« The Day After | Main | Fun and Games »
Center? No. No. No!
Ok, really, I'm going to think and write about something other than the election someday soon. But not yet. First: The results of this election do not show that the Democrats need to move further to the center. No no no! Bush-light has failed for the past three elections—it has failed miserably! Yet I keep hearing pundits claim that this is the message to the Democratic party—you've got to move to the middle. Are these people insane!? The Democratic party needs to provide a real alternative to the Republicans, not try to be more like them! How many people did you know or hear about who said prior to this election that they didn't really care for Bush but they didn't really know what Kerry was about or how he was different? I know of many, and many of those people apparently voted for Bush. And the reason they didn't understand what Kerry stood for or how he was different is because he was too afraid to take real stands on issues to set himself apart from Bush. He was playing for the center, and he lost the whole field. And that's exactly what Gore did, too. And that's what happened to most of the mid-term races in 2002. Lots of people felt it was time for a change this year, but they didn't see how Kerry would give that to them. So they decided to stick with the devil they know. Democrats! Wake up! Stand up for what you believe in and tell the mythical “center” (which is moving further right every freaking day!) you're not going to pander to it anymore! Show the world what a farce the Right's “moral values” are by standing up for your own values—peace, equality, justice, environmental conservation, sustainable economies, living wages. . . basically, humanity before profit. There's a winning ticket waiting at this station and it's just sitting there. If the Democrats claim it, there will be no stopping them. But if they continue to play the Republican game and pretend to care about the “center,” they're going to lose lose lose lose lose. Leadership does not go to where it thinks the people are and try to convince the people it agrees with them. Leadership goes where it thinks the people ought to go, then it shows the people why it thinks they ought to go there, and asks them to join together to help move that direction. Democrats have to lead or lose, that's all there is to it.Posted November 4, 2004 08:15 AM | election 2004
I agree. I think if Howard Dean had been the candidate that he'd be the president-elect of the United States. John Kerry was no different than a potted plant; both would've gotten the same amount of votes. Kerry brought no new votes to the party because he's not interesting! The votes he got he got because he's NOT George W. Bush. Had the Dems had the sense to nominate someone who's not basically the same as GWB, someone with fresh, different ideas and a freaking personality, the world would be a brighter place at this very moment.
Posted by: mls at November 4, 2004 09:31 AM
I agree we should have nominated someone interesting... but I don't neccesarily agree that Kerry isn't it... and I don't think that Dean is the answer. I proud of what Dean has done to energize, but he would have gotten *slaughtered* in this election. Not only would he have provided more ammunition for the GOP attack machine than Kerry, but he would have turned off the center (I know AmbImb, your whole point was that we can't pander to the center... and I agree in principal, but we also needed to beat Bush... and Dean couldn't have done that).
Personally, I would have liked Clark. He was more interesting than Kerry, but wouldn't seem like a pinko communist to the middle like Dean would have. Just my thoughts. I like your post though. I think this is how the Dems should set up for the elections, but not how they should run their campaigns.
Posted by: Unreasonable Man at November 4, 2004 11:43 AM
Not Clark, and I'm beginning to think -- not Democrats either.
If the Democrats continue to pander to the right -- a demonstrably losing strategy -- voting for them will also be "throwing your vote away". Frankly, I'm sick of about half the Democratic Party. Maybe we don't need their stinking party.
Posted by: Heidi at November 4, 2004 01:55 PM
Well, there is a reason that in hypo polls, Bill Clinton came out as the victor over "W" when voters were asked to choose.
There is a reason why likely voters chose Lieberman over Bush.
Think about what that means, even if Bill wasn't able to run again (and wasn't willing to run as vice president).
There is a lesson there, as well as in Gore's failure to endorse his prior vice presidential candidate. I lost a lot of respect for Gore then.
Posted by: Ethesis at November 4, 2004 07:09 PM
Oops, got my blog url (http://ethesis.blogspot.com/) and my domain (http://adrr.com/) wrong in the "url" section.
Posted by: Ethesis at November 4, 2004 07:10 PM
Ugh.. why am I not in the least bit surprised?
To be a moderate does not equate to milquetoast.
And, if you think moving further Left is the solution, then you've fundamentally misread the election results. The number one issue was values. The majority of the voting public believes (wrongly) that we in the Democratic Party are disdainful of their values.
And quit being a revisionist with respect to Gore. He ran as an outright populist. He lost the center. The liberal base came out in droves!
To be in the centrist/moderate area of American politics is not to cede ideology or values. To be a moderate is no less ideological than liberal or conservative. A moderate is someone who believes in rational analysis, one who puts fact above belief.
And to be honest I do not see much of a difference between a leftist and a rightist government. Both allow policy to be dictated by belief rather than knowledge. The Left hates economics as much as the Right loves the Bible. Both fail to place any premium on fact and instead live in a non-reality based world.
Posted by: musclehead at November 4, 2004 08:07 PM
Ok.. so I re-read that and I used the word believes and belief in the same sentence in a contradictory manner. I hope y'all will excuse me. It's just that this Left versus Center debate is a bit tired.
Do you really want to purge moderates like me from the Party? Have you failed to notice that over the past 40 years the Democrats have elected only two Presidents and both were Southern moderates?
Do the math and tell me how on earth you get to an electoral majority in this country with only the Green wing of the Party? God.. and I thought Bush was the fuzzy math guy.
Posted by: musclehead at November 4, 2004 08:13 PM
Right? Left? Center? These are not very helpful catagories. In our two party system we are really dealing with two coalition parties. The Dems are generally composed of environmentalists, organized labor, plaintiff's attorneys, socialists, minorities, etc. Republicans are generally composed of libertarians, fiscal conservatives, federalist society, neocons, the religious right, and rednecks.
Republican lite is not the way to win for the Dems. The Dems need to provide an alternative that challenges some of the factions of the republican party to join. This may mean attempting to gain christian votes by evangelical preaching about the obligation to take care of the poor, sick, and disabled. Or maybe try to attract some other faction.
I'm starting to think that, as Heidi said, it's time to give up on the Democrats. Maybe we may need a new party that attempts to include one or two of the Republican Party factions. This is certainly not the Green party.
Posted by: Ethan at November 4, 2004 10:27 PM
I'm thinking you're right Ethan (and Heidi). The Dems do need to reach out to Christians by reminding them that Bush's policies show anything but Christian values, and they need to reach out to rednecks and fiscal conservatives by showing them that Bush's economic policies are a disaster for these groups. But the Dems have failed so completely in the last 40 years (and that includes Clinton, who only advanced a republican agenda on many things, including perhaps most importantly, trade policy), that it seems futile to attempt to convince the Democratic party to change. Maybe we should leave that to Musclehead. I mean, no, there's no reason to purge moderates from the Democratic party, but the party is purging everyone else through its utter failure to serve their interests. So if the Dems want to be a centrist party, so be it. Perhaps there's a centrism that is not a sell-out, but the Dems haven't demonstrated that they understand that difference.
Posted by: ambimb at November 6, 2004 07:07 AM
