Vision trouble 5

Democrats, environmentalists, and other left-leaning sorts are arguing heatedly over whether to move the party to the left or to the right in the wake of the election (those who aren't arguing over whether the election was legitimate, that is).  One wag challenged those who disapprove of any rightward slide to ask themselves: "What states did John Kerry lose that Howard Dean would have won?"

I find this line of argument terrifying.  If we have to make the left into the right in order to win, I don't want to win.  The problem isn't Dean or Kerry.  The problem is that the left has utterly, drastically failed to generate a broadly compelling discourse about America.  We absolutely could do that -- could saturate the nation with a democratic (small d and large) vision of justice, fairness, hardwork, opportunity, creativity, exploration, unity, diversity, solidarity, and success.  We could also expose the current far-right agenda for what it is really about: fear, control, cronyism, corruption, exploitation, homogeneity, and government and corporate control.

Instead, we're squirming around inside the narrowminded narrative of the right, trying to carve out some tiny, safe, identifiable space that is ours.  It'll never happen.  We can't beat them on their terms -- only when we begin to define the rules of the game.

Kathryn Schulz is contributing editor of Grist.

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. AndrewEcopledge Posted 7:04 am
    12 Nov 2004

    I think the Dems get it this timeFrom what I've read since the election, I think the Dems get it this time.  I haven't heard anyone calling for a shift to the right.  What I have heard is a lot of Dems saying the same things that you are saying: that the Democratic party needs to find its narrative; that it can't be about this and that interest group and this and that policy proposal.  That we need to find and express our core values and aspirations for the country.
    I've read this all over the place, and it's been very heartening.  Let's hope we all (together) make it happen.

    Permalink

  2. hardisun Posted 8:24 am
    12 Nov 2004

    Sounds a bit nebulousHow is 'finding a narrative' orthogonal to pleading the case for the environment?  Since when are environmental issues relegated to special interest groups?
    Sure, it sounds like Democrats have gotten religion on the subject of moral issues, and that may well lead them into to playing moral catch-up with the Republicans (personally I find this reasoning to be as knee-jerk as fixing a flawed voting system by replacing punch cards with untested, unauditable, and unsecured electronic voting boxes).  
    Do we really have to fire up ministers in red states about the morality of environmental causes to get the case heard?  Sounds more like mullahs than ministers.
    After only 10 days of digesting the defeat I'm not sure what the proper response should be, but moving the party to the right or a knee jerk 'do what they did' prinicple simply makes the Republican side stronger.

    Permalink

  3. gawdess Posted 4:02 pm
    14 Nov 2004

    re: Vision TroubleKathryn,
    You wrote of "saturating the nation with a ...vision of justice, fairness, hardwork, opportunity, creativity, exploration, unity, diversity, solidarity, and success."
    Issues such as these should be touted as "democratic morality", and ones that all Americans need to get behind.  
    The republicans packaged their message so that even the lowest common denominator understood it.  They discovered a huge constituency, and used fear tactics that affected some of our most basic human needs, among them security and affiliation.  Some states were flooded with messages that the democrats would take their bibles away! How asinine was that?  But the message worked, it got right to the heart of their constituency.  The message was kept simple, and pounded home relentlessly.
    To more logical thinkers, the right's view on abortion is selfish and uncaring.  Take for example, a situation where the mother's health is at risk and she dies because she is not allowed to have an abortion. A sign of true Christian moral values would be for those against abortion rights to stand up and adopt these motherless babies, or unwanted babies, or offer financial support to the teenaged, unmarried mothers who are forced to go through with their pregnancies.  How often do we see this occurring?  
    And then there is the issue of civilians killed in the (illegal) war in Iraq. Sr. Joan Chittister, of the Benedictine order, stated on "NOW with Bill Moyers" this past week that pregnant women are among those being killed.  This is state sanctioned "military abortion," according to Sr. Joan. Where is the logic and morality there?
    As evidenced by the election results, there are many obtuse thinkers out there.  The task ahead is not going to be easy, nor will it be won by attacking their "moral values".  They need a reality check, and to do that we need to be vocal and be willing to ask the hard questions, and insist on getting answers.
    I'm not suggesting that we use the republicans' dirty tactics, however, we can raise the the bar on the "lowest common denominator."  
    Thanks,
    gawdess

    Permalink

  4. cell Posted 8:54 am
    15 Nov 2004

    Subversion of the paradigmIn all of the commentary on the election that I've seen here, there seems to be an assumption that the election was largely fair. It wasn't. All the information that could suggest the election was stolen is being quietly relegated to single paragraphs in the back sections of our newspapers,just as the most important violations of voter rights in the 2000 election were.

    If this is the case, you might ask, why aren't the Democrats screaming bloody murder? Because where there is no paper trail to enable recounts, Democrats don't have a legal leg to stand on. If an effort were made, and it once again ended up being deliberated by the Supreme Court, the results would be disastrous. Far better to let the Republican House, Senate, and President continue enacting their disastrous policies to the point at which it becomes obvious to the electorate. But will it? The issue of framing is relevant because it is in a system of media concentrated in very few hands that such linguistic shenanigans are permitted and even facilitated.

    I have no doubt that my take on the issue will be condemned as paranoid. But it doesn't take a vast conspiracy to foster this kind of media environment. Just the promotion by management of politically right journalists to positions of editorial control and an unwillingness by their employees to risk loss of their jobs for apparently minor semantic quibbles.

    We need antitrust suits brought against the media industry and barring that, we need people to develop a strong distrust of the media.

    It could happen, but I can't say when.

    Permalink

  5. birdboy Posted 12:32 pm
    15 Nov 2004

    media and government not trustworthyIt scares me how people seem to believe anything they hear on TV or read in the paper as absolute truth. When the government tells them the war is necessary, they trust and support the government. When the 5 o'clock news tells them the air is cleaner today than 4 years ago, they believe it. When a bunch of paid republicans say John Kerry is a coward, they take it as God's word. This is why I don't doubt the election was won by Bush- he and his campaign made no effort to use facts- the lies were much more effective than facts, and people in my neck of the woods ate it up. The lies were more fun to believe than the ugly truth.  I counted bumper stickers, I noticed yard signs, I saw the look people gave my car and my stickers. In fact, I was surprised to see how well Kerry did in my state- perhaps people were so confident they didn't bother to vote. Let's face it, the presidential election has become a popularity contest. Remember high school elections? People vote for the candidate they think will win, so they can be on the winning team. Someone asked me "do you really think Kerry can win?", as if that were the only reason to vote for the guy- never mind the issues.
     I remember the days when people refused to trust the government- we questioned authority. How did that morph into the current demand for conformity and blind patriotism? We should reserve our faith for our religion, and be skeptical of our government. If your leader is chosen by God, do you question his word? In fact, do we even need science if all decisions are made on faith?
    No, we lost the election. We lost to the popularity of a 'regular guy' image (anti-intellectualism), the 'no taxes' dream (selfish individualism) and the 'war on terror'  (christian-condoned racism). I wish I could believe the election was stolen- but no, what was stolen was public access to the facts, and what was lost was our ability to make informed decisions. The truth is the enemy of this administration, and the media is witholding the truth.

    a liberal in redsville

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement