Reply #23: the simplistic "we have to win"

[welshTerrier2]

what we do today constrains, at least to some degree, what future we are able to bring about ... said another way, once a torturer, always a torturer ...

those who see winning as only coming in black and white are blind to the impact of today's actions on the future ... in fact, they believe, absent winning, there is no future ... and they couldn't be more wrong ...

Democrats, as an opposition party, need to give voice to the ideas and values we hold ... they cannot just violate those values in some mythical pursuit of electoral victory ... in fact, in SELLING OUT TO WIN, they may be assuring our defeat ... the public knows "politicking" when they smell it and they do NOT respect it ... Democrats, for example, have put a great premium on burying the "McGovern weak on defense meme" that republicans have prospered from so greatly ... but, instead of choosing a SMART strategy on defense, they keep voting more and more money for bush's war ... Americans don't see TOUGH; they see politics as usual and they do NOT respect it ... in trying to look tough but in actuality SELLING OUT, Democrats look like they are afraid to mix it up with bush over the war ... it portrays the party in a terrible light ...

so, there are two arguments here, not just one ... the first is that what the "we have to win" crowd is missing is that the current appeasement strategy may not be at all pragmatic; it may be causing us to lose ... and the second, of course, is that, as many have correctly observed, it becomes hard for Democrats to differentiate themselves from bush (on the war for example), when they have voted for it in the first place ...

and the black-and-white we-have-to-win crowd also fails to understand the impact of the party's current conduct ... the problem goes well beyond locking us into "pragmatic" positions in the future ... two additional problems occur (and perhaps many more) when our "representatives" fail to represent our values ... the first obvious problem is that such votes will clearly alienate a substantial component of the base ... it's not just those really wacky DU lefty extremists; it may be hard to believe but there just might be plenty of other "real" Democrats who don't like to see their reps voting for torture or voting to oppose a woman's right to choose ... to paint such critics as "extremists" is absurd ...

and yet another problem that occurs from the "win at any cost" simplicity is that it fails to understand, and implement, the most important long-term strategy all political parties must have ... and what is that? is it just winning? no, it isn't ... winning is not a strategy; it's a goal ... as you quite correctly pointed out, it's important HOW we win ... part of the HOW is that we must EDUCATE VOTERS on exactly what our values are and how we hope to implement them ... the WAY TO WIN is not to vote the republican line to get elected ... all that does is reinforce republican ideology ... IT FAILS TO EDUCATE the voters we hope to attract ... actually, it does educate them but it does so with the exact opposite message ... to paraphrase someone: republicans make better republicans than Democrats do ...

it is NOT just about winning elections ... elections are a SNAPSHOT IN TIME ... it's the state of voters on election day ... no one is arguing that state is not critically important ... but what shapes the state of the electorate on election day is an ongoing, multi-year, education campaign ... if we teach the wrong lessons through the actions of our elected representatives, we will not be winners of the hearts and minds of the American people ... to try to separate HOW our reps vote today from what our fate will be is sheer folly ... winning elections is made up of thousands of "smaller battles" to educate the public; let's make sure our actions are teaching the right lesson ...