Draft Howard Dean to lead the DNC

Recipe for Change

"I've seen too much hate to want to hate, myself, and I've seen hate on the faces of too many white sheriffs, too many white citizens' councillors, and too many Klansmen of the south to want to hate, myself; and every time I see it, I say to myself, hate is too great a burden to bear. Somehow we must be able to stand up before our most bitter opponents and say: 'We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will and we will still love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws and abide by the unjust system, because non-co-operation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is co-operation with good, and so throw us in jail and we will still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and, as difficult as it is, we will still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our communities at the midnight hour and drag us out on some wayside road and leave us half-dead as you beat us, and we will still love you. Send your propaganda agents around the country, and make it appear that we are not fit, culturally and otherwise, for integration, but we'll still love you. But be assured that we'll wear you down by our capacity to suffer, and one day we will win our freedom. We will not only win freedom for ourselves, we will so appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory."

-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

From the Stations of the Cross

"These Fourteen Steps
That you are now about to walk
You do not take alone.

I walk with you.

Though you are you
And I am I
Yet we are truly one:
One Christ.

Therefore, my Way of the Cross,
Two thousand years ago
And your "way" now
Are also One.

But note this difference:

My Life was incomplete
Until I crowned it by my death;

Your Fourteen steps will only be complete
When you have crowned them
By your life.

-Clarence Enzler, "Everyone's Way of the Cross"

There are great possibilities for nobility and redemption in un-earned suffering. The only requirement is that the suffering is elevated by Love -- "Agape" love, love that is freely given and expects nothing in return. Am I saying, "Be a doormat"? No. I'm saying that standing in loving opposition, refusing to cooperate with evil but also refusing to hate the evil-doer, can be an occasion of reconciliation, which is better than some narrow definition of victory.

The Democrats' Future

There are several factions in the Democratic Party pushing different solutions to our evident electoral problems.

One faction is advocating that the party basically write off the deeply red states -- the South and Great Plains -- in favor of an exclusively urban strategy. I think this grows out of the bitterness many feel at our defeat; I think it is an over-reaction, and ultimately a betrayal of people that should be the solid core of the democratic party.

Put morer plainly, I think this is exactly the wrong approach.

I think the democrats have had their asses handed to them in most of the last 30 years because they (we) have forgotten just what it is that makes us Democrats.

What has the party traditionally stood for? The little guy. Small farmers. The working class. Minority rights. People who don't have enough power or money to have any influence.

The Democrats could, TOMORROW, put together a winning coalition based on these people. Take, say, the bottom sixty percent of the income scale, and talk to all of them. Better yet, LISTEN to them. What are their priorities? What are their values? Who are they? We won't learn by proposing solutions to them. We will learn by listening to them.

Here's an idea that may seem strange -- give up on the BLUE states! They've been costing the democrats elections for years, and more than elections, their souls. The Blue states are the richer states (mostly); STOP listening to rich people.

Only people who are very, very economically comfortable would make abortion or gay marriage their number one, big-deal, no-compromise issues. Those of us who are well down the income ladder look at the democrats' priorities and say "What the @#$% are you people thinking?? We're hurting, the pain is getting worse, and you're all bunched up about gay marriage?! What is wrong with you?"

Things that weigh on me

There is a sense I have that this country has been going down a wicked path for some time now, under both Democratic and Republican presidencies and Democratic and Republican congresses.

There was a time not too long ago (within the lifetime of my septuagenarian mother, for example) when people in this country didn't lock their doors on a regular basis. Not just in small towns or rural areas, but in places like Oakland, California and Brooklyn, New York.

I think it is worth asking why.

There was a time not that long ago when people in villages, towns and cities had no problem with "developement" per se; when most people were happy to see a new building go up on the main street of their town; when a new house being built meant someone new to greet and get to know.

What has happened to this country?

Questions of Life

The Democrats and Republicans both have real problems with their positions on matters of life, considered in a moral framework.

Melinda Henneberger has a great column in which she discusses exactly the dilemma that lefty pro-lifers (and that is emphatically NOT a contradiction in terms) face.

I am for much more stringent regulation of the environment, against the Iraq war (in fact, almost any war) against the death penalty, for a massive effort to alleviate poverty through government activism, for the rights of indigenous peoples, very pro-union...

And against abortion. More explicitly, I do not believe that a woman should have a right to choose to get an abortion any time she wants one. I believe that abortion should only be a possibility where the loss of the fetus is an unintended but unavoidable effect of saving the mother's life (as in the case of ectopic pregnancy). I believe this because I consider a fetus to be a human being, worthy of protection by the law.

This position is all but forbidden in the institutional Democratic party. So, even though I agree with them on practically *everything* else, I hesitate to vote for them because of this ONE issue. And I am unable to be pursuaded by the argument that goes, "Hey, you agree with us on everything else, so why let this issue get in the way?"

Because this issue outweighs "everything else" for me, and does so because "everything else" does not kill as many people as abortion does. There are thousands of abortions per day; the iraq war has killed perhaps 16,000 since the beginning (US and Allied deaths plus Iraqi civilian and military deaths). Appalling as this is, that's less than a week's worth of abortions.

Considered merely as a matter of political strategy, the fact that the Democrats will not allow a range of opinion on abortion is losing them large parts of the country (the plains states, the south).

The Democrats have a natural constituency in the more socially conservative (and economically depressed) parts of the country, if they make issues of ECONOMIC justice their no-compromise issues, and allow for a range of opinions on the social issues. Thomas Frank touched on this in his recent book, "What's the Matter with Kansas," but I'm taking it a step further; while Frank argues that the Republicans have used the social issues to divide the working class in order to push an economic regime that is almost uniformly bad for those same socially conservative voters (a charge with a lot of merit, in my view), he probably wouldn't agree (because he is liberal on the abortion issue) with the obvious way to counter this: run democrats in the plains and south who are more conservative on the abortion issue, and who push hard for economic justice with the rest of the democrats. The national Democratic leadership won't let this happen, and their inflexibilty on this is against their practical interests (getting a majority in the house), and also makes it harder (becasue they are usually swept in the midwest) to push for the rest of their program.

Flame me if you want, but understand that I consider liberals my friends on every single issue but abortion.

Thoughts on the Debate, and going forward

The consensus is that Kerry won the Debate, and I agree. Actually, I'd say the President had his ass handed to him. He lost, and badly: worse, ingraciously. He seemed like a schoolyard bully who has finally been bested -- sulking, fuming, as he helplessly watches his world fall apart.

BUT.

Let's not get cocky. Not any of us, and especially not Kerry. The next debate will be a town-hall format, and the president will be able to use applause lines effectively. He will also be able to use his ability to connect with an audience to his advantage. Remember all the grimaces, head-shakes, etc, that Bush is taking heat for? They were bad (very) in last night's debate format. In a "town hall meeting" format, however, those same gestures could be used to signal his supporters to (for example) laugh when Kerry is speaking. Or to communicate a "can you believe this guy?" message, quickly followed up when it's his turn by something like "You know, I was shaking my head when he was speaking, because I wonder, with a lot of you, [some talking point]." In short, this will be more his turf, in terms of format and setting.

Kerry needs to be on his toes, and so do his supporters.

Memes, Themes, and the Democrats

I write as a guy who has worked in sales on and off over the years.

I perceive (I could be wrong here) that there is a meme on the left that is shooting us in the foot. It goes something like this:

"If we get the president to say something really stupid [the shortest wait in history] then, THEN John Q Public will finally wake up to his" (fraud, lies, hidden elitism, whatever). All we have to do is just be RIGHT enough, and everyone will see the light.

That's not the way it works.

You need a consistent message coming from everyone in the party, something like, "The president has consistently miscalculated on [insert issue here]."

"He miscalculated on Iraq, and just look at the mess he's made. He miscalculated on the Budget, and look at the mess he's made. He miscalculated on education, and just look at the mess he's made. He miscalculated on medicare, and look at the mess he's made..."

"Miscalculated...miscalculated...miscalculated...yet another miscalculation...to correct his miscalculation, the truth is that..."

Or maybe use "faulty"...but make it a deafening roar, make it consistent, flood the airwaves...

Reporter: "Senator Kerry, the president has said he's been better on [any, ANY issue]"

Kerry: "Well, given his record of miscalculation, I would ask in return..."

Reporter: "Senator Kennedy, you have criticized the president on [whatever]..."

Kennedy: "Well, given the president's  record of miscalculation..."

Reporter: " Governor [Democrat], what is your position on [some budget question, say]..."

Governor: "Well, given that we have to deal with the financial miscalculations of our current president..."

Local Reporter somewhere: "Congressman Peabody, looks like the rain may soon stop."

Rep. Peabody (D, Anyoldplace): "Hey, given the way the president miscalculates, I wouldn't count on the sun 'til I see it in the sky..."

Choose a [winning] theme, and then let every utterance of our side reflect that theme, loudly and constantly.

Where Have You Gone, Howard Dean?

Howard Dean needs to save Kerry's behind, pronto. Stay with me on this.

Kerry goes up in the polls whenever he acts like Howard Dean (see his recent speech on the Iraq quagmire for an example). The problem: Kerry's not Dean, not by a long shot. He doesn't naturally speak from the heart - he likes to speak in an intellectually nuanced way about the issues of the day, but comes off sounding like that slightly pompous professor who regularly drops the fact that he's professor "Emmeritus" into his lectures.

Nuance is great when you're giving a major policy speech at a prestigious university *when you're president already*.

Campaigns are won by formulating your positions into easy to digest slogans organized around winning themes. They are won by keeping the rhetoric tight and focussed.

Consider this, which I just made up on the spot. "This president's mismanagement of the economy has cost a million jobs so far. If a million more of you want to lose your jobs, by all means vote for the incumbent. If you'd rather just one more guy lose his job, the guy in the white house who did this to you, well, you know how to vote then." See? Simple, memorable lines: "the guy who did this to you" is a line that speaks directly to the voter who either lost his job, or is afraid of losing his job (about 90% of the population?) and shows that you feel his pain, and are not afraid to name names in order to stick up for him. "The president's mismanagement..." assumes as fact what the cause of the listener's problem is, and then the solution is offered: "Send that jerk packing!"

Dean has a gift for this sort of thing: that's why the Republicans were running ads against him in the primaries (remember the "latte-sipping, birkenstocks-wearing" attack ad run in Iowa before the caucuses? That was financed by a Republican group.) They lived in terror that he would get the nomination and run against Bush in the General Election.

"There Are No Words" Department

Read this. One of a universe of reasons I have opposed, and will continue to oppose, the United States' senseless and unjust war in Iraq.

The Phony Populists

There are phony populists out there, mostly operating in the Republican party these days. Ever notice that for all the self-righteous noise they make about abortion, gay marriage, etc., that no progress is ever made, in terms of realistic legislation that has any chance of passing?

Take the recent "partial-birth abortion" legislation. There was no life-of-the-mother exception written into the bill, and I believe this oversight was intentional. Even The Catholic church would disagree with the position that an exception can't be made to save the life of the mother (on the condition that the abortion is an unintended but unavoidable effect of saving the mothers life, as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.)

Juan Cole on dual loyalties

Juan Cole makes some interesting points about the overly-close ties between the Pro-Israel faction in the Pentagon and Israel's Likud Party. Worth a read.