November 07, 2004
Post-Election Notes From The Blogosphere : Chris Bowers of MyDD
by Liza Sabater
MyDD :: Please, No More Gimmick Strategies
Our success in the battleground was a good start, but we have a long way to go. The country is composed of much more than 22 states, and nationally we are still witnessing the electorate slide toward reactionary and theocratic ideologies. Considering this, if, two years from now, when the next round of Presidential candidates slowly comes into focus, we are still spewing crap like "well, she's a moderate Governor from a slightly red state, so I think she has a better chance than the mildly liberal Senator from the lean blue state" I may start believing that we are in fact doomed. Those who see our problems as embodied entirely within the biographies and demographic profiles of our Presidential nominee not only fail to grasp the scope of our decline, but may in fact contribute to our decline. We are in the grips of a major crisis here, and simply nominating someone who is "strong on defense" or "who can compete in the South" will do nothing to alleviate the severity of this crisis. If we want to win, we need to structurally alter the electorate and its ideological framework, not try and fool it with a gimmicky candidate biography and selective issue positions. The only way to become more electable is to shift the electorate in our direction. Please, no more gimmick strategies. [Emphasis mine]
What I find interesting about this statement is that, albeit the fact that his intention leads his idea into the right direction, his target is incorrect.
Have you ever tried to change your loved one? Chris' statement echoes that classic line of the forlorned : "If I only could just make her see that I am the one for her. All I have to do is change how she thiks about me, then she will love." This kind of speaking is as bad as the one that says : "All I have to do is say the things she wants to hear so she'll love me."
Substitute she for America and you'll get where I am coming from. This is the language of co-dependency. What if change is not about suppression but about shift?
Change in the language of Bowers' is about banishment, suppression, erasure of what makes the electorate not love Democrats. What if nothing needs to be changed in America? What if what Democrats need is a shift in speaking, organizing and acting?
I just read briefly what Clinton said about how Kerry lost. Well, this is the second time I have to say that Clinton is a moron. The first time was with the Lewinsky affair. Seriously, I can't believe Bill Clinton believes gay-rights cost Kerry the election.
No, what cost Kerry the election was Bill Clinton himself. The Democrats are still functioning as if November 2, 2000 and September 11, 2001 never happened. No system of voting accountibility was set in place. Not only that : The troops were reasy to fact-check, audit and follow the software and ballot trail on this election. Dean and Clark gave the motherfuckers a networked army of writers, journalists, lawyers and paralegals waiting to pounce on the facts and make the government count each and every ballot. What did the Democrats do? The walked away from the opportunity to direct the largest networked voting audit in the history of this country.
The shift the Democrats need is right here, right now, in the form of the progressive grassroots network we are. If they don't shift to this barely tapped power then, really, the Democratic Party deserves to die. It's as simple as that.
In The Blogosphere:
Wampum: Taking Stock Part II, Don't Blame the Candidate
Posted by Liza Sabater in 2004 Elections, Activism, Bill Clinton, Computers, E-Voting, Howard Dean, Language, Linguistics, Politics, Sexual Politics, Social Networks, Software, Wesley Clark
Permalink |
Comments (3)
| TrackBack (0) | Technorati Cosmos
Trackbacks
Trackback for this post:http://www.culturekitchen.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/2545
The following blogs make reference to this post :
Say it loud, say it proud!
I posted this response at mydd.com
Triumphalism in defeat
The only thing stranger than the euphoric triumphalism of conservatives over a 1.4% victory is our liberal triumphalism in defeat.
First of all, liza specifically highlights Chris' statement that we should not try to mislead the electorate with selective issue positions, and then distorts Chris' suggestion by describing it as "banishment, suppression [and] erasure of what makes the electorate not love Democrats."
I think Chris' main point was actually that we should not run moderates with gimmicky biographies to try and fool the electorate about what we stand for. As I read Chris' diary he is suggesting that we be open and honest about our positions, but redefine the distorted ideological framework conservatives use to describe those positions.
In response to Chris' well argued position liza suggests that "what Democrats need is a shift in speaking, organizing and acting". What the hell does that mean? Meaningless and poorly defined rhetoric is not a plan of action. I'm not even sure Chris would argue with any of those suggestions if we knew exactly what kind of a shift liza is recommending.
Perhaps liza is referring to Margaret Cho's suggestion that we "shift the paradigm of power through a network of transformative actions : Art, music, dance, comedy. What's the proof of concept? COMEDY CENTRAL's: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, of course." You people need to get out of the Hollywood bubble. Do you include Howard Stern in your definition of "transformative art"? Jon Stewart and Howard Stern are not going to win elections.
If liza wants to travel the co-dependency road maybe the Democratic party should stop coming to the rescue of self destructive gays. Maybe it's time for the Democratic party to release gays with love and let them realize the consequences of their conduct. Let's see how Andrew Sullivan and the Log Cabin Republicans like four more years of George Bush.
Maybe it's time for the gay community to decide whether they want to be considered serious political actors. Gays can work for pragmatic political change or they can be freakish outsiders. If the gay community wants to poke the conservative religious pit bull with a stick they shouldn't be surprised when it turns on them. The gay community can take their annual freak show parades down to Alabama or they can develop a serious political platform that empowers the gay community instead of intentionally ostracizing themselves from the general community.
Blaming Clinton for Kerry's defeat is just bizarre. Liza's going to have to put some meat on that argument before it can be taken seriously. As far as the anti-gay vote, perhaps it escaped liza's attention that anti-gay marriage propositions passed in eleven of eleven states. Suggesting that Kerry endorse state propositions in order to win the election was political pragmatism, not moronic.
If a rhetorical flourish by Kerry in support of the anti-gay marriage propositions could have saved the election Kerry was a moron for ignoring Clinton's advice. We should all be fully aware by now that a rhetorical flourish on the campaign trail is more meaningless than the party platforms. Are gays going to be better off with four more years of Bush and a couple of Supreme Court appointments that could reincarnate Bowers v. Hardwick and allow states to criminalize gay sex again?
Finally, rumors of the destruction of the Democratic party are greatly exaggerated. Modest vote swings in the states of Virgina, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Florida, Iowa and Ohio would deliver a total of seven states and 86 electoral votes. We can't ignore Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and a couple of other states, but there is no reason not to expect that we can hold on to all of the blue states.
I'm not certain what Chris meant by structurally altering the electorate, but the Democratic party does not need radical changes or dramatic reinvention. We lost by 1.4% assuming the vote was not rigged. All we need to do is:
(1) Keep doing what we've been doing by organizing and GOTV,
(2) Reframe our positions and present them more clearly and honestly, and
(3) Make the moral values debate more inclusive of broader social justice concerns.
2
Comment by: JollyBuddah at November 8, 2004 03:00 AM
I'm not well versed in the etiquette of cross-blogging. Please excuse any unintentional transgression. In reply to your response post over at MyDD allow me to add the following clarification:
Structurally transforming the electorate
As Chris pointed out furthur down the thread, this reference was elaborated on in his "Post Election Strategy Memo One". I also missed the connection. I can't speak for Chris, but it seems to me that you are completely mis-reading Chris' argument.
By structurally altering the electorate Chris was referring to changing the percentages of people who identify themselves as "liberal" to compete with the number of people who identify as "conservatives". We don't do this by masking our true identity or running Republican lite candidates. We challenge the conservative definition of moral values, patriotism and what America stands for head on.
You will just have to read Chris' diaries on Post Election Strategy One and Two, "Real Conservative Values" and Jerome's post on "Transforming the Culture Wars" in which Jerome offers a list of "Green" values. I don't think there is as much disagreement as you believe. In fact, what we have here could very well be a failure to communicate.
Cheers,
Jolly
3
Comment by: austin at November 10, 2004 05:05 AM
I don't think it was Bill Clinton who cost us this election. I blame Kerry. Why do we nominate people like Kerry and Gore?
1
Comment by: JollyBuddah at November 8, 2004 01:00 AM