Constructive gadfly
Published on November 30, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

The donkey is barely cold and already the autopsy reports abound from the Democratic elite — from Kerry’s fault to the need to address cultural issues. Midst the cries of lacking principles and the inability to reach middle America, Democratic critics omit the overriding fear factor and the security perception of an incumbent president — despite his gross inadequacies — in time of war and terrorism. All else was secondary regardless of the exit polls showing that “moral issues” was crucial. Even though it was hoped that the people could muster courage and realize the need for a fresh start in foreign relations, it was but fantasy to believe that the people of middle America could rise above the mold of its authoritarian mind-set to shake off the divinity of commander in chief and the peripheral considerations tied to it such as religious and cultural values.

Some critics bemoan the traces of the “economy stupid” in the campaign as still conjuring the ghost of the New Deal that is totally irrelevant today. They claim that most of the people are “noble” and put their economic interests below what actually defines them as voters of pervasive ideology. With the exception of a depression or a severe recession, economic self-interest is touted as a dirty expression for those below the $50,000 and over bracket while the higher middle class and over continue to vote primarily their grasping, material interests while pretending to be above such crassness by fingering motivating issues such as gay marriage, abortion and guns. For the unwashed it is ignoble to think in terms of bread when at war or in relatively good times, and besides the likes of Wal-Mart eases consumer worries — let them eat cake. The worst scenario of voting against one’s well-being is in the military families, most of whom are on the low end of the economic scale, yet proudly offer up their sons, daughters and spouses to the god of war and in lock-step with the commander in chief, regardless of ultimate sacrifice.

Moreover, prevailing economic worries, retrenched since Reagan, is no longer relevant when there are more voters making above $50,000 than there are those making $15,000 or less. And how can Democrats speak to economic issues, other than two Americas, when 55% of the voting public earns more than $50,000 and care little about those who don’t? In this “me first” era it is hardly worthwhile to plead for an enlightened self- interest to upgrade those in need, particularly when the prevailing perception concerning the needy is that they never had it so good.

Critics are right, however, who suggest that the Democrats come to grips with moral issues in a convincing manner. The abortion issue should be approached as a sad event that ought to be rare, hopefully by educating both sexes on the nuances of birth control, abstinence, personal values and health. Still, the issue should not be put on center stage in light of 33% of pro-choice voters were for Bush, indicative of more important issues. Marriage rights for gays should be abandoned as a party platform and substituted by civil unions and state recognition under anti-discrimination laws. If gays want the sanctity of “marriage” they should on their own organize for the purpose of encouraging religious denominations to accept them, or form their own denomination. Religious values in general should be expressed in terms of protection of God’s good earth, commitment to peace, defense of country and compassion for the nation’s poor, sick, disabled and uneducated.

May the donkey live again.

 

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: November 30, 2004.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments
on Dec 03, 2004
"Democratic critics omit the overriding fear factor and the security perception of an incumbent president — despite his gross inadequacies — in time of war and terrorism."

They also omit the "anti-Kerry" vote. There were a lot of Republicans who wanted to vote Bush out of office but just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Kerry. The "anti" vote was not limited to the Democratic voter.
on Dec 03, 2004
Ding, Ding, Ding....

We have a winner.

Thanks T_Bone4Justice you hit the nail on the head.

But that was not only limited to Republicans. Many Dems and Moderates, no matter what thier reason, just could not stoop to voting for Kerry.

That's My Two Cents
on Dec 03, 2004
I agree with T-Bone here. A lot of my repub friends (YES i have quite a few of them) Do not like bush 2.1 or Kerry. So they voted the party line. Much like a lot of Dems (myself included, i supported Wes Clark) voted for Kerry.

We dems need to take a hard look at the direction of our party. I can remember a few years back when we were all inclusive during the days of Bubba. I really think it started to swing towards the liberal side of the spectrum when the repubs began their campaign of trying to impeach him. A lot of dems looked at who the repubs represent and decided to go the other way out of spite. Which in turn, played right into the repubs hands. You have to give Karl Rove credit for picking up on that. (even if he is a slimeball)

The Democratic party will always be fighting an uphill battle unless we change our ways. Do we really want to head back to another 12 years of draconian repub rule? I think not.

Excellent article Steven...As usual.
on Dec 03, 2004
The worst scenario of voting against one’s well-being is in the military families, most of whom are on the low end of the economic scale, yet proudly offer up their sons, daughters and spouses to the god of war and in lock-step with the commander in chief, regardless of ultimate sacrifice.

...and how!

Democratic critics omit the overriding fear factor and the security perception of an incumbent president — despite his gross inadequacies — in time of war and terrorism.

Second this!

Good shtuff.
on Dec 03, 2004
thatoneguyinslc: " i supported Wes Clark"

I worked on his primary campaign!
on Dec 04, 2004
So did I. And I'm hoping he will run again in 2008.
on Dec 05, 2004
Originally, I, too, was for Clark because it was the right time for the dems to run a military man, just as the reps wisely chose Eisenhower in a time of war. Yet I figured Kerry's Vietnam record would be sufficient until Rove dug out the swiftboaters. Nonetheless, those who voted for an outright bungler when they knew Kerry had superior presidential and commander in chief qualifications was cutting off the nose to spite the face. 
on Dec 05, 2004
The problem with Clark's campaign was that it happened too late and was really disorganized...at least that was my experience. I also think he was too politically inexperienced. If he decides to run again, he needs a strong insider to run with him or he won't get a damn thing done if elected. It's sad but that is the way D.C. works.

Steven, they will have plenty of dirt to spew on Clark as well....like the controversy over his 4th star, his performance in the Balkins, blah, blah, blah... The only difference is how he will RESPOND to the attacks. Kerry let the swiftboat thing go on for far too long before responding. I blame Shrum for that because Kerry wanted to immediately respond but Shrum talked him out of it. Anyone who lets Shrum run their next campaign needs a good whack in the head with a ballpeen hammer!
on Dec 05, 2004

Steven, they will have plenty of dirt to spew on Clark as well


shrewdly investing in the purchase of a domain name like showboatunpeacekeepercommandersfortruth.com could pay off well enuff to force me to rethink my affiliation.

on Dec 05, 2004
Agreed T-bone. We were not as organized as i would have liked us to be. My guess is that Wes will take another shot in 08. I would love to see former Florida senator Bob Graham as his VP choice. That would be a team to reckon with.

Asfar as digging up dirt goes. It will go nowhere. the 4th star thing is all hype from what i can tell, and his record in the Balkans speaks for itself. 3 million saved, no US combat fatalities. I think by the time 08 gets here the people will be sick of war, and a man like Wes would be the perfect candidate.
on Dec 05, 2004
I'm just curious what you guys think (this seems like a fairly democratic, if not liberal, thread):

I agree that the Dem platform has lagged behind on prevailing issues, always seeming to carry the torch for last year's moral conflict rather than understanding where the concern of the populace is currently headed. As far as defense goes, it is tough for anyone to take down an incumbent in the middle of a "crisis" and if the Bush team did anything better than stressing the quality of the continuing crisis, then I don't know what it was.

I am a natural born blatherer, but I promise I'll get to my question in an hour or so. For several decades, the Reps have realigned policy with their new conservatism, and the Dems have increasingly been labelled as the liberal ticket. Anyone spending any amount of time studying history knows that this is not the traditional political alignment of the parties. They tend to absorb different issues of the political day, whether liberal or conservative, and the party proceeds along new lines.

The Dems have this strange label: liberal. But this label comes from a conservative perspective. My guess is that most LIBERALS believe that the Dem party is becoming too conservative.

I have argued endlessly, tirelessly, and for the most part, ineffectually against those who threw their votes to Nader-- for the reason that Bush was more of an issue than liberal vs. Dems.

But right now I feel like the voice of the Dem party may be the more important issue. I wrote several articles about the arrogant Dem voice, suggesting that we need to find a new way of communicating. But right now I'm flipflopping worse than the Rep, label stuck to Kerry.

Let's say the Dems adopt the new voice, a more moderate voice, one that speaks with the same rhetoric as the conservative voice. The Dems already use this voice, just not very convincingly. That's because, for the most part, it IS an equivocation. Or it was.

Steven:
Still, the issue should not be put on center stage in light of 33% of pro-choice voters were for Bush, indicative of more important issues. Marriage rights for gays should be abandoned as a party platform and substituted by civil unions and state recognition under anti-discrimination laws. If gays want the sanctity of “marriage” they should on their own organize for the purpose of encouraging religious denominations to accept them, or form their own denomination. Religious values in general should be expressed in terms of protection of God’s good earth, commitment to peace, defense of country and compassion for the nation’s poor, sick, disabled and uneducated.


This voice speaks to a general populace that has been successfully courted by the new conservative. It's like when the QB at your highschool turns out to be a shmoe, but gets the cutest cheerleader anyway, then the RB and the DBs and the whole squad follow suit to get the prom dates. It's hard to use a new voice when you need to get that date. . .even when you know you'll never end up with the hottest cheerleader if you only mimic the QB.

Do Dems want to distance themselves from the liberal perspective? Well, the politicians do, because they want to be elected. But if becoming elected requires that someone like Kerry speak about "Tracking Down the Terrorists and killing them" after every gulp of air, and stressing over and over again that marriage is a union between blah and blahblahblah, then maybe, honestly, it matters less than I originally thought whether or not Bush was re-elected.

Let the Dems go conservative, and this type of election will happen over and over. The reason you unseat an incumbant is because you want change. While I believe that Kerry-Heinz would probably win more money at championship day on jeopardy, and would probably be invited to more international boogaloos, I'm not convinced we'd see four years of reform.

Maybe the new voice needs to be just that, a new voice. Yeah. That's the question I alluded to. Ideally, what voice do you want to hear addressing the nation? It's a question for Dems, primarily; and while practical political concerns are nice, i want to know what kind of voice will stir you, make you sit up from your lazyboy, and remember what it was like to have ideals?

TBT