Becoming aware of the reality: After contemplation and reading on DK hundreds of diaries and comments, I recognize my own conflicted views, and can now see why the casual voter did not bother to learn about the issues, or where candidates stand; and why to them, voting is a silly game they can afford to avoid.
Below the line, I offer some paths that are intended to attract people to become re-aligned with the Democratic Party. My view is that the Democrats need to educate the public about the Party’s credo, and to then back up the verbiage with identifiable actions. Otherwise, the Democratic Party has no theme and no reason to exist.
You cannot rebut with nothing: The Republicans criticized everything that they contended Democrats stand for with propaganda that made the Democrats look like space aliens. In reply, the Democrats had no cogent argument since on the one hand, they looked at President Obama's approval ratings and the negative press he was (unfairly) getting, and muffled anything they could have said about his great achievements, On the other hand, as individuals, the Democratic candidates have not been keeping the faith with what the Democratic Party used to (and ostensibly still does) stand for. Democrats cannot rebut an argument that accuses them of doing what they should have done, but did not actually do. This sad state is reversible, and Tuesday's results are the not inevitable in the next mid-term election (assuming the Democrats win the presidency again).
If Democrats had enacted legislation to legitimately reign in banks and other business exploiters of our system, they would have had concrete examples of accomplishments (or at least efforts) to answer to the Republicans’ attacks that Democrats stood for rules that hampered business from creating jobs. If Democratic candidates loudly and unequivocally insisted that the FCC keep the Internet free and flowing, they would have had concrete examples of accomplishments (or at least efforts) to answer Republican arguments that Democrats supported big government that was ineffective. If Democrats aligned themselves against trade treaties by showing their negative impact on American jobs, they would be able to show how they fought for workers. If Democrats took bold action to correct the rules that have created crushing college education debts, the mortgage crisis and the decimation of public schools, they would have rebuttals and concrete examples of accomplishments (or at least efforts)to answer the Republican mantra that Democrats put government on the backs of Americans. But the Democrats who had been elected in previous elections, and therefore had the opportunity to take action, had no achievements in these areas even though some of these problem issues have been threatening the public’s wellbeing for a decade or more. All the Democrats could say is that they supported policies that would address the issues, but could point to no actual efforts to address them.
Deeds, not words have currency: I bled for Democratic candidates, funded them and argued on their behalf. Once they got elected, I excused them and blamed circumstances seemingly out of their control when they failed to get out in front of legislation to help humans, and instead, found affinity with issues pushed by governments and corporations. I have comforted myself in the myth that the Democrats are not as deeply stuffed into the pockets of the anti-people factions of our society such as the NRA, fundamental religions, the defense Industry, multinational and the other big companies – the forces behind the agenda for the legislators of both parties. When I read that candidates I supported did not speak up in debates, by their votes or actions against legislation and policies tilted against the humans who put them in power, I excused them. Unfortunately, the casual voters had no sympathy for empty words not backed up by deeds, and since they did not know the Democratic candidates' previous promises, they looked to just the objective results. Where there was no legislation, there was no reason to support the Democrat. The focusing on results was something that I avoided. I now will be more critical before I support a candidate.
Campaigns must educate the voters: Yes it is true that President Obama’s selection of judges and justices are far superior to the ones selected when Republicans have had the power, but Democratic candidates do not run on that achievement. It is also true that policies effecting labor are better when Democrats pick the NLRB, that when Democrats are in power, the disadvantaged can usually rely on obtaining better health care and life sustaining or enhancing benefits than would be the case if Republicans made the rules, and that taxes are less skewed in favor of the rich when Democrats are elected.
All of these things would be terrific campaign issues, but because unions are weak, poor people do not vote in accordance with their numbers and most people have no clue about what issues were decided in most judicial decisions, the Democratic candidates stay away from touting these benefits that are available only when Democrats are elected. Instead Democrats muffle the good and truly meaningful philosophical differences that separate Democrats and Republicans, and talk about silly issues that are designed to gather votes from specific blocks of voters. Moreover, by offering only a limited menu of side dishes for special interest voters instead of pounding away broad themes in the campaign followed by strong legislation when elected, the Democratic candidates shrink their stature and garble their message.
If Democrats started to talk about the benefits workers have obtained due to the battles of labor unions, perhaps the current generation of voters would not be so damn ignorant about why unions are needed to keep wages in parity with profits. But my candidates take union dollars and support from phone banks, but do nothing to educate the people. That is not the attitude of FDR who convinced Americans of why his labor policies should become law.
If Democrats started to identify specific court rulings that are anti-people and anti-consumer to educate the public of the risks of electing Republicans, they would be standing for something. If they stood up for public education and showed how it has benefitted the country both economically and in our way of life, and if they spoke about how the public education system is on the brink of becoming a thing of the past, they would educate the public about why Democrats should be elected.
If Democrats spoke of the end game when fundamental religions have a voice in legislation that drowns out the rights of the people as a whole, the voters would become educated about where the country will be if they elect Republicans.
The lesser of two evils is not sufficient: I now comprehend that I have been supporting the lesser of two evils, not the good vs. the evil. The Democrats got drubbed because they pay lip service to consumer and people oriented issues, but do not deliver. What they want us to read into their banal messaging is different from what they actually deliver. The casual voters knew that before I did because I studied the candidates’ messages and hoped they were sincere, while the casual voter eschewed the messages and focused on results.
The corruption and backslide of litigants’ rights: I can speak from firsthand knowledge about one area. As a lawyer I have seen the path to winning what should be viewed as a meritorious lawsuit be so circumscribed that only my clients with commercial cases do not face institutional bias against their case’s consumption of time and resources the judges would rather spend on what they think are a better use of their resources.
This corrupt judicial attitude is a reflection of what the judges learn at seminars sponsored by large corporation-funded-institutions, the product of the attitude prevalent at the United States Attorney’s Offices, where the government’s lawyers defend it against suits brought under the civil rights, Bivens cases under the Constitution, and individuals accused of insurance fraud and similar cases that prejudice them against non-corporate plaintiffs. The federal judges by their backgrounds and orientation too hostile to discrimination cases and suits seeking redress for violations of protected rights.
In my career, I have seen the laudable and needed across the board class actions in Tile VII discrimination cases swept out of the system, first by constricted interpretations of the law and then ultimately by the Supreme Court that essentially banned such class actions; and in the securities fraud arena and anti-trust, I have seen the courts become closed to the little investor and small businessman. In challenges to unlawful state action, I have seen barriers and needless grants of immunity spring out of thin air to deprive people of the chance to even get their cases to a jury. And I have watched the Democratic candidates I supported allow this to happen without a peep. Why should they have "peeped”? The avenues for the suits were paved by their Democratic predecessors starting with justices appointed by FDR through LBJ and legislation during the JFK – LBJ (and quizzically, Nixon) administrations. Rather than fight for what was already on the books, my candidates surrendered once elected. The give-them-hell spirit of Truman was replaced by quiet acquiescence in what the institutions and corporations wanted.
Pandering to special voting blocks is suicidal: Alas, when consultants reported that women did not like reproductive health restrictions established and advocated by Republicans, whole campaigns this last cycle were devoted to that one issue-which we now know was not one that motivated voters despite their preferences. The same is true with Latinos. Sure there is a large block of untapped votes available from them. But they obviously were not motivated by immigration issues sufficiently to get out the vote.
A simple lesson: In other words, Democrats can succeed if they start to teach history, but more importantly, if once elected they fight to retain gains that in the past were won for the people by their predecessors. Without both a message and a record of acting on it, they will not win the election cigar, but will only come close.