http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2003/06/17/goldberg/index.html Salon interviews music mogul Danny Goldberg, whose new book talks about the left and the Democrats and the culture wars. One of the points of the article is that while Bono meets with ??? O'Neill, and Bush jokes around with Ozzy Osbourne, leading Democrats are bashing pop culture. They seem to not understand that pop culture is, well, popular. Contrast this group with Clinton, who beat Dole by 19 points among voters under 24. Gore split that vote with Bush. Interesting read...Goldberg argues, briefly if persuasively, that the left won the culture wars. Rap is huge, Friends is on a 8pm and is huge, women are considered equals and gays are making gains, etc. Yet the conventional wisdom is that this is a losing issue for Democrats, thus Joseph Lieberman's scolding and concomitant "electability." There's also alot of interesting discussion about the nexus of pop culture, and idealism in politics, and policies. Definitely a great read, and a refreshing perspective.
Never underestimate the power of style in a candidate -- the overall impression he gives as a person -- to his electability. Clinton's persona was immensely appealing -- facile, limber, chatty, beaming, charismatic, YOUTHFUL. His was a campaign and administration of young people, particularly in his first term. Contrast that with Bob Dole -- stiff, a WWII generation guy, kinda like the mean-spirited gruff neighbor next door telling you to keep off the grass. In 2000, what I'd call the stiffness quotient was equally distributed between W. and Gore. What's happening now is that Bush, believe it or not, conveys likability and warmth, especially when you see him in crowds or in casual settings. The troops obviously love him. Moreover, his somewhat wild youth has to have an appeal to young people. Why? They see a guy who has gotten himself into trouble in his earlier days, but has grown out of it into responsible adulthood. A twenty-something might be able to imagine the arc of his/her life following a very similar trajectory. Finally, the more "electable" Dems have definitely taken on more of the stiffness quotient. Lieberman is like a Rabbi. Gephardt is Gore-light. Kerry seems perpetually glum. The closest thing to a Clinton-like persona among the current crop is Edwards. In that respect, he might be the most formidable opponent for the Republicans. Yet, is there any "there" there?? It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Very interesting interview. The culture stuff is just the tip of the iceberg for one of the more convincing attacks on the Democratic Leadership Council. Three key points: 1. The DLC sells themselves as pragmatic politicians who can win elections, but what have they won? Clinton's elections were about him personally and his fairly magical ability to inspire people through force of personality rather than ideology. In other elections, pols following the DLC's pragmatic philosophy of selling themselves as pragmatists and policy wonks have lost congressional and Presidential elections that they should have won. 2. The Democrats need to articulate an ideology in order to win. They can't just sell themselves as problem-solvers. Clinton's legacy is minor because he did little to build a new Democratic ideology in the way that influential presidents (RR, FDR, LBJ/JFK) did. Because of the lack of ideology, Democrats have become "prose" politicians, abandoning the political "poetry" that inspires voters. 3. In pursuing "morals crusades" the Dems lose more voters than they gain. While they may pick up some suburban voters, they alienate people who actually like rap and movies and tv. (Great comparison of Lieberman, who he hates, to the "Won't someone think of the children" woman on the Simpsons)
Al Sharpton's one of the coolest cats around. If the rest of the Dem. Candidates were half as cool, you'd win in a landslide. Cowboy hats and F-250's are so early 2002.
Whether the youth vote is decisive in a presidential election is not a matter of who can win the youth vote. Rather, it is more a matter of who can motivate the youth to vote at all. It's not rocket science to figure out that younger voters will tend to be more liberal. The issue for the more liberal political parties then, tends to be whether they can get society's youth interested and active in the political process. Bill Clinton took full advantage of the youth factor by playing successfully to the MTV crowd. That said, here's how I would rank the Democrats in order of the "dork" factor in terms of youth appeal: 1. Sharpton - clearly the most urban and in touch with regular people. 2. Dean - the most rousing speaker of the bunch. Whether he is electable is still not clear to me, but he has a lot of fervent supporters. 3. Edwards - youthful and charming, but a little corny, too. 4. Kerry - would be really cool except for the dreadful hair. If he is given the nomination, the late night shows and Saturday Night Live will have a field day. 5. Mosely-Braun - seems like the nice lady that lives next door. 6. Lieberman - he gets at least one "cool" point for his 3 degrees of separation from Clinton. 7. Graham - a solid and experienced political veteran, but not very cool or polished. 8. Kucinich - looks too goofy. 9. Gephardt - makes Al Gore look like Bill Clinton.
look at the senate floor right now. prescription drug benefits. old people vote, thus politicians court them, young people don't so politicians don't care.
Rap is huge...Women are considered equals... gays are making gains... That is funny. Especially since Rap artists seem to get a kick out of writing lyrics that are insulting and dehumanizing toward women and gays.
More like they have more money. Remember, If your not a Democrat by the time you are 18 you have no heart. But if your not a Republican by the time your 30 you have no money.
I forget what show it was, but they followed Kerry around Milwaukee when he showed up to meet some veterans. Of course his handlers had to get the money shot of him hopping on a Harley (sans helmet) and tooling around Lake Michigan. Trying to show that stuffy John has some street cred. I guess. Like when Clinton played the sax on Arsenio. What's the deal with Mrs. Kerry? She was once married to the heir to the Heinz ketchup fortune, wasn't she? Does that mean that every time I use Heinz on my fries it's an indirect contribution to Kerry?
My view on the state of the Democrat party To me it seems the Democrat party are in a real mess. Virtually every senator they have is up for nomination, and neither of them has a clear ideology or anything particularly grand going for them. Clinton, even if his pants kept coming down, was at least charming, charismatic and had the 'look' of a leader. Al Gore was just a dull man riding on Bill's popularity, whilst no-one in the current field jumps out and says 'Hey, I'm the next President' for me. The Democrats need a clear ideology that is different to the Republicans. At the moment, it seems that a few are content with a Republican Lite feel, as they're too scared to challenge Dubya after September 11th, and the resulting foreign policy. They're too scared to risk being seen as 'unpatriotic' when issues such as the War on Terror (and the war on people who annoy America), despite the fact that it may do long-term damage. The Democrats need to be brave and develop a set of policies that are different to the Republicans, and maybe even care about poor people, the third world and stuff . One thing Dubya has in his favour is that it is pretty clear where he stands: Low taxes, pro-business, strong sense of Christian morals, and to kick foreign ass when they annoy the USA. The Democrats have seemingly lost direction since Bill left, and don't know where to go.
Re: My view on the state of the Democrat party Funny, I'd say just the opposite. I moved to Texas in 1998 and lived there thru the 2000 election. When I first got there, I began asking people what the story was on dubya, what's his agenda, etc. Nobody could tell me! Dubya is the GOP's answer to Clinton - a guy who can win a popularity contest, ideology is secondary. That is what the Dems should be looking for if they want to win, I think. Problem is, right now the list doesn't seem to have any that cut the mustard. Snoozers like Lieberman and Gephart, dubya will make dogmeat out of them.
With Dubya, I think ideas and 'principles' have developed since becoming President. For example, a more interventionalist foreign policy developed as a reaction to September 11th, tax cuts in response to a sagging economy and so on. Although it doesn't look like a clear ideology in terms of 'Social Democrat', 'One nation Conservative' or whatever, it looks like these policies are here to stay as long as he's no. 1. People like simple and quick solutions, and Dubya provides simple and quick answers. Whether you think they're right or not is another topic.