[Winona Online Democracy]
FYI, an article by British journalist Robin Shepherd (currently living in
“Anger fails to attract converts”
by Robin Shepherd.
Robin Shepherd, an adjunct fellow of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is a columnist based in
"Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad."
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, of course, but even in February when I was watching the primaries, I had the
feeling that those prophetic words might well be heading up my obituary notice for the Democratic
Party's presidential campaign.
The Democrats' campaign was mad in two senses of the word: mad in the sense that anger, scorn and contempt
defined the style in which they made their case, and mad in the sense that a central component of that case was just plain crazy.
Let me make something clear at this stage. In referring to the "Democrats' campaign," I have in mind something much broader than the words and actions of Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards—honorable candidates both--during the past six months. Any serious strategist will tell you that a campaign to take the White House begins the moment the last election is over. And its character is defined not only by the official candidates but also by the party machine understood in its widest sense--the activists, the celebrity supporters, the sympathetic pundits and the loyal voters.
Back in 2000
Consider, with this in mind, how it all began in November 2000 and in the aftermath of events in
Nothing has so defined Democratic politics over the past four years as the allegation that President Bush "stole" that election. If you had a dollar for every reference to hanging or pregnant chads or to Al Gore's victory in the popular vote you could probably pay off the national debt. But will someone tell me what exactly that was all about? Later surveys, by independent analysts, showed that, chads or no chads, Bush won
The popular vote? Well, unless I'm mistaken,
Co-starring with Bush the electoral grave robber, of course, was Bush the inveterate moron. No one ever quite managed to explain how one could be reconciled with the other. If Bush really was so stupid, how did he manage to get away with the greatest crime of the century in the full glare of television cameras and right under the nose of the most litigious society in
the world?
Blinded by such contemptuous characterizations, Democrats appeared to forget one of the most basic rules of democratic politics: In U.S. presidential elections, people identify with their candidate, often on a personal level. Democrats lambasting Bush as a dumb, redneck fraudster were not merely slandering the president, they were slandering his voters too. Were
wavering Republicans really expected to cross the political divide to be rewarded with the dunce's cap by their self-proclaimed betters?
The tragic irony of the "all-about-Bush" Democrats over the past four years is that they became the party of personality politics. And just as surely as personality politics failed the Republicans with President Bill Clinton, it failed the Democrats with Bush.
In
Blair's new Labor Party lay as much in its skill in inaugurating a change in the party's political personality--making it more appealing to mainstream voters and distancing itself from the activist core--as in its willingness to change tack on policy.
A moderate and accommodating policy platform was matched by a moderate and accommodating demeanor. And it worked.
To be sure, one could find plenty of instances when Republicans engaged in personality politics as well. But apart from the weirder sections of the Christian right, whose literal demonology mirrored the more figurative kind offered up by the Democrats, there was nothing to compare with the scale of abuse directed against the incumbent.
I did a database search of newspaper articles and readers' letters a few days ago for the phrase "I hate
Bush," contrasting it with usage of "I hate Kerry" in the past three months. The Bush haters won 67-7. I am not implying that Kerry and Edwards directly participated in this campaign of vilification. They did not write "The Bush-Hater's Handbook" or "The I Hate George W. Bush Reader." Nor did they put out Michael Moore's appalling "Fahrenheit 9/11," the starkest illustration of anti-Bush bigotry of the past four years. But there were plenty of people around them who reveled in this stuff.
Sympathy problem
The key problem is that this overpersonalization of the political process deprived the Democrats of a vocabulary that could be understood sympathetically by the people they needed to win over. Not that I'm underestimating the difficulty of bridging the "values gap" so evident in modern
considerations really take us to the heart of the matter.
Democrats need to relearn the art of debating with people without vilifying them as extremists or fools. They need a new political lexicon to address the people with whom they disagree that treats them with respect and not contempt. Above all, they need to come out of denial. The Democrats spent years accusing Bush of dividing the nation when it was they who generated most of the heat. The message is simple: By all means be passionate, but don't be mad. If the gods don't get you, the voters will.
<(©¿©)>
Craig
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona Any problems or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
