A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
July 03, 2004What Us Democrats Should Be SayingDemocratic leadership these days has a bad tendency to just react to what the President is doing instead of delivering positive leadership. Clinton won his elections in part by being optimistic and forward-looking and Gore lost his by being doubtful and pessimistic. Too many Democratic leaders have forgotten that need, but looking forward under pressure is, I think, a part of leadership. To Kerry's credit, he has avoided running a negative campaign. He seems to be counting on Bush to beat himself by his high negatives and letting wingnuts like Moore rouse the base. But that's exactly the same thing Dole, a rather similar candidate, did in '96. My guess is that when people make up their minds, and think a bit about what they know about Kerry, they'll decide that Bush is the less bad of the alternatives, because he can lead and has a constructive approach on terrorism, even if he gives his wingnuts too much of a chance to nibble at civil liberties and doesn't mind deficits. What should Kerry and other Democratic politicians be doing to establish forward positions? First, they should move the election away from War on Terror up-or-down, single-issue campaign that Bush has established. Kerry and some other moderates should agree on the overall strategy of making the Middle East safe for globalization and freedom while pledging to restore civil rights and reform problems in Iraq. That would almost neutralize the issue, IMHO. Mostly, though, Democrats should be talking more about other things. What we should be doing, IMHO, is talking about improving traditionally government-provided and government-involved services by working in more competition and capitalist-style investment. Health insurance, mental health, unions, homeless care, postal services, welfare, retirement savings, transportation, etc, etc, all these things, IMHO, could benefit from openness, competition, and/or investment by capitalists. Over the next few months, I'll blog about some possibilities along these lines and their political dimensions.
(maybe this time I can avoid posting it twice and confusing the blog on deletion)
Comments
I agree that Kerry must offer a wide spectrum of alternatives to the policies of the Bush Administration. This week I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 and then last night I rented Bowling for Columbine. A general theme emerged from both polemics: the US has bred a culture of fear. While much of the minutia from Moore's films is up for debate...I think that particular point is dead on. Each night while watching the evening news (both national and local), a laundry list of violent crimes is regurgitated off to the American people. Murder, kidnapping, rape, robberies, etc. "If it bleeds, it leads" is not just a trite saying in American news broadcasting. It's a staple. Moore points out that this doesn't go on in other countries in this way. Certainly crime is reported...but it isn't given the same kind of media focus at in the US. All other things being equal (movies, music,literature, etc)...the news media in the US is the one major difference.
"What we should be doing, IMHO, is talking about improving traditionally government-provided and government-involved services by working in more competition and capitalist-style investment. Health insurance, mental health, unions, homeless care, postal services, welfare, retirement savings, transportation, etc, etc, all these things, IMHO, could benefit from openness, competition, and/or investment by capitalists." That sounds like a traditionally Republican thing to advocate. I don't think Kerry is going to get too many votes with that. The real problem here is that this really is a single issue election. Even though a great many Americans don't believe it, we are at war with an enemy who desires nothing more than to kill each and every one of us, establishing a Islamic state on the world if they could. If Kerry had any kind of record supporting a position of strength in this fight, then maybe some of the other issues could be on the table. As it is, he doesn't have that record so barring some unforeseen terrorist act (and even that might strengthen the position of Bush), I don't see Kerry with much chance come November.He needs to move to the right of Bush on terrorism but he can't do that without alienating his base. Lieberman gets it but the Democrats ran him off. Kerry doesn't get it and I think the American people will run him off. Posted by: Scotch Drinker at July 3, 2004 03:59 PMCarla pointed out: Moore seems to be projecting a tad, since his films are about fear as well. Nonetheless, you're right, the media lives to spread fear. But each of us reacts different to it. Probably only a little under half of the populace actually lives in fear. And, there is a real tendency for people to think the opposite of what they hear - how many blog postings are spur-of-the-moment reaction grumbles? > Moore points out that this doesn't go on in other countries in this way. Now, this seems untrue to me. The media I read over the web seem strikingly like the domestic kind. People "over there" are just like "over here." And I'm not going to change my mind on the basis of what Moore says. > My point here for Kerry is that he can't ignore the US culture of Both sides have people playing to the culture of fear. Bush and Rush are trying to scare you about Kerry. Moore, Hightower, and DailyKos are trying to scare you about Bush (and I'm trying to scare you about Moore). But, though Rush and Moore don't want you to think about it, there's more to this game. Us centrists dislike the fear game, and you need us centrists to win elections. To that point, Kerry is playing the game well. He himself isn't engaging in fearmongering advertising, letting people like Moore do that. This way he gets the (D) base without having to lose moderates who don't like fear.
...Clinton advocated welfare reform (not to mention school reforms and health care). There are many neoliberal Democrats, and centrist Republicans annoyed at Bush, whom might be moved toward the Kerry column by such suggestions. In fact, Kerry has some interesting ideas, but he's not putting much work into pushing them, unlike Clinton. > I don't think Kerry is going to get too many votes with that. The real It's a single-issue election because Bush and Rove dared Kerry to make it the big issue, and he took the bait. Similarly, too many other Democrats in other races are too undisciplined to raise credible issues. There are so many better issues. Immigrants imprisoned for years without being charged. Fixing Social Security and Medicare. The various issues that I mentioned in my main post. Even the issues Kerry himself has raised in a lead-free fashion. These are all things where Kerry could show more strength than Bush. You want to fight where you're strong, not where the other guy is strong. > ...If Kerry had any kind of record supporting a position of strength I think it's the other way around. IMHO, if he showed real strength on other issues, people would be more inclined to trust him with the War on Terror. But so long as he only pushes on Bush' strong issue (and looks bad), he just confirms opinion of him as a wimp. Did Clinton run on foreign policy when up against Bush I? Did Reagan run on honesty when against Carter? Did Bush II run on welfare reform or balanced budgets in 2000? No, no, and no. Did Gore run on school reform (a Bush issue)? Did Adlai Stevenson run on Ike's Cold War issue? Yes and yes.
My opinion -- humble or otherwise -- is that we've gotten way ahead of ourselves this election cycle because of the heavy primary coverage and Kerry's early clinch of the nomination. During the last 2-3 months virtually everything Kerry and Bush said was overrun by the news from Iraq. However, the real show is about to begin. As soon as Kerry announces his VP choice, I believe the undecideds-who-vote will begin to size-up Kerry as a possible president. That leaves Kerry with lots of room to frame the discussion -- an effort which may fail, of course. Meanwhile, Bush is far from assured of victory. If the undecideds begin to believe we were led down the garden path on Iraq, that will leave Kerry a huge opening. And polling suggests that is what may be happening. Posted by: Erasmus at July 4, 2004 03:13 PMI think it's a very good post and I generally agree. Carla says that the media has created a "culture of fear." I agree, but both the left and the right have contributed. The says we can't eat anything but lettuce or live near power poles or we'll get cancer. (I'm exaggerating obviously.) The right tells us that we can't go out for fear of crime and that all our kids will grow up to be drug addicts because of the decadent culture. I don't know if it's possible at this stage to get away from this, but I sure would like Kerry to try. I read an article recently in The Wilson Quarterly about the political culture of the early sixties (ie, pre-Viet Nam)and its confident, less strident tone. I'm not claiming it was an idyllic time, but it strikes me that both sides today need to reconsider. The left (and I'm largely thinking about the Michael Moore types) need to stop thinking that the way to advance reform is to keep bashing the country about how horrible we are and what a danger we are to the world. The right needs to stop sticking its head in the sand and pretending we have no problems (other than liberals and taxes.) I think Jon is right that Kerry can present a positive program and make a case for an increased, albeit still limited, role for government. And I think he has tried to do that to some extent. I read a lot of partisans on different blogs that look at politics as war. I don't think most people look at it that way--they want something different than each party mugging each other. Posted by: MWS at July 5, 2004 09:10 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
