I'm beginning to notice certain signs of panic setting in among fellow Dems and Progressives on this site. This panic is taking many forms- finger-pointing ("Moderates are to blame!" "No, you progs are!"), planned exile to Canada, suicidal urges, depression, eating chocolate, etc.
We must not give into wholesale panic. There are things we can do to avoid defeat again.
Now, none of this is new. I can only imagine how Republicans felt after the 1932 elections (the thought of this brings an evil smile to my face), and my own background, as a former U.S. Marine and as an armchair historian, has given me lots of experience in recognizing the signs of an army on the verge of a rout.
"Vinegar" Joe Stillwell, the US Army general who had to retreat from Burma, simply said, "We got a hell of a beating. We got run out of Burma and it is humiliating as hell. I think we ought to find out what caused it, go back, and retake it." Exchange "the government" for "Burma" and you have exactly how I feel. As the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy said: "Don't Panic!"
With that, some ideas on failure...
I never actually intended to write this. I'm hardly an expert in the field of economics or politics, so I tend to simply harangue my friends with my opinions. (Although I've gotten a degree in Poli Sci, I've never had the chance to actually use it.)There are many ways to fail, but also many ways to succeed. I hope to over the next few diaries to propose how to do both. I'm not a very good writer, so please excuse any grammatical, logical or syntax errors which pollute my script.
Also, for those of you who are militantly pacifistic (not as much of an oxymoron as I first thought) or not experienced in the frank discussion of warfare, please note that I am not advocating armed struggle against the corrupt hacks that run the government. I'm simply trying to make a few parallels between military campaigns and political ones. I know the analogies can only be stretched so far.
...
It's entirely possible to win a string of victories and still fail in the end. Democrats can be notably short-sighted in this regard. For example, the Supreme Court desision to support Roe v. Wade was a victory, but the pro-life Repubs could then complain that because it wasn't a law, they had self-described moral compass to get their candidates elected to block pro-choice bills ever becoming law. Ever since 1972, Roe v. Wade has become a lightning rod of pro-life support, and has been continually eroded in many legislatures, executive fiats, and court decisions. Democrats, sure of RvW's security, failed to follow it up with solid laws while they controlled both houses and the presidency. The victory then became hollow.
Speaking on military terms, there are three main causes of defeat: Failure to adapt, failure to learn, and failure to anticipate. Each of these has several subsidiary parts. Any one of them can cause a setback. More than one can also be responsible, and this can magnify the defeat.
Some of you may say, what about being overwhelmed by numbers? If you are talking about voters, then yes, we were beaten, if only this once. But there were no doubt plenty of opportunities to convert voters to our cause, and for the above reasons we did not. Voters, at any rate, are not the problem, but the objective we seek. Blaming them for our defeat is like blaming a row of buildings for a military one.
Money is also a problem, but a manageable one. Dems have been short on cash since the 1930's, at least. They made do, and still trounced the GOP on occasion. Many movements and armies have been outspent by opponents with many more resources, but still emerged victorious.
I strongly believe that the Democratic Party was defeated in detail in 2004. It failed to adapt, anticipate, and learn. It paid for its failures with the loss of Senate and House seats, and the continued absence of Executive authority.
More later.