![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kmusserAmong many of my friends I'm seeing calls to become more politically active, to stay involved. For this I'm thankful, because it is what's needed if there's any hope for this country.
Part of what's getting me down though is that I have been politically active for almost 20 years now, both within and outside the Democratic party. This election is by far the most energized, most activist, most unified, and best funded that I've ever seen the Democratic party and we not only lost we got trounced. I'm not sure what more we can do. We did get 4 million more votes than last time, but Bush got 9 million more - their side is simply better at getting their people to vote. What's going to get more Democrats to vote short of stormtroopers pounding on their door, at which point it will be too late? And to the current voters - they've said loud and clear that they're more worried about whether gays are allowed to marry than they are about their own jobs - I just don't know what to say to that.
Ah well. To show I've not totally given up here's some inspiration from Middle-Earth:
Frodo : I can't do this Sam.
Sam : I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.
Frodo : What are we holding on to Sam?
Sam : That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.
and I'm highly amused by Marry an American - coalition of the willing indeed.
Part of what's getting me down though is that I have been politically active for almost 20 years now, both within and outside the Democratic party. This election is by far the most energized, most activist, most unified, and best funded that I've ever seen the Democratic party and we not only lost we got trounced. I'm not sure what more we can do. We did get 4 million more votes than last time, but Bush got 9 million more - their side is simply better at getting their people to vote. What's going to get more Democrats to vote short of stormtroopers pounding on their door, at which point it will be too late? And to the current voters - they've said loud and clear that they're more worried about whether gays are allowed to marry than they are about their own jobs - I just don't know what to say to that.
Ah well. To show I've not totally given up here's some inspiration from Middle-Earth:
Frodo : I can't do this Sam.
Sam : I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.
Frodo : What are we holding on to Sam?
Sam : That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.
and I'm highly amused by Marry an American - coalition of the willing indeed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 4 Nov 2004 06:58 (UTC)There isn't much to do, I have been saying that it's all about turn out, and well Republicans generally win the turn-out battle. What to do is look at the message. Anecdotally, I know of at least one person who voted for Bush, and she's pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-polyamory, pro-welfare, however, on the issue of security she's downright conservative. Ergo, she voted for Bush.
And gay marriage/civil rights, and others.
As much as I hate to say, it may be time to turn into the pragmatic party. Get tougher on security, stop pushing the extremes of the social issues for the time being.
More importantly, someone who actually knows how to sell an idea needs to get into the running. Needs to be able to tell the American people insimple terms, "I voted for the war because I believe that it was the right thing to do, I voted against the 87 Billion because I wanted to actually pay for it now, and not force your children and my children *move camera to look at youngsters in the audience* to pay for in 10, 20 years."
no subject
Date: 4 Nov 2004 07:15 (UTC)no subject
Date: 4 Nov 2004 07:22 (UTC)So no, it wasn't Mondale v. Reagan. However, it was a good large victory. Plus, considering in 2000, the shift of two seats in the senate giving the Republicans a 49/51 was considered a mandate then, this just reinforces it, ignoring that it's but a 3% difference.
the bar was set too high (defining blowout)
Date: 4 Nov 2004 07:32 (UTC)yes, relative to the 280 million population of the country (say, 220 million legally allowed to vote, and 114 million did) it doesn't seem like a lot, but it is huge compared to most elections of the 20th century.
but as for calling it a blowout / horrible defeat? well, you kinda have to blame Clinton for that one, in that his supporters (mind you, including Carville, who's just about as bad as Rove) were calling 1996 a "landslide" victory against Dole, when the numbers turned out to only have been a million votes apart.
Re: the bar was set too high (defining blowout)
Date: 4 Nov 2004 07:38 (UTC)no subject
Date: 4 Nov 2004 07:41 (UTC)What's really awful, from my point of view, is that we now have fundy neo-cons running all branches of government and have 4 years to do anything they want. They have the power to completely scrap the constitution if they feel so inclined, and at least a few of them have declared it their intent to do so.
no subject
Date: 4 Nov 2004 07:48 (UTC)sadly true
Date: 4 Nov 2004 07:51 (UTC)Re: sadly true
Date: 4 Nov 2004 07:56 (UTC)Re: sadly true
Date: 4 Nov 2004 08:17 (UTC)Yeah, I could have gotten behind Dean FAR more than behind Kerry.
Re: sadly true
Date: 4 Nov 2004 08:27 (UTC)*Shrug* It's a feed the beast scenario.
Re: sadly true
Date: 4 Nov 2004 08:34 (UTC)*sigh*
I believe Jay Leno said the other night, "If god had meant for us to vote, he would have given us candidates."
no subject
Date: 4 Nov 2004 07:58 (UTC)no subject
Date: 4 Nov 2004 08:00 (UTC)no subject
Date: 4 Nov 2004 08:53 (UTC)I think Dean looked good but I think he would have been cremated during the general election. It wasn't one mistake -- He could not have unified this country any better than Dubya has or will. Way too far over to the left.
I don't know what it would have taken for that to come out during this election. I felt, all through the election, that certain things weren't talked about -- that Kerry was always on the defensive and never should have had to have been. I wish I knew what it would take for someone to defeat that.
no subject
Date: 4 Nov 2004 10:18 (UTC)I would have donated money to Dean. The thing that kept him out of the nomination was this idea that other people wouldn't like him. The concept of "electability", that I'm convinced we got from the republicans. Excellent gambit it if did come from them, got them a candidate they could beat. Dubya unified the country more than Kerry was able to, and thats all it takes.
no subject
Date: 4 Nov 2004 08:09 (UTC)no subject
Date: 4 Nov 2004 09:20 (UTC)no subject
Date: 4 Nov 2004 11:51 (UTC)no subject
Date: 5 Nov 2004 07:40 (UTC)that he was able to get more votes than any other presidential candidate ever just boggles.
That statistic is bullshit and it pisses me off to no end. That Bush was the first president to receive the majority of the popular vote (i.e. more than 50%) since 1980 is a valid statistic. But this bullshit that Andy Card pulled Wednesday morning saying that Bush received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history pisses me off. It's an irrelevant number when you consider that more voters turned out for this election than any election in history. Oh, and that our population is greater than it ever has been. And that we have more voters registered than any time in history. THAT is why he had more votes than any presidential candidate in history. But he did NOT get the largest PROPORTIONAL number of votes in history. Reagan took 49 states in 1980. If there had been as many registered voters 24 years ago, I have no doubt that Reagan would have kicked Bush's ass in terms of the number of voters that voted for him.
Sorry. I just had to rant. That statistic is being thrown around by both sides and it ticks me off.
no subject
Date: 5 Nov 2004 08:06 (UTC)can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 07:20 (UTC)there are those who are socially conservative, "moral values" and all that, who are being economically devastated by the republican policies, but simply don't see that at all (this constitutes in my opinion, the majority of the south and midwest republicans in rural areas). I have no doubts in my mind that Kansas itself, traditionally the breadbasket of the world, will have poor people starving to death within the next 10 years if things don't change.
on the other hand are those who are socially moderate to at least being tolerant of more liberal views regarding socail freedoms, but republican policies keep their stock value up, keep their corporations performing (by deregulation of restrictions against pollution and other things that some corporations say are holding them back), allow them to keep more of their money rather than pay for welfare recipients and school programs that their children aren't actually participating in, and (theoretically) keep their gasoline cheap (even though *two* wars have been started in the middle east by republicans, both of which jumped the gas prices).
both sides, moral values and let me keep my own damn money, thank you, are extremely strong emotional factors that currently balance their views towards the right, regardless of the harm it does them directly (the moral values side) or the society and planet as a whole (the "financial" republicans).
i really don't know what to do about it.
consider that in the early days of the great depression, the republicans who held onto all 3 (house, senate, president) during the roaring 20s were given one last chance in 1930 to solve the problem.
they finally failed and "the new deal" was put in place with democrats running all three until after the war.
the only other time republicans held all three was ike's first time, election of 1952, which happened partly as a backlash against mccarthyism, and partly on ike's own popularity and momentum supporting the party.
however, at the time, ike had a more moderate agenda; the boom was starting, the wave of post-war prosperity was coming, and the best thing to do was to just ride it out. republican policies weren't as...risky...as they are now. the extremists currently pushing a reactionary agenda didn't exist in such powerfully influential numbers as they do now.
That book i keep mentioning, What's The Matter with Kansas, basically concludes that the extremists currently controlling the Republican party are a reactionary group, aiming to effectively undo the entire 20th century. Their eventual goal is to relive the 1870s, where one party controlled everything, the government was morally corrupt with regards to bribery and favorable treatment to corporations, monopolies were easy to achieve and almost protected by law, labor unions had no power to change anything, welfare programs didn't exist, socially-supported health-care proposals were non-existent, exploitation of the seemingly infinite natural resources of the west was at an all-time high, and at the same time the popular perception of the people was that there was an extreme social "high moral ground", dominated by christian attitudes...
...oh, add to that how bigotry was legally protected, and Darwin was still something to be debated and espoused from public education because the Bible couldn't possibly be wrong when it came to science.
To some people, the simplicity of such a time, the ability to live in such utter government-mandated self-centeredness, is such an attractive pipe dream that they simply don't see the negative-side reality of how much that sucked. they are utterly blind to how wrong that era was and how bad it was for the nation and the people...
...and utterly blind to how quickly it will destroy the world should it be recreated today.
Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 07:29 (UTC)Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 07:36 (UTC)the democrats simply can not undo the ability of the right to label them today based on the politics and policies of The New Deal era (when the welfare state was the only way out of the depression).
as long as the fiscal right can say "tax cuts are good in a good economy" and "tax cuts are good in a bad economy" and have people believe it, fiscally responsible leaders who know that taxes are necessary to keep society functioning at all will be powerless.
Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 07:43 (UTC)But I can dream about that.
Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 07:47 (UTC)Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 08:04 (UTC)because rumor and lies are easier to sell than factual truth.
the "spokesmen" on the left include janeane gerafalo, al franken, and john stewart. they tell the truth, factually supported, using a little humor and sarcasm along the way to lighten the pain.
the "spokesmen" on the right are hannity, rush, coulter. people who breath anger with every word they say, people who lie with near impunity. people who so lack humor that they call the obviously sarcastic comments made by the humorists "lies" because its all they know.
political humor requires a degree of intelligence, education, and patience to understand, so that approach simply can't reach a large enough audience.
consider that most newspapers have been slowly eliminating their political cartoonists for *years* simply because too many people don't get it anymore. it used to be that political cartoons were the only way to reach people -- now even they are too sophisticated for "normal people".
so anger and telling people what they want to hear works, and humor and telling people that things aren't good and there are liars in the government taking away your freedoms and destroying your planet and your social programs that you've come to depend on simply gets ignored.
basically the left is silenced until the moral-side right are so in pain by the destruction of their world that they have no choice but to go back to the democrats and readopt a progressive attitude...but that will take years.
Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 08:09 (UTC)Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 09:27 (UTC)I saw a comment on TV last night. One state polls showed that 38% trusted bush around the subject of the economy. The state had lost thousands of jobs and the economic well being was way down. And yes, 52% of the state voted bush. If you can't carry a state where 62% of the public doesn't trust bush's handling of the economy, you have no business in politics.
Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 09:45 (UTC)it doesn't matter how loudly you yell at them that their livelyhoods are destroyed by corporate greed and that the tax cuts and deficits are hurting the very social programs designed to keep them alive during down-turn economies like now. they simply can't hear it.
i heard one commentator on wtop go through this vitrole on how gay marriage was just absolutely going to "destroy the family", as if gays were suddenly going to march down the street burning down houses, kidnapping kids to do *whatever* to them, indoctrinate homosexuality as a mandate into the school system, etc etc. his voice showed absolute FEAR of gays. he preached fear to people. utterly irrational fear.
nothing any rational person can do can fight that. the people who heard that message and believed (55-65% in 11 states so far...) will NEVER be able to support any rational economic agenda that is in their best interests as long as gay rights are part of the deal.
Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 09:51 (UTC)Which is why I don't want to pursue the social types, instead, I'd downplay the social issues, such as gay marriage, go for more fiscal responsibility, and general civil rights thus to get the NRA on your side (I'm a card carrying member of both the ACLU and NRA, and it's slightly twitchy at times) and leave the moral right to the other guys.
Cause you know what? For the 18-30 year olds, the gay issue has already decided, from what I've read. We're just not in power yet to legislate it.
Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 10:22 (UTC)Campaigning to young people is a bad plan. It's oldthink, but they just don't vote. Don't waste much time on them. And yes, under 30 is young. I hope that acceptance will carry forward, and politics will look different in 20 years, but I'm not betting on it. Those of us who live in civilized environents just don't get the mindset of the deep south and the midwest.
Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 10:26 (UTC)Will that change anything? Got me. But I know it's better than the beating my head against the wall. Plus on the upside I just found out that my first girlfriend in college, who was a viscious, viscious homophobe (was one of the items that split us) is now pro-gay rights & marriage, after her best friend came out as gay.
Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 11:11 (UTC)and i realized i hadn't even noticed. i realized he was exactly the same person i knew the day before so why the hell should that fact change anything in me or my friendship with him?
it was part of who he was and to separate it from him mentally would have been living a lie in my head for the sake of some comfort value that i really didn't need.
Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 10:54 (UTC)but the reality is this, written by my brother, a grad student and TA at NCSU in Raleigh:
Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 10:11 (UTC)But yes, they picked a bad fight and they let the opponent frame the fight in his terms. It shouldn't have been about "gay marriage" at all. It should have been about "not meddling in peoples private lives" or whatever phrase conveys a sense of not screwing with people. Democrats suck at word choice. For a stereotype of being literate educated college people, they don't seem to get the whole word thing.
Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 10:51 (UTC)doesn't mean it should make any damn difference, but "private" is not a word to describe marriage. it is a public statement.
Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 11:56 (UTC):)
Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 07:37 (UTC)Re: can the left separate money from lifestyle?
Date: 4 Nov 2004 07:43 (UTC)maybe toles is righta bout this...
Date: 4 Nov 2004 09:25 (UTC)maybe the people simply don't want to relive "the new deal" anymore.
if so, then an entirely new economic plan needs to be developed that can protect the environment while still letting corporations think they can continue to develop and grow, keep taxes low, keep at the very least the schools covered, keep the military supported throughout the stages of the war on terror, support existing health-care plans, keep social security operational for as long as it can, and reduce the debt...
oh, never mind. nobody can do that. :)