This is so good, I'm speechless. Peggy was asked to contribute to Andrew Cuomo's book on rebuiilding the Democrat Party. She hits it square on. (FYI: Her personal political history closely parallels my own) Great, great, stuff. Develop a new and modern Democratic rationale--the reason regular people should be Democrats again. Stop being just the We Hate Republicans Party. That's not a belief, it's a tic. Stop being the party of snobs. Show love for your country and its people--all its people. Stop looking down on those who resist your teachings. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110003143
I think you posted this article before, that or a friend of mine sent it to me. By and large I think it makes a some outstanding points, I think the point about snobbery is spot on. It's a shame, but its true, and if it's gonna be fixed at the source, it would be at the universities, but in essence universities breed a bit of snobbery. So it's a tough fix. I really don't have the answer on how to fix that one and readily admit that I find myself snobish to an extent. That said I don't think its an exclusively Democrat issue, I just think they seem to project it in a more loud (for lack of a better word) way. The blind loyalty part is probably true for the most part, but living in a state that elected Evan Bayh (D) and has watched him vote with the GOP over 80% of the time. I think she may make a bit too much of this point. Develop a new and modern Democratic rationale--the reason regular people should be Democrats again. This sentance is absolutely true and clear, they have no real platform yet, and will need something more than "Bush's tax cuts favor only the wealthy" in order to mount any challenge in 2004. Say what you will about Kucinich, it seems, at least to me he has a solid platform and stays in line with that platform. It won't be effective and he probably won't last more than 3-4 primaries before all his money gets pissed away, but he at least has something going there. Now if another dem could actually be a little bit creative and come up with something and stick with it instead of being so damn wishy washy and taking on the liberal flavor of the month, like Daschle does, then they may have a chance. What i am trying to say is that they need to create the liberal flavor of the month instead of letting the collumnists do it, because these are the guys taht are supposed to know more. That's one thing Bush's team has done, they created and then the columnists were thinking "Damn this could work..." and they started praising Bush. The Dems wait for the reaction from their columnists and just have echoed what the columnists say. It's unimaginative and unsuccessful, and frustrating. As for this.... Stop being just the We Hate Republicans Party. That's not a belief, it's a tic. I don't completely buy that. Working part time at Barnes and Noble we get 1-2 books a week in that are something like "Usefull Ididots" by Cheren, or "Winning the War against Liberalism" -Hannity, "Slander" - Coulter, that Bruce book I mentioned, Michael Savage. All these books extremely confrontational and talking down and condescending to any liberal reader. There is as much unjustified hatred in these books as their is in Moore's "Stupid White Men"...but there is only one Moore compared to the much more plentiful angry right wing. I don't mention Zinn, or Chomsky, cause they aren't read enough to be brought up. The angry right however is always on the top 10. Personally, I think it goes back to your Sullivan quote about Clinton, and I don't think some people have got over him yet, so this has been a extended gloating period. But I don't know. This borders an obnoxious length, so I'll end here. Like I said, overall a good article and I agree with most of it.
I saw an excellent quote the other day, can't remember where, about the difference in style between Bush and Clinton. Somebody came into Bush's office and said that Rummy had just threatened Syria. Bush, without looking up from what he was doing, said "good" and went back to work. Bush is the CEO of a strong board made up of strong people who run thier own departments by supervising their own strong people. It's a very corporate style. You're given a job and enough authority to do it. Do well, stay around. Stink and be gone. The point that people miss about Bush is that he has very, VERY little ego involvement. People marching in the streets with signs that say he's a "moron" just don't phase him. He just doesn't care. He is very focused on his goals and plans, and that's it. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was the star of the Bill Clinton show. He was surrounded by boring. colorless people. Loyal to a fault, hard working, even talented, but Bill Clinton was the centerpiece. Good stuff came from him, bad stuff was some other guy's fault and that guy, guilty or not, always got cut loose. I would disagree with your last point. All the democrats are interested in is getting over on the Republicans, who are synonymous with bad people. It's knee-jerk reaction. And it kills you during elections. You hate the other party so much, you convince yourself that you're right and they're just evil, and it clouds everything you do. So in an election like the 2002 off years, the democrats sat around the next morning going: "How could these guys have gotten all these votes? Didn't people know they were voting for REPUBLICANS for Christ's sake? How could they do that?" Well, they did that because the electorate doesn't see it that way. The Republicans, whether you agree with them or not, had issues and outlined goals. The Democrats comapign consisted of "That guy's a Republican and I'm not" as if that was enough. Well it's NOT enough and until the democrats get it, they're gonna keep losing.
I agree with most of your second point and I thought made myself clear when I said the Dems need a solid platform and a leader to win elections. I think you may have confused that point with the one I made about all the right wing media foot soldiers who dominate bookstores now with more hatred towards the left than the left could hope of mustering towards the right. You need not look any further than the titles of half of these books and see words like "idiots", "war against liberalism", "slander", to see that the hatred you accuse the left of is at least in part alive and well also in the right. But then again maybe you just completely disagree with me, which is fine too.
Well.. the reason why you see so many books like that is because there is a market for them. I agree that the right has some hatred for the left, but getting called killers and murderers on a regular basis will cause some resentment. Sachin
That is what I am saying. There is a market out there cause so many on the right HATE the left in the same way that the left is always accused of hating the right. If that wasn't the case you wouldn't a new bestseller everyone written by someone who spousing off hatred towards the left.
I think you missed his point though. I don't think Sachin needs me to speak for him, but I just gotta say this, and you aren't going to like hearing it: IMO the Left changed the rules. Politics has always been hardball, and no mistake about it. But the Clintonistas changed the rules. Starting in 1992 there was not two sides to any issue. There was the Bill Clinton side and there was the forces of mean-spirited, evil "haters" who were conspiring to starve school children, deny health care to the poor, throw old people out on the street and restore Jim Crow laws while giving out free Country Club Memberships to Rich White Guys who closely resembled Satan. Debate became impossible. You wanna talk about book titles? How about "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot", published in 1992. Sorry hang, but Sachin is right; you try spending 10 or 12 years being called a bad person by snot nosed twerps and see how you feel. Don't even lay this off on the right. The current lack of civility in America dates to those charming Clintons.
My favorite dealing with the left was when one of my college roomies hooked up with the head of the Young Democrats and brought her back to our place. The next morning, she wandered into my room by mistake and screamed because of the swastika I have in my room. The next weekend, lefties from all over Virginia were demanding the swastika be removed from my room. A professor threatened to flunk me on principle. I, of course, refused and kept it in the proper place. Now, why do I have a swastika in my room? I'll give you a hint. I use my real name on BigSoccer. Anyway, I was called a Nazi and worse. All because of some basic ignorance on the part of the Campus Left. And that's what it's all about. A group of people who supposedly champion the cause of "diversity and equality" don't really want it unless you happen to think like them. Most conservatives understand why liberals think the way they do. Most liberals won't attempt to look at conservative thought with even an half-open mind. There really isn't as much hatred on the Right for the Left as there is in the other direction. After all, when was the last time a right-wing demonstration stopped traffic? Sachin