Stupid, stupid Democrats

My God, are the Democrats stupid. Slow kid in class stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. And this coming from one. Why has it taken a complete electoral route for the Democratic Party to finally understand that they, or should I say we, don’t speak to the vast majority of Middle America. The urban Northeast and West coasts and the industrial upper Midwest (though not so much anymore), sure, but not that vast landmass in between the two. Of late, by which I mean the past week, there has been much hand-wringing among liberal pundits about how the left can no longer speak the language (metaphorically) of much of the non-urban/rural components of our society. If they’ve just figured that out we deserved to lose. Most people don’t think about policy everyday. They don’t ponder the nuances of Arab culture or pH levels of watershed areas. They do, however, pray. They send their children to die in our wars at a higher rate than the effete liberal establishment. Nick Kristoff, I believe, pointed out that liberals are more interested in religion in Afghanistan than in Alabama. An astute observation, and one the left would do well to take heed of. While I am adamant about the separation of church and state, some might say rabid, the importance of spirituality in American society cannot be ignored. Instead, the left has to learn to use its imagery and metaphors in transmitting their message as the Republicans do so masterfully. I make no apologies about my political stances and unequivocally believe I am correct and the Right is as wrong as wrong gets. The new challenge of the left is to explain to Middle America why this is so, being always mindful of the things that they hold dear and the lens through which they see the world.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Stupid, stupid Democrats

  1. What I want to know is how you think the Dems should connect to the religious/spiritual heart of America without a) abandoning some of their positions, and b) not appearing phoney? Any concrete ideas? 

    <><><><>Posted by<><> <><>< HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?headlife.blogspot.com" TITLE="ronan at jhu dot edu">Ronan<>

    Like

  2. Adam, your post reveals the exact leftist arrogance that the “right” is rebelling against. You write, <>I make no apologies about my political stances and unequivocally believe I am correct and the Right is as wrong as wrong gets.<> Are you really so sure? See < HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oxblog.blogspot.com%2F2004_11_07_oxblog_archive.html%23109985210208292922">this post<> at the Oxblog for some humble pie. Maybe at the very least you can reexamine your own system of beliefs to see if there isn’t some value in what so many other people firmly believe (I am not speaking of religion but political issues). The “right” can and must benefit from this as well.

    You wrote, <>The new challenge of the left is to explain to Middle America why this is so, being always mindful of the things that they hold dear and the lens through which they see the world.<> This is the exact mistake that has prompted the current rebellion of the right. Evangelicals would have been content to stay politically idle (as they had done for many years) until activist judges took an affirmative mission upon themselves to force social engineering on the people with just such explanation as you want to initiate. Nate Oman has some < HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tutissima.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmt-tb.cgi%2F136">good analysis<> on this over at Tutissima Cassis. Please, at least read Nate Oman’s thoughts–I would really love to hear your reaction/response to them.

    I agree with you that the Left needs to take a new approach. But it seems counter-productive to think that merely insisting on the exact same platform but trying to “explain” it better is the solution. Ever think of trying to divorce the Left’s economic policies from the “revlution of smut” that still lumbers on from the 1960s? That might be a first step. 

    <><><><>Posted by<><> <><>< HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fheadlife.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F11%2Fstupid-stupid-democrats.html" TITLE="john dot fowles at gmx dot net">john fowles<>

    Like

  3. That link to Nate Oman’s analysis is broken. This should get you to his < HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tutissima.com%2Farchives%2F000685.html">insightful analysis<>. 

    <><><><>Posted by<><> <><>< HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fheadlife.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F11%2Fstupid-stupid-democrats.html" TITLE="john dot fowles at gmx dot net">john fowles<>

    Like

  4. Hey John F.–

    But doesn’t the Right thing that they’re, well, right, too? Yet I didn’t hear too many Republicans back in, say, 1996 saying “we really need to re-think if our positions are the correct ones.”

    And regarding “evangelicals” and their activeness– is it right that “activist judges” (RNC codespeak) mobilized them, or was it a subtle effort on the part of Neo-cons and others from the Far Right to co-opt their positions and bring them to their side?

    Adam noted the problem that Dems have with religion, and indeed, that’s the standard line. But how anti-religious are the Dems? Did Clinton really bash religion? Did Gore? How out of touch with religion is Joe Lieberman?

    A Christian poster at another forum noted that as long as “liberals” do nothing to stop “filth and smut” in our media, he was going to support Republicans. I was going to mention the efforts of people like Tipper Gore and the liberal Kaiser Family Foundation, but decided not to waste my time. After all, what are the odds that his objections weren’t just a smoke-screen hiding the fact that his support for the his political party has, like most Americans, become rote. 

    <><><><>Posted by<><> <><>< HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fheadlife.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F11%2Fstupid-stupid-democrats.html" TITLE="allred at jhu dot edu">Lance<>

    Like

  5. Seems to me you’re calling the rural people who voted Republican stupid too. You seem to be saying, “If only we could dumb down our message and speak to them on their level, they would agree with us, and vote for us.” Well, I think that the majority of those voters understood your message just fine, thank you… and they want no part of it. It’s not that they don’t understand you, it’s that they don’t agree with you. And repeating the same old tired arguments in scriptural language isn’t going to do much except insult their intelligence (something Dems don’t seem to mind doing).  

    <><><><>Posted by<><> <><>Rob

    Like

  6. I would like to blame all of this on the media, so I will. Partisan hackery (paraphrased from Jon Stewart) polarizes the issues in the guise of an open forum. It doesn’t matter who thinks they are smarter than who (don’t we all gravitate to the positions that make the most sense to us?). We seem instead to have lost the ability to treat those who disagree with respect and to acknowledge that their ideas required some thought to develop, too. 

    <><><><>Posted by<><> <><>< HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogger.com%2Fprofile%2F5058781">John C.<>

    Like

Comments are closed.