image Democrats have been painted with is little more than lies. The more people UNDERSTAND what Democrats stand for, the more future votes they get.
The view that "Well, Republicans will get what they want anyway" is hurting the Democratic cause. We need to build an image, lay the foundation for some "common knowledge" of our own. We can't let the Republicans decide what people think of when they hear "Democrat," and the only way to do that is to challenge everything possible.
No more bullshit legislation, no more shady nominees, no more unchallenged seats. We have to fight everything we can. The more noise made, the more arguments put forth publically by politicians, the more campaigns run, the more people can see the TRUE image of Democrats, one that does make us superior to the corrupt Republicans we have in office right now.
Are you finally done?
Yes, I am.
No fight "isn't worth it," and that mentality might bring us short-term gains, might get us a majority here and there, but long-term?
It's a recipe for an overall-Republican-dominated government. For a long, long time.