|
I might be preaching to the converted here, but I am convinced that there is an opposite side to the Thomas Frank analysis of the 2004 election. I have heard Sen. Kerry give mention to the fact that his campaign actually did quite a number of things right. (Which will forever be obscured by the fact that they didn't win, ahm, officially.) They did pull more Dem voters than any other Dem candidate in history. They did meet or exceed their targets in almost every area. They did get 6-8 million more Dem voters to the polls than Al Gore did in 2000. So, ahm, hat went right?
I think it is as wrong to ignore this as it is to forget the final results. First of all, it feeds that Democratic instinct to depression and near-despair that seems to just flood over everything when results don't go the way we want right away. (And we all hate that. It serves to depress people, causes meaningless feuds and can be a reason people drop out of politics altogether.) In your area, red, blue or purple, what did you see that you think went right? What message resonsated with the voters who showed up in 2004, but not in 2000? Was it John Kerry, dissatisfaction with the current Admin, ABBism or a combination of factors including some of these?
Thomas Frank has a piece of the puzzle, I think. Like the famous tale of the blind men and the elephant, he has a portion of the truth, but maybe not the whole of the truth. Do you think it is possible to assemble a fuller picture of what went on in 2004 so that the success of it can be replicated in the next elections? Or was this a singular moment in history, that leaves no footprints to follow in, good or bad? Just curious. I am oh so tired of all the 'he failed' arguments that don't include any of the good things that happened. And good things did happen or we wouldn't have this forum and the high number of folks checking in.
What say you? (To philosophical TayTay, hmm, I should get my pipe and tweed jacket with the patches on the sleeve and be a proper professor. LOL!)
|