Electioneering
I said I was going to write something on the election
and I will. I set out to diligently read every article I came
across on the election. I read until my eyeballs bled. Which
might seem like it's just a figure of speech... Eventually I figured
out that reading just encourages these folk. If you keep reading, they
just keep writing more.
I have notes I made a day or so after the election. The
democratic party seemed to have lost, or perhaps abdicated (there is a
difference). Lost their ability to speak to that great midwest
heartland. The republicans for their part seemed to have struck up a
firm dialogue to this southern, midwest, western, this interior
audience. Still looking at graphical maps of the returns Election result maps - even in this heartland, it's a county by county (and country to city) affair. There are people to talk to out there.
What should the democrats do? Learn
to speak to these people? What do you say? What would you say to this
person who wrote in to the Washington Post's Ombudsman:
The only thing Bush did wrong was to worry too much about
the number of civilian casualties we might cause. For that reason, he
couldn't end the war quickly enough to take out Iran and North Korea,
and help the Israelis take out Syria. More on the War (washingtonpost.com)
Should candidates go out there spray on gunpowder cologne and
wrap themselves in the flag? Which flag at that: the stars
and stripes, or the stars and bars? A lot has been made of the
evangelical vote. The Christian Science Monitor quotes Richard
Land, a leader in the Southern Baptist Convention: "The liberal
secularist's worst fears are coming to pass: a grand alliance of white
Evangelicals, black Evangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons," A 'moral voter' majority? The culture wars are back.
Do the democrats purge tone and shade from their wardrobe and take the
dim view of expressionist culture of the social conservatives. Social
conservatism covers a lot of ground, it doesn't drop off the shelf
three feet out into a libertine excess. There are a number of
contradictions along the conservative road, which will become more
apparent the more the course is pressed. Eventually someone will notice
that the free market is a boundryless ideology and it replaces
morality with the chimera of efficiency. The religious right is just
that, it is a dogma of privilege and social control. Attempts to name
it different or assign a big tent populism to it is simply obscurist.
Looking at the solidity of red in certain geographies; I can't help
thinking of Bill Maher's comment from his show last Friday "If at
first you don't secede try, try again." I wouldn't follow the rabbit
down that hole.
All this isn't to say the democrats
shouldn't pander, or consider themselves above pandering. But they
ought to pander equally to eastern and western crowds. Pander to
labor, pander to environment, and health, to life quality issues.
Let people know these are real problems, not hobgoblins of the
imagination. That they won't be solved unless the people in turn
demand it of their politicians.
The other big question seems to be: can any
of labor, black, hispanic, or progressive voting blocs be taken for
granted. This is a little tougher to parse. It is admirable to take the
stance that no one or group ought to be taken for granted, and that you
get what you deserve, loss of their support, if you do. I would argue
at the same time that a voting bloc is one level of abstraction above
this group or identity politics . Not pluralism per se but the politics
of pluralism - a game everybody plays - where coalitions of
groups join, throw their lot in with a party, or adhere around a
standard bearer. I think it is a human trait to try to reduce counting
games to something you can do on your fingers maybe adding a toe or two
(ask Hollywood how many main characters ought to be in a movie, or Wall
street how many voting members are good for a board.) the idea is to
build coalitions until you can talk of voting blocs and if you can't
keep you ducks in a row; well that's just bad parenting. So you do ask
questions like : Will base appealing tactics, folding into the left
corner, gain any or all of them? Or will new tactics, based on the
political center ie a return to third way; the frankly pro business
attitudes of the Clinton years. Anecdotally I know of some specific
drop outs from the grand democratic coalition of the type talked about.
Three of my co-workers, two of them life long democrats could not bring
themselves to vote for Kerry. These are clerks like me, members of the
greying white-collar working class. One of them couldn't not vote for
George Bush because he represents himself as a born again Christian,
another because her priest said Kerry was a sinner and divorcee (not
that that should be held against other divorcees, certainly not against
those who have bought anullments after years of marriage). Yet another
voted for Bush because she does see a parallel between Iraq and
Vietnam, despite the many protestations. Having grown up in Vietnam
(peoples republic of, from age 3), now living in Wheaton these last
nine years. She voted for the man who talked about staying the course
and fighting for democracy against tyranny. Religion and
resoluteness resonate. With this last person I never tried to change
her mind.
Some things I read but couldn't work into a direct link, Including some from today(17 Nov 04) These republicans who form the Bush Administration are elites, the
monied industrial/globalizing elites of this world. Their populism
begins and ends in it's utility as strategy. The strategy is
simple: taking the debate on national policy away from
opposing elites; intellectual/academic, established church elites, and
presenting it to non elites. A position that might seem admirable
except these republican elites presented it with no little demogogory.
They gave people their standing and position as a (pre)packaged deal
and took their proxy away, without waiting for, or needing any
discussion. I recall someone making a point I would be willing to
second barring better information, swing voters are not moderates. Some
felt the democrats figured they were and would respond to
moderate rhetoric. I don't think they do, Undecided or swing voters are
essentially personality cultists. They respond to strong personas and
robust opinions delivered with the repetition of a pop diva's latest
single.
There was of course a great sub-text washing over
this whole election. Over the next ten to twenty-five years the
American standard of living is going to decline. Likely it will decline
rather equally, but there will be strong perceptions that it isn't,
spurred by what bifurcation can be seen. It will be harder to make and
stay in the middle class. In this election people were being encouraged
to see and identify with difference and to believe it may serve them in
this future. On the backs of this politics of resentment future
elections will be waged and won.
This leads on to framing and coding, the
processes by which policy debates are turned into exercises in
tautology and unspoken meaning. If you take up a discussion on the
words and definitions others have set forth you will find nothing can
be redefined and a particular vocabulary will supply its own
conclusion. Alternet has featured several pieces written by linguist
George Lakoff describing this AlterNet: MediaCulture: The Power of Framing most recently. For a similar analysis look to the web pages of last weeks Frontline episode The Persuaders for the interview with republican consultant Frank Luntz.
The democrats are realizing this machination occurs, but seem to be in
the very early stages of countering it, or using it
themselves. For me this is where it starts. I concede
no word or metaphor. For me government is no more capable of being the
the ever problem and never solution than any other vector of power
and coercion. Nearly all republican policy revolves around the gain and
wonder from freeing the individual from government regulation. When the
power of government leaves the stage, only other manifestations of
power stand on. Over whom, I inevitably have less real control.
Government is man living in society. Our nature is social, it is no
part of nature or reason to be freed from it.
11:44:11 PM  ;;
|
|
