The working party
In response to a comment on a previous post by co-worker Scott -
I understand what you're saying, buddy, even though you were drunk, but here's what I'm saying: People are stupid. Unfortunately, in politics, as well as in many other forums of public debate, simplicity amounts to complicity. If someone says something in a simple way, boils it down to its most simple point, and you agree with it, you are more likely to support it. This is the lowest common denominator in some ways, and is clearly a problem. A major issue with Democrats, and for a more vague category, liberals, is that we believe things exist in the gray. Conservatives are all black and white...good and bad, evil and heroic...etc.
Unfortunately, this doesn't work for electoral politics. Catch-phrases and platforms that summarize turn public opinion more quickly and more convincingly than position papers. Is this ideal? Clearly not. But it is reality, and one that we must work in until the country returns to a collective attention span of longer than a music video. Who's to blame? The media...the public...politicians...who knows, who cares? It's reality, and operating in a real world necessitates our compliance with that reality, or we will be working in, as George Bush often does, an imaginary world.
Kos on DailyKos just posted on this, and I like what he says: Democrats are the party for people who work for a living.
If labor could undergo some sort of resurgence (...follow the lead of SEIU and gain some new members...there's an idea...) and we could remove the religious extremists from the debate (...) and instead return the public to pocketbook issues that working people actually care about (health care, education, jobs), we'd be well on our way.
Corruption and corporate accountability, along with a side of anti-religious extremism as campaign themes, along with substantive policy proposals on fixing NCLB and getting rid of the anti-labor administration currently in power. I can see '06 and '08 now.
posted by Mark K @ 11:06 AM
5 Comments:
I do understand that this is they way the world has come to work. However, we, as a party, have let it come to this point, by giving in to it. John Kerry tried using black and white, but Bush kicked his ass because when you state democratic issues in that form they sound terrible. If we look at Bill Clinton he took the debate away from black and white and brought in ideas. With this he did very well.
Now, I am all for finding some wedge issues and catchy phrases to go along with them. But this cannot be our only focus or at the very least our ideas will be lost.
You look at what changing to a black and white format did for the Republican party. Before Nixon they were the party detailing to Business America and the military. Since this time they have become the voice of the Christian right. They have put Bill Frist and George Jr. in power both of whom not only dole out to the corporate malice but also support social injustice at every turn. Their party views and stances have regressed due to black and white conversation. We cannot let our party do the same.
Perhaps Kerry just blew. He tried to talk in black and white, but it came out as shit. Maybe if he had used better black and white bullshit we would have won. But that doesn't change the fact of what happens when you turn the world and ideas into black and white issues.
Hey man, I'm all about position papers, takikng on tough issues, being nuanced and having ideas, but I think that the front lines has to have some simple things for people to get their minds around if they don't intend to read said position papers like I enjoy doing in my spare time.
Maybe I am a hopeless romantic, but by giving into this I think we are creating more of a problem. We must focus on a way in which we force a dialogue to be created between constituents and themselves, politicians and constituents, and politicians and each other. If we don't the best catch phrase is going to win the election and so far Dems, for the past 30 some years, haven't been too good at it. (Carter won because of Watergate and Clinton won because he waged a war of ideas). I stand by the fact we must force dialogue, or not only the party drowns but our nation does as well. We are waging a war, and wars being what they are are simplistic and primitive. But instead of deciding who is right by way of a traditional fist fight, which is determined by who is bigger and stronger, we say whoever has the simplest idea is the one who is right. For this we cannot stand.
I hope you're right...imagine a debate where people discussed things of consequence and occasionally used a three syllable word and weren't denounced as blue-blooded or not a commoner...who the fuck wants a commoner for a president. They are supposed to be intelligent, have the ability to wade through tough ideas and issues, create nuanced positions and base their decisions on a difficult analysis of complex policy decisions.
What I am saying has nothing to do with principals it is a two fold problem: One, if we play their game we lose, and we lose every time. Even if we could get their game to work for us we fall into the second problem. If we remove debate and create a discussion that is only black and white the government and the people’s democracy falls. Without discussion we lose the ability to argue positions, and we lose free thought. If the candidates are decided upon by the best phrased packaging and then the one elected does what ever they feel like, we are no longer a government voted on or in any respect ruled by the people. I understand that is what politics has always been in many aspects, but striving to create more of this only removes the rule of the people. While people are fucking stupid, our nation survives in major part because it is a form of democracy.
To continue progressing and continue a liberal agenda that is of American tradition and progress we must continue to educate our citizens about the issues so they can have a debate and dialogue with themselves. As things stand there is little room to argue and make change, for if a political discussion arises there is only right and wrong; there is no agreement, no compromise, no progression, and no solution. The foundation of advancement comes through our ability to cognitively use our minds, when this is not allowed we stagnate or move backwards. The liberal agenda is for progress, and if citizens cannot use the capacities of their mind we will not move ahead. (Democrats may, by chance, win an election here or there, but we will not move forward as a society if we remove true debate.) Chances are good if we limit our words, allow no room for agreement, and do not use our analytical abilities we are going to stagnate or move backwards as a society. In these last four years in which we have tried fighting in the black and white way there is no question that we have regressed.
I don’t know what should be done but a step that needs to be taken is a push for reform of our news and media organizations to become more self-regulated and more diverse. I believe blogs and the internet are important for opening the discussion and allowing progress, but their fall comes with there lack of regulated credibility and the fact a lot of people don’t like to read.
Post a Comment
<< Home