Do Democratic principles require us to be more constrained?

[donco6]

Ken Gordon from the Colo Legis sent this to me:

Pliable Principles:

Yesterday I heard a political consultant on the radio point out how now that McCain has won the Republican nomination, he can start to be himself again and take some positions that conservatives never liked. It was just completely accepted that this is normal political behavior. People have said that Obama has also changed positions for a general election electorate.

Some people would not be able to say one thing during the primaries and another during the general election because it involves lying.

If you say during primaries that you are anti-tax, pro-war, anti-abortion and pro-prayer in schools, and then during the general election you moderate your positions, you are lying one time or the other, or both. I actually think that both McCain and Obama have stronger principles than most politicians, yet people see this changing of positions and say, "Oh that is what they have to do."

The reason they have to do it is because the American people would rather elect someone who panders to them than someone who tells them the truth. That is why you hear politicians promising more funding for education, defense, transportation, and health care, and lower taxes.

The American people are cynical about politicians who make promises that they later break, but the reason they have these politicians is because they don't elect the ones who say, "If you want more funding for education, defense, transportation, and health care, you will have to pay higher taxes."

The American people, on a regular basis, elect liars over truth tellers.

American voters, you are not passive consumers of ice cream and candy who can vote for the person who offers you the sweetest package. You are adults who have to take responsibility for the choices that you make and suffer the consequences for your bad choices. Those consequences, I am sorry to say, are everything that an incompetent or dishonest leader of the free world can screw up in eight years. And that is everything.

-------------

So, this friend of mine and I had something of an argument over this very concept last week. He's insisting that Obama has to go out and say, "Drill, drill, drill" because he's getting killed on that. I could see his point, but my thinking is that that message would be a lie. "Drill, drill, drill" just won't do what people are saying it will do. But people WANT to believe that, it's a very simple, easy-to-understand message, it seems logical on its face (you need more of something, you go get it!). So how do you combat it? People WANT to be pandered to. They VOTE for panderers. Do we have to do it?

[msongs]

1. telling the truth and criticizing hypocrisy is the best course of action in politics nt

[drmeow]

2. I don't think it is so much that people want to be pandered to

I think the problem also is that the candidate's opponent will twist the honest statements to make them more scary for the citizens. For example, studies show that people would be willing to pay higher taxes for greater government services in certain areas. However, if a candidate says that, his/her opponent will counter with scare tactics, "My opponent wants you to pay 35% of your income in taxes." or "Government services don't work so by raising taxes my opponent is throwing your good money after your bad." or "If my opponent raises taxes, it won't be fair because the next leader in the next community isn't going to raise taxes so you'll be paying more than your fair share." etc.

Take the Equal Rights Amendment - most American's tend to be in favor of equal rights - despite all the evidence to the contrary, we believe that is what this country is about. But the ERA was not ratified in part because the vocal fear mongers who were against it lied that it would REQUIRE co-ed bathrooms, etc.

No politician dares to speak the truth to the American people, not just because the American people don't want to hear it (and some definitely don't) but because their opponent will lie about their position to play on people's worst fears and demonize the idea (even if they completely agree with it).

[ColbertWatcher]

3. The problem with the GOP faithful ...

... is that they can only see the world through their own ideology.

It is simply a black and white world for them and they are the side that provides the "solutions" while the "other side" causes all the problems.

If something happens that they didn't predict, the spin begins.

Just like every failed "general", the GOP under estimates the opponent, fully expecting them to have no counterpoint to the "brilliant GOP strategy".

It's too bad the GOP controls the media otherwise someone could point out the GOP's obvious weakness to their blinded by faith supporters.

[DCKit]

4. A worthwhile discussion.

I'd like to believe Dems are more decent and moral than those who constantly claim the high moral ground but constantly get caught with their pants down, one hand in the cookie jar and the other in someone else's back pocket.

[readmoreoften]

5. This is one of the problems of pluralist democracy (capital parlimentarianism).

It's not really a democracy per se where the "demos"--the people--rule by rational vote, but a Republic constrained by plutocracy because of the financial power of corporate conglomerates. This has only become worse with electronic voting, globalization, and multinational ownership of US territorical assets and satellite media . Of course, when democracy has reared its head as of late, it has been in the form of directives of majoritarian hate (DOMAs, etc.)

The Enlightment model of our Republic, which we cherish so dearly, has not endured into the 21st c. well because--frankly--it's not the Enlightenment era anymore. Our glorious model was founded on slavery (exactly like the Greek model) so that the "real citizen" could have time for civic participation and be "rational". By the mid-20th century, we were already fully transformed by multinational capital, global communication, and the military industrial complex. But we could still pride ourselves on not being communists, who failed to produce meaningful democracies. (Democracy was supposed to happen after the dictatorship of the proletariat leveled the playing field, but the vanguard parties always became the new ruling class. In the case of China under Mao there was the-- to the American mind unthinkably bizarre-- combination of anarcho-communism under a quasi-dictator God who was struggling against a traditional authoritarian vanguard party. Mao Tse Tung would tell the people to critique the party officials who had become corrupt and the people would respond with hysterical violence. He'd tell them to produce more wheat and they produced a famine trying to please him. Totally bizarre situation and alien to Western minds.)

I think we're coming to a strange historical point where not only is there no horizon for "democracy" but none for working people either. The people assert themselves "democratically" only with strange authoritian acts (i.e. voting against abortion, same-sex marriage.) We didn't pursue evidence of voter fraud because it was too difficult to grapple with. Our litmus test as to whether or not there will be electoral fraud is whether or not our guy wins. And at the same time we are aware that we are voting for a candidate fully vetted by the powers-that-be, one that will be constrained by the interests of lobbyists and multinationals. The old cliche about "we choose our presidents like we choose our toothpaste" is still true, but all the toothpaste is owned marketed by the same company.

Bottom line: I think that in the 20th c. our choices were dictatorship and plutocracy. I think that in the 21st c. our choices will be extreme paranoic military plutocracy or paranoic but merciful military plutocracy. I feel like the die is always cast and our hand is never in it.

All I know is that I just returned from Switzerland. I hadn't been there since before Bush's 2nd term. I used to think that Switzerland had a weird "overly-ordered" feel to it. This time I was almost in tears. I hadn't felt that free in half a decade. I didn't want to leave. I no longer feel that I live in a substantive democracy. Even when Obama wins, I doubt that feeling will change much. I'll feel a little relief but I'll also feel ridiculous for feeling that way. I will feel slightly relieved on social issues, which I still believe we do get to vote for (industry doesn't care if it produces more evangelical t-shirts or LGBT t-shirts) but on economic and military issues I don't think much will change at all other than people won't be paying as close attention.

Of course if McCain wins, it's the end of the world as far as I'm concerned.

[orleans]

6. it keeps us playing the game honestly and therefore we keep losing.

republikas don't fucking care how they get to win--as long as they win.

(we'd better change our ways)

[donco6]

9. So, how far can we go?

I'm really not trying to paint us into a corner here, but I just want to know what people think is a "step too far". I'm tired of us bringing knives to the gunfight, too.

[orleans]

11. i think it's time we cut loose--pull out all the stops

the world can't afford another fucking rupublikon administration

[pampango]

12. I was wondering that as I jogged this morning. Many here want us to be more aggressive

in our campaigning, but still have a line that they won't cross as far as tactics are concerned. (Each may draw that line in a different place, but they still have a line drawn somewhere.) Of course, Obama himself has the additional complication of running as the "unpolitician" politician with the positive campaign, so that he may have to have a line drawn somewhere.

Others espouse the "no-holds-barred" approach which, to me, implies that there is no line drawn - that we must win "at all costs". I am never sure if these people really mean that we should cheat if they cheat, lie if they lie, bribe if they bribe, torture if they torture, and so on, or whether the "at all costs" is as much rhetoric as reality.

[donco6]

7. Maybe we could do this . . .

We have Obama get up on stage and say "What we need to do to solve the oil crisis is this - and the following statement is an enormous lie - we need to Drill, Drill, Drill."

People will hear what they want to hear (Drill, Drill, Drill), those who pay attention will know it's not true, and the Dems won't have to do any of it.

Problem solved.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Lies are to politicians are what water is to wet.

Which is why, in a democracy, we should never "trust" them.

“Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote,
He's a-runnin' for office on the ballot note.
He's out there preachin' in front of the steeple,
Tellin' me he loves all kinds-a people.
(He's eatin' bagels
He's eatin' pizza
He's eatin' chitlins
He's eatin' bullshit!)”

Bob Dylan

[Winterblues]

10. Certainly not on this forum..

There appears to be very little Constraint or Respect shown here. Certainly not what one would expect from a Liberal site..

[riverdeep]

13. I heard Thom Hartmann say something the other day that made sense.

He said that conservatives believe in the Divine Lie. That is, you can lie if it serves a greater purpose. That dynamic explains a great deal of conservative behavior actually. Of course, you have to rule out the ones that are doing it for pure gain of some sort, no more noble goals than that- this is not a tiny amount.

But then you're left with people who genuinely believe in their goals, and think the ends are too important to worry about the means that get us there. This thinking is exactly what leads to atrocities. Killing a million Vietnamese is okay because it keeps the region from falling to the communists. Sending out rumors of John McCain fathering an illegitimate black baby are okay because he might not lower taxes.

Yes, being moral ALWAYS constrains your available choices. You have to be smart and energetic to win if you're going to choose morality. It's just easier to get what you want being scum. That's how our system is set up, especially with an apathetic or hostile media.

So what do you do when you're faced with a foe that has no scruples? To use a sports analogy, playing fair only works in this context if you have a referee that calls the fouls (the press) and fans that boo and chastise players for unseemly conduct (the informed electorate). The Republicans know they can't win in a fair fight, that's why they play dirty, and the ref has money riding on the Republicans while the fans are on their eighth beer.

Personally, I think we could learn a lot from Saul Alinsky. We need to be streetwise, and learn to use the systems of oppression against the powers that be as much as possible. To use surprise and boldness and radical thinking to attain our goals. And sometimes that means doing things not kosher. We can never go as far as conservatives. I'm convinced they've had their enemies killed, not just wiretapped or had their name sullied. I don't think we can go that far.

If you know how to read conservatives, they will tell you how to defeat them. Note that conservatives hate and fear Alinsky, they know how powerful his approach is. They want us to be goody two shoes and play by the rules to the letter. That way, they'll always win.