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)

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.

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.