Elections Aren't about Issues

[raccoon]

Published on Wednesday, September 6, 2006 by the Boston Globe

Elections Aren't about Issues

by Paul Waldman

It must seem like déjà vu all over again to Democrats. There's an unpopular war, an unpopular president, and Republicans calling them weak, terrorist-loving troop-haters as an election approaches.

<snip>

If (the Democrats) want to build long-term political success, they need to understand what the Republicans have been doing right, so they can fix what they've been doing wrong.

If there's one thing Republicans have understood and Democrats haven't, it is that politics is not about issues. Politics is about identity. The candidates and parties that win are not those aligning their positions most precisely with a majority of the electorate. The winners are those who form a positive image in the public mind of who they are (and a negative image of who their opponents are). Issues are a vehicle to create that identity, one that combines with symbolism and narrative to shape what the public thinks about when they think about Democrats and Republicans.

Think about what happens in campaign after campaign. The Democrat comes before the public and says, ``If you read my 10-point policy plan, I'm sure you'll vote for me. Let's go over it point by point." The Republican then comes before the public, points to the Democrat, and says, ``That guy is a weak, elitist liberal who hates you and everything you stand for. I'm one of you and he's not." And guess who wins.

After it's all over, Democrats wonder why they lost, when a majority of the public favors nearly all the items on their agenda. Americans want a higher minimum wage, legal abortion, strong environmental protections, universal healthcare, and a tax policy that isn't tilted toward the wealthy, to name a few. But voters don't read policy papers, and they don't make decisions with a checklist of issues in their hands. That's why Republican campaigns operate on a different level: Whom do you identify with? Whom can you trust? Who is strong, and who is weak?

<snip>

...The public will be convinced that Democrats are strong when they stand up for their beliefs, take political risks, and don't run scared every time they get attacked by Republicans. Think about it this way: Martin Luther King Jr. was a pacifist, and no one ever called him weak.

In short, it isn't about voting the way you think the public wants you to vote, and it isn't about your 10-point plan. It's about who you are. That's just one lesson Democrats need to learn from Republicans.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0906-21.htm

I've read this and heard this before--George Lakoff said it, for one, but somehow it really sunk it for me this time. For a great many voters,

politics is not about issues. Politics is about identity.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. MLK, Jr. wasn't an elected official. (nt)

[Tellurian]

2. Polemics meant to distract from rigged voting machines and theft n/t

[Totallybushed]

3. Piece of crap.

Elections are about nothing but issues, unless they're stolen, of course.

Identity is an issue, for most people. But only one.

It will also have some effect on how you feel and think about the other issues.

The Democrat comes before the public and says, ``If you read my 10-point policy plan, I'm sure you'll vote for me. Let's go over it point by point

The mistake that the above Democrat is making is in assumming that people will agree with him if they only knew all the facts. This just isn't so. His job is persuade them to change their minds. Facts, alone, aren't enough to do it. He must appeal to their self-interest, as defined by them, not him.

It's a hard job, but somebody's got to do it, or we can look forward toa n endless future of Republican rule.

[Tigermoose]

4. The decline of rational thinking...

The Democrats are still operating under assumptions from the Enlightenment, that people can rationally choose what is best for them based upon self interest and logic. This is no longer the case. People choose candidates that they feel they could have a beer with...candidates who share their values...candidates like George W. Bush. :puke:

You want a more liberal country? Then we had best start focusing on rehabilitating the humanities and teaching people to think for themselves.

[raccoon]

5. It's that way for lots of people.

"People choose candidates that they feel they could have a beer with"

[Totallybushed]

6. The problem for Democrats,

as I see it, is that many of them assume that because a certain program, or stand on an issue, in in their self-interest, it must be the right, and only right, position.

But this is just not so. We cannot tell someone else what his stand should be on his own self-interest. This is something that he, alone, can know and determine. Not us, or anybody else. What we can do is try to formulate our arguments for our own positions in such a way that the majority of the voters will see it our way. Telling them they are stupid is a sure fire way to win their votes. NOT!

This is something that the Dem leadership has consistently failed to do, for whatever reason. I don't know, but if pressed to the wall, I would say that Democrats are generally nice people and hesitate to offend anyone. Thus, they won't tell certain people certain facts that may cause them to not vote for them.

Who these people are, and what the facts are is not for me to say, and is irrelevant to my argument anyway. My point is simply this: you cannot sit on the fence for the important issues of the times and expect to be taken seriously. And these are serious times; serious candidates are required.

Look. The conservatives aren't going to vote Democratic, anyway. The moderates might, but they instinctively distrust someone who won't say exactly where he stands on the issues. The liberals and the left consist of many disparate groups who often have little in common. I think the same phenomenon works with them, too. It's one reason the Greens have been such a pain in the butt to Democrats in recent years. Even when a mutual distaste for GWB should have held them together.

This election, and in 2008, GWB is not running. So I foresee further splintering on the left, and a lot of Democratic voters sitting at home. I kid you not.

Does that mean that I think we aren't going to win? I don't know. I hope not. But I don't believe the polls mean any thing right now. I don't believe Bush-bashing is enough to win. I don't believe that you can beat something with nothing.

So what DO I believe? I believe that the Democratic candidates must clearly define their goals and policy positions for the electorate. I believe that they must take a stand, even a wrong stand, on all the issues. I believe that they must not only point out where Bush has screwed up, but how and where they will do it better.

If they do this, we have an excellent shot at winning. Otherwise, I afraid we will receive all the joy of this election season as we did from Fitzmas. I.e., none.