The Election: Some Rambling Thoughts.
That didn't go as I'd hoped.
November 2nd went from a day that looked pretty good to a day that looked kinda weak.
November 3rd was a very rude day.
George Bush's victory was both narrow (in its popular vote and electoral numbers) and large (in the growth of the Bush base and the tide of extremist Southern Republicans joining the Senate). Given the Republicans behavior after 2000, even having a narrow popular majority in this election should yield a wild rightward shift in the agenda of the federal state.
On the naval gazing side, it seems impossible to resist asking the question "what went wrong?" In the days leading up to the election, Kerry had solidified his standing with independents and moderates and seemed to be getting the subtle swing in the polls to close the election. The early exists certainly echoed this on election day. But then something changed, and all of a sudden the results from the south and other rural states trickled in , and Kerry and the Democrats were getting solidly beaten where they were looking competitive.
The strengths Kerry showed in the political middle ground vanished under a title wave of votes cast by social conservatives (largely of a religious background). Add in the slightly heightened state of fear some right leaning voters had due to terrorism with the usual suburban economic shortsightedness and you had a perfect storm of voters willing to vote for (really) narrow self-interest without regard to the incompetence of the candidate they were supporting.
I'm inclined to agree with the chorus that seems to be rising that the Democrats need to start engaging the south and winning back some working class voters who are marching with socially conservative evangelical groups. Certainly working to marry progressive stances with Christian rhetoric can help, but it can't be done in a haphazard way. It'll take time to wear down the right wing frames that some fundamentalists use to talk about the world. (I'll probably write a more detailed post on this topic this weekend, but I want to cover some other issues regarding the election for now.)
The struggles of the south are amplified for Democrats because they have to win everywhere else to win the presidency. Losing the South and it's brethren in the mid-west locks democrats into a place where they're either a minority or very narrow majority, while Republicans can dominate the federal system. There is virtually no margin of error if a Democrat wants to run without some of the south, which is why it was so disheartening early in the campaign to hear Kerry simply dismiss the south.
While the sweep of the south and the high turnout of evangelicals appears to be the dominant story of the election, it's not the only significant one. Democrats need to do a better job of hitting home on the price that the middle and upper-middle class pay for the reckless tax cuts that Bush & Co. peddle so regularly. During the primaries Dean did a good job linking the tax cuts with the decimation of state and local government budgets, rising tuition costs, rising property taxes, etc.
Taking this one step further, "The-Not-Republicans" need to start reclaiming their rightful hold on themes such as empowerment, opportunity, and entrepreneurship. The need to show a clear difference between the opportunity a $300 tax cut gives you and the opportunity an affordable education, good health care, and a strong, stable, growing economy give you. Essentially, the tax cut helps you tread water, but that's only because the republicans keep digging the pool deeper and asking you to hold your breath longer.
Finally, Democrats and the Left need to focus both locally and nationally. The benefits of this strategy became obvious this year, where the Republicans managed to use the confluence of years of local political engineering and a national, compete-and-GOTV everywhere strategy (at least on the presidential side) to get a popular vote win which probably doesn't reflect the actual mood of the country. They simply turned out voters in places where they didn't even need it, but it aided in their ability to create a positive environment for all of it's national candidates to win.
I'll probably be posting more on these topics over the next week, so check back regularly.
That didn't go as I'd hoped.
November 2nd went from a day that looked pretty good to a day that looked kinda weak.
November 3rd was a very rude day.
George Bush's victory was both narrow (in its popular vote and electoral numbers) and large (in the growth of the Bush base and the tide of extremist Southern Republicans joining the Senate). Given the Republicans behavior after 2000, even having a narrow popular majority in this election should yield a wild rightward shift in the agenda of the federal state.
On the naval gazing side, it seems impossible to resist asking the question "what went wrong?" In the days leading up to the election, Kerry had solidified his standing with independents and moderates and seemed to be getting the subtle swing in the polls to close the election. The early exists certainly echoed this on election day. But then something changed, and all of a sudden the results from the south and other rural states trickled in , and Kerry and the Democrats were getting solidly beaten where they were looking competitive.
The strengths Kerry showed in the political middle ground vanished under a title wave of votes cast by social conservatives (largely of a religious background). Add in the slightly heightened state of fear some right leaning voters had due to terrorism with the usual suburban economic shortsightedness and you had a perfect storm of voters willing to vote for (really) narrow self-interest without regard to the incompetence of the candidate they were supporting.
I'm inclined to agree with the chorus that seems to be rising that the Democrats need to start engaging the south and winning back some working class voters who are marching with socially conservative evangelical groups. Certainly working to marry progressive stances with Christian rhetoric can help, but it can't be done in a haphazard way. It'll take time to wear down the right wing frames that some fundamentalists use to talk about the world. (I'll probably write a more detailed post on this topic this weekend, but I want to cover some other issues regarding the election for now.)
The struggles of the south are amplified for Democrats because they have to win everywhere else to win the presidency. Losing the South and it's brethren in the mid-west locks democrats into a place where they're either a minority or very narrow majority, while Republicans can dominate the federal system. There is virtually no margin of error if a Democrat wants to run without some of the south, which is why it was so disheartening early in the campaign to hear Kerry simply dismiss the south.
While the sweep of the south and the high turnout of evangelicals appears to be the dominant story of the election, it's not the only significant one. Democrats need to do a better job of hitting home on the price that the middle and upper-middle class pay for the reckless tax cuts that Bush & Co. peddle so regularly. During the primaries Dean did a good job linking the tax cuts with the decimation of state and local government budgets, rising tuition costs, rising property taxes, etc.
Taking this one step further, "The-Not-Republicans" need to start reclaiming their rightful hold on themes such as empowerment, opportunity, and entrepreneurship. The need to show a clear difference between the opportunity a $300 tax cut gives you and the opportunity an affordable education, good health care, and a strong, stable, growing economy give you. Essentially, the tax cut helps you tread water, but that's only because the republicans keep digging the pool deeper and asking you to hold your breath longer.
Finally, Democrats and the Left need to focus both locally and nationally. The benefits of this strategy became obvious this year, where the Republicans managed to use the confluence of years of local political engineering and a national, compete-and-GOTV everywhere strategy (at least on the presidential side) to get a popular vote win which probably doesn't reflect the actual mood of the country. They simply turned out voters in places where they didn't even need it, but it aided in their ability to create a positive environment for all of it's national candidates to win.
I'll probably be posting more on these topics over the next week, so check back regularly.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home