3 Comments:

• No, I think there is an alternative and it's the KISS strategy - Keep It Simple, Stupid.
  
  I am far from hero-worshipping Bill Clinton in any shape or form, but he nailed political effectiveness. He identified the issue, stuck to it, identified himself with it and then went into office and took care of it. While he was there, he tried to do some other good stuff in between trying to get laid and fighting off impeachment, but his political legacy will probably always be associated with the economy. And getting elected wasn't a matter of being dishonest in any way.
  
  Then there was his image. The guy has a certain amount of charisma, and he had an easy way of dealing with people.
  
  So here's where we see the lines between idealism, realism and cynicism.
  
  However much we would like it to be otherwise, there is just no way liberals can force the masses to educate themselves. Idealists need to accept that fact.
  
  OTOH, there is no reason to resort to dishonesty. The end never justifies the means. Payback is a bitch and cynics need to remember that.
  
  It's been proven that the public can be manipulated for their own good using accepted rules of play. The Democrats just need to be realistic about choosing their candidate and running their campaign. And, personally, I don't think either Hilary Clinton or Rudy Guiliano stands a chance at this particular time.
  
  Of the two, though, I'd give Hilary the edge. Because, if there is any possible way for her to actually get elected, I think her husband will find it. That guy is one of the most political savvy people around these days. Still, I hope the Democrats manage to come up with someone else. Someone electable.

  By  Rebecca, at 4:00 PM  

• "Years ago liberal abandoned the language of high purpose and moral responsibility in favor of slogans and sound bytes. We failed to articulate the thematic unity of our beliefs - beliefs that are not about what we are but what we could be."
  
  Publius, I believe you are remembering a time that can no longer exist, precisely because the language of high purpose has been so thoroughly identified with the exact opposite. The last liberal who use the language of high purpose and moral responsibility was Lyndon Johnson. He was also the last liberal to be elected in a landslide before the Republicans (e.g. Nixon) started using fear and race to win elections, especially in the South with the "Southern Strategy". You should know this since you are a white Southern male. The key difference between now and then is how we contextualize lofty language of high purpose and moral responsibility. Starting with FDR, liberals came from the universities and the churches. The political leaders were elite (wealthy, Ivy League education), but the language they used camouflaged the elite background. They believed in "noble obligations" that spurred them to lift up everyone else. The Republicans have since flipped this perception, starting with Nixon's emphasis on the "Silent Majority" who didn't go to college and weren't protesting in the streets. The same elite liberals who use lofty language today are denigrated as being "out of touch" because they are insulated from the struggles of ordinary citizens. Thomas Frank recently wrote in the New York Times that the transformation of politics in "us vs. them" is largely the result of a reaction to the professionalization of the country. Many people think that education - legal, medical, journalistic, scientific and social scientific - is a tool that alienates people from the masses. Thus, the use of anger to motivate people to the voting booth is aimed precisely at professional doctors, lawyers, scientists, and professors who are seen as out of sync with the masses. The key problem is that this professionalization is only possible because Johnson and the liberals who came before him made it possible. Thus, people are much more educated now than they were 30 years ago, but this increased education has provoked and intense backlash that the Republicans are exploiting.
  
  So, yes, you can try to promote a thriving democracy based on substantive dialogue, but, as Rebecca said, if you don't keep it simple, the working poor and middle class, who think education is a threat to them, will start to tune you out. Today's liberals must walk a fine line: achieve the high level education required to think through complex issues so that they can govern effectively, but use language that tells the working poor and middle class that "I am no better than you, even though I have a law degree, medical degree, and Ph.D." Frank notes in his last column that today's knowledge-worker liberals outnumber working class people in D.C. 27-1, and so liberals tend to think knowledge work is superior to all other kinds of work, such as retail. That simply isn't true. A person who works at McDonalds is surely paid less than a lawyer, but that doesn't mean the McDonalds employee is morally worth less than the lawyer or doctor.
  
  Only Barach Obama and John Edwards have realized this and tailored their language to communicate this understanding to everyone else. They are both educated and rich, but they know that they must preach moral and intellectual equality in order to promote the vision of the common good.

  By  Marriah, at 10:56 PM  

• Marriah: How many ways do I have to say that I think "keeping it simple" is important? I'm just saying that "simple" doesn't have to mean "simple-minded."

  By  Arbitrista, at 6:57 AM  

Post a Comment
<< Home