The One Party That Fails to Make the Case
Many people really are democrats, yet they think that they are republican. This is the first case that democrats need to make. And it happens to be true.
While the republican party used to stand for some good principles -- fiscal accountability, responsibility, limited government, freedom, etc. -- this is not the case any more. The party has become dominated by its right wing, and has become the party of rhetoric.
People don't like rhetoric. The irony is, rhetoric works, brilliantly, when not recognized. It is also hard to recognize, which is part of what makes it so effective.
John Kerry, for example, made some critical points right after we went into Iraq and toppled the Hussein Regime. Points that in hindsight would have saved lives, and would have increased our chances for success in Iraq. These are critical points, given the stakes we've created, our soldiers' valiant sacrifices therein, and the 300 billion plus cost that perhaps could have been better used elsewhere in the war on terrorism.
Yet during the campaign of 2004, what was this turned into? Constantly, Kerry was "undermining our troops," dividing America" or "undermining America." Great sounding rhetoric, that took the issues, and turned them upside down on their head.
The entire election was like this. The media did a poor job of assessing the facts, but so did the democrats, in recognizing the importance of this, using it to show how the other side in fact was not the party of trust, candor and forthrightness (thereby undermining its entire platform as well as its credibility) and undermining its mischaracterizations therein.
If one side constantly misrepresents, mischaracterizes, or, as others put it, "lies," and constantly contradicts itself -- but repeatedly convinces the public that (1) the other side lies (Gore in 2000) or repeatedly contradicts itself (Kerry in 2004), while (2) it itself is the party of consistency, trust and candor -- what does that tell you?
If the other side can create this false perception of both parties, with so little to work with, and the other side -- namely democrats, can not create the CORRECT perception with so much evidence, to work with, what does that tell you?
It tells you that maybe democrats are not as good on politics as they think they are, and that the erroneous view that they think they may be a bigger limitation than the shortcomings to begin with, no?
It tells you that maybe there is a systematic habit of fundamental errors that get repeated over and over, that go to the core of (1) recognizing what needs to be communicated to the majority of America, (2) how to do it, again, TO THE MAJORITY OF AMERICA -- NOT the self interested who already self select their blogs of choice on the Internet -- and (3) the critical role of the media therein. It tells you that maybe it is time for democrats to stop blaming everybody else, and to listen?
Yet, as suggested, democrats often disagree, sometimes vehemently, with even these basic precepts. This may be an even bigger part of the problem than the fact that democrats don't know how to effectively do this in the first place. Not recognizing that democrats are not that great when it comes to politics hurts them even more, for example, than not being that great on politics in the first place, and then when they are, being self righteous about what is "wrong," when if they were so good at identifying what was wrong, they wouldn't have been so mischaracterized for the past five years, -- and beaten by the far right wing whose policies and rhetoric have mainly been backward -- in the first place.
Why? The reason is found in the last sentence of those quick suggestions linked above: "democrats often think that everybody knows what they know." They also, and this is a classic one, often mistake the supposed importance of "communicating with their base,' with the far more important, "communicating with A MAJORITY OF AMERICA." The two things can be very different. The key, however, is that done properly, the latter does not exclude the former, but the former almost always excludes the latter. (I.e., you make the effective case to a majority of America, your base will get it too).
While the republican party used to stand for some good principles -- fiscal accountability, responsibility, limited government, freedom, etc. -- this is not the case any more. The party has become dominated by its right wing, and has become the party of rhetoric.
People don't like rhetoric. The irony is, rhetoric works, brilliantly, when not recognized. It is also hard to recognize, which is part of what makes it so effective.
John Kerry, for example, made some critical points right after we went into Iraq and toppled the Hussein Regime. Points that in hindsight would have saved lives, and would have increased our chances for success in Iraq. These are critical points, given the stakes we've created, our soldiers' valiant sacrifices therein, and the 300 billion plus cost that perhaps could have been better used elsewhere in the war on terrorism.
Yet during the campaign of 2004, what was this turned into? Constantly, Kerry was "undermining our troops," dividing America" or "undermining America." Great sounding rhetoric, that took the issues, and turned them upside down on their head.
The entire election was like this. The media did a poor job of assessing the facts, but so did the democrats, in recognizing the importance of this, using it to show how the other side in fact was not the party of trust, candor and forthrightness (thereby undermining its entire platform as well as its credibility) and undermining its mischaracterizations therein.
If one side constantly misrepresents, mischaracterizes, or, as others put it, "lies," and constantly contradicts itself -- but repeatedly convinces the public that (1) the other side lies (Gore in 2000) or repeatedly contradicts itself (Kerry in 2004), while (2) it itself is the party of consistency, trust and candor -- what does that tell you?
If the other side can create this false perception of both parties, with so little to work with, and the other side -- namely democrats, can not create the CORRECT perception with so much evidence, to work with, what does that tell you?
It tells you that maybe democrats are not as good on politics as they think they are, and that the erroneous view that they think they may be a bigger limitation than the shortcomings to begin with, no?
It tells you that maybe there is a systematic habit of fundamental errors that get repeated over and over, that go to the core of (1) recognizing what needs to be communicated to the majority of America, (2) how to do it, again, TO THE MAJORITY OF AMERICA -- NOT the self interested who already self select their blogs of choice on the Internet -- and (3) the critical role of the media therein. It tells you that maybe it is time for democrats to stop blaming everybody else, and to listen?
Yet, as suggested, democrats often disagree, sometimes vehemently, with even these basic precepts. This may be an even bigger part of the problem than the fact that democrats don't know how to effectively do this in the first place. Not recognizing that democrats are not that great when it comes to politics hurts them even more, for example, than not being that great on politics in the first place, and then when they are, being self righteous about what is "wrong," when if they were so good at identifying what was wrong, they wouldn't have been so mischaracterized for the past five years, -- and beaten by the far right wing whose policies and rhetoric have mainly been backward -- in the first place.
Why? The reason is found in the last sentence of those quick suggestions linked above: "democrats often think that everybody knows what they know." They also, and this is a classic one, often mistake the supposed importance of "communicating with their base,' with the far more important, "communicating with A MAJORITY OF AMERICA." The two things can be very different. The key, however, is that done properly, the latter does not exclude the former, but the former almost always excludes the latter. (I.e., you make the effective case to a majority of America, your base will get it too).
6 Comments:
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah........
well, sure. But saying this is a one-sided issue is quite niave.
Are you saying that Dems, greens, or however do not engage in political rhetoric??
Are you saying that Dems, greens, or however do not engage in political rhetoric??.
sure they do. except not nearly as much. not nearly as egregiously or manipulatively. And, they are not nearly as good at it.
Hmm I love the idea behind this website, very unique.
»
Greets to the webmaster of this wonderful site! Keep up the good work. Thanks.
»
I find some information here.
Post a Comment
<< Home