Same old same old
More on the issue of Democratic Party policy and the Iraq war, and the Sheehan effect.
posted by Dumplingeater @ 8/22/2005
7 comments
Liberal Malcontents
We're liberal, and we're malcontent.
We're liberal, and we're malcontent.
More on the issue of Democratic Party policy and the Iraq war, and the Sheehan effect.
posted by Dumplingeater @ 8/22/2005
7 comments
7 Comments:
I think you can make an argument that persuasive to the middle/undecideds that there's a difference between "tough on national security" and "thoroughly incompetent on national security."
Why the obsession with appealing to the middle/undecideds? Did you read the articles from the Nation? Do the opinions expressed in them cause you to shift at all away from the idea that it is so important to differentiate between "being tough on national security" and being "thoroughly incompetent on national security?"
The "strategic class" Dems are so busy trying to appear manly that they are missing out on the opportunity to solidify their real base, and to appeal to those who feel (rightly) that their vote doesn't count. I suppose you're correct that there should, theoretically, be a way to articulate the difference you describe, but I say "enough already with being being overly cautious not to appear weak on national defense."
That gets translated by the "neoliberals" into saying absolutely nothing critical of the war itself, but only to make weak pronouncements that it's "the way the war is being waged" that's the problem. Even Dean is getting weak in the knees. That, it seems to me, is repeating the mistakes of the Kerry campaign. Sure, Kerry proved particularly inept, but as the articles point out, the stance itself could be the real problem -- especially given the way that polls show a shift in general public opinion on the war.
Well you've got to get the votes from somewhere, and the idea is to get them from the middle. I don't necessarily disagree with you though. I think you can make a strong argument that the entire war was wrong, going beyond merely "the way the war is being waged." They can say they supported the war on false pretenses and that they were betrayed by Bush, as all of America was. I think that will resonate. And the Dems have to start hammering this stuff over and over again. I think Begala has misread the legacy of the Vietnam war and exaggerated the extent to which the meaning of the war was that the Dems were weak on national security. Ok I guess I gotta go re-read the Nation articles.
Yeah, getting the votes from the middle is one place. But another place is to get votes from the millions who are probably sympathetic to progressive ideas, and certainly against having their sons and daughters dying in Iraq, who don't currently vote. Going for the middle has been the approach of the Dems for a while now, and it hasn't worked before, why will it work now. Rove went after the votes to the right of the Republican mainstream, and it enlarged his base much more than pulling in the "undecideds." (I think).
I find myself surprised to agree with Dumpling on this one. In every other instance, I would agree with Lazlo that pulling from the middle is the most sensible strategy. It is textbook for how you run a marketing or influence campaign. However, in this instance, I think straight talk aimed at galvanizing the full left would work better for basically two reasons:
1. It is early enough in the race that the dem party can do this and frame/test their pitches without doing too much damage or feeding the right's arguments.
2. Practice, practice, practice. Dems are typically like the kid who does his homework right before the class. Instead, they need to get their base straight, test it, and engage it to act. The ads on the supreme court nomination are an example of the vacuum left when the formal left leaves the space open. That bad PR did not just hurt the group that ran the ad, but also hurt the dems at large. As for the Nation, you would be surprised to find that they are quite good at toning down their rhetoric when they need to and I would say that those on the inside need to find ways to use similar organizations to push a compelling, but not radical message that the war is wrong on many levels, to graphically and granularly show those mistakes and blunders and push them back out to the masses of left-leaning people under the banner of "this is what happens when you bow out from the debate".
I was just trying to point out that there is space between tough on national security and competence on national security. For example, the Bush war in Iraq is not going well. Most Americans believe something like that statement. Yet many of them also believe Bush is tough on national security. But how can this be? If Bush's war has made things worse, how can he also be tough on national security? Just because you are a cowboy war monger doesn't mean you are tough. If you have made things worse with the war, like making Iraq a training ground for terrorits by destabilizing the region, then you are weakening America's national security, not being "tough." This a strong argument because it has the power to convince even the hawkish.
Again, I'm with Arthur and Imp on this one. As Arthur says, you're still trying to argue logic against faith. I completely understand your argument Vic, and I think it makes complete sense, but I don't think it will register with anyone who is hawkish, i.e., who thinks it's unpatriotic to critize our president, or who thinks that to critize the rationale of the ongoing war is to aid the enemy. You may capture a very few folks in the middle with such an argument, but that won't activate the many who are tired of the same ol' same ol' from the Dems.
Post a Comment
<< Home