The Democrats have a familiar litany about how viciously and unfair the Republicans fight (e.g., the Swift Boat ads of 2004, the Willie Horton ad of 1988, etc.). And about how they themselves have always stayed above board, but now need to get tough. A recent Eleanor Clift column is a good example.
I’m sorry, but this stuff doesn’t bring any tears to my eyes.
I’ll be the first to admit that G.W. Bush and his lackeys (especially the nefarious Karl Rove) have practiced an extremely divisive brand of political governance over the past 8 years, and have hurt our nation because of it. But regarding the Democrats and their theories that their misfortune over the past 30 years is because of unfair political tactics, I can’t help but respond: what about Bill Clinton. Ole Bubba was a guy who was politically skilled and knew what the majority of Americans wanted to hear. He showed that a skilled Democrat could win and win big, if he or she could ‘go mainstream’. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is a ‘very big tent’ which caters to a wide variety of interests, including many that demand large-scale, active government interventions (gays, minorities, feminists, environmental activists, academia, artists and entertainers, etc.). I.e., the kind of interventions that mainstream Americans don’t want to pay for.
In a better world, this wouldn’t be so; these special interest groups have suffered injustices and often have legitimate claims. But this is not a better world, and this mix of interests forces many Dems to lose sight of the average ‘Jane and Joe’ out there in middle-America. Bill Clinton managed to get thru to middle America and still give a nod to the specialized Democratic interests. But this is an extremely difficult balancing act, one that the average politician cannot handle. Only once in a blue moon does a Democrat come along who can ‘stay on the wire’ and not be toppled by either special interest demands within the party, or by attack campaigns from without. By requiring such a tightrope act, the Democrats make their candidates vulnerable to GOP smears that paint them as being out of touch with “average America”.
If Barack Obama can exercise the same skill that Bill Clinton had in getting through to the working family and still keep his ties with the special interests that stoked his meteoric rise (and continue to fuel his magnificent fundraising machine), then he will become the 44th President. But even with struggling working families looking for leadership alternatives that would bring better economic conditions, Obama remains disadvantaged by his lack of touch with such families. And thus he remains vulnerable to GOP attack campaigns. Even if a Democratic counter-attack strategy were to successfully rebut whatever arguments the GOP smear artists are making, it may not be able to establish Senator Obama as a “man of the people”. Even if Mr. Corsi is shown to be the nutcase that he is, the damage will still get done.
It seems to me that the best thing the Democratic special interests could do for the party would be to leave. Democratic candidates could then focus more on bread-and-butter economic issues, and would be less vulnerable to the GOP. Perhaps these interest groups should form their own political party. Actually, I’m surprised that they don’t. They could then play the Dems and Republicans against each other in return for their endorsements and fundraising abilities. They might actually gain power and leverage in the system, instead of going down in flames so often behind the Democratic standard bearer. As to what would remain of the Democrats — admittedly, they would need a new base of support, especially financial support. The big unions were once enough to keep the party going, but unions have since become a vanishing breed.
So, for now, the Democrats will go on in their haphazard fashion. If Barack Obama wins this November, he may be setting out a blueprint for a successful Democratic Party paradigm (although that’s what was said regarding Bill Clinton’s presidency). But if not, the Democrats are in for some heavy thinking about their relevance and viability. It’s not just a question of heading off the swiftboats, as Ms. Clift seems to imply. The Dems may need some big changes — maybe even a divorce — if they are to get back in the game.
Jim,
I do think Ms. Clift has one point: Voters actually DO believe what they hear repeatedly. That fact is the whole point of advertising; and advertising certainly works. I do not think the average voter actually invests much time in serious consideration of what the candidates have to say. The average voter is too consumed with issues in his/her own life and perhaps too busy with ordinary life and work to spend a lot of time on serious study of various political issues; he/she relies on ads for their info on the candidates.
Then too, there is the serious tendency in our society for the answer to every question to be supplied in “sound bytes.” (I actually read recently that the Pope–of all people, whatever one may think of him–was advised to couch his answers in “sound bytes” if he hoped to reach the young people.)
I wonder what it is about the “INFORMATION age” that has people wanting to reduce the answer to the most complex questions to the one-sentence (or less) answer. What irony! Perhaps the answer to this question (and here I am far afield of the subject) is that there is too much information available, and people have not learned how to sort through what is important and what is unimportant. (And this is a simplified answer I admit.)
On another, different point: Though I did not watch it (actually refused to watch it), I was seriously offended by the recent interview of the megachurch preacher who felt obliged to scrutinize both McCain’s and Obama’s spiritual life–with the congregation actually applauding the “right” answers. Good grief! True, this interview was couched in words that sounded political: “We need to know your position on all these issues.” Yet, I ask: How is a politician supposed to give an answer to whether there evil is a distinct entity? How is a politician supposed to answer exactly when the time of conception occurs.
True, the questions were couched in terms of what each man “believed”; and furthermore, the “correct” answer was expected. But I ask: How many thinking THEOLOGIANS would be able to give serious, one-sentence answers to such questions? How are politicians supposed to answer questions serious theologians are still debating or have complex answers to? And don’t tell me there is no debate about these questions among theologians. Yes, the churches have the answers to these questions for those it considers the “simpletons” of the churches. But anyone who has more than a “simpleton’s” knowledge of his/her faith knows better than to be able to give a one-sentence answer to such questions.
The little I heard of this interview of these candidates (admittedly the “sound bytes” that were broadcast after the fact of the interview–another irony, I admit) seriously offended me and had me asking: Since when did the “Moral Police” become a part of America? I was reminded of the Inquisition where these were the types of questions that were asked and the wrong answer could get a person a position at the stake for burning. Today the wrong answer to these “moral police” can get a person knocked right out of the race.
In addition I am reminded of Jimmy Swaggart (sp?). He proved a while back that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. How many people listening to these questions about the spiritual lives and beliefs of both candidates would be able to give one-sentence answers to the questions? Perhaps the “simpletons”?
And did I detect just a HINT of moral superiority in the whole of the questioning process? I think again of Jimmy Swaggart (sp?) who could not come down hard enough on the “adulterer and fornicator” and who himself was found in a motel with a woman not his wife. What is it Jesus said: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
I seriously begin to wonder if Hillary is not partially correct in her “right wing conspiracy” theory.
MCS
Comment by MCS — August 18, 2008 @ 7:56 am
Jim,
I do think Ms. Clift has one point: Voters actually DO believe what they hear repeatedly. That fact is the whole point of advertising; and advertising certainly works. I do not think the average voter actually invests much time in serious consideration of what the candidates have to say. The average voter is too consumed with issues in his/her own life and perhaps too busy with ordinary life and work to spend a lot of time on serious study of various political issues; he/she relies on ads for their info on the candidates.
Then too, there is the serious tendency in our society for the answer to every question to be supplied in “sound bytes.” (I actually read recently that the Pope–of all people, whatever one may think of him–was advised to couch his answers in “sound bytes” if he hoped to reach the young people.)
I wonder what it is about the “INFORMATION age” that has people wanting to reduce the answer to the most complex questions to the one-sentence (or less) answer. What irony! Perhaps the answer to this question (and here I am far afield of the subject) is that there is too much information available, and people have not learned how to sort through what is important and what is unimportant. (And this is a simplified answer I admit.)
On another, different point: Though I did not watch it (actually refused to watch it), I was seriously offended by the recent interview of the megachurch preacher who felt obliged to scrutinize both McCain’s and Obama’s spiritual life–with the congregation actually applauding the “right” answers. Good grief! True, this interview was couched in words that sounded political: “We need to know your position on all these issues.” Yet, I ask: How is a politician supposed to give an answer to whether there evil is a distinct entity? How is a politician supposed to answer exactly when the time of conception occurs.
True, the questions were couched in terms of what each man “believed”; and furthermore, the “correct” answer was expected. But I ask: How many thinking THEOLOGIANS would be able to give serious, one-sentence answers to such questions? How are politicians supposed to answer questions serious theologians are still debating or have complex answers to? And don’t tell me there is no debate about these questions among theologians. Yes, the churches have the answers to these questions for those it considers the “simpletons” of the churches. But anyone who has more than a “simpleton’s” knowledge of his/her faith knows better than to be able to give a one-sentence answer to such questions.
The little I heard of this interview of these candidates (admittedly the “sound bytes” that were broadcast after the fact of the interview–another irony, I admit) seriously offended me and had me asking: Since when did the “Moral Police” become a part of America? I was reminded of the Inquisition where these were the types of questions that were asked and the wrong answer could get a person a position at the stake for burning. Today the wrong answer to these “moral police” can get a person knocked right out of the race.
In addition I am reminded of Jimmy Swaggart (sp?). He proved a while back that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. How many people listening to these questions about the spiritual lives and beliefs of both candidates would be able to give one-sentence answers to the questions? Perhaps the “simpletons”?
And did I detect just a HINT of moral superiority in the whole of the questioning process? I think again of Jimmy Swaggart (sp?) who could not come down hard enough on the “adulterer and fornicator” and who himself was found in a motel with a woman not his wife. What is it Jesus said: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
I seriously begin to wonder if Hillary is not partially correct in her “right wing conspiracy” theory.
MCS
Comment by MCS — August 18, 2008 @ 7:56 am