How moderates helped re-elect President Bush

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

WASHINGTON — John Kerry was not defeated by the religious right. He was beaten by moderates who went — reluctantly in many cases — for President Bush.

This will be hard for many Democrats to take. It's easier to salve those wounds by demonizing religious conservatives. But in the 2004 election, Democrats left votes on the table that could have created a Kerry majority.

Consider these findings from the network exit polls: About 38 percent of those who thought abortion should be legal in most cases went to Bush. Bush got 22 percent from voters who favored gay marriage and 52 percent among those who favor civil unions. Bush even managed 16 percent among voters who thought the president paid more attention to the interests of large corporations than of "ordinary Americans." A third of the voters who favored a government more active in solving problems went to Bush. True, 22 percent of the voters said that "moral values" were decisive in their decisions. But 71 percent picked some other issue.

All this means that Bush won not because there is a right-wing majority in the United States, but because the president persuaded just enough of the nonconservative majority to go his way. Even with their increased numbers, conservatives still constitute only 34 percent of the electorate. The largest share of the American electorate (45 percent) calls itself moderate, and 21 percent of this year's voters — bless them — called themselves liberal

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002086565_dionne10.html

[kvining]

1. This is a cut and paste from what I posted on another thread

But it is so relevent to what you are saying that I would like you to read it. In the 20th Century this party was all about average working people. In the 21st Century, we have become "The Weenie Liberal". Perhaps we need to get back to the 20th Century, and start looking at how FDR ran this party. The lesson of this election is that the Democrats have now completely lost a core constituency - lower-to-median middle class working white people. The core of the Democrat Party moved from that constituency to the tree-hugger set, and as a result it has become way too focused on narrow issues while totally neglecting the broad issues that could have worked in their favor. The article on the front paged posted from the Onion has more truth than humor in it - the Dems have focused so much on rights for narrow interest groups and extreme positions on environmental and social issues, they have allowed the Repugs to define us as a mish mash of kooks.

The dems need to get back to broad issues - for example, instead of talking about "gay rights" we need to talk about "human rights", which for me is the same thing and puts things in a perspective that would allow average working people uncomfortable with homosexuality to see things in a different light. On religious issues, and here I plead guilty to my own charges as I am an anti-religious person, we need to stop letting the anti-religious among us set the tone, and let those Dems who are religious, and there actually are quite a few, to point out that Jesus was in fact a leftist and many of the social aims of the Democrats are more consistent with His teachings than what the Republicans advocate. Instead our main religious spokesman, Mr. Jackson, is a guy who cheats on his wife, fathers illegitimate children, has been accused of embezzlement, and is stuck in the 60s, not to mention the fact his diction makes it incredibly difficult for a lot of people to understand what the hell it is he is saying. We need to fire this guy as the chief spiritual spokesperson of this party and get some new management, and get him off the talking head shows as a Democratic counterpoint to Falwell or Robertson.

The point I was trying to make in the "weenie liberal" statement is that dems have become so successfully stereotyped by the right wing media machine, people now automatically perceive someone who supports the dems as a tree hugging pothead, when the real fact is millions of democrats like myself come from union and working class backgrounds, and I see everyday those like myself defecting to the Repugs. The leadership keeps worrying about losing our extremists to Nader and the gang, but I think catering to them has come at the price of losing millions of voters who should be our natural constituency - average working people. I want to see us drop advocation of gun control, drop being anti-nuke plant and drop being pro Affirmative Action, and get off this kick of looking like we want to give selected minorities special treatment and get back to advocating broad advances in general civil rights for everyone, which in the end will achieve the same thing. We also need to stop offering overly complicated healthcare plans, and start advocating a simple single payer government-sponsored corporation along the lines of Fannie Mae, the Federal Reserve or the old ATT monopoly - something simple that working people can understand. Kerry's incomprehensible healthcare plan just looke like more bueracracy, and the Repugs kill us with stuff like that in the eyes of average everyday people. We must broaden and simplify our message, and get rid of some the figureheads in this party who have become symbolic of negative perceptions in the working class. If the Dems don't smarten up and change the voice and the face of the party, we are dead. The weenie liberal days need to come to an end.

[Indiana_Dem]

2. Well I'm NOT going to become some neoliberal DLC supporter.

If our party shifts to this political philosophy then I'm done with the party. End of message.

[kvining]

5. Just curious

Well, what issue I brought up offends you so? I am not trying to state the ideological principles I live by, I am trying to tell you what it is going to take to win over working class people, especially in the South. Hey dude - we lost. We need to figure out where we need to give a little in order to win.

[Indiana_Dem]

6. I agree with your "human rights" ideas...

I am a working class person and I totally understood Kerry's healthcare plan. People just don't take the time to find out and they listen to all the spin. The media dominates and distorts the messages. I used to belong to a union and so did my husband until each factory shut down. If anybody remembers correctly, the Democrat party has always been for the bests interests of the worker until this "New Democrat" group developed. Now it seems as if they're just as bad with the corporate backing. I also will not compromise my principles regarding a war inflicted on people under false pretenses. The war on terror, fine. Go after those responsible. The pre-emptive Iraq war is unforgivable. Many of the new Democrats went along and still go along with this war. I realize we can't bow out now and that's why I am so mad that it was ever allowed in the first place. I can't help it I'm not in the majority and I cannot forgive being lied to on something as serious as this pre-emptive war.

I will give on the gun control as I'm a pro-2nd amendment person. I'll also give on partial-birth abortions. I will give on settling for civil unions for now but I also strongly oppose a Constitutional Amendment. This where the human rights thing enters in so I won't bend there. I'll give in to drilling in ANWR because then it'll prove out there's only 2 years of oil due our outrageous consumption.

But I will not condone a premptive strike policy nor another nuclear arms buildup race with the rest of the world. Kerry had a wonderful plan for that. He had a wonderful plan for Iran and North Korea. I will not compromise on these issues and that is where many of the DLC members start looking like their counterparts.

[kvining]

7. Actually

I never mentioned the war as something we need to compromise on to win the working class. I feel exactly the same way you do about it. I think we are actually mostly in agreement. We need to look at some issues like gun control,etc and decide if it is worth losing elections over some of these issues.

[Jade Fox]

10. The Republicans made Gay marriage an issue because they knew....

it would be devisive. Why blame the Democrats for being forced to
come out against a ridiculous thing like amending the Constitution to
gays can't marry?

The Republicans set the agenda and force the Democrats into a defensive
position.

[Pro_Gun_Dem]

16. Well written!

Good post and well written. Hopefully folks will get your message because it is right on!

[kvining]

32. Get a gun

Pro_Gun _Dem, check out this thread where I am advocating that Democrats start rethinking their stance on the 2nd Amendment, for their own good. If you are a leftist, you should own a gun and learn how to use it. I am not advocating violence, I am advocating deterrence and self defense. There is a reason the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, and Democrats better damn well start realizing why.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2674142

[regnaD kciN]

39. Isn't it interesting...

...how we suddenly get all these threads turned into "me too!" echo-chambers of "move to the right" sentiment...all by new, low-post-count members???

:shrug:

[kvining]

42. Who said I want to move to the right?

My message is simple: change the message, change the messengers, so we can advocate the principles of the Democratic Party in a way that doesn't confuse or scare the living hell out our natural constituency, the working class. I also think what a lot of you are calling "left" is actually something I would call "confused". We have played identity politics and special interest politics for so long in this party that we have become a mish mash of conflicting, obsolete and in some cases irrational messages.

What does being "left" actually mean to you? I am a great believer in trying to see the broad principles that underlie what we advocate. A leftist Democratic believes in ever-expanding human rights. A leftist Democrat believes in Social Democracy, the idea that certain institutions must exist to help the poor and the sick and the elderly, and that a system of taxation should exist to support those institutions that is fair and economically efficient. A leftist Democrat believes that no man is better than another before the law, no matter how rich he is. A leftist Democrat believes that those who benefit the most from our society should pay a little more for the privilege. A leftist Democrat believes that government should act as a referee between the different segments of society, giving fair judgment, and supporting Liberty And Justice For All. A leftist believes the government recognizes that environmental quality, clean air and water, is a natural right of the people, not to be overruled by corporations, but to be used wisely for the benefit of all. I am sure you could think of more broad principles to add. It is when we speak in terms of these broad principles that we connect to the working class.

Instead of advocating these broad principles, we get all bogged down in nit picky little shit issues that hurt us. The words "gay rights" and "gay marriage" should be dropped from our political vocabulary and instead we should be simply advocating the idea that we are all equal before the law. Its the same damn thing. Instead of advocating special treatment of illegal aliens, we should simply accept the fact that they are breaking the law and drop any support for them whatsoever, while mounting a ferocious assault on the corporations who hire them, who are in effect committing treason by aiding and abetting an invasion of America by an unarmed Mexican army without guns, in other words turn it into an issue where we are fighting for the working class against the capitalists. Instead, we currently look like we are in favor of flooding the country with aliens, which is exactly what the Republicans want to do this country.

We need to get off the gun control issue. The whole thing seems to be based on us being against it because more right wingers have guns than left wingers, when in fact a gun knows no politics, in fact individual gun rights in this country were established in a series of court cases that gave Southern Blacks the right to own guns so they could protect themselves from the Klan, a fact that seems little known on the left. No other issue has cost us more votes among the working class, and as I listen to Michael Savage scream for the mass arrests of "filthy liberal scum", I am damn sure glad I own a couple. In short, we need to advocate a leftism that fits in the world view called "reality".

I could go on and on. Instead of advocating special rights for selected minorities thru Affirmative Action, we should be advocating that the Civil Rights, Fair Housing and Voting Rights Acts are strictly enforced to guarantee Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness for all. It is time to rethink every issue this party supports, the way we talk about them, get rid of the loaded words, get rid of this mish mash shit-pick issues that turns democratic forums into a bunch of flaming arguing fools, and start thinking and speaking in terms that appeal to postitive core beliefs in all people, in a way that advances our core beliefs.

As far as the low post count goes, I have seen thread after thread where idiots here flame new arrivals, throw "freeper" insults at people who are posting non-confrontational messages, and a lot of other chip-on-the-shoulder asshole stuff that sure is not going to win you any new voters. Unless someone is an obvious right wing harrasser, you should treat new people as someone who, if not in total agreement with you, can be persuaded to your viewpoint if they stick around and listen. If you want to fight fascists and stormtroopers, don't act like one. I am a life long Democrat, and I came to this forum to tell other Democrats that they are doing something wrong. After losing two national elections in a row, both to an incompentent boob, its about time you became open to that messge.

[George_S]

46. ??

A leftist Democrat believes that no man is better than another before the law, no matter how rich he is.

What about the poor? This implies that everyone should be beaten down by the state equally. And the phrasing isn't accidental. There is a solid "guilty until proven innocent" rage in this country.

[mistertrickster]

18. Exactly right--"nuanced" equal death. We need to enunciate our

core values and policies that implement them.

We're turning into a one-party state because the only party with any "outrage" seems to be the Republicans.

If we cannot re-connect with the working class, we're doomed. That means common sense approaches and straight talk on the issues.

Look at the following that wack-o Ross Perot got just because he believed in something and could articulate it in an energizing, straight forward way.

[tex-wyo-dem]

25. Excellent analysis...

kvining - you hit the nail on the head. I don't know if I could have said it better myself. Simply put, the Democratic party needs to re-learn how to talk to the common folks out there and needs to have a candidate who can communicate with them.

Something to point out is that Kerry had a distinct disadvantage to start with...he's from the "liberal" northeast. This isn't bad by any means, but if you look at every president who has been elected since Kennedy, they either come from the south or the west. In fact Kennedy is the only north easterner to be elected president since FDR. The only Dems to be elected president since Kennedy were from Texas, Georgia and Arkansas. The only Republicans to be elected since then have been from California and Texas (Ford was from Michigan, but was never elected as president).

In any case, in order for the Democratic party to start winning elections again, they're going to have to take a long hard look at themselves and figure out how to become a party of the people again.

[kvining]

34. I think we blew it

by not realizing that a Clark/Edwards or vs versa ticket was the right one for the times we live in. Gen Clark could have been the working class hero with the military bent, and a southerner to boot, while Edwards ability to connect with common people and also a Southerner, would have won this election. Clark did not have the anti-war left baggage. Kerry is the last hurrah of the peace-sign democrat. We need to sweep him into the same dustbin of history McGovern rests in. Democratic candidates of the future need to be like Clinton, with a little bit of a military bent or at least street cred on military matters. That is just a reality we have to face up to. I doubt if even Clinton could have won post 911 - they would have done the same Swift Boat number on him with his anti-war activities.

We also need to face up to the fact that Psy-op propaganda warfare is being waged against us, and that as in any war, battles have been won against us. The "Northern Liberal" has been so thoroughly drummed into the heads of working class people by the right wing that they have made running one impossible. I knew from the get go that Kerry or Dean were long term dead meat. Limbaugh himself said before the primaries the only dem candidate he feared was Edwards, and a Edwards/Clark ticket would be the most formidable against Bush. As much as I hate to say it, he was exactly right.

[angrydemocrat]

37. That is pure BS . Even if ...................

.....Clark would have been on the ticket instead of Kerry we would have lost this election. First off let me remind you we did not lose this election it was stolen. And no matter who was on the ticket we would have lost due to that very reason. Second yes this election was stolen but the next question is will we be able to recover enough of the lost votes ect. to overturn this election well we still don't know the answer to that yet. It is a matter of waiting to find out. Third this we need canidates like Clinton is pure BS. Thank God Kerry has his differences from Clinton. Let me say I like Clinton and I voted for Clinton both times but to come off with this BS that our canidates need to be like Clinton is a joke. If Kerry would have done what Clinton said he would have turned his back on the gay people of this country and thank god Kerry is a better man than that and had the balls to stand up and tell him no! I'm not gay myself but I also understand that these people are human beings that work, pay taxes, serve in the military, and are a great service to this country. They are Americans the same as the rest of the a**holes in this country and they deserve to be treated with respect and have the same rights as anyone else in this country! Does Clinton beleive that NO! Does Kerry YES! So don't come off with this BS that our canidates need to be like Clinton to me. At least Kerry has enough morals to respect all people of this country not just the selected!

Now let me make it clear I do like Clark and have alot of respect for him. But to say that he would have been a better canidate than Kerry is pure BS! And the swift boat liar crap well all I got to say about that BS is that everytime Kerry has ever run for any goverment office this crap has come up and it has never stopped the man before and it sure as hell didn't stop him this time! Beleive me he is use to this and he always deals with it. Next what is with people about the northern liberal crap? Hell when you start talking about we don't need a northern liberal like it or not you sound like a repug talking! Remember Bush always using the line a liberal from Mass. well that is what the hell it sounds like. Hell this is suppose to be one party reguardless if you come from the north or south. And because someone comes from the north shouldn't have anything to do with wether or not they run for president. There again that sounds like more repug crap.

Last I want to say Kerry fought like hell through out this campaign. Kerry would make a great president with all the experience he has on foriegn policy, paying down the deficeit, ect. I have supported Kerry from day one and will continue to do so. If he were to run again I would vote for him again along with alot of other people I know. I am also from the SOUTH so everyone in the south doesn't think that we have to change our party to suit those who disagree with all Americans should have the same rights in this country including gays.

[kvining]

43. Sorry

but I don't agree with you. I admire your ideological purity, but we lost this election. The voter fraud thing helps to ease the pain, but I doubt it will come to much, and dispite our cheering at every news report, the evidence at this point does not look promising.

I don't see it as a question of moving to the left or the right. Our problem is the way we phrase things. For one thing, most of us on the left are acutely unaware of what is going on. Since I work in the mass communication field and I have done a lot of academic work in that area, allow me to write an overly long essay in an attempt to play educator. The techniques of Murdoch and Limbaugh, which are the driving forces stripping away the working class from the Democratic Party, grew out of the Cold War. In the 50s and 60s, the US government spent millions, if not billions of dollars on mass communication psychological warfare research, using brilliant mass communication propaganda techniques developed originally by Nazi Joesph Goebbels, as its foundation. It all went into one of our major propaganda weapons of the Cold War, Radio Free Europe. They did research, they applied the research in the field, and over the 25 years of the Cold War they knew what worked and what didn't. The Right wing media machine is built on these principles.

Many of those on the far right are military veterans of the Cold War, or are academics who studied the research and results I have cited, one of whom is Limbaugh. For decades they have seen us as the American version of the Communist Party, a threat to what they consider the American way of life. Since the end of the Cold War, their aim has not been to merely win elections, it has been to destroy the Democratic Party. To do so, they are using the same techniques that destroyed the Communist Party. If we do not become aware of these techniques and counter them, we as a party will be destroyed. This election can either be the beginning of our funeral or our rebirth.

In any communication war, there are two main communications going on at once- confrontation and persuasion. In the Cold War, the aim was to engage in a broadcast of confrontation with the Communist Party, combined with a broadcast of rhetoric aimed at persuading the masses who lived in the Soviet Bloc that our way of life was better. The right wing media machine works the same way.

Language and phraseology used about us is confrontational, persistently negative, condemning and blaming. Language used about them is glowing and praise-filled. But the real target is the listening audience. Its biases, prejudices, myths and attitudes are appealed to, or outraged or re-enforced by the announcer. Knowledge of the worldview of the target audience is essential. But the single most important thing is that the other side in the confrontation be portrayed as opposed to the masses world view, is responsible for their outrage, is a member of or supports the group they are prejudiced against, and that they hate the social institutions cherished by them. Using these techiques, Adolf Hitler was able to talk one of the most civilized societies on Earth into being accomplices in the gassing and murders of 11 million Jews, homosexuals, "undesirables" (thats you, Mr. Democrat) and other targeted minorities.

The propaganda techniques of the fascists, now refined and modernized over 50 years, are ones you would recognize. For example, to achieve maximum affect, being "on message", (something you think is a modern buzzword but actually goes back to the Nazis), must be completely saturating. The On Message technique was perfected on a massive scale in the Cold War. The thousands of stations that made up Radio Free Europe were all connected, and from Cuba to China they broadcast the exact same message, all day - that they suck and we don't, and that the Communist Party was to blame for all their ills. They would even have debates with Communists -picked of course for their stupidity or just down right faked, and later television was added to the mix, a daily stream whose whole message was that life was better on the other side, now in pictures.

AM Radio and Fox News, and also Drudge, the new Internet component, are the exact same thing. We are blind to this, because we think hate radio is only for the True Believers. In fact, its saturation message of the day, (and it is the same - ask anyone who travels for a living and they will tell you the AM radio fascists are talking about the exact same thing from Duluth to Dallas) the outrage component, the blame component, all exactly the same from Hannity or Limbaugh or your local guy, is designed to deliver its message to every set of ears in the country. Millions trapped in their car during rush hour, or in rural areas with only a few stations, or those who drive company vehicles all day who need to relieve boredom, - in short the working class - are bombarded all day with a story, a spun explanation and a blame and derision component, and a scapegoat group - "Liberals" the new word for Goebbels "kike", said in the same way they used to say "nigger".

When Joe Average gets off work, he turns to what looks and acts like a snazzy news channel with juicy murder stories and gossip, but it is in fact a government controlled propaganda channel, packaged a little different, a little less outrage, but here we get the technique of confrontation, and like the Communist counterpoint, the "Liberals" are picked for their stupidity, or for the known negative image they have with the target audience, or because they look weird, like Colmes, who looks like a frigging space alien, while those on your side are handsome and articulate, and of course the slanted news stories always contains something about the "On Message" propaganda story of the day that Joe has heard on the way home.

We Democrats have been chumps. We don't know any of this, and they use our ignorance against us. We do all the wrong things. For example the Democratic Party is clueless on the correct use of the confrontational component. You never use confrontation on the people you are trying to win over to your side who may be open to your message. We are ignorant of all this psy-ops that is going on, because our leadership is not made up of Cold War war pigs. To make it worse, we supply way to many confrontational images that actually confront the sensibilities of working people, like that asshole idiot Whoopi Goldberg making gentalia jokes about the President of the United States, something you or I here might find amusing, but a working class person is going to see in an entirely different light, and something that is only going to prime the rightwing propaganda weapon with new ammo. Kerry, the blind policy wonk, should have condemned this in no uncertain terms, in fact he missed his "Sister Solja" moment, and instead gave the Repug machine what it needed.

We constantly let the other side maneuver us into all of the situations I described above. For example, instead of talking about "human rights" or "the pursuit of happiness" or "Liberty and Justice for All", loaded terms that appeal to fundamental beliefs of working Americans in a positive way, we are talking about "gay rights" or "alternative lifestyles" or "Affirmative Action", terms that appeal to the negative prejudices of the working class. The key to fighting them is to use a different phraseology, one where we are really saying the same things but in broader terms that emphasize the underlying principles that just about all Americans are in favor of.

I do not like the terms "Liberal" or "Progressive". Both say things to a working class voter, in fact they have been hypnotized to think "Big Government". I believe the best moniker is simply "Democrat" or even better "Democratic". The word democracy is one the right dare not demonize, and also I can say things like "I guess on that issue, I am a pretty conservative Democrat".

A lot of this is common sense. If you are dealing with a right wing ideologue, be confrontational, but in a respectful way, and confront the ideas not the person, and keep the cultural sensitivities of working smucks foremost in your mind. Any working class observer will respect you for standing up for your ideas, if you do it in away that confronts your opponent but does not offend or confront the cultural sensitivities of the people you are trying to persuade. The Republicans have become expert at this techique.

When speaking directly to them, be persuasive, and use terms and phrases that appeal to broad positive ideas about human rights - get to know the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees that we are all equal before the law, and the Bill of Rights, and cite them whenever you can to support your arguments. If you want to argue for rights of gay people put it in those terms, and stay away from the specific "loaded" words like "gay"or "alternate lifestyle" or "marriage". Simply say things like "well I am in favor of all people having the right to engage in the pursuit of happiness if it does not hurt me in any way." Or "we should all have equal rights before the law - its guaranteed in the consitution".

Stay away from two minefields - Affirmative Action, which no working class white guy in this country supports and we need to unload like a bad turd, IMO. Especially stay away from the gun issue. The gun control issue has lost us more of the traditional democratic base, it has cost us more working class voters who would vote for us other wise, than any single issue I can think of. Post 9-11, it is a total loser for us. Soccer/Security Mom is now OK with NASCAR Dad having an assault rifle in the closet, so he can shoot the terrorists who want to kill her kids. Myself, after listening to Michael Savage, I have changed my position on it too, and I can see now why it is in the Bill of Rights. In the end we will win this.

[angrydemocrat]

45. Well all I can say is SORRY because...............

...........I don't agree with your ideological ideas. If people are so uncomfortable with gays that is their problem. Because reguardless of what they agree with or uncomfortable with it in no way will change the fact they exist. Not only are the people going to face the facts gays exist But they are going to have to face the fact that Gay people are just as human as they are, gays work just as hard as they do, gays pay their taxes the same, and gay deserve the same rights as other Americans get in this country. Those that oppose gays need to face reality they are not the only ones in this country that have a say in how this country is run and how people are treated in this country. If those that put so much effort into degrading gays and trying to make this country beleive that they are don't deserve to exist applied all those efforts to the homeless, starving, and those who don't have health care this country would be a whole lot better off! People in this country also need to face reality that religion is one of the freedoms of choice and all religions don't have the same beleifs and stop trying to shove their beleifs down the rest of this countries throat!

I also srongly disagree that people in the democratic party need to change their values or move more to the right in order to please people that are sitting on the fence that voted republican. These people need to learn what is going on around them and educate themselves more. But me and many other democrats I talk to refuse to change our values or move anymore to the right to please other people. Especially to pick up votes.

[fortyfeetunder]

30. I don't *#$()& think so.

What do you mean not focus on "gay rights" but "human rights"?

The problem is middle white America is so fucking uncomfortable with the people who don't look or act like them, WASP heterosexual type, asking to be treated the same way they are.

The 60's was a big ass wake up call on civil rights and there was some progress. but the 80's thanks to Reagan reversed the gains of the 60's. So now they vote Pug hoping we get suppressed from our rights to be citizens. I don't think so.

Face it, those of us who don't fit the WASP category aren't going away, We are all US citizens. We might as well get along. The only way they can get rid of us is called "ETHNIC CLEANSING". Kind of like Nazi Germany, Bosnia, etc.

[kvining]

44. You don't get the point

Ultimately, we are asking that gay people achieve equality before the law. Its nice to lambaste the majority for their prejudices, but you aren't going to win any votes doing it. Like I said, for Joe Average, fear and loathing of homosexuals began at a young age, starting with his father and then all through high school in the peer pressure phase. But at the same time, this person is also having conflicting messages drilled into his head: Freedom and justice for all. The right to pursue happiness. Equality before the law. Whenever we talk to Joe Average, we need to emphasize those principles, and stay away from a discussion of homosexuality itself as much as possible, and stay away from in-your-face stuff like We're here/queer get used to it sloganeering. Under those conditions, I find 99% of the average people I talk to agree that homosexuals couples should be allowed civil union contracts that grant them spousal rights. The minute you start using words that have a religious connotation, like "marriage" you lose them. The minute you hold a Gay Pride parade or protest with gays making out, you lose them. You win them by using persuasion instead of confrontation, in a way that takes advantage of their internal dichotomy. Democrats tend to have a very consistent world view - we are very idealistic people who judge every situation based on our shared ideal set, so we come to a consistent world view. Average people are not so idealistic. Their thinking is very compartmentalized and riddled with conflicts. The trick is to find the compartment where your argument is going to do this most good.

Gay issues are not the only place we do this. Healthcare is another area. The right wing media machine, and the excesses of the Democrats of the 70s, have made "big government programs" a huge boogy man for the middle of the road voter. We shoot ourselves in the ass time and again on this issue. Hillary offers a plan based on bureaucracy, that tries to find some compromise with existing insurance, and it just looks like a "big government" mess, especially after the Republicans get through with it. Gore offers little that can be understood by the common man, and Kerry blows it by claiming he has a plan, but he can't explain it in his stump speech, but it is "on his web site", and again it is an attempt to sell government bureaucracy mixed with private insurance. You simply not going to win Joe Average over with this stuff but if you put it in terms of a simple single payer system under a government-chartered health monopoly that you can compare to Fannie Mae or the Federal Reserve, things that are known and are known to work, you can then base your attack on eliminating private bureaucracy, pointing put all the expense of maintaining all these different health plans and how doing so will lower Joe's health costs. Why has not one Dem candidate supported this simple, easy to understand for Joe solution? Perhaps we sold out to the insurance companies too ? We need to start asking a lot of questions of our leadership.

[TO Kid]

35. You're definitely on to something

If you want to see the fate of the Democratic Party after a few more years of catering to "identity politics", just look at the NDP in Canada. It enjoyed a great deal of success in its early days as a populist movement of Saskatchewan farmers because its platform addressed issues that concerned most people. Even up to the 1990s they formed governments in four provinces, but they were hijacked by groups with narrow agendas. The result was predictable- they are only a contender in two provinces and rarely win more than 15% of the popular vote.

Face it, very few people care one way or the other about gay marriage. It is an issue that directly affects just 2% of the population (who are by no means unanimous in their position on it), very few people will actually decide their vote on it (especially given the number of opponents who would have no problem if it were simply called something else). As for the broader question of gay rights I think the marriage question is a very poor barometer of people's attitudes- ask opponents of gay marriage if they think homosexual behaviour should be criminalized or if gay-basher's shouldn't be jailed and the answer would be an overwhelming NO.

[regnaD kciN]

38. Yep, you sure do want to get back to "how FDR ran the party"...

I want to see us drop advocation of gun control, drop being anti-nuke plant and drop being pro Affirmative Action, and get off this kick of looking like we want to give selected minorities special treatment

...in other words, in coalition with the Southern segregtionists, just like FDR did.

:puke:

[kvining]

41. Absolutely not

No government program like that needs to run forever. The aims of Affirmative action have been achieved. It is time for us to face up to the fact the 60s are over, and that the wrongs these programs were designed to right have been righted as best as we can. At this point in time, Affirmative Action and Minority set asides, in the eyes of the white suburbanites and the white lower working class, have created a privileged class - what used to be seen as a leg up is now seen as an unfair advantage. Throwing hot-button flame words like "segregation" around also makes you sound irrational. Try to follow the thinking of a reasoned individual who has been a Democrat for 30 years, and you might learn something.

If we do not get back to just supporting egalitarianism, we are not going to win elections in this country. As long as we make identity politics the name of the game, we lose. The only way to win elections in a diverse society is to appeal to the broad underlying principles of the Democratic Party that all voting blocs support and get away from Animal Farm politics, where some pigs are more equal than others. The 14th Amendment states that all Americans are equal before the law, and the 15th says no one shall be discriminated against on the basis of race or creed or sex. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 finally codified and set penalties for violating these Amendments, after a 100 year struggle, followed by the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. These are the greatest achievements of the Democratic Party. It is time we stopped advocating special treatment for certain minorities and instead advocate strong enforcement of those Amendments and Acts. The vast majority of people support that position. Very few, except for what is now a dwindling Democratic Party, support Affirmative Action.

Its time to face reality and stop fighting a problem that no longer exist. Our opponents, the Republicans, have started making a big play for the Hispanic and Black vote and the racists in their party will be more and more suppressed. There are very fewer and fewer segregations or outright racists left, and outside of a few backwaters, there is no place left in this country where racists hold political power. On the economic front, all corporations have instituted strict policies against it and the penalties are so heavy and law suit awards are so large, it is stupidity to engage in it. Everyone else is living in the real world, and seeing this as a solved problem and our support for Affirmative Action nothing more than creating a privileged class of people. The issue is a loser.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. What? You mean the moderates are fixing voting machines?

But I thought we already established that Diebold was owned by hardcore right wing conservatives. Maybe they've got a few socially liberal views. Our bad....:eyes:

[Old and In the Way]

4. A sad indictment of people's critical thinking skills.

I can understand the radical right wanting George Bush....they want their agenda passed, everything else be damned.

But these people "on the fence" who still voted Bush after all the shit he has visited on this country in 4 years?....I'm sorry, I can't accept that I need to change my values to ameliorate their stupidity. Kerry was so obviously a better candidate and leader for this country than the criminally incompetent buffoons in office now, it's enough to drive me insane. The problem with the fence-sitters is that they do not pay attention to what is going on around them. What they need is more education on civic duty, history, and economics....and less face time in front of the boobtube watching "Survivor".

[Jade Fox]

11. Yes, there needs to be an explaination as to why these people.....

voted for idiot Bush.

[Zep]

31. I hate to say it but ...

... I believe it was support for the war that put Bush over the top.

And Kerry already compromised on that issue. It was a question of who'd run the war "better".

[TO Kid]

36. Not just compromised on the war

The big problem with the Kerry campaign was that he never managed to differentiate himself from Bush in any meaningful way. The message heard was "Vote Kerry because he ain't Bush" and that just isn't good enough.

[mistertrickster]

20. True, too true, but what is more of a reality show than the Presidential

race?

Let's face it, Kerry needed to infuse people with energy, with hope, with outrage. He gave them policy statements.

We gotta get some fire-breathers out front in this party. We need a Martin Luther King, a Bobby Kennedy.

Instead we keep running cerebral policy wonks (Gore and Kerry). They are fine men and deserved to win, but we're not expanding our base with that approach.

We're losing it to Republicans--who, say what you will about their policies, know how to speak to those guys in the pickups with a rebel flag on the bumper.

[StephanieMarie]

8. Read this from the NYT

I shows what total hypocrites the repugs are with their claim to "moral values" -- a nice diversion:

FRANK RICH
On 'Moral Values,' It's Blue in a Landslide There's only one problem with the storyline proclaiming that the country swung to the right on cultural issues in 2004. It is fiction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/arts/14rich.html?th

[ithacan]

9. you should post this in its own thread!

Rich is so right...

[Demrock6]

13. I think the war...

Both helped Bush and hurt him in this election. A lot of people feel that W. needed to clean up his own mess, I will guess that is another reason moderates voted for him. Regardless to the fact that fool got us into this mess in the first place. Remember all them predictions such as Washington Redskins loose then Kerry will win and all that. One of the few predictions and traditions left is a president has not been voted out of office in a time of war. (I heard that on tv, but did not fact check it. fyi) So if Kerry plays it correctly and can get a few southern states in his column I think he could win the presidency in 2008. Assuming Iraq is not a mess and Bush doesn't start anymore wars. If that happens Cheney might try to stick it out!

But we also thought Gore in 04'!

[HomerRamone]

12. Liberals for Bush?

Maybe these figures are just further evidence of the implausibility of the supposed results...

[newyawker99]

14. Hi HomerRamone!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[mistertrickster]

15. This is what I told the DNC when they wanted "feedback." We need leaders

who lead--not people who try to figure out what people want to hear and give it to them.

People respect Bush for his apparently strong convictions. A lot of folks would rather support someone who has convictions that are wrong than no convictions at all.

The Democrats need to stand up and start telling people what we BELIEVE. Right now, we're getting painted as people who have no core values and blow in the wind--that's wrong, but it's our duty to make it right.

[ernstbass]

17. We need a simple message

I work with many "moderate" voters who went for Bush. They weren't thrilled with him but they all said Kerry couldn't do any better. People seem to want simple messages in black/white, wrong/right terms. None of these folks took the time to read anything and they had no clue how Kerry could improve their lives (I did give them an education). People don't like to think and they need a clear concise message.

[shrub chipper]

22. Hi ,ernstbass! Welcome to DU

Regretfully, I agree with you.

Kerry was too intelligent and capable...they needed something simpler...and they sure got THAT in *.

[anamandujano]

19. But the exit polls were wrong

so they told us.

Someone pointed this out in another thread on different subject. How can they use these same exit polls to push forward this spin?

[stopbush]

21. BINGO! They want to have it both ways, don't they?

How can you possibly write a column based on exit polling showing how the Dems "lost" when the SAME exit polls showed that Kerry won?

There's only two answers: 1. the columnist is an idiot, or 2. the columnist is an apologist...or worse.

Absolutely worthless garbage.

[pffarrell]

23. my personal opinion is we're giving these people too much credit

my sister voted for * in the end (though I tried to make her see the light). she thought * was a 'good leader' but then went on to complain about Kerry's supposed botox and manicures. I fully believe that she voted solely on the basis of who she 'liked' better. she's definitely not against abortion but she was fairly terrified about 9/11. she listens to oreilly and sucks it up, complaining about the 'liberal' Dallas Morning News. Basically she just eats up whoever talks loudest and leavens it with a bit of who looks best (ok, I know * sucked in the debates, but she managed to delete that from her mind)

edit: spelling

[shrike]

24. Know what you mean

I know people (not many, granted) who didn't vote for Kerry because he had a horseface. Because he looked like Lurch. Because they didn't like his wife. Or, my personal favorite, "I just didn't like him."

And people wonder why I'm a pessimist.

[regnaD kciN]

40. "He looks French"...

...and I want MY president to look like an Amurrican!

:puke:

[shrike]

26. Maybe we should just say it, people -- there are some awfully

ill-formed Americans out there. Almost half the country still believes that Iraq attacked on Sept. 11 and that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. A majority of Americans think George Bush is popular elsewhere in the world.

What really bothers me is, some people appear to be willfully ignorant. They dig in their heels and refuse to listen when you tell them the facts. I've watched people's eyes glaze over when I try and tell them what's really going on. They don't want to hear it. These aren't fundies or freaks, they're just average people -- and for some reason they want to believe that Bush has their best interest at heart.

[kvining]

27. They will continue to go for the moderates

The Republicans benefit from stable long term leadership. I think this plan has been in place since Bush was governor of Texas. They saw the key to the nomination was the fundies, which got them in the game, and then they won by a fluke, which describes W's life -careful planning by people smarter then him coupled with a stroke of luck. The fundies had been the key in takeover from and subsequent utter destruction of the Democrats in Texas. They just took it national.

But Rove & Co are also smart enough to see that while this would work in Southern states, if they wanted longterm dominance for the benefit of the big corporations, which is their real constituency, then they would have to become a party of the broad middle somewhere along the line. Once they are, the South will still be in the bag for them as long as they keep throwing bones to them.

Right now the Supreme Court needs the addition of two pro-lifers to repeal Roe-v Wade. Bush will appoint one pro-lifer to throw a bone to the fundies and then probably elevated Gonzalez to the Supreme Court, his closet pro-choicer, which will prevent the fundies from achieving the Holy Grail of abortion repeal, something the corporate fatcats don't want because they know it will cost them the women's vote, especially in the North.

IMO, you'll see a McCain / Guiliani ticket - McCain gets his payoff for rolling over in 2004 - and McCain will showcase Chief Justice Gonzalez off to the Hispanics, talk like a pro-lifer while sending signals to the pro-choicers that he won't mess with RvW like he has always done, and Bush will roam around the South telling the evangelicals that although McCain isn't perfect, at least he is not a baby-killing sodomite pot head Demoncrat, and God demands your vote.

If they pull it off, they will achieve their goal - not just to beat the Democrats, but to destroy us. The democrats,once they lose the moderate women's and Hispanic votes, will be left a party of tree huggers and urban black voters, not exactly a match made in heaven, and whatever is left of the union movement, which they are destroying by flooding the country with illegal aliens. We are going to end up a One Party State that exists for the sake of corporations, which by the way, is an exact description of fascism, right out of Mussolini's book. Hell, they have already set up the Ministry of Propaganda under Reichmarshals Limbaugh and Murdoch.

If you want an example - look what happened when the Illinois Republican Party ran a uber-right religious nut - Alan Keyes. They got walloped. If the fundies ever get control of the Repubs and nominate some Robertson stooge, that's their future. The corporations have figured this out, and thats who we, the Democrats are really fighting. "The Republican Party" is just the friendly face they put on Fascism so they can run this country like they do the corporations. We will have a sham democracy where 1984's TV set will be in the form of Fox News and AM radio for the masses to get their brainwashing from, while so-called "liberal media" will be emasculated via the boardroom. Then the Corpse can do what the want -rape the land, pollute the earth, steal other country's natural resouces thru war and make us all wage slaves.

[Jade Fox]

28. Perhaps the truth is that a hefty percentage of voters are just stupid...

and no rational approach can reach them. They probably believed every
word of the Swift Boat Liars and every other slime attach on Kerry. And
no matter who the Dems nominate the GOP will use the same tactics.

Who are these people going to complain to when their kids are drafted
and abortion is restricted and some idiot Bush-loving Christian won't
fill their birth control perscription and the dollar becomes worthless due
to Bush's deficit spending??

[jbnow]

29. And should our new slogan be

DUMB DOWN FOR AMERICA?

I can see the group that wants to outlaw abortion, fears monogamous gays, likes saying shove it to the world and so on would vote Bush.

The group in this article have no excuse unless they can prove demonic possesion, untreated insanity or an IQ under 42.

[CitizenRob]

33. kick

ow!

[Boosterman]

47. Well I am going to chime in on the more moderate

Democrats side. But, I want to say that I don't think any ideals need to be lost. It's merely a matter of reassessment of priorities. I think we need to drop the whole gun control issue. Nancy Pelosi probably cost Kerry half a million votes all by herself. There is a perception across middle America that affirmative action is unfair. Like it or not that is the perception. Not sure whether a change in communication or abandoning the idea is best here but something needs to be done. The message has definitely become muddled.

[kvining]

48. Well put

Like you, I am not asking for a wholesale abandomment of our ideals, I just want to drop some issues that a changing world has turned into losers for us, and I want to change the tactics used in the gay issues to be less confrontational and more persausive. I also think that if those who want to fight this out as leftists want a real fight, its time to stop pussy footing around with Pentacostals and other religious kooks and go right after their religious beliefs. I think if a lot more people were aware what kooks these magical thinkers are, they might not be so comfortable with it,especially Jews an Catholics. Ashcroft's and Bush's religion unequivically states these groups of people are destined for hell. I wonder how they would feel about that if they knew it? A film of these nuts speaking in tongues and writhing on the floor should be Moore's next project.

Kissing their ass and backing away from the actual issues brought up by their nutty beliefs have got us no where. We need to put Darwin in the Democratic platform. These people want to play politics, then their religious beliefs have become fair game.

[Boosterman]

49. Thank you sir. I liked your posts as well

However, I am going to disagree with one point. We don't need to attack religion at this point. I think that it would alienate an important demographic.

My mother, a lifelong democrat, voted for Bush this election. Shes not a Fundamentalist but she is a Christian. My mother is a very intelligent lady who was persuaded to vote for Bush for a variety of reasons. Now admittedly that's a very small poll sample, but it would backfire in her case. I imagine it would in other's minds as well. There's some excellent threads here about how to reach out toward Christians. JMO