The electability crutch

[Gadave]

It is always said every election that the "left" cannot win the GE and we have to worry about the "electability" come November. I think that is a crutch, and an unwillingness to actually put effort into truly fighting for what is right.

I think of politics like selling some sort of consumer good. At some point new products are developed and have to be marketed (think of these as ideas).

If product marketing was run like politics, I fear we would still be using whale oil lamps. Everyone is afraid that suggesting any real change for the better will result in less votes, so we breath a sigh of relief at successfully maintaining the status quo. Ideas need to be sold. We need to make the case like people who tried to convince cities to string wires up all over town to give us electric light. That was not an easy sale, but it carried the day because it was the right thing to do.

It is the same with ideas. Convince people that they will be better off with the new (liberal) idea. Show them how the world will be better, and they will support us. Instead we just want to rehash the same old stuff and play with slogans and labels and not suggest real progressive change.

I challenge the candidates in this promary to make the case for progressive policies and actually convince the public that we are right. Speaking for myself, this will re-energize me this election year.

In the end, winning the battle of ideas is the only true way to win, not just electing candidates.

[Edge]

1. I agree with your thinking...

too bad people here in the U.S. won't put effort into ideas...just this damn thing I hear about "electability."

It shows that the sheeple in this country don't like change...just candidates who look good, shake hands, accept money from big businesses, and support PACs/lobbyists who give them money.

[Gadave]

2. I blame TV

Thinking about it after my post I realize that TV has ruined true political thought.

I think instantaneous gratification removes the motivation to think. The TV is easy, it reassures us and tells how we should think about something, so we don't have to. The second something happens we have a talking head telling us what REALLY happened.

It used to be we had to read it, think about it for ourselves, THEN get others opinions. Now, our opinions are already formed for us instamatically.

[OneBlueSky]

5. people don't like change because they're comfortable . . .

and change causes discomfort . . . the people who vote (as opposed to the "underclass," who often don't) all have their house (and mortgage), two cars/SUVs, three color tvs, computers with internet access, palm pilots, designer clothes, 2.5 kids playing soccer and going to dance class, and a host of other amenities that place them firmly in the top x% of the world's population . . . they feel they've got it pretty good, and that's why they're not all hot to make major changes in how things are . . .

yet . . .

there will come a time -- likely sooner rather than later -- when this will all change . . . as the American standard of living starts to take some major hits due to oil shortages, a declining dollar, all the good jobs moving offshore, the bursting of the real estate bubble, etc., people will start to realize that things may not be so good after all . . . and that's when the opportunity for real, meaningful change will occur . . .

[Edge]

6. I hope you're right...

It's sad that people think they're well off right now, when in fact, most of us are WORSE off than we've ever been.

Hopefully you're right about change occurring soon...I'm sick of what's going on now...Bush has ruined it for us, and it's about time things change to get this country back into shape.

[redqueen]

9. That opportunity is now

When Lou Dobbs is doing nightly exposes on the hemorrhage of jobs out of this country, you know the time is ripe for putting forward a candidate like Kucinich, who can really stand up to bush by advocating a full employment economy.

There are lots of middle class people like you describe who are now working at low wage jobs struggling to survive. They will respond to Kucinich. Anyone who knows someone in that situation, who is that close to the fear of being unable to take care of their families, will be receptive to Kucinich's message.

This is the moment! Seriously!

[AliceWonderland]

3. This is an interesting point

No one needs to whapwhapwhap me for this, since I'm not an American citizen and thus won't be casting any kind of ballot. However, I've noticed that the term "electability" is an odd and frustrating sort of catch-22. Sometimes, for example, I think that if all the people who called Malloy and said "I WANT to vote for Kucinich but I can't because we need someone electable" or all the people who post similar things on the net... well, if all those people just supported Kucinich, he might no longer be "unelectable." But he's marketed as radical -- when he's far from it; on the contrary, he's old school in many ways -- and unelectable. At the least, if all the people who wanted to support him did, they could probably form a nascent and vibrant wing of the Democratic Party.

But I don't want to make this about DK, because the point is much broader. The concept of electability has become a noose around the neck of the political process. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It backs us into a corner, further and further, until there's never allowed to be a day where one can vote one's conscience, or even have the option to do so.

[redqueen]

10. Self fulfilling prophecy

That's exactly how I've described it many times.

Thanks for your post, I agree that deciding who should lead the nation - or who should be in any leadership position, really - based on some vague, indefinable (and largely meaningless) criterion is self-defeating.

[NV1962]

4. Here's an article from June last year: "We don't need a 2nd Repub Party"

I think it's interesting to read it together with the points raised by Gadave, in reflection on what transpired since it was published, and related to the notions of "electability" versus "progressive integrity"

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/06/06/take_back/

[library_max]

7. The problem with your analysis is that it's been tried - it never works.

Every time a party runs to its base (either party - Goldwater is a Republican example), it gets killed in the general election. The parties and candidates have to make their case in the general election anyway. But if they campaign very far to the left or right of the electoral center, they're going to get slaughtered just the same.

All the progressive changes in this country have come as a result of people who campaigned moderate and then took advantage of opportunities to swing left after they got into office. Get elected first, then go left - that's the strategy that works. The other way never works at all.

[ShimokitaJer]

8. And your alternative does work?

When has the Democratic candidate, upon getting elected, EVER gone left without being forced? Did Clinton go left? On the contrary, he moved himself and the party even more toward the center.

You are supremely naive if you truly believe your statement that "all the progressive changes" you speak of actually came from candidates who moved left after campaigning moderate. Every progressive change that's ever happened in this country has been the result of activism: fed up people refusing to stand for the status quo and demanding lack of change. Politicians respond only to what will get them elected, and if they believe being a moderate will get them elected, then that's what they will be as candidate and as elected official.

Right now, during the election cycle, is the only time activists can push the candidates to adopt a left-leaning posture. Why? Because it is not perceived as being popular, and it is only through making them believe they need to move left to get elected that they will EVER move left.

[library_max]

11. FDR? LBJ? JFK?

Those names mean anything to ya?

When talking about the politics of progressive change, it's helpful to be able to remember farther back than Clinton.

Activism helps get issues pushed forward, but it NEVER helps a candidate get elected. Get activist about your issues after we get people in office who give a shit. You know Bush won't, and neither will Tom DeLay's Congress.

[ShimokitaJer]

12. Do you honestly believe the Democratic Party hasn't changed in 40 years?

The Republican party under Nixon had more progressive policies on many key issues than the Democratic party does now. Pretending that today's candidates, with the possible exceptions of Kucinich and Sharpton, will take anything resembling the kind of progressive action taken under those leaders is as disingenuous as calling the Republicans that party of Lincoln or voting Repub based on Teddy Roosevelt's policies.

I'm talking about the Democratic party as it exists today, and the "New Democrats" have made it clear that they embrace the same techniques as the worst elements of the Republican party. None of the candidates would be saying a single word about the war, about health care, or about stricter government control if they hadn't been forced to do so by the less mainstream candidates. What makes you think they will move left once they've got those voters locked up?

I'll say it once again, because it never seems to penetrate: The only power we have over our representatives is as voters. If we fail to use that power, we have only ourselves to blame for our issues being neglected.

[library_max]

13. Politics ebbs and flows.

The whole country is miles to the right of where it was in the seventies, arguably the most progressive period in American history. Why blame the Democrats?

If voters think kicking and screaming gives them "power," well, it's unfortunate. People put in office tend to remember who put them there, and sometimes they also remember who tried to keep them out. Voters stand to gain more by supporting the best of their alternatives than by having tantrums. And by "alternatives" I mean real alternatives, not third party or write in - you might as well write in your own name for all the difference it'll make.

Well over a million people voted for Nader in 2000. Has the Bush administration done anything since then that demonstrates his respect for their "power"? Do you want to try again and see if he'll be more Green next time?

[ShimokitaJer]

14. activists are "kicking and screaming" and "having tantrums?"

I think I see where your loyalties lie, so I see no need to continue this conversation.

I'll be waiting in the "free speech zone" for the Democrats to move to the left. You can keep your self-satisfaction and mediocre candidates -- you deserve them.

[library_max]

15. It's the difference between what works and what doesn't. Simple as that.

You should have read my whole message, instead of picking out crashwords to feed your rage.