Are Democrats simply too nice?

[Democrat Dragon]

Could the reason why Democrats are so complicit be because they are simply being nice to Rethuglinazis? Don't they know that the Nazis don't play nice and have changed the rules of the game?

When one plays nice and the other doesen't, guess who gets screwed.

[yinkaafrica]

1. We lack a common agenda

We are always divided amongst ourselves.
Republicans all have the exact same agenda.

[Mokkori]

20. Weak leaders

I think the reason for the mixed messages and infighting is a lack of leadership.

Republican leaders are generally great orators. This has nothing to do with intelligence; it's a learned skill. Since Clinton, can you name a Dem who can speak clearly without contradicting something he said yesterday, screaming inanely, or rhyming? I have taken a course in public speaking. It lasted 6 weeks. I am confident that I could outperform Kerry, Dean, and Jackson without breaking a sweat.

Most people would rather vote for a well-dressed, well-spoken loony than a mumbling, gibbering saint.

[babylonsister]

2. That, in a nutshell, was Kerry's big problem.

He is too nice, smart, respectful and was taught manners. He started to learn late in his campaign how to change, but too late sadly.
IMHO. But I still love his integrity, which is what it all boiled down to. We really did get the loser.

[eg101]

3. I don't think that has anything to do with it

the democrats do not fight back much because they are the stooge in the pro-wrestling facsimile that constitutes American politics. EVer watch pro wrestling? Ever notice there is usually one wrestler who kinda of just stands there waiting for the other wrestler to put a pseudo-move on him? He just stands there waiting for the main actor to put the moves on him. He will just stand there in the ring, pretending to look dazed, while the other guys bounces off the ropes, building up momentum for his next move.

That is the stooge.

The Democrats are the stooge in American politics, and the GOP is the badass who bounces off the ropes.

Now, nothing is monolithic. You do see a few real moments from time to time. The actors are, after all, human. You saw it on Senator Boxer's face and in her voice the other day when she contested something something or other to do with the 2004 election. It was a big deal for her. She got emotional. It was certainly unusual in that it was something that was supposed to be a ritualistic done deal. She got caught up in the online movement. She was well aware of the angst and anger among democratic activists, and it got to her for a brief moment, and she improvised away from the script for a brief time, and perhaps her emotion was because she knows the real score?

But for the most part, American politics is a faux conflict between two players, strutting and fretting their none-too-brief hour upon the stage. There is no left, only a right in American politics. Hard to have a real conflict where the political philosophies leave no room for real conflict....

[autorank]

7. Total Welcome to DU! Great analogy.

I think your analogy is completely on target. To extend it, there are no real matches in pro wrestling, the outcome is always known. I have a post some time back where I suggested that we'd be a lot better off if Mr. McMahon wrote the scripts to our pro wrestling politics. He actually enjoys the game and appreciates his audience.

On the general question, YES the Democrats are too nice...and it's not nice to be nice when your opponents are killing tens of thousands of people directly, threatening the lives of tens of millions through dangerous eco-policies, and kicking our party's ass on a regular basis. A Pimp treats his Pro better than the Republicans treat the Democrats.

The question isn't, are we too nice; it's why don't we fight like Hell every day?

Of real interest, Boxer has twice challenged the 'must be nice' assumption: Ohio on 1/6/05 and the sacred Condi. In both cases, she got a lot of press, no one said she was crazy, and, in the case of Rice, she received a lot of good ink.

The way we act now, we are the stooge, the "pencil neck geek" to the Repukes.

I say it's time for a new storyline (Democrats are the guy in the black vest):

[cmd]

4. Yep, we respect other people's space

We dislike being pushy. We also don't like being pushed.

[Democrat Dragon]

5. The rethugs don't respond to "please stop pushing me"

therefore we must PUSH BACK!

[leanin_green]

6. I think it's a matter of trying to live up to. . .

what the Democrats believe is the right thing to do. Ever since we claimed civil rights and basic human rights as our issues we have become more idealistic than the Repugs. Many of us want to believe in the best of humanity and working for the common good. This tends to put us in the position of believing that of other people as well. If you notice, most of the Democrats are taken aback by the behavior of the Repugs. Just listen to Biden today. He still wants to hope for the best and he acts accordingly, believing/hoping that the Repugs will want to work for what is best. All he had to do is look to his left at the Repugs on the committee and see the smirks and disdain for his notions to get the message. These guys need a wake up call. Boxer sure is aware of what she's up against and isn't afraid to speak out anyway.

[forgethell]

8. I don't really

think you can honestly say that we Democrats were (or are) "too nice". We really tried to smear *. I mean there were some very negative attacks (traitor, deserter, genocidal maniac, going to war for oil, Hitler). Before you flame me, the truth, or falsity, of such charges does not determine whether they are negative, or not.

No, I think we gave it our best shot. Somehow it failed to move the American voter. Rather than whine about a "stolen election" for which we have no hard proof, I think the Democrats and other progressives ought to be asking themselves why that was, and what can be done about it.

Maybe the election really was stolen, despite the absence of evidence. But how did it get so close that this was possible??

[eg101]

9. big difference between the activists and the politicians and media

the GOP has a LOT of politicians and media figures that are used as attack dogs. THe Democrats only have a few such figures.

Mostly it was the online activists who smeared Bush.

Of course, all this smearing is just a waste of time for the most part. People are sick of it, and we should be trying to create a leftist vision of the future for American economics, instead

[forgethell]

12. I partially agree,

I don't, however, think the American people are tired of smears. Think National Enquirer, {i]Globe, etc. I think their smears stuck, and ours didn't. Why is that, do you suppose? I think we need to answer that question.

I do agree about creating our vision of a future for American economics. It needs to be done. However, I also think the social issues, the "moral values", cost us dearly with the American people. Now, I know a lot of people will say, The American people are so studpid that they will vote agaisnt their own (economic) interests just to keep their neighbor from marrying another man". Well, maybe, but that is the reality, IMO. If the issue is unimportant, why don't we give it up so that we can move forward with the important economic stuff? I think the answer is that the issue is important to us. So why shouldn't it be inportant to them? We wouldn't sell out our integrity, why should we expect them to?

I don't pretend to know what the answer is; but I think it should be addressed.

[DaedelusNemo]

13. Economic interests were not expressed well enough

Partly because of the general distrust of democrats going around, partly because of ineffective interaction with the media, partly because of the DLC. People would have liked an option on the economic issues but didn't believe they had it, so they chose on other issues.

And - i don't think the democrats were pushing the social issues, frankly, apart from a few here and there. Those issues were driven by the republicans, not the democrats, in the last cycle, and carefully driven in the ways that helped them the most. It's called 'wedge issue'. The democrats, indeed, may have been better served with a stronger stand instead of the "i'm just like Bush, really" approach they tried to take.

[forgethell]

14. OK then,

Why is there a general distrust of Democrats? Now you may be right that people didn't have the economic issues that they wanted. But you don't know that.

Why were the Republicans pushing social issues? It might have been because they thought that judges were going to impose gay marriage on them without them having a say in it. Exactly like with abortion. We still are fighting that battle. Not because it was decided rightly, or wrongly, but because it was not decided by the people like it would be in a democracy.

the Mass. Supreme Court and that fellow in California, pushed the issue, and the Republicans pushed back. Yes, it was a wedge issue. But if we, or at least some of us, hadn't pushed it, the Republicans wouldn't have noticed it.

So, IMO, if this is an important issue for us, and I freely admit, it is not for me, but it's not something I'm against either, I'm in the "don't give a fuck" category, I think we should determine how to educate the voters. It may take a little longer than ramming it down their throats with a judicial decree. But when it is settled, it will stay settled. Do you think there is any possibility that Roe v. Wade will be overturned by a conservative court? I do, and then the issue will have to be fought out state-by-state. If we had done this to begin with, the issue would be behind us now.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DaedelusNemo]

24. Why the general distrust of Democrats?

First, of course, because there's a general distrust of politicians. Most people believe politics is a theater of lies in which they can have no say. Next, because the republicans have devoted an enormous amount of media effort to engender that distrust - an effort that has not been countered. Thirdly, because the Democrats haven't put together a coherent policy narrative based on common values that people can understand and therefore find plausible. Instead, it seems to most people that the Democratic positions are arbitrarily chosen, weathervane wishy-washy flipflop, because they don't understand the motivations for taking those positions - and they assume therefore that what the Democrats are saying is just the political ploy of the moment.

[DaedelusNemo]

25. The social issues

"Why were the Republicans pushing social issues? It might have been because they thought that judges were going to impose gay marriage on them without them having a say in it."

That concern was vastly overblown. No state has ever been required to accept the marriages of another. The gay marriage amendment stuff was pure showboating, even more so, and partially because of, the defense of marriage act back in Clinton's time. The republican method, remember? Manufacture a crisis mentality and paint themselves as heroic rescuers.

Nevertheless, it is true that the Massachussets and San Francisco controversies were a gift to the Republicans. Not because they brought up the issue - the Republicans were already riding the issue hard anyway - but because it gave them a piece of news they could point to and easily build up a show out of.

" Exactly like with abortion. We still are fighting that battle. Not because it was decided rightly, or wrongly, but because it was not decided by the people like it would be in a democracy. "

The fact is, the reason we're still fighting it is because there's still no consensus in this country on it, so it can't be decided democratically in any final way. The judges in these cases were actually fulfilling their precise duties - to render clear decisions when the state of the law itself is ambiguous. The fact is, the law contradicts itself all over the place - even the Costitution contradicts itself - and judges are often called on to decide which takes precedence; which often results in some law being negated in favor of another. If congress doesn't like the result, their job is to rewrite the law to do what they want, without running afoul of other laws.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paineinthearse]

18. Take a lesson from Bubba

He was able to fight back.

Why the appeasment? The dems stand to lose more activists to Greens.

[Lenape85]

10. YES

We need more Truman and less Lieberman

[EC]

11. They don't want to become the evil they are fighting....n/t

[PATRICK]

17. It's like watching

"I, Claudius" where the most ruthless tricks the doting predecessor and all lesser plotters and idealists are lunchmeat. It is the stuff of power games where pretenders have to dare the magic way to steal and kill and win or get "fired". The Democratic leadership convinces itself it knows the game, but this is rarely true enough. Arrogance perseveres up to the execution block. As long as they hold their personal positions it is about mistaken plans and intrigue- NOT democracy, never dealing with the problem of an informed public being led to its best interests and fervent decent wishes.

We are witnessing the morphing of the party much as the governments of the past adapted to the top of Empire, never challenging the system directly, supporting its overarching goals and "greatness" and dickering for reforms and power in the wings. Did Disraeli disband the Empire? Did the Senate ever take back the Roman Republic? Outside forces ate up the imploding remains of a system dead to the soul. The last to go- if ever- is the pretensions of the internal status quo and the shabby clothes of the betrayed past.

The Democratic party, once the party of slaveholders cannot even represent the slaves or do penance for the former slaves. It never completed the transition to a populist party freed from the strings of ruling class plutocrats and policy, though it went far enough to take great pride in its accomplishments. Likewise the American revolution did not go far enough in removing slavery or promoting democracy, nor the Civil War in liberating and uniting, nor the World War victories far enough against the evils, nor the Cold War to end the root threats of economic injustice and tyranny.

Meanwhile, no RW extremism has been too much to imagine or perpetrate with the forced seal of national approval, crimes and motives so sordid and crazy one is tempted to think it cannot get worse. But it will while the loyal opposition dithers in the minor privileges of safety and compromise.

Push has not led to shove but to stumbling ahead of the petty tyrants.
Leadership at least requires leadership. You cannot defeat a moron with an oxymoron. It is not a question of being nice, but being real.

[Two]

22. intriguing

"It is not a question of being nice, but being real."

Exactly.

An eloquent post--you must be part of the demonized "liberal elite." j/k. Seriously, though, an intriguing viewpoint.

[Lefty48197]

19. Too nice to get into heaven, or too nice to beat the Republicans?

Two different questions ya know!

[Two]

21. Too nice? No, just out of touch.

The Democrats simply don't understand how to appeal to the electorate. The Republicans have understood that we live in essentially a mass culture rather than a mass democracy and therefore they have learned the language of certain demographic segments that they need to reach in key battleground areas on a very localized level. Despite the fact that people think that they have a unified message, on the grassroots level they speak to the most pressing issue of that region. Well, they also "create" the most pressing issue in a given region through a tremendous PR machine. But they do speak to it in their own disingenuous way.

The Democrats simply do not "own" their own cable news channel or radio conglomerate (Clear Channel) or the management of major newspapers; the Republicans do. It's no accident that the greatest source of strength for the Democrats is the Internet, the wide-open space for the discussion of ideas; they really have no other mass media venue. At best, a liberal or progressive or Democrat can be part of a panel made up of conservatives on a given TV news program. But there are no progressives or Democrats hosting their own "O'Reilly Factor" or Rush Limbaugh radio show. Yes, there's Air America and NPR, but in the "mainstream" media (certainly television) there is no progressive host.

The only reason this is important is because most U.S. citizens are undereducated, relatively unthinking, and therefore their prejudices are easily manipulated. It's not a mistake that Republicans want a weak education system; a well-educated public would lead to their demise. I know Leo Strauss is likely anathema here and regarded as the godfather of neoconservatism, but he has great insight into politics:

"Modern democracy, so far from being universal aristocracy, would be mass rule were it not for the fact that the mass cannot rule, but is ruled by elites, that is, groupings of men who for whatever reason are on top or have a fair chance to arrive at the top; one of the most important virtues required for the smooth working of democracy, as far as the mass is concerned, is said to be electoral apathy, viz., lack of public spirit; not indeed the salt of the earth, but the salt of modern democracy are those citizens who read nothing except the sports page and the comic section. Democracy is then not indeed mass rule, but mass culture. A mass culture is a culture which can be appropriated by the meanest capacities without any intellectual and moral effort whatsoever and at a very low monetary price."

Our culture has led to Bush, but just by a hair. If you were to check the states with the highest education rankings, you'd see that they are "blue" states. The pitiful public education offered in the red states and the economic despair in those states combine to create a climate ripe for manipulation. The Democrats simply don't have the means to communicate with them through the media and they have weak grass roots efforts in those states to create a presence that is trusted and better known. And the Clintonesque New Democrats embracing of free trade pretty much robbed them of their one appeal to the working class in red states--a just economy. The Democrats simply need to become hawkish on corporate corruption and play the morality card of greed in those states. They can't win on abortion or gay marriage. Economcis, though, by standing up as stalwarts against corporate corruption, yeah, they can win.

But they have to actually build a record in that regard and Clinton did as much damage by passing NAFTA and gutting welfare as any Republican smear campaign could have. Didn't help that Clinton's biggest donor was Tyson--and yes, this carried over to Kerry and Kerry did little to distance himself from Clinton's free trade rhetoric, despite his statements about outsourcing. Tax incentives to keep corporations in the U.S. was his answer? Ugh. Not gonna work, not with voters. The capitulation beneath the rhetoric was evident. Kerry needed more PR to deliver his message; in fairness, it's tough to compete when most of the TV pundits and personalities were posing as journalists while whoring for Bush.

[justiceischeap]

23. I think the first thing the Dem Party needs to do

Is clean out the consultants because obviously they are out of touch and not getting the job done. I think we need a Rovian mastermind of our own. Not neccessarily someone who is as smarmy as him but someone who can see a young kid and know with time he could be groomed to be president.

[Democrat Dragon]

27. I like your thinking...

We need our own sneaky bastard. But don't worry, unlike KKKarl, who uses lies and steals, we should have someone who exposes the truth-the NASTY truth about the opposing candidate. This person should also be able to polish those skeletons in the closet and be opportunistic about every bit of damaging information that comes out at least blow it out of proportion a bit.

[texanshatingbush]

33. Ideas for beating Repugs at their own game

DemocraticDragon, Two, Patrick--I like your thinking.

I also believe we Dems already have much of the fodder we need for hoisting the Repugs on their own petards: what they said then, versus what they say now. Consider:

McClellan (or was it Card?) stating that the need to go to war with Iraq was not made an issue during the summer, because you never trot out a new product until after Labor Day. Doncha remember: radio silence on bogeyman Iraq all summer, then suddenly Iraq is a menace to world peace and we must strike them before they annihilate us.

Another one I like to remember: Condi Rice stating that the United States could not be the "911" for the world, that our job would NOT be nation-building.

And who can possibly forget: the Iraqis will greet us with flowers when we liberate them.......and we can use Iraqi oil money to pay for the cost of the war and reconstruction.

And another one to watch as it unfolds: how is the wounded US soldier treated when he returns home for medical treatment? Are those with "combat wounds" treated differently from "non-combat wounds" suffered in Iraq . It doesn't bode well that we have already heard about proposed budget cuts to Veterans Administration , and that many VA hospitals have already been closed. How grateful IS the government for the sacrifices of these men and women and their families?

Another possibility: predicted impact of Bushco continuing to let the dollar fall (why it may be helping us in the short-term but hurting us in the long-term). Keep it in simple terms !

Bottom line: we need to tie actual Bush policy to actual historical outcomes or predicted outcomes--to start undermining the credibility of the Repukes.

We need to STAY ON-MESSAGE!! Since Bush doesn't ad lib too well, his handlers keep him on-message by limiting his audience, at campaign stops or policy promotions, to only the true believers, ergo no unexpected questions. Maybe we need to keep hammering home simple messages, too, eg.:
**the proposed "personal accounts" plan DOES NOT FIX THE PROBLEM with Social Security! or....
**the Repugs say the "personal accounts" will only cost x billion dollars, but the Congressional Budget Office says it will cost $1 TRILLION--so who's lying? or....
**you get the idea

Unfortunately, books and honest give-and-take discussion are no longer how most Americans form their opinions. "News" can only be absorbed in soundbites these days. Which is another reason we should keep our messages simple and focused.

And another thing: many citizens of the Red States are out in the boondocks. They don't have cable or satellite TV, and they don't have multiple channels to watch. So chances are quite good that the only source of news they have is Sinclair Broadcasting or some other RW media conglomerate. We have to figure out how to reach them with "the other side of the coin", the remaining half of the truth that the Repugs are not mentioning.

And let's try some pejorative-connotation wording of our own. Why are the Repukes the only ones who can coin "death tax" instead of "inheritance tax"?

And why not remind exclusionary Americans that Gandhi once said: "I would have become a Christian.......had it not been for Christians".

And whenever the RW castigates the Dems for being "too liberal", let's remind Bush's holier-than-thou kool-aid drinkers of Jesus' own words: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all they mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it: THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

Gonna go throw some cold water on myself now.....

[Jackie97]

26. Yes.

They're being too nice. At the same time, compromise needs to happen. Where does one draw the line?

[DFLforever]

28. No I don't think they're too nice

Democrats can be extremely nasty with each other or with opponents like Nader. Witness the last campaign.

Imo, the general problem is timidity and lack of assurance because many Democrats have lost or can't locate their convictions.

[Democrat Dragon]

29. with each other, yes

but not against the rethugs...

[demo dutch]

30. YES!!!!

[davepc]

31. nobody ever accused 'Give 'em Hell' Harry Truman and Kennedy

of being to "nice".

Talk the talk and walk the walk.

[PresidentObama]

32. I'm not nice!?

[Democrat Dragon]

34. not you

I'm talking about most of the high-ranking memebers.