reflections on election politics (late one I'm afraid, really long too :)

[progressiveright]

Kerry election, as well as the whole democratic effort, was a miserable failure, and not because we lost, but because throughout the whole thing I kept seeing stuff that we could do that seemed like a no-brainer, yet was not realized. I was wondering if somebody had the same feeling.

First off the Iraq war. Clinton and his people were dead wrong - we already won on the economy, all the polls showed that if it was about economy democrats would be in by landslide, economy was our strong side, foreign policy was theirs, during this election. However if we did lose the debate on Iraq/terrorism/national security, then nothing else would matter for obvious reasons, that's why we had to focus on that.

Saying 'I will hunt down and kill terrorists' once every blue moon is pointless. Democrats needed a platform and a vision that was not provided by our leadership. How about this one - we are in real danger, this is an assymetrical war, and we have to fight it by assymetrical methods in order to win. We understand that Bush was tired at swatting flies, but shooting flies with cannonballs doesn't work either. We should have called for unprecedented international anti-terrorism operation, which would be successful if we worked with the world, not against it. The focus is not on the military, but intelligence, we have virtually no agents in middle east where anti-american terrorists operate, and CIA doesnt have enough translators to keep up with stuff it intercepts, that's ridiculous, yet we spend 150 billion on Iraq. And of course we will take military action against a country that is planning to attack us either conventionally, or through terrorism, its not like we didnt have that 'preemption doctrine before', you don't need a doctrine to do that, but what you do need is intelligence to make sure you are attacking the right country.

Our efforts should have been concentrated on driving home the message that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and Bin Laden. Until people got that basic message any other debate is pointless, and the amount of people that still believe in Saddam/911 connection shows that we failed to do that (partly because of covert propaganda of GOP and FOX, partly because people really wanted to believe that was true when seeing soldiers dying in Iraq). Instead of arguing who exactly said 'imminent threat' we should have been running tons of commercials showing Bush, Rice, Cheney saying that 'Iraq has WMD, developing nuclear weapons, is a grave threat to us, mushroom clouds, and so on, and then running clips of Kay saying there are no WMDs, Bush saying there is no connection between Saddam and 9/11, 9/11 comission saying there is no link between Iraq and al-quada.

On the ideological front - its unbelievable that democrats dont attack GOP from the right. They say things once in a while - about deficits, state rights, spending, but what the hell is the message. Why couldn't Kerry and the rest of democrats stand up and say in unified voice - Republicans have betrayed their contract with America. The party of Goldwater is dead. We are the fiscally responsible party of America, thats what democrats stand for now because GOP went crazy. We balance budgets, cut spending, cut deficits, creat surplus and prosperity - just look at records of Clinton or Howard Dean. Pay-as-you-go system of having to take money from a government program to finance any other government program should have been the centerpiece, its very easy to understand, it makes republicans looks like scoundrels for opposing it, it prevents growth of government (main republican theme). And it gives democrats a reason to say - there are no more tax-and-spend democrats out there, that era is over. If we want a social program we will not tax you, or borrow money like republicans, we simply will take the money from somewhere else in the government. Its stupid to be for small government, or big government, we are for government that lives within its means, and considering that we have the lowest taxes of any 1st world nation that gives us the best economic growth, yet those taxes are enough to have the most powerful military in the world, and adequate safety net, we are doing pretty good. All those things did get mentioned here and there, but you cant just mention stuff when you have a political campaign, you have to pound a few simple ides over and over again into peoples heads until it becomes common knowledge, and we did not do that.

About tax cuts - we failed to make it clear that bush didn't just cut down all taxes, he singled out specific taxes (estate, divident) that rich people pay, and he is waging class warfare. One thing that I thought was right on the money was when Kerry pointed out during debates how vulnerable our chemical plants are, customs, and all things that relate to national security, and then said - now choose between your safety and getting a tax cut. McCain, Hagel and other moderate republicans got the same idea when they refused to make tax cuts permanent earlier last year because we are in a war. Tax cuts had to be tied up with security, the war - again, a couple of simple ideas that had to be said by all democrats over and over again - why are we having these gigantic tax cuts when our chemical plants are not protected, when soldiers in Iraq don't have proper armor, its unpatriotic. And the most important thing that for some bewildering reason nobody said is that NOBODY HERE GOT A TAX CUT ! Bush simply borrowed money from other countries and gave it to you in form of the tax cut, that's why we have a deficit. And your children will have to pay it. So we will leave our children with baby boomer/medicare crisis AND a huge deficit, and what will we say when they ask 'why have you done this to us?'.

There were a lot of good programs that Kerry proposed, from education to medicaid expansion, but how do you pay for it? That was THE reason we couldn't attack GOP from the right, because they would say, ok, we are horrible, but look at all the stuff that other guy wants to do, its even more money. As I said before getting your taxes cut is a very compelling message, so the best offense would be to tie any reduction of tax cuts into national security; so where would the money, especially under the pay-as-you-go system, come from for all those ambitions programs democrats wanted? Here comes the tricky part, corporate welfare. Everybody complains about pork, dirty money, lobbysts, everybody knows that politicians give away tons of taxpayers money to special interests and corporations, and it became a part of life, people just accept that it happens because if politicians dont do that they don't get elected. In order to be able to stand up and say - we spend 200 billion dollars every year as kickbacks to corporations, lets end corporate welfare and use that money for education, social programs, foreign aid, health care; in order to do that you would have to stop taking money from corporations and rely on voters to support you. Howard Dean was able to partially accomplish that, but he was never known for anything else but somebody who opposed Iraq war from the start unlike other democrats. For democratic party to become a party of small donations (like the green party) would require a giant leap of faith, and seems completely unrealistic, but it could work, even if partially implemented, Kerry was riding a wave of good faith collecting millions of dollars in $10-$20 donations, and the least he could do was to refuse money from certain corporations, like pharmacuticals, which would enable him to say for example - both me and president want to drive down the costs of prescription drugs by making it easier to make and sell generic drugs. Now you know that generic drugs sales hurt drug corporations, so who do you trust, me, who has not taken a cent from them, or republicans who have taken millions of dollars in donations from drug companies. And it could go like that on hundreds of issues.

Back to ideology - conservatives got hell bent on privatizing everything, making government evil, and abolishing all social programs. As I said before the ideal way to deal with it would be to lock down government spending via pay-as-you-go and then have a debate - we collect that much taxes in a year, whats more important, health care or giving billions of dollars to oil corporations. Hard right wing conservatives have irrational hatred towards any social programs, they dont care if tax payers dollars are wasted as long as its not welfare or health care, they equate those with communism and they have had an impact on public opinion shifting it right through rhetoric like ownership society, where the goal is to have people as much financial control over their lives as possible. It's important for democrats to realize that and defend our safety net as a measure of our compassionate, christian, humane society, where if you lose your job, get disabled, get old without any savings, simply fuck up, we will not let you just die lacking food and shelter. We should stress our differences from European societies, where, like Sweeden, taxes are incredibly high but social services provide for almost everything, so that you can live comfortably even if you dont want to work, they are banking on the fact that enough people still want to do something with their lives. Our safety net is designed to provide opportunity, not handouts, and we dont want our social services to get so abundant that it discourages work. americans are known for being workaholics, we compete and work overtime for professional self-actualization (as well as material), and our philosophy is that those who are smart, strong, work hard, deserve to have better homes, food, health care than others, but that doesnt mean that disadvantaged (for whatever reason) should have no food or health care at all, thats what safety net is all about. What is absolutely incredible is that most people believe that their tax money mostly go into welfare, while the actual number (along with foreign aid), is less than %5 of your taxes. How did republicans get away with this propaganda, while we spend virtually no money on welfare in reality, is beyond my comprehension. Why haven't we challenged that. And of course its important how you spend the money as well, the focus should be on finding these people jobs, but you can't solve anything if you dont spend any money on it either.

Education - it is appaling that its acceptable for schools in rich districts to spend ten times as much money on one school as the ones in poor districts (that usually happen to be minority too). Capitalism is impossible without upward mobility, education is not a handout, and democratic position must be a committment to provide quality education to every kid based on the abilities, not on how rich the parents are, I believe that was exact position of Elizabeth Edwards.

Border security - right wing is nuts about this issue. Hillary Clinton must be catching up on this, thats why she started giving speeches about importance of securing our borders. It does make sense, millions of illegal immigrants cross our borders every year, there are reports of al-quada cells in central america, they can smuggle agents and bombs through mexican border. So securing our borders (which would coincidentally cut down illegal immigration virtually to zero) is really a national security issue. After illegal immigration is stopped it would be that much easier to talk about what we are going to do about 20+ million of illegal immigrants already here, be it work visas or total amnesty. It is an incredibly popular issue with republicans, and for a democrat to make a committment to secure our borders 100% (would initially take between 10 and 20 billion $$ annually, withing reason), that would confuse the hell out of everybody and completely fracture the republican party along ideological lines. I am not sure what the actual ramifications would be though, there is probably a reason politicians (except for a couple in the congress) dare not take that position, possibly because too many influencial corporations use illegal labor, also probably because if we stopped illegal immigration we would have to pay 5 times as much for lawn maintainance, road maintainance, prices of american grown fruits and vegetables would go up considerably, so on. Is that the sacrifice americans are willing to make if faced with an honest choice of living like we are, basically using mexicans for slave labor and cheap prices, while calling them criminals? Then again, politics is not entirely about honesty, we can close down our borders on national security rationale, and when prices for those services that were driven by illegal labor start going up - well, it would be too late to turn back. Border security can't be opposed by such reasoning, the opponents would have to find some completely fake reasons that seem valid, no politician will come out and say - I oppose your plan for border security because it will hurt many corporation and drive up prices across the board.

Free market - that is a ridiculous concept. It's business world with no rules. Economic anarchy that leads to fascism. Deregulation has been going on for decades (did not stop under Clinton either), which means corporations are getting bigger and bigger. Just like the growth of government, it has to stop somewhere. We should start enforcing our anti-trust laws, protecting workers rights, procecuting white collar crime, holding CEOs responsible for their crimes. Once again, we can't take that position without becoming a party that relies on mostly small donations. Its important to explain to people that government is you and me. We elect it, if we dont agree with what our elected representatives are doing we kick them out. There is nothing evil about the concept of government, and its time to start calling hard right republican base what they really are - anarchists. They argue that social programs are not necessary because without them church and family will take care of disadvantaged. Ownership society, you don't owe anything to the government. Everything will work out by itself if we dont have government laws in business or society - that concept is ridiculous when properly exposed case by case.

That is the wedge to drive into the christian right as well. First of all, after 4 years of republican rule over all branches of government they still havent done a damn thing for anybody, either religious zealots or fiscal conservatives. Not surprising - if you put a bunch of people that hate the government in charge of the government, they are going to do a horrible job. They don't do that much for the republican causes that matter to many republicans, except for trying to play the victims again, which at this point is kind of sad. What christian conservatives want is for the government to ride in on the white horse and save them, outlaw gay marriage, evolution, sodomy, make prayer in school required... When dealing with the fringe it is always best for democrats to debate them using republican ideology of limited government, its not an easy trap for them to get out of.

Patriot act - freedom taken is not restored as easily. Patriot act is a huge piece of legislation that nobody read when it was passed, it has many good parts enhancing cooperation between CIA and FBI for example, but it also give federal agents powers to spy, search, arrest any citizen without any record, trial, or accountability. Has this power been abused - not really. But its completely irresponsible. Republicans trust Bush with it, but they would be scared as hell is democratic president was in charge with that kind of power, its always good to point that out. When we take freedom from our citizens, that's when terrorists win, not when they kill innocent people. Of course there can be an arrangement for counterterrorism actions that have to bypass some judicial protocols in order to protect our nation, but they will require many safeguards , starting by having intelligence senate committee with top secret clearance to be able to review those actions.

Gay Marriage - democrats should not just oppose it, they should speak out against it. It's the political reality. For democrat party to be tagged as pro-gay marriage is the kiss of death in USA right now. The basic point that needs to be made is that we want civil unions - things like letting gay partners visit one another in the hospital (as well as other 1000 something legal and financial benefits that go along with marriage), but that line about the hospital is clearly the best, and it has been used by democrats very frequently, which I thought was a smart thing. So in the end the whole debate is over a word. Decade ago civil unions were unthinkable, now conservatives are the ones pushing for them in order to prevent gay marriage, we should take advantage of that, and we should have spoken very strongly against Mass judges as well as illegal actions of SF mayor. In the end its about religious tolerance - most people in USA are christian, most believe that homosexuality is a sin, great many find the concept of homosexual marriage to be an insult to their religion. We may not agree with them, but we must respect their opinions (and agree in public if you are a good politician). Its about protecting rights of minority while respecting wishes of majority, and civil unions is what fits right now.

Abortion - the partial birth abortion law can be used to our advantage. It does not provide health exceptions for the mother. So if the doctor tells you that you have a complication, and either you have an abortion or he is virtually sure you and child will die, then the law says that you have to die. Can heppan to democrat or repoublican alike. No wonder the law was struck down by courts before the ink dried up, its one of the most unconstitutional laws that was ever passed. The tide on abortion has been swinging, it has became a potent issue for republican base. I think it would be a good idea for democrats to be against late term abortions as well. Don't get me wrong, we should fight for Roe vs Wade as part of the party identity, but restricting partial birth abortions is within the case's guidelines. The reason its beneficial for democrats is because all those billboards and trucks with horrendous pictures of killed fetuses come from late term abortions, if those are outlawed except for health reasons, it gives democrats power to say to those people - you are lying bastards, thats not what abortion is. And showing a picture of somebody taking morning afterpill and then a collection of tiny cells won't have the same effect. We believe in reproductive rights, but with every right comes responsibility, and to wait that long before deciding to have an abortion is just not acceptable.


This is getting way too long, probably because I thought about politics for a while but haven't really written anything about it. One thing for sure - democrats need to learn how to fight. That was the appeal of Howard Dean, he was anti-war and he was willing to stand up for what he believed in, it didn't matter if he was fiscally to the right to most democrats. All the suggestions in the first couple of paragraphs were really to Dean, who I thought had a real chance of winning the party nomination and transforming political landscape at the same time.

Kerry had his share of problems. Symbolic of democratic leadership he failed to formulate simple ideas to get behind, unlike republicans. What I found extremely ridiculous was the whole thing about voting for war, then against funding the troops. First of all bush told congress saddam has WMDs and is building a nuclear bomb, they kind of had no choice but to give him war powers for negotiation. If Kerry knew what he knew now he wouldn't vote that way. But he said he would. He never explained that one. It's not a bad excuse, bush held back CIA reports that said that alluminum tubes are too thin to be used for nuclear weapons, congress was misled, contrary to what bush wants us to believe now. So Kerry was tricked into voting, that's what he should have said to diffuse tensions between him and anti-war crowd.

Then came his 'i voted for 80 billion before i voted against it'. He had half a year, he was not able to explain. WTF? There is nothing strange about that statement. There are always a couple of bills. He voted for democratic one that was allocating more money to troops for armor and less free pork to corporations, he voted against republican hoping to pass a better bill. What's so hard about saying that every time he was asked about flip-flopping? I honestly don't get it.

There are a couple of things democrats failed, and are still failing to capitalize upon. Republicans used gay marriage amendment as a publicity stunt. Democrats should have went after DeLay, indict him, knock him down from majority leader, tie floor with procedural votes for weeks if republicans try to change the rules. Make republicans cooperate instead of passing right wing bills and denying vote to bills that have bipartisan support and that bush might have to veto. Arnold wants to redistrict california so its fair, democrats must jump on this issue and demand fair redistricting across the nation, when republicans oppose it don't just give up, go on tv and bitch about it for months and months. Sooner or later there will be a revolution of the younger congressmen against party leaders who are too polite, too careful, too lazy, too scared to alienate moderate voters in their districts, and then you'll see a democratic newt ginritch. could be congresswoman slaughter from new york.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Welcome to DU!

------------------------------------------------------
Join the new Boston Tea Party!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/index.htm#shopping

[moggie12]

2. Great points -- it's frustrating, isn't it??

I was nodding my head as I read your piece. So many of the things you said bug me, too: Dems have got to get better at framing their message and grabbing people's attention. For example, about the deficit and your "but how do you pay for good programs?" point, I think Kerry would've scored points if he'd said, "Bush has dug us so deep into the fiscal hole that it's going to take me years to dig us out of it. As soon as I do, though, the first thing I want to do is get Americans a decent health insurance plan." Ditto on your point about Kerry & Dems in general not focusing enough on true intent of Bush tax cuts: They reward investors and penalize working people!! Arrgghh!! Why bother with investment if people aren't going to be able to afford to buy what's produced?

Excellent piece and welcome to DU! :hi:

[progressiveright]

3. deficit

you got corporate welfare/pork, defense, health/social programs, deficit elimination, low taxes, you gotta give up one of those, there is just not enough money for everything.

[xpat]

4. Don't get your knickers in a twist about the election

In the words of the immortal Emma Goldman,

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

We can go through the charade until hell freezes over, but as long as the two-faced-one-party system is intact, it doesn't much matter who whens, Republicans or Democrats.

Granted, the Democrats will generally, but not always, feed us some crumbs, but that's hardly worth risking apoplexy.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[progressiveright]

6. it seems

like it would be better if the democratic candidate who lost last election was someone like goldwater, kerry's loss did not accomplish anything, we needed somebody who could define democratic party in no uncertain terms as a party of fiscal responsibility, dedication to capitalism through stopping deregulation and providing competition, standing up for small businesses and for workers rights, fighting war against terrorists (not terror) with intelligence operations/international cooperation, not wars.

on the subject of workers and unions, it seems to me that its only half of the equation. CEOs don't own corporations, shareholders do, democrats should focus on organizing shareholders into voting blocks that can change company's policies, slash gigantic CEO salaries, like the disney shareholders tried to do recently.

[progressiveright]

7. the bottom line

is that you have to be able to take on CEOs to be a viable democratic party, make them criminally responsible for their companies actions, taking action against corporations that become monopolies (back in the day if 3 companies owned more than 40% of the given market, then the market was viewed as non-competitive). There was also an idea for a bill to cap ceo salary at 25 times of the salary of the lowest paying employee (as opposed to current ceos making hundreds if not thousands times as much), so in order for ceos to get really rich they would have to raise the pay of their workers. That will, of course, start cries about democrats being anti-business socialists, which can be countered with rhetoric of democrats fighting for capitalism by allowing competition and being champions of small business.