Consequently, to stand any chance of winning next year, Republicans must pray for a national amnesia to erase the previous eight years from the minds of voters. But amnesia only happens in soap operas—and that's why Democrats will win in 2008. As long as Democratic candidates remind voters that the Republican platform and Bush's record are one and the same, victory will be assured.
This is precisely the wrong approach for Democrats to take in 2008. No matter how bad a president you think Bush has been (debate rages in America's coffee shops over whether his presidency is transcendentally atrocious or merely disastrous), attacking him is no substitute for an actual platform. Thinking otherwise is exactly how Democrats managed the improbable feat of losing in 2004.
Back then, some friends of mine wrote the following in a New York Times op-ed about the relationship between what a party puts in its platforms, and how they do at the polls that year:
Another platform indicator is the candidate-to-opponent ratio. In 1984, the Democrats, in their hulking platform, found it almost impossible to spell out their policies without reference to the Republicans. Ronald Reagan, for example, was mentioned 213 times, while Walter Mondale, the nominee, didn't come up once -- and he lost in a rout. Republicans tried the same tactic in 1996, singling out Bill Clinton 153 times -- and giving Bob Dole a paltry 45 mentions. If the strategy was to rally the base, it fell flat with the voters -- an important lesson for members of the ''anybody but Bush'' crowd, who trust hatred of the president, and not support for John Kerry, to ensure a Democratic victory this year.
The simple fact is that Americans are looking for more than just a change. They are looking for answers. In 2006, a Democratic Congress was elected, pretty much on the basis of not being Republican. One year later, Congress is one of the few political entities in America even less popular than the president. A recent Reuters/Zogby poll found that Congress enjoys the approval of just 11 percent of Americans. That's worse than O.J. Simpson (16 percent), to say nothing of our own cosmically awful (or was it astonishingly dreadful) president, who weighed in at 29 percent.
It is certainly possible that our almost pathological obssession with attacking Bush at the expense of all other political discourse will lead Democrats to one or two more successful elections. But every day the Party slouches forward with no direction in mind besides doing whatever is the opposite of Bush, it hurts our chances of winning in the long run. Changing the direction of America takes more than saying that the present direction is terrible, even if that's true (and it is). It takes a proactive vision whose starting point is not "What are the other guys doing" but rather "What does America need right now?"
A genuine progressive agenda won't get off the ground in this country until activists like Kos figure out that Bush just doesn't merit his current position as organizing principle for the American left. If you really want to make Americans mad enough to put you in charge, don't just show them that everything we have now is terrible. Show them what you would do with the country if you were given the chance. Then, you can remind them that the goons now in power are standing in the way. Not only is that more compelling to voters, it also compels you to think about how to lead. Because leadership--not just a chance at replacing the other guy--is supposed to be what you're campaigning for in the first place.
3 comments:
A Reasonable Man once wrote, “Changing the direction of America takes more than saying that the present direction is terrible, even if that's true (and it is). It takes a proactive vision.”
Agreed. Framing a progressive response in terms of the anti-Bush will ultimately end in disappointment, not least of all because it implies only two possible courses of action (right, left; wrong, right), rather than an array of unique options. To borrow this reasonable guy’s “direction” metaphor—we continue running (very unsafe) down the same bushy path, or we backtrack. Either way, nothing really changes, not even the scenery, although it might be a bit safer since we’ve cleared some of the bushes away. It’s easy, and it is lazy. It takes a more creative approach, a pluckier thinker, to define a new path through the brush. I’ll drop the metaphor before it gets preposterous.
A Reasonable Man astutely reasoned that we should think about how to lead. Indeed, we should think about how to be citizens as well. And the dynamic relationship between politician and citizen is a basic ideal that we ought to consider before launching full-throttle into the wilderness (See what I did? The metaphor got ludicrous.) I lack a proposal for this "collaborative America," but I did happen to read an article by Harry Boyte, author of Everyday Politics, which toys with an unusual (at least in Presidential campaigns) biblical parable about the roles of leaders and citizens (and citizen-leaders):
"It's a lot better to be with David than Goliath," Mike Huckabee told the Values Voters Forum on Oct. 18, to illustrate his identification with the little guy. Barack Obama, in a March 4 speech at Selma, Ala., commemorating the famous 1965 civil-rights march, described himself as part of the "Joshua generation," picking up where the "Moses" generation left off. But for our time Nehemiah is more helpful than either David or Joshua.
Remembering Nehemiah could put active citizenship at the center of an election campaign that so far has treated it as a secondary question.... But Nehemiah did not present himself as a Moses-like rescuer. Rather, he called people to hard work....
We need new Nehemiahs who call forth America's democratic genius of a self-reliant, productive, future-oriented citizenry, leaders who tackle tough issues in a collaborative way and reject the rescuer role. Such leaders would tap the talents of citizens to address public problems on which government is necessary but not sufficient, from climate change to school reform. They would challenge us to create healthy communities, not simply provide access to health care. They would recall that democracy is a way of life, not simply a trip to the ballot box."
To read the entire article, go to: http://www.startribune.com/
commentary/story/1554072.html
Hey there, I'm a professional hacker with extensive experience in the field. I've worked with various companies as a hacker, and after retiring from that, I'm now working independently.
If you're looking for someone who can help you gain unauthorized access to a social media account or ANY OTHER SYSTEM, I'm the right person for the job.
It has been widely recognized for a long time that finding a legitimate hacker on the Dark Net Market (DNM) is extremely difficult, despite the high demand for their services. It is also not uncommon for people to fall victim to scams when attempting to pay for hacking services. A true professional in this field would not offer their services for less and anyone who accepts less is either inexperienced and likely to fail, or a fraud.
The cost of the service depends on the complexity of the task. If you require assistance, you can contact me and I will let you know if I can help.
I specialize in
•Website hacking
•Facebook and other social media hacking
•Database hacking, & Blog Cleaning
•Phone and Gadget Hacking
•CREDIT CARD MISHAPS
•Clearing Of Criminal Records
•RECOVERY OF LOST FUNDS ON BINARY OPTIONS & CAPITAL INVESTMENT
•Location Tracking
•Crypto recovery
My goal is to help you achieve your objectives while maintaining the highest standards. I respect your privacy and will keep all information confidential.
If you're in need of a skilled and trustworthy hacker to help you, feel free to contact me. I'm always available and ready to take on new challenges. Let's work together to accomplish your goals.
If you're concerned about unauthorized access, you can use a burner email address to send me a message on -
Mobilotech@protonmail.com
Post a Comment