… of the likely Bush victory over Kerry is the combination of triumphalist high-fives and neener-neeners from winners, and head-exploding wails of despair and loathing from the losers.
Assuming the victory goes that way (’cause I’m not going to hold these thoughts until it’s all settled) …
To the winners — yes, you squeaked by. Be grateful, and be gracious. Consider how things felt when the exit polls were singing a different tune. You have the majority, but it’s not a huge one, and it can easily turn around in two years. Don’t alienate your support by arrogance. And don’t dismiss opposition to Bush’s policies as mere fringe ravings; 55MM votes say you’re wrong.
To the losers — try and be just a scosh gracious, too. Take a deep breath. Acknowledge that the majority (pretty clearly, this time, though it was still close) disagreed with you, and that you need to do a better job in selling your viewpoints next time around. Screaming that the 58MM or so folks who voted for Bush were idiots, dupes, or evil homophobic crypto-fascist theocratic thugs, is neither helpful nor likely to decrease their number. Threatening to move elsewhere is only going to earn you a ticket, with their gratitude.
If you want to sway those folks, you need to change your tactics. Instead of simply throwing rhetorical daggers at Bush for being a stupid-poopy-head, or an evil mastermind, or, paradoxically, both, try one or two or even three of the following:
- Attack the policies, not the person. Better yet, suggest policies that demonstrably might work better, as alternatives, and that have something to recommend them other than that they aren’t what Bush is doing. The fact is, there were plenty of people who voted for Bush who weren’t terribly happy with some of the things he’s done, but who didn’t see reasonable alternatives. Given a perceived choice between slogging things out in Iraq and just abandoning the whole business (whether or not that perception was fair), they chose the slogging one. Give them a better course, and they’ll likely take it, and the people who tout it. There are plenty of folks who back the President on Iraq, but don’t care for his social policies. Push them into an either-or and you may lose (in fact, you did). Give them something more nuanced to support, drum up opposition to particular policies that don’t require them to change their mind on everything, and you may be more successful.
- Next election, put forward an alternative candidate that you can actually support, fergoshsakes, not someone who happens not to be Bush (or whomever the GOP go with next time). There was a lot of “Bush is eeeevil!” being tossed about, but not a lot of “Kerry, Kerry, he’s our man …” that didn’t veer off into “… because he’s not Bush.”
- Try not to sound, as a movement, like absolute idiots and anarcho-communist radicals who want to tear down the country and spit on the flag. That doesn’t describe most of the opposition to Bush, but it certainly describes an overly-vocal percentage of it, and they do nothing for the cause but discredit the majority of those on the Left who aren’t that daft. Disinvite folks like ANSWER from the rallies, and distance yourself from that sort of crap. Yes, they stir up passions and shout loudest at demonstrations. They also are (rightfully) scary to the majority in the population in the country, which only pushes that majority away from you. (And, yes, there are vocal absolute idiots and radicals on the other end of the spectrum, too, but either the populace didn’t consider them as scary, or else they didn’t conflate Bush and the GOP with them, rightly or wrongly. See if you can figure out why.)
The rhetoric needs to be revisited, too. The Tax Cuts For The Rich / Halliburton / Neocon Conspiracy / Bible-Thumper / Draft Dodger bits didn’t work. They’re tired. People — the people you want to change the minds of, remember? — aren’t going to listen to them (unless they already believe them). Keeping them up just makes you sound shrill and impotent and stuck in the past, whether they’re accurate or not. Attack what’s going on now, especially if you have some decent alternatives, rather than rant about the Evil Rovian Cabal behind it. People will be a lot more likely to be on your side if you let them connect the last dots.
Of course, since Bush only has a single term left (huzzah), the strategy needs to be on both 2006 (the congressional races) and 2008 (the next presidential race), factoring Bush out of things except as a (secondary) counter-example. Maybe that will actually make US political rhetoric and activism stop being a perpetual referendum on Bush’s personality (which, it seems, the majority of the people like) and more one on the issues. One can but hope.
And hope I do. Because, frankly, there aren’t lot of good candidates waiting in the wings next time out for the GOP, certainly not with the folksy charm that Bush exudes (whether you consider it a ploy or evidence of his stupidity). Bill Owens is probably closest, and he comes across as a lot more moderate than Bush — but the best bet that the Dems have next time out is that the conservatives will overplay their hand and go for someone who’s more firmly hard-line and less friendly. That might actually turn things around, especially if the Dems can nominate someone that they’re exited about per se, rather than as an alternative.
Stay tuned …
UPDATE: Josh Claybourn has some interesting analysis that may invalidate some of the above. He sees the Bush win as part of the ongoing “culture wars” — which is tied into the anti-gay marriage proposition wins. That indicates that policy-related stuff — economy, war, homeland security — may be less influential on ongoing elections than more social issues — abortion, religion, gay rights, etc. That’s worrisome, to me — but is it a changing tide or a “last surge”? How this will play into the Blue-vs-Red stuff, the growing immigrant population, etc., is anyone’s guess. But it’s indicative that the Dems may run into problems with how to draw on some of their core interest groups on topics like abortion and not alienate what might be a growing move of the center.
UPDATE: Yeah, a big turn-out. But it didn’t (vs. conventional wisdom) all go Dem. The “The Most Important Election Of Our Lifetime” energized both sides (see previous update).
And the youth vote doesn’t seem to have been abnormally high, either, which is disappointing (actually looks to be the same percentage as 2000, around 15-20%). Did the rhetorical excess make them roll their eyes? Are the youth a lot more conservative, culturally, than the movies and TV would have us believe?
UPDATE: Interesting. The Colorado House and Senate look to have gone Dem, despite a GOP governor and giving the president vote to Bush, and despite an overall registration deficit for the Dems. That may, in turn, hurt Owens for 2008.
UPDATE: Hopefully the response from the Dems will be more productive than some of the ones documented here. Though, “Don’t mourn, organize,” seems like a good idea. Just watch who you include in your organization, and pay closer attention to what your mission statement is. To wit, it’s to win, to get more people to vote for you, not to just try and make the other guy lose.
UPDATE: Since it didn’t ping through, here‘s a nicely complementary mention from Anne …
No triumphalism here, just relief. In fact, the biggest accomplishment of the second term has already happened and is summarized by my post here.
I would advise the President with respect to gay marriage to say that the states have sufficiently protected marriage through ballot initiatives, declare victory, and move on. Other than prosecuting the war on terror, I predict that a second Bush term will accomplish little (cf. Reagan’s second term).
Well said Dave. I know that some people voted for Bush, not because they love him, or that they hated Kerry, but because of the situation in Iraq. I had one person tell me, that everything is so screwed up there, and it’s not going to get better, she’d rather have it continue to take down Bush than ruin a viable alternative. Hopefully, in four more (long long) years things will get better in Iraq. I won’t be holding my breath, but we can hope. It would be nice for W to exceed my expectations and for these to be better years.
I also hope that the Democrats get a clue and find a better candidate. It would be nice for your everyday average moderate Democrat to have someone they can support again.
I guess I’ll have to hold on to the fact that Salazar beat Coors.
I’m more saddened by the states that passed bigoted anti-gay laws than by Bush winning. I hope that we can get a clue as a country and not pass a constitutional amendment to be bigots as a nation. I also hope that the SCOTUS doesn’t suddenly become a partisan monster and take away women’s rights as well.
I know we can survive this as a nation and I certainly hope that something good comes out of this mess. Hopefully those first time voters will come back to the polls and we can get closer to being a true Democracy. I’ve never understood why more people don’t exercise their right to have some say in what happens.
I do hope that Bush takes that course, and that his second term will be much less tumultuous.
The changes in SCOTUS over the next four years will be interesting. We’ve been hearing about big replacements for over a decade, and it hasn’t happened. Will it happen this term? And who will it be? I mistrust the common wisdom about it, just because it hasn’t been happened yet. And I also hold some comfort in the idea that SC justices rarely turn out quite the way their nominating presidents had in mind.
The Dems still hold a large enough portion of the Senate to provide a brake on the worst excesses there, unless the GOP goes for some serious hardball procedural changes (which could well redound on them badly in the future).
But my hopes are right alongside you there, Amanda.
I’m not real sure addressing policy issues is the way for the Democrats to win. This is because policy issues are complex. Complex issues require complex positions that are easily mocked or just flat-out ignored by people who feel that the easy answer is generally the right one.
You’ll note that the Republican party didn’t spend much time on policy issues — they used personal attacks and fear like cudgels, over and over and over again. Zell Miller comes to mind…
But you’re right — the way we tried to frame the debate this time around was clumsy and not effective. We need to find another way.
I am not surprised by the split decision. For Congress and the President foreign policy and homeland security dominate. But, since Colorado by virtue of the Constitution has no foreign policy, bread and butter issues dominate The Democrats have an historical advantage here. Even in the Senate races that the Republicans won, Bush had consistently higher margins than each of the Senators (with the exception of Specter who’s a RINO). The voters were saying, in my opinion, we are voting for the President, not Republicans. The Republicans would be wise not to misintepret this like Gingrich did the ’94 vote.
Let me make some broad, overarching comments (these may turn into a separate post later).
The cynic in me would say that the American people assume all politicians are kleptocrats, and Kerry certainly didn’t come off as a “man of the people” in this category.
I don’t know if it’s a pendulum swing or a response to terror in the world or what, but there does seem to be a sense in some quarters that the cultural freedoms and tolerance of different mores within society has either gone too far, or has gone faster than the comfort level of the majority.
On abortion rights, there’s a huge black box of emotions and conflicted feelings out there in the populace. I think most people dislike abortion in general, but they know folks who made that decision and would not have seen the law prevent it. When the perceived choice is between those who push for abortion on demand and those who think some restrictions need to be put in place (parental notification, restrictions on certain procedures), I think the population will trend torward the latter, cautiously but on a gut level. I understand that, though I don’t agree with it.
I agree that there’s a strategy to be preemptive on the gay rights issue, though I wouldn’t monolithically link it with earlier civil rights struggles. By the same token, though, I think it’s a gut reaction from people who may know gay individuals, but who still suffer from the “ick” factor about homosexuality in general — and who see things as going much faster than they are comfortable with. There is also a strong religious factor involved, and though I disagree with it, I’m willing to acknowledge that it’s a matter of my own moral vision (freedom, responsibility, love) being at odds with the moral vision of others. Given, again, a perception of all-or-nothing alternatives (either ban it in the constitution or else face some judge somewhere forcing the state to do it), I can understand why some would go with their guts on this. I disagree strongly with their judgment on it, but pragmatically I think this is yet another area where we need a confluence of both popular opinion and judicial action over time, and that just hasn’t happened.
I think that is 180-degrees wrong. A less moderate candidate is likely to lose even more votes. What’s needed is a someone who demonstrates how far right and extreme the GOP candidate is — and how his positions are something that the population can approve of.
A bit of charisma would be helpful, too.
But he is. That’s the reality. And it’s with a majority of the votes, too. That’s a reality as well. The question then becomes, what to do about it, both to mitigate whatever undesirable actions his administration may make over the next term and to effectively plan for his replacement.
Because moral issues are real to most folk. To all folk, actually, depending on how you define “moral.”
[shrill]
It was weird this morning to hear that “moral issues” held the sway of the American voters and that the overwhelmingly then voted for bush. I’ve never thought of a kleptocrat as moral before, but I guess conventional wisdom is against me on this.
Gay marriage being the last of the culture/civil rights wars the right is trying to nip it in the bud like the couldn’t do with minority civil rights. By putting hate into the constitutions of several states, it will be harder to undo in the future (the voting trend on gay marriage acceptance is against them). The culture war will continue and there is no real way to deal with it. When you have a group of people that think that the Democrats are going to come and take their gun’s, and bibles away from them, force them to marry people of the same gender, and haul true believers off to concentration camps, it is real hard for someone on the left to even reason with them.
And Dave…It’s not bush that is evil, it’s the people that he has surrounded him and are in control of the government (let’s build a bridge to the 19th century!). No, bush is still a petty, bullying, bubble boy. You also have to just be all sorts of up beat about a group of people that force attendees to rallies pledge allegiance to George and party instead of the country. Real good uniting and not at all divisive.
But I guess the Democratic Party could give up on civil rights since it doesn’t play well in the red states, and choice also isn’t that popular of an idea anymore so they could abandon that as well.
Let’s hope that democrats get a clue and nominate someone next time that isn’t so far right and moderate as to be indistinguishable from the republican candidate.
[/shrill]
Hard to accept this man as president. I still don’t understand how the hell Americans voted “moral issues” over real issues.
Boggles the mind.
Darn good posting, Dave. I put it up on my blog. I have many friends who have spent the past few months screaming at each other (usually metaphorically, not literally). Maybe some of them will read it and calm down.
Have you thought of running for office?
😉
Have you thought of running for office?
Fred, bite your frelling tongue. Aside from being utterly unelectable (too “conservative” in some areas, too “radical” in others, too unfitting the mold in a lot of area, and too geeky in most areas), I have absolutely no desire to be in politics.
{Shudders}
But … thanks.
“Let’s hope that democrats get a clue and nominate someone next time that isn’t so far right and moderate as to be indistinguishable from the republican candidate.”
“I think that is 180-degrees wrong. A less moderate candidate is likely to lose even more votes. What’s needed is a someone who demonstrates how far right and extreme the GOP candidate is — and how his positions are something that the population can approve of.”
We need the Republicans to be the center-right party and the Democrats to be the center-left party. Whichever party lets their ideologues control them loses. If both parties submit to this temptation, we all lose.
Yes.
I hope (perhaps foolishly) that, given the election win, Bush will not feel the need to pander to the Far Right as he has. (That assumes that some of it has been pandering. YMMV.)
Part of it, to get back to the “culture wars” thang, may be that where the center is may not be where it was, or where the culture seemed to be carrying it.
We’ll see.
Thoughts on email from True Believers and the Election.
I'd intended on putting up a new entry on the election prior to leaving for work, but I ended up responding to an email from yet another True Believer™ telling me how I'm very intelligent and yet still a fool for denying God and making …
It’s all over INCLUDING the whining!
This is my last post on the 2004 election. Huzzah! Despite some criticism from Republicans who swore there was no…
Fred
Two things that count against Dave running for office.
1. He’s a Gamer. And well know gamers worship the Devil (Jack Chick said so, so it must be true).
2. He belongs to a church the likes gay people.
Since there is no way an athiest can get elected in this country, just think about the chances of a devil worshiping gay lover has.
This message brought paid for by friends of phred felpps
Rich
The ideologues have been in control of the GOP for the past 30 years ever since the “southern strategy” came in to being. Every year the GOP ideologues have moved the stakes of the “big tent” farther and farther to the right to the point that the Moderate Democrats are where Goldwater was in ’68. The Democrats need an ideologue version of Reagan to drag the country back toward the center.
Yup. Way too many ideological skeletons in my closet. And proud of ’em. 🙂
Dave, we have had this discussion before, but Bush has been one of the few people that has tried to find the center on these things. Even as recently as last week Bush was trying to soften his position. This story really pissed off radio talk show host, Michael Savage. Being aware of the history of Bush’s views it is not surprising to me. Bush has never pandered on this issue. Rather, his views are actually somewhat nuanced for a guy with a reputation of lacking such complexity. Even up to a few months ago Bush had attempted to build bridges with gay Republicans. Unfortunately, the Log Cabin Republicans broke their word that they would remain “neutral”. Time will tell whether Bush will try to rebuild the bridges the LCR burned down.
I’d hate to use Michael Savage’s being pissed off as a definition of being a “moderate.”
I’m familiar with the argument that Bush has tried to be centrist on this issue, but he’s willingly and openly drawn his support from much more extreme and less centrist groups and figures, and acted in support of them in turn. In cases where states had local races to forbid even civil unions, I heard no nuanced disagreement with him (except, well, tucked away here — and clearly there wasn’t much credibility given him, nor any big Christian Conservative backlash). I can understand why the LCR did not stay neutral in the race against him, nor do I blame them.
That’s why the smiley was there.
Hey if gamers all worship Satan (or what/whoever), what about politicians. It’s commonly known they all sell their souls to the Devil in order to win.
Frelling?
Well, feldercarb. By Klono’s Golden Claws! SIG! QX!
That would be “felgercarb,” I believe. 🙂
Bush didn’t adopt the gay marriage amendment until all the stuff in San Francisco and Massachusetts. Prior to that, there was a lot of carping by Religious Right organizations about his position. My guess is now the Relgious Right will no longer suck it up and will push for a hardening of his position. I predict that the President won’t change his position becuase he hasn’t in the past. His support for a modest constellation of rights under the monicker of civil unions has always been there. It is probably not enough to please gay activists and it is too big to please the Religious Right. He is the only major political figure that I know that thinks that it is possible to synthesize the extremes. Unfortunately, he is probably wrong. Both sides are simply too polarized.
Note what has happened behind the scenes which looks to me like it has Bush’s fingerprints on it. The wording of the FMA has changed from:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
To:
`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’.
This means a state may via the legislature can adopt not only civil unions but also so-called gay marriage. The courts cannot do it and that’s what Bush is most concerned about. That’s why I believe Bush didn’t criticize the most restrictive ballot initiatives even though he is personally opposed to this because that is up to the people and legislatures of the respective states.
Ummm…
Rich, the second on is the stealth verson of the first one.
The first version was never voted on and the text was written before Bush supported any amendment. The second version failed cloture in the Senate on July 14. In my opinion, this was an improvement because it focuses on judicial activism and state’s rights, and does not restrict the state legislatures in any way.
Rich…
Seprate but equal!
I think that’s something we can all rally around.
Or
We are all created equal, but some are more eqaul then others because my god told me so.
Also…
Those darn Activist Judges.
Brown v Board of Education
Roe v Wade
Loving v Virginia
The over turning of Ademdment 2 here in Colorado.
So, who would you rather have, a judge that sees a wrong and rectifies it, or a Judge that blindly follows something wrong because it is on a piece of paper.
Activist Judge:
“Ummm, Mr. Scott you are correct and slavery is a great injustice you are free to go.”
Non-activist Judge:
“Sorry Dred Scott, but the Constitution is say’s you are not only property, have no right, but that you are also 3/5 of person. Please put those shackels back on now. Have a nice day.”
For myself, it’s a fine line. Like most people who aren’t ideological purists, I approve of activist judges when the are activists for causes I support, and disapprove of them when they are activists against causes I support. To paraphrase:
So, who would you rather have, a judge that sees a wrong and rectifies it, or a Judge that blindly follows something wrong because it is on a piece of paper.
Activist Judge:
“Ummm, Justice Moore, you are correct and banishing the Ten Commandments from the courthouse is a great injustice you are free to reinstall them there.”
Non-activist Judge:
“Sorry Justice Moore, but the Constitution is say’s the state shall not establish an official religion. Please remove that sculpture now. Have a nice day.”
If judges are “free” to correct injustices in the face of codified law, they are also free to impose injustices in the same way. Who, then, is to stop them?
And, yet, the cases you mention are indicative that an “activist” judiciary can do great good (at the risk of a popular backlash, to be sure). The problem becomes, how to get them to use their power for goodness, and not evil …
I am more of a purist. I believe that is necessary to limit the power of judges or any part of the government for that matter. As to Dred Scott, in order to really solved the problem required a civil war and several constitutional amendments. If the people are not convinced of the rightness of the situation then no amount of “righteous” judges will rectify the situation. The first step is always the step of persuasion. A government powerful enough to override the people is a monster. The lesser evil is a less powerful government. It does less good but it also does less harm.
Good point Dave. And since Evil seems to be in the eye of the beholder….
Arrrggg…Not an Eye of the Beholder. Firk dang blast I’m in the Anti-magic ray!
:->
Clarence Thomas staring into a Beholder explains a lot. 🙂
Boulder Dude, I found something that may brighten your day. Ashcroft will be resigning before the next term.
Rich…
Yeah, but I read in the WSJ that Miguel “Yeah, torture’s ok” Estrada is going to nominated to replace him.
I hadn’t heard Estrada, but I’d read (at Scott’s site) Giuliani was a rumored replacement.
I don’t expect to be thrilled by anyone Bush nominates for the FBI. But Ashcroft has managed to be both ineffectual, menacing, and discrediting the DoJ all at once. It would be difficult to come up with someone worse.
Sorry….
My bad, I went back and read it again:
Guiliani for DoJ and Estrada for SCOTUS.
I really like this post. Unlike so much of read, on both sides, it comes across as reasoned and reasonable. Thanks for that much, for starters. But, beyond that, it’s an argument for reasoning versus rhetoric, and that’s always a good thing. So, again, thanks…
Bitterness
Late last night, I had an idea for a blog entry. I was going to write something about the aftermath of the election — about the remainder of bitterness and hatred that still lurks out there. But, Photodude beat me to it….
Thankee. I do try.
The President today:
“I will be your president regardless of your faith, and I don’t expect you to agree with me necessarily on religion,” Bush said. “As a matter of fact, no president should ever try to impose religion on our society. … The great thing that unites is the fact you can worship freely if you choose, and if you – you don’t have to worship.”
While the President is planning on spending political capital, it doesn’t appear that the so-called social agenda will get much if any of it.
Got here via the Ruminator’s site. The thesis is well put, but I’m not there yet. When I disagree with virtually every policy this Administration has put forth for three years, it’s difficult for me to put the disagreements aside so quickly. 😉
Regarding the youth vote: try looking at this map over at Kos. It’s interesting, and if it’s accurate it doesn’t bode well for Republicans in 2006 (if the kids keep voting). I’m old enough to remember “never trust anyone over thirty”…I may even have said it a few times myself. Looks like that motto might need to be revived.
Rich, I’ll wait to see actions joined up with words.
Linkmeister, I’m not necessarily suggesting that you put aside any disagreements. The point of my thesis is that those who want to oppose those policies are going to get more distance with the general populace by opposing those policies, not (a) opposing the man, or (b) opposing the folks who voted for the man.
As Lincoln put it, “Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?”
Re the Youth Votes, two things:
1. While the youth percentage was up, so was everyone else’s (record turn-out). My impression is that, as a percentage of the turn-out itself, the youth vote was roughly the same as in 2000.
2. It’s probably simplistic to anticipate that the youth cohort will continue to be vote that way over time. “Don’t trust anyone over thirty” stopped being nearly as popular a catch-phrase when that generation reached thirty … Populations tend to become more conservative over time, as they become vested in the status quo.
Not that that’s any sort of an absolute, but I would neither discount the youth vote nor depend on it to change the world,
Oh, I’m not counting on the twenty-somethings in the future. I just thought the map was interesting. And I well recall the quote (attributed to about forty different British politicians) that if you’re not a Liberal at twenty you have no heart, but if you’re not a Tory at thirty you have no brain.
As to not opposing his supporters, when they respect other people’s views, I’ll respect theirs. So far, it ain’t happening. Their “moral values” seem to be awfully selective as to which issues are moral and which aren’t.
Ok, that’s enough. I don’t want to needlessly pick a fight with anyone.
If we only hold ourselves to the the level of behavior of others, our behavior will be no better than theirs, even if our goals are “obviously” loftier — assuming the ends justify the means. 🙂
Beyond that, I think it’s as much a mistake (as I’ve said before) to consider Bush’s supporters in this election to be a monolithic group of any sort. Some folks despised Bush’s domestic policies, but felt he was the best chance to protect our nation. Others disagreed with Iraq, but preferred his apparent stances on scocial issues. Still others just got the hives whenever they saw Kerry. The number of folks who supported Bush because they overall thought everything he was doing was perfect is probably as small as the number who supported Kerry because they thought he was a spiffy fellow. If there’s to be hope of drawing away some of that Bush vote in ’06 and ’08, that needs to be recognized and worked on.