The term 'Evangelical Christians' began popping up with great frequency in the media last year around election time. Whether it was actually new or not, it was certainly new to me, and it bothered me immediately. It takes very little research to learn that this term was developed and implemented by the right as a way to eliminate more negative-sounding terms such as 'Christian Fundamentalists' and 'Right-Wing Christians' from the cultural vocabulary. These most vile of political actors believed that 'Evangelical Christians' had a much more positive connotation, and so they waged an insistent campaign toward reporters in the mainstream media to demand that they be referred to as such, to the exclusion of all other terms.
The solution? What would Tom DeLay do? Well, that's simple: Bastardize the term ever so slightly, and turn it into a slur. Rather than use the term the enemy has chosen, progressives would be well-served by referring to this group as 'Evangelist Christians'. It's not that big of a change on paper. In fact, someone, upon first hearing this, might just wonder if you got it wrong. I still remember being puzzled at what exactly DeLay was up to the first few times I heard him spit out the phrase 'the Democrat Party'.
Before too long it became very clear what he was doing. It just sounds bad. Americans all agree that 'Democratic', at least with a small 'd', is a good word with highly positive connotations. But 'Democrat' doesn't sound so nice, especially when preceded by 'the' and followed by 'party'. The word even ends with 'rat'. (You may remember the GOP campaign commercial from 2000 that flashed the word 'rats' on the screen, almost subliminally, while the voiceover said the word 'Democrats'.) These hidden words actually do serve a subliminal purpose.
Now think again about the word 'evangelical'. It contains the word 'angelic'. It almost even implies that they're just here to help, It's relatively toothless and non-threatening. 'Evangelist', however, conjured up images and associations of sweaty, bellowing, money-grubbing televangelists, not to mention the many other negative 'ists' (racist, sexist, socialist, communist, 'selfish hedonist', a la Alan Keyes, to name just a few), words which sound dogmatic and extremist. Yes, there are also pharmacists and gynecologists and all that, but those words are not political in nature, and the vast majority of political '-ist' words carry overwhelmingly negative associations.
So, while it may not fully communicate all that is despicable about fundamentalist Christians who consider morals in only the most narrow of terms and then choose to codify their perversion in U.S. policy and law, 'Evangelist Christians' is at least a step up for opponents from going along with the use of 'Evangelical Christians'. Maybe the 'Democrat Party' can play some language war hardball after all.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Thursday, January 27, 2005
New Coke.
JKD offers a great commentary on a terrible article.
As he notes, the key passage from Paul Starr is:
"...liberal Democrats ought to ask themselves a big question: are they better off as the dominant force in an ideologically pure minority party, or as one of several influences in an ideologically varied party that can win at the polls? The latter, it seems clear, is the better choice."
You know when I was younger I used to assume that people rose to positions of influence and prominence because of ability. I used to think, "hey that guy gets paid to think about politics and tell me about it, there's a good chance he knows what he's talking about." Years later, turns out.... not so much. The idea that the failure of the Democratic Party is traceable to intransigence from ideologically pure liberals is horseshit. Or rather it's whatever item horseshit finds as objectionable as we find horsehit. Now, I don't propose we nominate Dennis Kucinich. But accomodationist efforts have simply neutered the message. The image that springs to mind is of a raft...when floating in shark infested waters, offering the sharks your remaining food in order to satiate them isn't wise. But then apparently wisdom doesn't get you anything these days.
I've come to believe more and more in the philosophy of strong and wrong vs. weak and right. And frankly I think it's a false choice, because being strong is right, and being weak is both wrong in strategic and policy terms. Parties, as I understand them, exist to create order and structure out of a chaotic political process. They are brands or intellectual shortcuts for voters. When confronted with myriad choices from President down to coroner.* People just want to know that the D and the R mean something. If a brand such as Coke where to come out with a commercial saying: "Pepsi, it's alright, and in fact we've decided to share bottles, from now on buy Coke's newest product: Coksi" they get hammered in the market. Just to offer some historical perspective, remember New Coke. New Coke started out as an attempt by Coke to counter a perceived move in consumer preference towards a sweeter soda. Pepsi did these silly taste tests and sure enough it beat Coke in the Pepsi conducted test. (Side note, turns out Pepsi still wins in a single sip taste test, but people buy 2liters or cans, and after a full can or 2liter people now, as always prefer Coke--because it's stronger and less syrupy). Coke flipped out, and decided that despite being the choice of millions of people for 75 years, it needed to be more like Pepsi. Sound familiar. Democrats do some focus grouping, find people like killing Iraqis, and boom...we jettison more than a century of Democratic ideals for New Democrat.
Instead, one option is to believe that we offer something that the American people like, and that if we continued to offer Classic Coke/Democrat or some pretty close facsimile that we might win. The metaphor breaks down a bit here, because I'm not suggesting we run Great Society II or New Deal: The Next Generation. But rather, that trying to copy, mimic and change our brand only muddies the water. The more we capitulate and the more we imitate the more we risk "New Coking" the Party even further.
*Coroner?! How the fuck am I qualified to judge who should be county coroner. I just picture an attack ad: Ominous voice over guy: "Bob Adams says you can trust him to be the Larimer County coroner, but on three ocassions he's been found slow dancing with dead bodies. (image shows Tom Petty's "Last Dance With Mary Jane" video)
As he notes, the key passage from Paul Starr is:
"...liberal Democrats ought to ask themselves a big question: are they better off as the dominant force in an ideologically pure minority party, or as one of several influences in an ideologically varied party that can win at the polls? The latter, it seems clear, is the better choice."
You know when I was younger I used to assume that people rose to positions of influence and prominence because of ability. I used to think, "hey that guy gets paid to think about politics and tell me about it, there's a good chance he knows what he's talking about." Years later, turns out.... not so much. The idea that the failure of the Democratic Party is traceable to intransigence from ideologically pure liberals is horseshit. Or rather it's whatever item horseshit finds as objectionable as we find horsehit. Now, I don't propose we nominate Dennis Kucinich. But accomodationist efforts have simply neutered the message. The image that springs to mind is of a raft...when floating in shark infested waters, offering the sharks your remaining food in order to satiate them isn't wise. But then apparently wisdom doesn't get you anything these days.
I've come to believe more and more in the philosophy of strong and wrong vs. weak and right. And frankly I think it's a false choice, because being strong is right, and being weak is both wrong in strategic and policy terms. Parties, as I understand them, exist to create order and structure out of a chaotic political process. They are brands or intellectual shortcuts for voters. When confronted with myriad choices from President down to coroner.* People just want to know that the D and the R mean something. If a brand such as Coke where to come out with a commercial saying: "Pepsi, it's alright, and in fact we've decided to share bottles, from now on buy Coke's newest product: Coksi" they get hammered in the market. Just to offer some historical perspective, remember New Coke. New Coke started out as an attempt by Coke to counter a perceived move in consumer preference towards a sweeter soda. Pepsi did these silly taste tests and sure enough it beat Coke in the Pepsi conducted test. (Side note, turns out Pepsi still wins in a single sip taste test, but people buy 2liters or cans, and after a full can or 2liter people now, as always prefer Coke--because it's stronger and less syrupy). Coke flipped out, and decided that despite being the choice of millions of people for 75 years, it needed to be more like Pepsi. Sound familiar. Democrats do some focus grouping, find people like killing Iraqis, and boom...we jettison more than a century of Democratic ideals for New Democrat.
Instead, one option is to believe that we offer something that the American people like, and that if we continued to offer Classic Coke/Democrat or some pretty close facsimile that we might win. The metaphor breaks down a bit here, because I'm not suggesting we run Great Society II or New Deal: The Next Generation. But rather, that trying to copy, mimic and change our brand only muddies the water. The more we capitulate and the more we imitate the more we risk "New Coking" the Party even further.
*Coroner?! How the fuck am I qualified to judge who should be county coroner. I just picture an attack ad: Ominous voice over guy: "Bob Adams says you can trust him to be the Larimer County coroner, but on three ocassions he's been found slow dancing with dead bodies. (image shows Tom Petty's "Last Dance With Mary Jane" video)
Friday, January 21, 2005
These are not for use for propaganda means. They are the truth."
Editor and Publisher has an article about new talking points cards being issued to every soldier in Iraq. The cards list helpful things that the soldiers should say to embedded journalists. Things like: "We are a values-based, people-focused team that strives to uphold the dignity and respect of all." and "The Marine Corps is trained, resourced, and ready to accomplish its missions. We are committed to the cause and will remain in Iraq as long as we are needed."
It's not enough that this administration drapes it's agenda both foreign and domestic in fatigues, now it's vital to our safety that we have schilling soldiers. What if the talking points are wrong, for instance when the Marines are not "resourced." "Capt. Landis responded to such criticism by defending the promotion of positive aspect, but stressing that no one was being asked to lie. 'These are not for use for propaganda means,' he told E&P. 'They are the truth.'"
Fantastic.
It's not enough that this administration drapes it's agenda both foreign and domestic in fatigues, now it's vital to our safety that we have schilling soldiers. What if the talking points are wrong, for instance when the Marines are not "resourced." "Capt. Landis responded to such criticism by defending the promotion of positive aspect, but stressing that no one was being asked to lie. 'These are not for use for propaganda means,' he told E&P. 'They are the truth.'"
Fantastic.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Salvador Option
I went home for the weekend and when I return to the land of the wired, I learn that the US is considering returning to death squads. (or at least returning publicly). I don't have the capacity to address the actual horror that this represents, I'm just going to focus on the words.
A question I've asked before, only to be disappointed with teh answer: Has the Admin finally gone too far? Again, in this case, I'd love to believe that Ameican's have no stomach for death squads, but I'm not sure. In thinking about the groups, I hope that Democrats only ever refer to these groups as Death Squads. Newsweek uses the term The Salvador Option. The Salvador Option makes it seem like an entree, at a fancy restaurant.
Death Squad. That's what it is. We are promoting teams of people who go around and torture and terrorize others. Death squad. The inclination is to call it by it's other name...terrorist, as the proposed actions fall well within most definitions of the term. But I'd really be wary of the term "terrorist death squad." My sense is that terrorist no longer describes a set of actions but rather a perceived race, ethnicity, religious affiliation. So describing Americans leading terrorist death squads only makes the left look hysterical and the cognitive dissonance will get the message lost. So death squads it is. Thoughts....
UPDATED.
This applies to something I've been thinking for a while now. I think that the calculus being used by a lot of people goes something like this. What is the harm (real or perceived) that our enemies (whomever they are) wish us? The answer pushed by this administration is death and the destruction of our way of life. So what measures are morally justified in the attempt to thwart this? Answer: Anything short of "their" level of evil is morally appropriate. But because all our actions are taken in prevention of some evil X they are imbued with noble intention and therefore can never be so evil as the actions they seek to prevent. Therefore no matter what we do it is more moral than the actions we seek to prevent. So Abu Ghraib is fine because it's not as bad as a rape room, or September 11th. And death squads are fine because:
"Their aim is to establish a fascist theocracy. Our aim is free elections. If we need to kill them to do so, it is a righteous fight." (From Lucianne.com, a right wing site)
Any thoughts on how we get out of this moral do loop.
A question I've asked before, only to be disappointed with teh answer: Has the Admin finally gone too far? Again, in this case, I'd love to believe that Ameican's have no stomach for death squads, but I'm not sure. In thinking about the groups, I hope that Democrats only ever refer to these groups as Death Squads. Newsweek uses the term The Salvador Option. The Salvador Option makes it seem like an entree, at a fancy restaurant.
Death Squad. That's what it is. We are promoting teams of people who go around and torture and terrorize others. Death squad. The inclination is to call it by it's other name...terrorist, as the proposed actions fall well within most definitions of the term. But I'd really be wary of the term "terrorist death squad." My sense is that terrorist no longer describes a set of actions but rather a perceived race, ethnicity, religious affiliation. So describing Americans leading terrorist death squads only makes the left look hysterical and the cognitive dissonance will get the message lost. So death squads it is. Thoughts....
UPDATED.
This applies to something I've been thinking for a while now. I think that the calculus being used by a lot of people goes something like this. What is the harm (real or perceived) that our enemies (whomever they are) wish us? The answer pushed by this administration is death and the destruction of our way of life. So what measures are morally justified in the attempt to thwart this? Answer: Anything short of "their" level of evil is morally appropriate. But because all our actions are taken in prevention of some evil X they are imbued with noble intention and therefore can never be so evil as the actions they seek to prevent. Therefore no matter what we do it is more moral than the actions we seek to prevent. So Abu Ghraib is fine because it's not as bad as a rape room, or September 11th. And death squads are fine because:
"Their aim is to establish a fascist theocracy. Our aim is free elections. If we need to kill them to do so, it is a righteous fight." (From Lucianne.com, a right wing site)
Any thoughts on how we get out of this moral do loop.
Monday, December 27, 2004
Cuba
What do you think about Cuba? Let that settle in for a minute.
Good. Now let's get down to business. It occured to me the other day that this is yet another issue on which conservatives have gotten the jump on liberals (say, 40-years-ish jump). Yes, this happened while watching The Godfather, Part II. But in any event...odd are that you, as a liberal, don't really have a particularly well-thought-out set of views with regards to Cuba - either in terms of present policies or post-Castro. Mostly, it's probably pretty oppositional to the interests of the rabid-right-wing Cuban exile community - which is something of a mistake, on some things.
Conservatives have a completely coherent set of views regarding Cuba and a very particular set of policies to implement now and post-Castro. Namely - they hate Castro, can't wait until he's dead, and are chomping at the bit to attempt to both restore ownership of seized assets to the Cuban exiles and then privatize the rest. Suffice to say, they don't think all too much about what the actual current occupants of Cuban - save for the "freedom" they rather meaninglessly extol, freedom meaning, in their minds, a dead Castro.
Now. Castro sucks. He is an arrogant windbag, represses free speech, tortures dissidents. He's stuck with a failed economic system that leaves his people with near zero economic production, and one of the lowest standards of living in the world - though, it's true, with excellent health care and education, and a pretty shockingly high life expectancy given the standard of living.
But Castro - and his brother, who will likely succeed him - can't be gone quick enough for my tastes. When that happens - and it will, in 10-15 years' time - this will be an enormous opportunity for both the American Left and the United States to improve its image all over the world, particularly Latin America.
How? Well, my feeling is that Cuba - as a state with high education and health - is a perfect laboratory for what can happen when post-welfare state, post-IMF social democratic policies are put into place. There will be a substantial social democratic political presence on the island among intellectuals and the populace who value the good things that Cuba has while also hating Castro's repression, and it will be important for the Left of the United States to support that movement, and keep it from getting steamrolled by the Bacardis/GOP/other extractive interests.
The issues are not simple - property ownership is a tricky river to navigate when you realize that, in addition to the Bacardis, there were indeed many Coreleone-style asset-holders, whose assets were perhaps not entirely legitimately acquired to begin with. [Side note - of special importance to yours truly is the preservation of Havana Club Rum's independence, and keeping it from getting smashed by the Bacardis, who are nervous as all hell about Americans actually being able to drink rum that is, you know, good]. But there are ways to do foreign investment that are of benefit to local populations, as well as being profitable.
Now, I haven't laid out anything much specific here, with good reason - I don't know quite what I think, myself (I had absolutely no idea what to think of the Elian Gonzalez deal lo these many years ago) . But I know that I ought to be thinking more about it; so, discuss.
Good. Now let's get down to business. It occured to me the other day that this is yet another issue on which conservatives have gotten the jump on liberals (say, 40-years-ish jump). Yes, this happened while watching The Godfather, Part II. But in any event...odd are that you, as a liberal, don't really have a particularly well-thought-out set of views with regards to Cuba - either in terms of present policies or post-Castro. Mostly, it's probably pretty oppositional to the interests of the rabid-right-wing Cuban exile community - which is something of a mistake, on some things.
Conservatives have a completely coherent set of views regarding Cuba and a very particular set of policies to implement now and post-Castro. Namely - they hate Castro, can't wait until he's dead, and are chomping at the bit to attempt to both restore ownership of seized assets to the Cuban exiles and then privatize the rest. Suffice to say, they don't think all too much about what the actual current occupants of Cuban - save for the "freedom" they rather meaninglessly extol, freedom meaning, in their minds, a dead Castro.
Now. Castro sucks. He is an arrogant windbag, represses free speech, tortures dissidents. He's stuck with a failed economic system that leaves his people with near zero economic production, and one of the lowest standards of living in the world - though, it's true, with excellent health care and education, and a pretty shockingly high life expectancy given the standard of living.
But Castro - and his brother, who will likely succeed him - can't be gone quick enough for my tastes. When that happens - and it will, in 10-15 years' time - this will be an enormous opportunity for both the American Left and the United States to improve its image all over the world, particularly Latin America.
How? Well, my feeling is that Cuba - as a state with high education and health - is a perfect laboratory for what can happen when post-welfare state, post-IMF social democratic policies are put into place. There will be a substantial social democratic political presence on the island among intellectuals and the populace who value the good things that Cuba has while also hating Castro's repression, and it will be important for the Left of the United States to support that movement, and keep it from getting steamrolled by the Bacardis/GOP/other extractive interests.
The issues are not simple - property ownership is a tricky river to navigate when you realize that, in addition to the Bacardis, there were indeed many Coreleone-style asset-holders, whose assets were perhaps not entirely legitimately acquired to begin with. [Side note - of special importance to yours truly is the preservation of Havana Club Rum's independence, and keeping it from getting smashed by the Bacardis, who are nervous as all hell about Americans actually being able to drink rum that is, you know, good]. But there are ways to do foreign investment that are of benefit to local populations, as well as being profitable.
Now, I haven't laid out anything much specific here, with good reason - I don't know quite what I think, myself (I had absolutely no idea what to think of the Elian Gonzalez deal lo these many years ago) . But I know that I ought to be thinking more about it; so, discuss.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
The Ethical Appeal
It's pretty clear that the ancient democratic Greeks would be pretty disgusted that Americans have vested the power to destroy all humanity in a man who can't speak two coherent sentences in a row. To them, speaking persuasively and well was as much the mark of a true man as was skill in combat. The rhetoriticians would be pretty flummoxed by modern American politics, but that doesn't mean they have nothing to teach us.
Of the three classic modes of persuasion, I think Democrats have a fairly good idea of how to use logos and pathos. Being the party that believes in reason and science allows us to have facts and logic on our side most of the time, and the anecdotes our candidates use to personalize issues like runaway drug costs and underfunded schools indicate at least a general understanding of how to make an issue position resonate emotionally with the voters.
Where I think we generally fail is in the ethical appeal, which can be sort of roughly defined as the "I'm a credible source" appeal. This is very bad for us, since a non-credible source's logical and emotional arguments, no matter how well-crafted, can be pretty easily ignored if they cause even the slightest cognitive dissonance.
The last election pretty clearly demonstrated this - plenty of people who voted for Bush did so because they thought that we've discovered stockpiles of Iraqi WMD or some kind of close working relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam. How could they believe such fanciful things without a scrap of evidence? Simple. For the last few decades, conservatives have done everything within their power to destroy the credibility of mainstream news. As soon as someone starts believing that the mainstream media has a liberal agenda, then anything the media reports that reflects poorly on a Republican administration has a pretty good chance of being dismissed as just another example of media bias.
What they've done to the media, they've also done to liberals. Destroying the credibility of liberals has always been the main goal of the right wing's extreme and eliminationist rhetoric. They call us slanderers, traitors, perverts and atheists in order to destroy our credibility in the minds of the politically unsophisticated and apathetic, and it works. Brad Carson is as right-wing as you're going to find a real Democrat, but even he couldn't get a majority to believe that he could be trusted. Why? Because he's a Democrat, Democrats are liberals, and liberals have no credibility.
So what to do? How do you fight against the sort of ingrained attitude that leads people to look suspiciously at every move you make?
First, I think you have to act like anything but a politician, since everyone knows that politicians aren't trustworthy. This, I think, was one of the major keys to Dean's success - he didn't sound like a traditional politician, so he didn't immediately raise everybody's hackles.
Second, you have to show some emotion, usually anger. It's pretty hard to credibly fake an emotion you're not feeling, so visible displays of genuine emotion tend to give credibility to the speaker. Faking it is dangerous because it's difficult and wrong, but heaven knows that it shouldn't be too hard to find something to be angry about these days. You should never ever cry or seem embarrassed, since these are signs that you're lying.
Third, and most importantly, you have to rid yourself of a defensive mindset. Fact is, if you're a Democrat, you're initially going to be perceived as non-credible on national defense. Asserting your own credibility on national defense is worse than doing nothing, since it makes you look desperate to cover an actual flaw. It's better to attack your opponent's credibility - "This Republican joker wants you to believe that I'm not willing to defend this country. I tell you what, we'll take his comments into consideration when he explains why his party won't give our troops the funding they deserve." Better still to attack your opponent's credibility before he or she ever mentions your name - it undermines his or her credibility while improving yours.
Of the three classic modes of persuasion, I think Democrats have a fairly good idea of how to use logos and pathos. Being the party that believes in reason and science allows us to have facts and logic on our side most of the time, and the anecdotes our candidates use to personalize issues like runaway drug costs and underfunded schools indicate at least a general understanding of how to make an issue position resonate emotionally with the voters.
Where I think we generally fail is in the ethical appeal, which can be sort of roughly defined as the "I'm a credible source" appeal. This is very bad for us, since a non-credible source's logical and emotional arguments, no matter how well-crafted, can be pretty easily ignored if they cause even the slightest cognitive dissonance.
The last election pretty clearly demonstrated this - plenty of people who voted for Bush did so because they thought that we've discovered stockpiles of Iraqi WMD or some kind of close working relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam. How could they believe such fanciful things without a scrap of evidence? Simple. For the last few decades, conservatives have done everything within their power to destroy the credibility of mainstream news. As soon as someone starts believing that the mainstream media has a liberal agenda, then anything the media reports that reflects poorly on a Republican administration has a pretty good chance of being dismissed as just another example of media bias.
What they've done to the media, they've also done to liberals. Destroying the credibility of liberals has always been the main goal of the right wing's extreme and eliminationist rhetoric. They call us slanderers, traitors, perverts and atheists in order to destroy our credibility in the minds of the politically unsophisticated and apathetic, and it works. Brad Carson is as right-wing as you're going to find a real Democrat, but even he couldn't get a majority to believe that he could be trusted. Why? Because he's a Democrat, Democrats are liberals, and liberals have no credibility.
So what to do? How do you fight against the sort of ingrained attitude that leads people to look suspiciously at every move you make?
First, I think you have to act like anything but a politician, since everyone knows that politicians aren't trustworthy. This, I think, was one of the major keys to Dean's success - he didn't sound like a traditional politician, so he didn't immediately raise everybody's hackles.
Second, you have to show some emotion, usually anger. It's pretty hard to credibly fake an emotion you're not feeling, so visible displays of genuine emotion tend to give credibility to the speaker. Faking it is dangerous because it's difficult and wrong, but heaven knows that it shouldn't be too hard to find something to be angry about these days. You should never ever cry or seem embarrassed, since these are signs that you're lying.
Third, and most importantly, you have to rid yourself of a defensive mindset. Fact is, if you're a Democrat, you're initially going to be perceived as non-credible on national defense. Asserting your own credibility on national defense is worse than doing nothing, since it makes you look desperate to cover an actual flaw. It's better to attack your opponent's credibility - "This Republican joker wants you to believe that I'm not willing to defend this country. I tell you what, we'll take his comments into consideration when he explains why his party won't give our troops the funding they deserve." Better still to attack your opponent's credibility before he or she ever mentions your name - it undermines his or her credibility while improving yours.
Monday, December 20, 2004
Stand Up
Look, yesterday when I said on my other blog:
Iowa's two senators are Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin - Grassley is not a total unthinking Neanderthal, but he's definitely an old-school conservative. And all this blathering on about how Kerry was the most liberal senator? Please. The oldest of the old-school liberals is Tom Harkin. And yet both he and Grassley represent the same state - which voted for Gore in 2000, Bush in 2004 - and get elected with pretty much the same share of the vote. Which is to say, by massive majorities.
The Senate seat of Tom Harkin's good friend, the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, is now held by a man who, more or less, does whatever Bush wants.
There are very few true single-issue voters, as a share of the electorate. On anything. And there are almost zero situations where their party alleigance is not scripted in advance (that is, they aren't gonna vote for the other party no matter what, even if the candidate shares their views on the single-issue issue). Abortion is the one biggie, and the anti-abortion folks have more single-issue voters on that than we do for choice, but not, in practice, by a lot. It might even be a wash.
Most people vote with somebody they feel comfortable with. And people feel comfortable with leaders who do what they say and say what they mean - on either side. There is a vast pool of voters out there who are perfectly willing to disagree with mcuh of what a politician believes in but still vote for them 'cause they like 'em, and the other guy seems like too much of a 'politician.'
Be that, too - say what you mean, mean what you say, and respect people. 'k?
While we dither about on the American left talking about how to say the things we really want to say in order that we most effectively trick people into voting for us...I meant it. I am sick of people talking about framing, just as I was sick of people talking about "electability" and what will "play well in the South." That dog don't hunt.
Iowa's two senators are Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin - Grassley is not a total unthinking Neanderthal, but he's definitely an old-school conservative. And all this blathering on about how Kerry was the most liberal senator? Please. The oldest of the old-school liberals is Tom Harkin. And yet both he and Grassley represent the same state - which voted for Gore in 2000, Bush in 2004 - and get elected with pretty much the same share of the vote. Which is to say, by massive majorities.
The Senate seat of Tom Harkin's good friend, the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, is now held by a man who, more or less, does whatever Bush wants.
There are very few true single-issue voters, as a share of the electorate. On anything. And there are almost zero situations where their party alleigance is not scripted in advance (that is, they aren't gonna vote for the other party no matter what, even if the candidate shares their views on the single-issue issue). Abortion is the one biggie, and the anti-abortion folks have more single-issue voters on that than we do for choice, but not, in practice, by a lot. It might even be a wash.
Most people vote with somebody they feel comfortable with. And people feel comfortable with leaders who do what they say and say what they mean - on either side. There is a vast pool of voters out there who are perfectly willing to disagree with mcuh of what a politician believes in but still vote for them 'cause they like 'em, and the other guy seems like too much of a 'politician.'
Be that, too - say what you mean, mean what you say, and respect people. 'k?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
