First in a series that will be as regular as possible.
I feel it best to state my thesis up front: To win, the left must stop blaming the opposite side for tricking America and start looking at itself.
"What do I mean?" you cry, "You cannot be serious. We are in the right, we cannot look at ourselves. It's those gay-hating, gun-toting, Bible-loving crazy corporate puppets who have tricked the poor, poor average American into believing that Republicans stand for them. We Democrats, though we altruistically support them, have suffered from their cheap, low trickery!"
Really?
Like many angry progressives, I believed this easy way out at first. But then I went back and took a long hard look at the election.
What did I discover? We got beat, we have to accept it, we can't blame anyone else, and we need to start accepting a lot more to win.
What do I mean? Keep reading and keep an open mind.
I am a young Democrat, and I had great optimism in 2004. I was sure that Bush would get his comeuppance, that Americans were smart enough to vote him out. Even when the polls gave Bush huge bounces, I remained confident. I, like many, was shocked and stunned by the loss at the polls.
Like many angry progressives, I believed the easy way out at first. I could not admit it. I did not fall into conspiracy theories like some denying fools, but I did believe the Republicans won through manipulation and trickery.
This lasted me through the Inaguration and into February, until I started seeing some moderate people, because of events in Lebanon and the election, say, "Hey, Bush was right! His doctrine is working!"
I did not and do not accept that his doctrine is right. But the reaction got me thinking again as to how Bush won the moderate vote. So I went back to the election. What did I find?
I'm sorry to say it, but we got trashed, absoulutely trashed. Florida and Ohio: not close by nowaday's standards. Bush won by 3%, a substantial margin in a country this large.
So how did I react? I think it best to give the typical liberal reaction first:
"WHAT?! WE LOST! THOSE STUPID REDNECKS! How can they vote for a person that doesn't help them, that runs America into the ground? It must have been Limbaugh,the talk radio, the conservative media (because the media is conservative now, look at the way they handled Iraq), Karl Rove, cheap gerrymandering, broken voting machines, disenfranchisement! Anyone who got just the facts would vote liberal! They were tricked! We have to change the media, change the words that are used, start quoting the Bible to make us look like we have moral values. It's all about combating the trickery!"
I am not using the stereotype of latte-sipping, tree-hugging, elitist liberals. Those words come from a woman who not only has more money than most liberals, but also grew up in a super-preppy town and, most importantly, has only made it because, like most famous female conservative radio hosts, she is blonde and thin and not ugly.
I digress into ranting. The point is that I have seen different reactions from different parts of the Democratic Party that have two common themes that I find questionable:
- It's not "fill-in-the-blank" group's fault, where "fill-in-the-blank" just happens to be the group saying it. Consultants blame activists, activists blame consultants, Hollywood blames the DLC, the candidate blames the consultant, the PACs blame the candidate, and so on and so forth. EVERYONE PROTECTS THEIR TURF. Now, I personally believe that consultants have to be much better (if you went 0-7 in business deals, would you be hired, as Bob Shrum was?) and that Hollywood has to go, because they drain more votes than their money can buy. But I think that is a secondary step and one that would take a whole other article to explain and defend.
- More importantly, have you heard anyone blame the party MESSAGE? Right now, we hear consultants saying, "It's all about what kind of words you use! Put in strong government for big government. Change family values to mean supporting education. Change the words and you win!"
Others say, "Look at the media, they're all scared of saying anything that helps Democrats! And look at Fox News and talk radio! We have to fight that, that's how we win!"
Others still say, "We have to take off the padding and fight dirty, fight low! First Lee Atwater, now Karl Rove, we have to start playing like they do!"
Others lastly say, "The government is both corrupt and fascist! We have to reform it and take it back for the people! We liberals are the defenders of truth and we must fight to save our coutry from darkness!"
Um, has anyone asked, "Hey, do the party stances work?"
Let's look at our Democratic party tent and our Republican party tent. Who spoke at the convention is a nice indicator. At the Republican convention, there were the die-hard conservatives, yes, like Bush and Cheney and others. On the first two nights, there were moderates, particularly people such as Schwarzenegger and Giuliani who were celebrities, but also living examples of popular Republicans who broke with the party on significant social issues. At the Democratic convention, there was consistency...consistency in the rigidity of party message. If you take the Democrats by their allowable speakers, you have to be in lockstep iwth the party on every issue, particularly ones like abortion, gun control, and so forth (yes, yes, I know Harry Reid is Senate Majority leader, but that was after the election...after his predecessor lost. Hmmmm.)
How about the Democratic party takes its sermons on accomadating everyone seriously. I thought Democrats were for free speech. Apparently, they are for free speech, except when it involves speaking for them. Then, yo have to say the party line. I will admit here that I am a pro-life liberal (ugh, horror of horrors!, some pro-choice people are thinking right now) and so have a slight chip on my shoulder. But I believe that responding to the views of people like myself, or at least showing some possible consideration can win elections.
Why do you think people buy the stereotype that liberals are elitist? Because the Democratic Party has such a small tent of views right now that many people feel they do not belong to it. Only now are some pro-life and pro-gun Democrats making to the fore. But many progressives are still bemoaning the failure as a failure of people outside the Democratic Party. Maybe it is time to look at the party. If conservatives are truly stupid, then how can they be so shrewd? Before we blow off the loss as a problem outside the party, let's test out a wider tent, a more acommadating view, an acceptance of some different views. That's the freedom of speech and ideas that Democrats support. Why not present a compassionate, concerned, thoughful face to America that says, "Yes, we are interested in your input, in your thoughts?" If we do not, we might be out in the wilderness a lot longer.
As a final note, I will be thoroughly surprised yet heartened if you recommend this diary. Whether or not you do, I thank you for at least reading it. Keep up the fight, we will win.