Dems have to stop being ashamed of their liberal base.
I could be wrong -- I'm not as plugged in to politics as I could be -- but I get the impression this is happening. Has been in the works, I think, since 1992, but as recently as 2000 there were hand-wringers in the Democratic party saying Gore lost because he was too liberal and the party needed to move to the right. I still have yet to understand why Gore lost -- sure, he was uncharismatic, but Bush seemed and still seems about as presidential as a sack of weevils. But I think further reflection has led the Dems to realize Clinton won on a left of center platform, and Gore nearly did (or not, you can argue with me as to where the center is, but certainly they were left of their opponents); this year Kerry was probably the most liberal candidate the Democrats have run since Mondale, and look how much better than Mondale he did.
In fact I see the 2004 election as good news for American liberalism. Not as good as it could have been, of course; but not as bad as it might seem. For years the Democrats have lacked the solidarity and focus of the Republican party. Even in the Clinton years their own support for their own candidates always seemed halfhearted; there was never the kind of closing ranks behind the party leadership the Republicans are so good at. That gap is, I think, still there, but narrower. In 2004 the liberal wing has become angrier, more determined, and more unified than it's been probably since about the 1960s -- certainly since the Reagan years. Of course, it helps that the flirtation with that idiot Nader is belatedly over.
In recent years the elections have seemed to be the battle of the "-pts": the corrupt Republicans versus the inept Democrats. And again that's still somewhat true -- you'd think after steamrolling the primary opposition Kerry could have somehow managed to keep from fading into vapor for most of the summer. But again, there are signs of improvement. I've never seen the Democrats as mobilized as they were this fall.
So now what -- do they lick their wounds, give it up, and go home? Or do they say, "Damn, that was close, we can take 'em next time" and start pushing their agenda for 2006?
Oh, and here's point five:
5. The message to put across is: We care. About the unemployed, the poor, the middle class, working families -- not just about winning the next election. Both parties are spending too much time insulting each other and not making the voters feel like they want to help them. If the Dems can grab that handle, they can ride it a long way.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 05:12 pm (UTC)I could be wrong -- I'm not as plugged in to politics as I could be -- but I get the impression this is happening. Has been in the works, I think, since 1992, but as recently as 2000 there were hand-wringers in the Democratic party saying Gore lost because he was too liberal and the party needed to move to the right. I still have yet to understand why Gore lost -- sure, he was uncharismatic, but Bush seemed and still seems about as presidential as a sack of weevils. But I think further reflection has led the Dems to realize Clinton won on a left of center platform, and Gore nearly did (or not, you can argue with me as to where the center is, but certainly they were left of their opponents); this year Kerry was probably the most liberal candidate the Democrats have run since Mondale, and look how much better than Mondale he did.
In fact I see the 2004 election as good news for American liberalism. Not as good as it could have been, of course; but not as bad as it might seem. For years the Democrats have lacked the solidarity and focus of the Republican party. Even in the Clinton years their own support for their own candidates always seemed halfhearted; there was never the kind of closing ranks behind the party leadership the Republicans are so good at. That gap is, I think, still there, but narrower. In 2004 the liberal wing has become angrier, more determined, and more unified than it's been probably since about the 1960s -- certainly since the Reagan years. Of course, it helps that the flirtation with that idiot Nader is belatedly over.
In recent years the elections have seemed to be the battle of the "-pts": the corrupt Republicans versus the inept Democrats. And again that's still somewhat true -- you'd think after steamrolling the primary opposition Kerry could have somehow managed to keep from fading into vapor for most of the summer. But again, there are signs of improvement. I've never seen the Democrats as mobilized as they were this fall.
So now what -- do they lick their wounds, give it up, and go home? Or do they say, "Damn, that was close, we can take 'em next time" and start pushing their agenda for 2006?
Oh, and here's point five:
5. The message to put across is: We care. About the unemployed, the poor, the middle class, working families -- not just about winning the next election. Both parties are spending too much time insulting each other and not making the voters feel like they want to help them. If the Dems can grab that handle, they can ride it a long way.