The problem is, if the GOP is willing to cheat by using rigged voting machines and outright voter disenfranchisement......all the plans in the world miss the main point - they want a different kind of American Government that we do and don't care what they have to do to get it.
Posted by T2 at June 3, 2005 08:05 AMI agree with T2. One of the most effective tools that we can use is an intense scrutiny of the efforts of Election officials at the state and especially at the local level. I am speaking of an attempt to avoid the Ohio situation with polling machines without court action.
Posted by Killer at June 3, 2005 08:12 AMThe thing is that a lot of the winning behaviors that the GOP could teach us are fundamentally inimical to post-Enlightenment democracy.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 3, 2005 08:40 AMright Matt - that was my point - the government the GOP/NeoCon/TheoCon bunch is seeking and the means they employ is not what this country is supposed to be about. Someday, we'll all look back at Florida in 2000 and say "damn, thats when they took it".
Posted by T2 at June 3, 2005 09:21 AMMatt,
I think you are missing the point of Steve's post. Dems need to make sure they don't pick the undesirable traits and behaviors of the GOP to emulate. However, there are organizational strategies and tactics the GOP uses, which are neutral or positive, which can be learnt from. It's like running a business trying to win back market share from an aggressive and corrupt competitor. Not every strategy used by the competitor is illegal or unethical - some of it might simply just be organizational approaches that bring efficiency. Anyway, I can say a lot more about this - but that'll have to wait a while.
Posted by eriposte at June 3, 2005 12:19 PMT2,
I understand your pessimism about the media, considering how much I focus on their malfeasance every day. But, let's get some perspective here. Even if the media is really truthful, honest and accountable, there's a helluva lot that Dems can do to improve the way they deal with it. Moreover, you are confusing two issues. The media is corrupt and requires reform and until it is reformed Dems will be at a significant disadvantage - no doubt. But, it makes no sense for Dems to sit around and wait for the media to reform itself since that's NOT going to happen. If the media misbehaves, the Dems need to stop being wimps and take on the media. I stand by my points in my previous post. It's easy to get pessimistic about the media and the country and take the view that all is lost. But that's not right. The Dems can easily fight back using the steps I've highlighted (for starters).
Put another way, I see the tendency to bash the media from a sense of self-pity. Enough with the self-pity. I bash the media to make it clear what the media *is*. But that does not excuse complacency or passivity from Democrats, in response. These are two separate things.
Posted by eriposte at June 3, 2005 12:25 PMI've written a longer response to this post at my own blog, The Reaction (which The Left Coaster has been kind enough to link to): click here to read it.
For now, let me say that there's a lot to Steve's point. I certainly don't want Democrats to engage in strategies inimical to democracy, but it's fair to say that Republicans simply play the political game better than Democrats do.
But I wonder if the plight of Democrats isn't overstated. Yes, Bush won two elections he shouldn't have, the Republicans now control both sides of Capitol Hill, and conservative appointees threaten to shift the entire federal judiciary to the right. But look at it this way: Bush barely won in 2000 -- indeed, he may not have won, but that's another problem entirely. He only won because everything broke his way: Gore was a lousy candidate; Nader took important votes away from Gore in key swing states; Bush effectively campaigned as a compassionate conservative, blurring the differences between him and Gore; a relatively peaceful and prosperous country was willing to take a chance on Bush after eight years of Clinton; and, well, there was Florida. If Florida had gone the way it should have, or if Nader had taken himself off the ballot in certain states, or if Bush hadn't campaigned as such a moderate, then Gore would have won. Then Gore would have guided the country through 9/11 and Afghanistan, the Democrats likely would have done well in 2002, the U.S. likely wouldn't be in Iraq, and Republicans would be having this very same conversation about how to refashion themselves in the face of a significant Democratic majority. As it is, Bush won, then capitalized on 9/11 for partisan purposes, leading to a solid Republican showing in 2002.
But -- here's the crucial point: Given all this -- the memories of 9/11, the threat of terrorism (which Bush, as president, was able to manipulate to his own benefit), and the bully pulpit in a time of war, not to mention mass mobilization of evangelical voters -- Bush barely won re-election last year. And although Kerry was a stronger candidate than Gore, he wasn't a great one and never quite managed to find his footing (too much nuance, not enough bluntness). It wasn't as close as 2000, but 2004 was hardly a rousing endorsement of a sitting president. Yes, Democrats can learn something from Karl Rove's campaign strategies and tactics, and Democrats would do well to reconnect to their own base in the same way, but how exactly did Democrats fail?
I could go on, but I'll leave it at that. Suffice it to say that in my view the Republicans have already peaked. And that peak meant two narrow presidential elections, Congressional victories fueled by 9/11, terrorism, war, and gerrymandering, and Democratic successes at the state level. That's hardly the kind of dominance worthy of emulation.
I'd love to get some responses to this, either here or over at my blog. Like a lot of you, I've been mulling this over ever since that awful day last November.