Don't Blame the Voters, Blame the Nominee and the Party.
I know that I have been writing a lot more than usual. I am generally not the type of person who shares a lot of my opinions in long, written rants. But I am currently going through one of my phases where politics seems to be on my mind constantly.
I am not going to post the numbers, since most of the people here are incredibly, politically aware, but the Democratic Party, outside of the office of POTUS, has been pretty much an abject failure locally, statewide, and nationally. We hold a minority in the Senate, the House of Representative, governorship, state legislatures, and probably offices all the way down to city councils and school boards. You would think that this would be an opportunity for the party to reevaluate the way it does things…you would be wrong. Instead of reflecting on the party, and what it could do better, Democrats always place the blame at the voters. In a recent conversation, someone said this to me when I mentioned that the Democratic Party is awful at articulating its message:
Oh yeah the dumbed down electorate have zero to do with it. Go on the street sometime and ask people random political, scientific, geographical, historical questions and get back to me on your results.
So many Democrats think that their ideas are so superior that they don’t have to do the work of winning over the electorate. To these hyper-partisans, it should be obvious that the Democratic Party is the “party of the people” and that the party shouldn’t have to do any work courting voters. They seem to have no motivation to articulate a vision in terms that people understand. While I believe that progressive (not Democratic Party) policies are more beneficial to the people, the Democratic Party has done a piss poor job explaining to the people why that is the case.
The Democrats have given ground to the Republicans, or “regressives,” in setting the policy debate in this country. The party is largely at fault here. I think that much of the reason that the regressives have had more enthusiasm in their primary is because DWS ceded most of the airtime to them. The party assumed that the American public would hear the regressives’ crazy ideas and come to the same conclusions as we have. They believe that the Republicans are so crazy that everyone will see through it.
One of the many problems that Democrats have is that they believe politics is rationality vs. irrationality. It isn’t. Politics is about framing. It is about connecting with the voters. It is about telling the voters why our ideas are better for them. Winning elections requires the public to believe that the person on stage is a leader. The Democratic Party is always telling people “why their ideas are worse.” This is no way to win an election. The Democrats appear to have no new ideas. The Democrats appear to be the reactionary political party. The “presumptive” nominee of the Democratic Party embodies this more than anyone I have ever seen. She waivers in the wind. Her best policies in this election cycle were framed, and shaped by Bernie, her primary opponent. She has never led on anything, as she is a fair weather politician. When she does “lead” it is always from behind. Her political courage is not existent as she only supports ideas for which there is no political liability.
For all his faults, and there seem to be endless number of them, Donald Trump is not like this. Trump does not follow. He is, for lack of a better word…bold. The Democratic Party is failing to understand why Trump appeals to the people, as they failed to understand what Bush’s appeal was. They won because they were not seen as people who would say anything. While their policy ideas sucked, they were/are seen as having beliefs and vision. They, despite all their faults, did what they could to move America a direction consistent with that belief. Barack Obama was the same way. Bernie Sanders too is like this. It is why a 74 year old “socialist” was able to fight Hillary Clinton so long despite having almost no establishment support. Hillary Clinton lacks this.
If leadership is important to voters, she will have a hard time winning the general election.
If Hillary Clinton fails, do not blame the voting public. Blame the nominee for a lack of vision. Blame the nominee for not giving the voters a reason to vote for her. Blame the nominee, and the Democratic Party, for not taking the voters seriously enough. Blame them for not truly engaging them beyond trying to scare them.
*Edited grammar mistakes found after the fact.
Comments
This essay...
is predicated on the idea that the Democratic Party actually advocates for "progressive" policies, which is, more often than not, inaccurate. This essay is more about how Democrats could win if they actually were less self-interested and actually pushed an agenda that helps more than the donor class.
It's a good rant
and quite truthful. The higher up the Dem food chain you get, the more you see this type of attitude. As if someday the people will see the light and flock to their banner.
Why should they? All the Dems have offered is Republican lite. Less satisfying, and not particularly much of an alternative.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
As I said...
in a previous essay, Republican lite is actually more likely to get passed and thus more damaging. It is one of the reasons I actually fear a Hillary Presidency. She will sign more conservative legislation than Donald Trump will. Of course that is an opinion (with evidence), but I am of the opinion that the Republicans will not want Trump to be their standard-bearer for long. They will work to sabotage him.
"Why should they?", indeed!
Shitty taste and less filling! And they expect voters to eat it up!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Dem Lite
Less Fulfilling, Tastes Grate!
Sorry. I couldn't resist.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
We are, and have been without representation...
…for a very long time.
The farce of being given 'candidates' to nominate for a general election is nothing more than just a long elaborate display to provide the illusion of choice in a rigged system.
Let's not forget good ol' election fraud, at which Dems excel
as much as Rs. 90,000 affidavit ballots have been thrown out in NY. Ninety thousand. And still some Americans doggedly persist in their belief that they live in a democracy.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti
Unfortunately...
and this is part of the problem, primary elections don't have to be Democratic. You have to be part of an undemocratically run organization to be able to participate. Its part of the reason I HATE hearing Democrats talking about how independents and Republicans should have no say in nominating the Party's candidate.
As Far Back As Jimmy Carter
Having stayed up all night to be first in line to vote my first time for McGovern, my political ardor cooled by 1976. Jimmy Carter (who I have come to greatly respect as our best EX-President) didn't light my fire, and I didn't feel that he represented my interests in any way.
I almost decided to vote instead for Jerry Ford. What stopped me was (IIRC) Ford's own promise to not run for election as a condition of his being named to the Executive Branch. (Can't find a link to support my memory of this. If you know of one, please put it in a reply.) This was the closest I ever came to voting for a Republican.
It's not gotten any better since.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Neither the president nor the vice-president had been elected.
That post-Nixon-Agnew but pre-Carter period was very weird. Perhaps an inkling and foretaste of how banana republicky we would later become.
Hope your commenting continues for awhile.
Your analysis is really good. You nailed the overriding importance of "vision."
Holding the vision is the Leader's most important job. Holding the vision up high so everyone can see it and be empowered by it — that's superior leadership.
After Kennedy, Americans stopped selecting leaders for their vision. That event must have broken them. That and the catastrophic Vietnam War. After that, Americans consistently selected sociopaths to lead them. Leaders who wouldn't hesitate to do wet work, if necessary. And, they preferred not to hear about gristly atrocities on the news. Americans then fell into a long political coma, haunted by cold war fever dreams. Most of them are still asleep. But a fresh generation has been produced. They'll take it from here.
That's the narrative that I embrace. I can't imagine voting for someone who wasn't holding a bright inspiring vision over their heads for everyone to see. Bernie is the first politician I've seen who holds a vision. All the others I've experienced have been holding up shit sandwiches.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Agreed that vision is important
But I think BOLD is the key feature we are missing. We no longer have bold leaders as FDR and his "New Deal or Eisenhower with his Interstate Highway System or John Kennedy's moon shot.
America is being left behind in every endeavor on and off the damned planet.
Enough.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
Our bold plan seems to be Israel and more Israel.
The world was right about Iraq — though Israel got its ‘Clean Break’
By attacking Iraq in 2003, we set in motion PNAC and its successors’ bold plan for the Middle East (which in turn trace back to the “Clean Break” paper).
Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a neocon
We're actually accumulating this year
A very grand list of excuses and cop-outs dealing with "why you can't have someone to vote FOR."
Mostly they concern your being an ignorant, superficial, and immature lightweight. If you were a serious, experienced and mature person, you would know the Truth and abandon being a dirty fuckin' hippie: "Change is incremental; you can't always get what you want; you have to settle for what's available; lower your expectations - you can't have a pony; nothing is ever perfect," and my favorite: "Whatcha gonna do? Vote for THOSE clowns?"
This game is, as you say, getting old.
It's all part of the plan.
See below "Democrats love divided government".
Feature, not bug
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
One of my biggest
One of my biggest frustrations when I still visited the GOS is that most Bernie supporters criticize Hillary, the candidate. Most Hillary supporters, in my experience, criticize Bernie supporters. I never did (or do) get it. Authoritarianism, I guess.
The Democratic Party
loves divided government.
When a Democrat wins the Presidency, they fear winning the House and Senate as well, because that would mean actually having to govern.
Far easier to point finger at the Republicans and moan, "Can't get any progressive legislation through Congress. The nasty evil Repubs are stopping us!"
As if they even wanted to: it's a great excuse for inaction. When the Dems had the Presidency and Majorities in the two Houses, what did Obama do?
Yup, pre-negotiate from the centre-right.
Surely (don't call me Shirley) that should have been an omen as to how his Presidency would proceed.
But no. Sad.
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
I have made...
that argument before. You made it much more forcefully, and I wish I could disagree.
While I believe that
The problem is that, while there are progressives in the Democratic Party, the party as a whole is not and has no desire to be progressive. They are perfectly happy to indulge and even encourage the culture wars, but when it comes to economic policy and foreign policy (which are, after all, the primary functions of government) the party is at best a center-right party. The few actual economic progressives are constantly shoveling against the tide trying to get anything done. I'm surprised that Elizabeth Warren hasn't been muzzled yet; I can only surmise that her tireless fundraising efforts for other party members buys her a lot of leeway.
Excellent rant/article!
Lets just say that a big percentage of the American public is too uninformed, or silly to form a cogent thought.... well whose fault is that????? I'm all about personal responsibility... I really am. With that said, if you take a poor kid from a poor and uneducated family, and they live in a shit neighborhood, and thus have a low tax base and shit schools, whose fault is that???? I think the city, the district, the state and the feds can take a tremendous amount of responsibility for that. As Dems we are supposed to be the champions of excellent public schooling.... we are failing abysmally with that. So no wonder we have people who can't figure out that doing the same thing over and over and over will never give them a different result!!! They aren't stupid, they are just lacking education, and exposure to the world and other ways of doing things. So screw the Dem party and all of it's Harvard educated elites..... time for them to roll up their sleeves, and get down to doing some real work or they are going to become irrelevant as a Party.
Many progressive Democrats were/are Hahvahd men.
So that is neither a necessary nor sufficient criterion.
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.