You gotta have faith

The terms "values", "morals", "religion" and "faith" have been bandied around a lot in the last few days in response to the Democratic failure at the polls. I think it is long past time that Democrats take a serious look at these issues, but I think there is a real danger of screwing it up if we don't carefully define our terms. I've already seen this in response to some of my postings (both here and over at the DailyKOS) on this subject. Several seem to think those of us who are bringing this up are suggesting that Democrats need to make appeals to the extreme social conservatives by jettisoning the homosexual community and adopting the holy-roller attitude of the more extreme religio-fascists.

That is a misreading of what we are saying, but it is an understandable misreading because of the confusing terminology we are using in this debate. Let's face facts: Democrats aren't very good at this kind of debate, so many of us really don't know what the hell we are talking apart. We are stumbling around in the dark and, until we find the light switch, we are going to be stepping on each other's toes. It behooves us to be forgiving of these early stumbles.

What we need is a roadmap for this debate. We need to understand the landscape. We need to understand just what it is we are talking about.

I made a stab at it in my earlier post on this topic when I tried to define "religion" as distinct from "faith". I also need to lay out my understanding of the concept of "values" and "morals". Here's my initial stab at it:

Religion is a spiritual practice that people participate in to fulfill themselves more completely in their spiritual beliefs. It is the visible manifestation of those spiritual beliefs.

Faith is the the essence of the belief structure that drives people to devote their time to an endeavor when logic fails to give them just cause to continue on. Faith is an element of religion. But religion is not the only practice that requires faith.

Values are those things that we consider important enough to expend a measure of our blood, sweat and tears to defend. They are the actions we consider beneficial to ourselves and to society. Values may be based in a religious belief system, but religion is not a necessary component to having values. Faith, on the other hand, does play a significant role in shaping our values because ultimately it is in faith that we come to believe that our values are correct.

Morals are characteristics that define how we view ourselves in our interacting with our fellow human beings. Religion can sustain our values and our morals. The practice leads to the perfection. But it is, again, faith that ultimately tells us whether our moral character stands up to the test.

I believe that faith is a more valuable frame for this debate than either religion, values or morals. When people get into debates about the latter three, they often end up weighing the worthiness of any individuals belief system based purely on external characteristics. Debates about religion get bogged down in which church people attend, if any. Conversations about values get mired in questions of where people stand on a particular hot-button social issue. Discussions of morality get lost arguments about whether people lead a self-controlled life or a self-indulgent life.

But faith is a unifying frame for discussing all these issues. Regardless of whether you judge another to be wrong in their religious practice, stance on a social issue or how they choose to live their life, the question of faith lies at the heart of all of these debates. Faith is what sustains all of us in our lives.

Faith manages.

I believe that it is a discussion of faith that we should be having. If we can avoid the pitfalls of discussions about religion, values and morals, we can achieve a rapprochement across the cultural divide. We, both right and left, need to understand that the other side does have a faith that isn't just programmed by religious superiors (in the case of the right) or is more than a self-indulgent, "do what thou wilt", casual lifestyle (in the case of the left). We, both right and left, need to understand that the other side's faith may be the result of more than just a robotic surrender of will (in the case of the right) or a lazy, undisciplined, f*ck-it-all surrender to the vagaries of life (in the case of the left). We, both right and left, need to understand that the other side may have actually given some thought to what they believe in and that that belief is sincere and heartfelt.

I have faith that we can bridge this divide.

And those who seek to exploit that divide for their own short-term gain are the people who are truly faithless.

Dialog II

(Continuing the dialog.)

Chris,

Thanks for the thoughtful and respectful response to little old me. I feel like a minor celebrity (very minor).

On the issues you've discussed, I agree with you almost entirely.

We are political geeks, we enjoy this stuff. I also agree that most people are not and care very little about most of the little details of politics. And you're exactly right that the impression that a politician makes is more important than the underlying details of his plan. Having said that, I don't think that the side that does a better job of staying on message is also necessarily the side that has the details wrong.

I also agree that it is important that there is a strong, viable opposition party. It is absolutely important that one party is not comfortably in power. Being a Republican, I can tell you that I feel good right now, but not comfortable. I invite you and others to keep us on our toes.

Unlike you, I've pretty much always been some version of a partisan Republican (I've never been an independent). However, I constantly question my beliefs and seek out reasoned viewpoints in opposition to my own. I personally know Republicans that can say intensely partisan and borderline hateful things that make my skin crawl. I'm sure you've met one or two Democrats from that category as well. My point is that ideologues come from both sides, religion is not the only source. I'm also not convinced that my party is under the iron fist of people like that... not that the Democrats are either.

I hear your complaint about the attitude of governing Republicans. I can't say that I see it, but I accept that you feel it. I'm not sure how to remedy this at this point because Republicans would say that they are entitled to govern since they are governing. Democrats would say the same if they were governing. But attitude is important, I'll be watching.

Demonization is also a two-way street. For every talk radio loud mouth there is an alternative weekly that thinks that fascism is just around the corner in the form of John Ashcroft's library stormtroopers. And gerrymandering is an age old technique that is both disgusting and unfortunately, accepted. A truly non-partisan redistricting commission would be nice but highly improbable.

Finally, look at it this way: political campaigns are like trials without the judge (at least if the media isn't doing as good a job as they should). Both sides will say whatever they plausibly can to get elected. We, the jury, have to decide who made a better case based on incomplete information that has been spun beyond belief. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't (when you think it works and when you think it doesn't tends to depend on who you voted for).

Thanks for responding to my comments in such an extensive way. I really appreciate your comments and hope that we can continue the dialogue.

Jimmy

P.S. Maybe I need to upgrade my account? [Maybe. -Ed]

Jimmy,

No doubt there are hateful voices on the left. But that's an example of the doctrine of false equivalence. It doesn't matter that, pound for pound, there are as many hateful people on both the left or the right. What matters is how big a loudspeaker they have to espouse their hateful views..

Lefty hatemongers are lucky if they can reach an audience of a few hundred through alternative weeklies and community radio. Righty hatemongers not only reach millions of Americans on a 24/7 basis, several of them are in prominent leadership roles in your party.

The left is only lately starting to put forward a viable media alternative to the right-wing noise machine. But there efforts are still a mosquito buzz compared to the booming artillery of the right.

In fact, I would argue that, to the extent that the most extremist elements on the left can be said to get a voice it is because the right-wing noise machine picks them out of the crowd and puts them on display as "an example of a typical liberal".

Reasonable, liberal voices have to work mighty hard to be heard in this country. Republicans just have to open their mouths.

(and continues)

Grover Norquist can be shrill and I'm not going to apologize for that statement. He's the sort of fellow I could do without on my side (if he even is on my side, his "no tax no matter what" stuff is a bit much, even for me).

Fellow Republicans: Please, keep it in your pants. We won this week, can't that be enough for a while? I know only a few of you are being Grover Norquist-ian but you can discourage gloating. It will be us on the losing end of this sometime very soon and you don't want to be compared to a cat, dog, or ferret.

I Thank you, Jimmy

I think we can both agree that there are good reasons for Republicans and Democrats to be upset at the way the opposition caricatures the other side. But it is the Republicans who appear to be pushing this as a deliberate political strategy (dividing the country works for them, at least in the short run). The Democrats have to suffer their own share of fools. But they don't give those fools the keys to car.

I can say with all honesty that I believe that the majority of Republicans are decent human beings who love their country, love their families and only want what is best for both(*). It is the party's leadership, not the party members that disgust me. The extent to which I will continue to feel that Republicans are generally decent will depend on how willing they are to put up with that leadership because they like to win.

Keep in touch,

Chris

(* I hope you can say the same about Democrats)

Voting against ones best interest

One more quick note on the topic-du-jour. Last night during the DfA meetup, as we were discussing the problems Democrats have with message. I recall several participants talking about how Republicans have convinced rural and working class voters to vote against their best interest by using a faith-based appeal. This was, thankfully, not meant as a criticism of those people's faith. It was, however, an arrogant criticism none the less.

Why?

Because these people are voting in their best interest as they understand it!

This is something that Democrats have to understand. For many in the faith-based community, the question of what is the best moral solution to the problems our society face trumps the question of what is the best economic solution to those problems. We have to understand that not everyone thinks purely in terms of economic self interest.

"What does it profit a man to gain the world but lose his soul?" -- Luke 9:25

Many people are searching hard for the answer to what is the best course of action that will stand them in good stead with their conscience and with their God. If we simply berate people for "voting against their self-interest" we will lose them further. (1) Because no one likes to be lectured to and (2) because we are once again questioning the legitimacy of their faith.

Let's get this straight: people who voted for Bush did so because they thought it was in their best interest. Our opinion on whether they made the right choice matters for shit.

If we are to continue to be fighters for democracy then we must accept that, in a democracy, people are going to have a different idea about what is "in their best interest" and that having a different idea does not necessarily mean they are stupid or deluded or scared or misguided.

Respect people's beliefs and maybe they will respect yours.

And then maybe, just maybe, they will start to come around to your way of thinking.

New Yorkers demonstrate why the red states hate them

This New York Times article on the reaction of New Yorkers to the re-election of Bush is almost a textbook example of everything that is wrong about blue America's approach to the red states.

City residents talked about this chasm between outlooks with characteristic New York bluntness.

Dr. Joseph, a bearded, broad-shouldered man with silken gray hair, was sharing coffee and cigarettes with his fellow dog walker, Roberta Kimmel Cohn, at an outdoor table outside the hole-in-the-wall Breadsoul Cafe near Lincoln Center. The site was almost a clich� corner of cosmopolitan Manhattan, with a newsstand next door selling French and Italian newspapers and, a bit farther down, the Lincoln Plaza theater showing foreign movies.

"I'm saddened by what I feel is the obtuseness and shortsightedness of a good part of the country - the heartland," Dr. Joseph said. "This kind of redneck, shoot-from-the-hip mentality and a very concrete interpretation of religion is prevalent in Bush country - in the heartland."

"New Yorkers are more sophisticated and at a level of consciousness where we realize we have to think of globalization, of one mankind, that what's going to injure masses of people is not good for us," he said.

His friend, Ms. Cohn, a native of Wisconsin who deals in art, contended that New Yorkers were not as fooled by Mr. Bush's statements as other Americans might be. "New Yorkers are savvy," she said. "We have street smarts. Whereas people in the Midwest are more influenced by what their friends say."

"They're very 1950's," she said of Midwesterners. "When I go back there, I feel I'm in a time warp."

Dr. Joseph acknowledged that such attitudes could feed into the perception that New Yorkers are cultural elitists, but he didn't apologize for it.

"People who are more competitive and proficient at what they do tend to gravitate toward cities," he said.

The superior, condescending attitude just drips off the page. Even they admit it and they seem to be proud of it. I supported Kerry over Bush but even I feel insulted by this provincialism. Oregon went strong for Kerry this year so there might be a natural tendency for Oregon Democrats to adopt a similar superior attitude to the rest of America. We should avoid it at all costs.

The topic du jour

Religion, morality and faith do seem to be the topic of the day don't they?

Chris Nolan has a good post over on his blog on this topic.

I think one thing that might help this discussion is if we were to agree to clearly distinguish matters of religion from matters of faith and matters of morality. Perhaps we should blame it on the media, who have a tendency to favor simplified explanations, but the lines between these matters has become increasingly blurred in the last decade or so. As I said in my previous post on this topic, faith and religion are not equivalent topics. One can have faith without being religious(1).

Many on the left who openly mock faith do so, I suspect, out of a mistaken conflation of their worst experiences of religiosity with all matters of faith. They need to learn the difference. But it would also help matters if people on the religious right understood that those people on the left who feel that way may actually have just cause for their feelings.

It's in the nature of a dialog that each side needs to learn to look through the eyes of the other side. If we don't, all of us, right and left, will live to regret it.

(1. One could be religious without necessarily having faith. This would include those people who have attended church regularly all their life but do so more out of habit then out of personal conviction.)

Proving my point

Jimmy,

Case in point, this quote from Grover Norquist, courtesy The Moose:

"Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such."

Can you begin to understand why so many Democrats are pissed off right now?

Many Republicans of faith are justifiably upset when Democrats openly scoff at that faith.

How do you think they would feel if a leading Democrat were to compare them to domesticated animals?

Is this the kind of America you want to leave to your children?

Opening a dialog

(This is a response to Jimmy, a Bush supporter who responded to this post.)

Jimmy,

Thanks for posting.

I was not trying to imply by my statement that Bush supporters are to lazy to learn the truth. I'm just saying that the majority of people in this country just simply don't have the inclination to follow politics to the level of detail that we do (I assume, because you are posting here, that you also follow politics closely). We are political geeks.

My point was that the greater mass of people don't want to get bogged down to much in the details of each individual candidates policy proposals. They just don't have the time to do it and most of those details just bore them to tears. This is not a criticism. This is just a fact.

Democrats have made the mistake over the last several years of assuming that "if people just knew the facts they would vote for us".

Bzzzt! Wrong answer! Thanks for playing and now here's your consolation prize.

In depth policy analysis is a concern of governing. Politics, on the other hand, is a matter of impression. Which is to say that, in politics, first impressions matter.

Whether John Kerry was or was not a flip-flopper is irrelevant. What matters is that he came off that way to the casual observer. And to those Kerry supporters who would reflexively argue that that was just because of the spin job Rove pulled on Kerry I would respond that the most effective spin is that which is based on a grain of truth.

I believe that Gore and Kerry would have been far superior presidents to Bush. I voted for both. But I will concede that Gore could sometimes come off as sounding like a know-it-all and Kerry could sometimes come off sounding like he was trying to thread the needle between contradictory policy positions.

The message Democrats should take from the phenomena of George W. Bush is that, in politics, clarity beats nuance. If Democrats cannot express their core values with clarity and conviction then they will always start the race at a deficit. They might still win, but only if their opponents massively stumble. We can't rely on that.

I appreciate that you want to engage in a dialog on this because I think it is not in your best interest to have a crippled Democratic party. History shows that when one political party dominates a weak opposition for to long it can become atrophied and corrupt (this is what happened to the Democrats in the 70s and 80s). A strong opposition helps keep each side honest. It provides the necessary checks-and-balances that keep our political system healthy.

I would hope that those who believe in free market competition would appreciate that position.

I am not a Democrat out of any purely ideological bent. In fact, until Howard Dean came along, I was a registered Independent. But I've come to realize two things in recent years: (1) on most issues, I find myself siding with the Democrats and (2) the Democratic party is the only viable tool available to me to put the brakes on the ideologues who have taken control of the Republican party. I don't like ideologues of any political stripes. I am convinced that much of histories great tragedies can be directly blamed on the disproportionate influence of ideologues on the political system. It is my firm belief that the Republicans have become to ideologically rigid to be trusted with the reigns of government.

My biggest problem with Republicans today is not their particular policy positions. In fact, I agree with them on more than a few issues. My problem is with their increasing tendency to govern as if they were they only ones entitled to govern. Whether it is the continued daemonization of all things Democratic by right-wing radio or the gerrymandering of house districts to effectively shut out Democrats or the systematic efforts to beat down people who express a contrary political opinion (by, for example, deliberately painting opposition to Bush as opposition to the troops), the Republican party demonstrates that it believes in democracy only to the extent that it gives them what they want.

It is that attitude more than anything else that makes me fearful for the future of my country.

Thanks for opening the dialog Jimmy. Here's to the hope that it can lead to something better for both of us.

Matters of Faith

Robert Reich:

My recommendation to Democrats is not to become more religious. Religion is a personal matter. But perhaps Democrats need somewhat fewer plans and policies, and a bit more moral conviction. They also need to talk more about faith -- faith in what this great nation can accomplish if we work together.

At last nights DfA meetup I related my experience at a viewing party for the third debate. It was held at a local brew-pub-theater and about 200 people were in attendance. You may recall that during that debate Bob Schieffer asked Bush the following question:

You were asked before the invasion, or after the invasion, of Iraq if you'd checked with your dad. And I believe, I don't remember the quote exactly, but I believe you said you had checked with a higher authority.

I would like to ask you, what part does your faith play on your policy decisions?

When this question was asked several people in the audience around me openly laughed.

This is a problem folks. There are plenty of Americans who are sympathetic to Democratic candidates but who are repeatedly turned off by the way some Democrats openly mock their faith, particularly of the religious variety. It is a deeply personal matter to them and laughing at them for their beliefs does not help our cause.

I understand that many Democrats have fundamental problems with religion. I empathize with those problems. Many of us are fearful of the Christo-Fascist tendencies of many of Bush's most ardent supporters. There is a great temptation to respond to them with mockery. But that is no reason to, by our mockery, exclude all people of faith as if they were all of the same stripe.

Robert Reich makes a good point in his article that faith and religion are not necessarily equivalent. Religion is a spiritual practice that people participate in to fulfill themselves more completely in their spiritual beliefs. Faith is the fire that drives people to devote their time to an endeavor when logic fails to give them just cause to continue on. Faith is an element of religion. But religion is not the only practice that requires faith.

I have faith that America can pull itself back from the brink that George W. Bush is threatening to send us over. I have faith that we can and should do our best to better the lives of our fellow man. I have faith that God believes in us.

We need to learn to express ourselves in terms of faith, religious or otherwise, and be more accepting of those who express their faith in ways different than our own. I have faith that most Americans want to achieve the same thing. I have faith that we can do it.

Go!

I went to the Democracy For America meetup tonight.

40 people in attendance (the same number that attended my first Dean meetup back in March of 2003 btw), commiserating for a moment and then getting down to the business of taking the next step.

Dean held a conference call. We were one of the four sites that got the privilege of asking Dean a question. He was asked about running for DNC chair and, for the first time, he actually made noises about considering it. He asked us to send him a short message telling him why he should or should not vie for the position. He agreed with our question about the need to work on a clear message, recommended Lakoff in the process. He also recommended "What's The Matter With Kansas?", a book which I just bought tonight.

I handed out four copies of "Don't Think About An Elephant" to meetup participants and got a lot of positive response to the idea of putting on message workshops. I'm going to talk more about this later.

Go join Democracy For America.

Go to the next meetup.

Go!

Sherman and Grant

A story about Sherman and Grant at the battle of Shiloh:

The night was an especially difficult one for Grant. At first he sought rest under an oak tree, but the rain and his pain drove him to seek shelter in a cabin on the bluff. Originally designated as army headquarters, it had been turned into a temporary field hospital, and long into the night surgeons performed amputations on wounded men with shattered limbs. Grant, his ankle throbbing, huddled there, slumped in a broken chair, resting his head on his arm. But what he saw and heard in the cabin sickened him, and so he hobbled back outside and made his way back to the tree, where he stood, a lantern in his hand, puffing away at a cigar as the rain came down. Sherman, still pondering the possibility of retreat, appeared. One look at Grant convinced Sherman that it was best to put aside his query; instead, he offered: "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

Grant looked up. Water dripped from his hat. "Yes," he replied, followed by a puff. "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."

The only losers are those who give up.

A quote from Sherman at the start of the Civil War:

You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing!

You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it ...

The South went into the Civil War seeing it as a glorious struggle. They ended up devastated as a result of their casual flirtation with the demons of war.

Are we to repeat the same mistake? Will we suffer the same lesson?

(Courtesy this thread over at The DailyKOS)

Markets hate uncertainty

Over on the CNN/Money page they have a headline on the DOW box saying "Investors cheer Bush win". This in response to the +101 performance of the DOW today.

Um, excuse me but, no, they aren't cheering a Bush win. They are cheering the end of a close election. Close elections mean uncertainty. Uncertainty means investors don't know quite where to put their money. The uncertainty has ended. The investors now know where to invest (Warning: despite what you might think, I'd advise against buying Halliburton) and that is why the market is cheering.

If Kerry had won they would be cheering just as loudly.

Anchors Aweigh!

Swopa of Needlenose makes an interesting observation:

3. Apparently, Karl Rove's strategy worked, and Republicans overwhelmed doubts about both Iraq and the economy by bringing out "values" voters to support initiatives banning gay marriage in Ohio, Florida, and other states. But that's a beast that requires constant feeding in future elections -- and from observing California politics for a decade or two, I've seen this strategy backfire.

In two years, they'll have to come up with some other "values" bait -- say, banning homosexual teachers -- and again and again each election. But eventually they'll cross a line that causes independents to turn on them decisively, as happened in California after one too many anti-immigration initiatives intended to fire up the reactionary vote.

The tie between the Republican party and the religious right has been there since at least Reagan's election in 1980. But with the 2004 election it can be said without doubt that the religious right is the only thing keeping the Republican party alive (would Bush have won were it not for the turnout amongst the faith-based voters?) Rove and Bush have firmly tied the fate of their party to the whims of the most extreme elements of their party and, if Swopa is right (and I believe he is), some day in the future the GOP will wake up an realize they are tied inextricably to one mother-f*cking huge anchor.

Update:

Noam Scheiber makes much the same point, but cites statistics to back him up (link courtesy Andrew Sullivan):

Not only did Kerry win by an 86-13 margin among self-described liberals, he also won by a 55-45 margin among self-described moderates. So how'd Bush pull it off? He won 84-15 among self-described conservatives, and, more importantly, he made sure conservatives comprised a much bigger chunk of the electorate than they did in 2000. (Conservatives comprised about 34 percent of the electorate yesterday, versus 29 percent in 2000 -- a huge shift, raw numbers-wise.) Anyone anticipating a conciliatory second Bush term should stop and consider how much Bush owes his base.

There you have it. Without the "fuck-the-fags" vote Bush would be sunk today. It's as simple as that.

Bush is not bad because he is simple

I think Matt completely misses the point of Saletan's advice:

The problem with what the Republicans did in 1998, of course, is that it led to George W. Bush becoming president of the United States. This was, according to both Saletan and myself, a bad thing. Indeed, a worse thing than one would have expected ex ante simply on the knowledge that he was a conservative Republican. Bush's electoral success aside, it still matters to have presidents -- and nominees -- who know what they're doing. The man Saletan has in mind, John Edwards, may well be up to the job, and I think he'll deserve a look in 2008, but he shouldn't get a free pass on the "would this man be a good president?" issue. He, like whoever else runs, should be scrutinized.

George W. Bush isn't just a bad President just because he is simple. He is bad because of the entire cult of personality that surrounds him and the incompetent people who are loaded in his administration. In fact, if Bush were surrounded by some of the most competent Republicans in the party today he probably would be tolerable as president (I'd still vote against him, but I wouldn't fear for our future from his presidency).

A Democratic George Bush would not result in things as bad as they are today if he were surrounded by some of the most competent Democrats in the party. That was Saletan's point: stop concentrating on finding the smartest guy to be at the top of the ticket. Instead, focus on finding the guy who can get elected who will then hire the smart guys we will need to fix this mess.

John Edwards is an interesting candidate for this role, especially since he has the advantage over Bush of actually being smart as well as simple.

The Chairman speaks

Howard Dean continues to show how it is done. He fundamentally understands that taking back our country requires changing the dialog. Witness his statement today on the results of the election (my commentary included)

Montana, one of the reddest states, has a new Democratic governor.

Democrats can beat Republicans anywhere, anytime. Don't buy the line that Democrats have no constituency in the so-called red states.

First-time candidates for state legislatures from Hawaii to Connecticut beat incumbent Republicans.

There are always openings for new political power, even, if not especially, against entrenched power.

And a record number of us voted to change course�more Americans voted against George Bush than any sitting president in history.

This is the flipside to the Republican spin point that Bush got more votes than any candidate in history.

Today is not an ending.

The battle never ends.

Regardless of the outcome yesterday, we have begun to revive our democracy. While we did not get the result we wanted in the presidential race, we laid the groundwork for a new generation of Democratic leaders.

Democracy for America trained thousands of organizers and brought new leadership into the political process. And down the ballot, in state after state, we elected Dean Dozen candidates who will be the rising stars of the Democratic Party in years ahead.

Victory is not measured in individual wins but in the progress made towards the ultimate goal. Defeating Bush was never the ultimate goal. That was just one path to that goal. There are many pathways open to us and we are well on our way down those paths.

Tens of millions of us are disappointed today because we put so much of ourselves into this election. We donated money, we talked to friends, we knocked on doors. We invested ourselves in the political process.

That process does not end today. These are not short-term investments. We will only create lasting change if that sense of obligation and responsibility becomes a permanent part of our lives.

Your efforts have not been in vain. You are not struggling in the dark. You have made a difference.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

We will not be silent.

Yeaarrrggghhh!!!

Thank you for everything you did for our cause in this election. But we are not stopping here.

I've told people since the primaries that Dean didn't lose. He didn't get the nomination, but he achieved what he set out to do: he woke the party up. How you deal with defeat is at least as important as how you deal with victory.

We didn't lose yesterday. America lost. We will win in the end.

Political coinage

Last week we heard that the outcome of the last home game of the Washington Redskins before the election has correctly predicted the results in the Presidential election since 1936. When the Redskins lost, so the theory went, the incumbent party lost the White House.

The Redskins lost

Bush won.

Which leads me to coin my own political axiom:

Andersen's modifier to the Redskins rule

Any correlation between a certain political outcome and an event which is not political in nature will continue to demonstrate that correlation only so long as no one makes note of that correlation.

Ah, what the hell, here's another:

Andersen's addendum to Andersen's modifier

The degree to which that correlation will be broken is proportional to the extent that people take comfort in that correlation.

Put away the poison pills

I'd like to add an amen to these thoughts from Josh Marshall:

I remember talking to Simon Rosenberg, the head of the New Dem Network, at the Democratic convention last summer. You'll remember, he and his group were profiled in the Times magazine around that time. The article, in brief, was about plans to create a Democratic-leaning counter-establishment along the lines of what Republicans did two generations ago -- with an alternative media, activist groups, organized political giving, in short a political infrastructure.

He told me he thought it would take ten years to accomplish. And I told him my one worry was that it could all be strangled in its crib if Kerry didn't win.

Well, here we are. And this is the test for people who care about this kind of politics and these sorts of values -- making sure that what has been started is not allowed to falter. This isn't 1964 or 1972 or 1980. This wasn't a blow-out or a repudiation. It was close to a tie -- unfortunately, on the other guy's side. Let's not put our heads in the sand but let's also not get knocked of our game. Democrats need to think critically and seriously about why this didn't turn out 51% for Kerry or 55% for Kerry (and we'll get to those points in the future). But it would be a terrible mistake to stop thinking in terms of those ten years Simon described.

Josh's fear is my own fear as well. There is going to be a strong desire on the part of some Democrats to make someone pay for what happened last night. The last thing we need right now is a night-of-the-long knives style purge. Yes, there are people who should be quietly moved away from the levers of power. But it should be done in a way that does not salt the very fields where we want new progressives to grow.

The democrats have been remarkably disciplined in this campaign. More disciplined then I have ever seen. It would be a shame if we were to allow bitter feelings over these results to destroy the remarkable thing we are trying to create.

Defeating Bush was only the top-down solution to our problem. But even if we had defeated him the problem would still be there: we need a better ground-up operation. If anything, this defeat may give us the energy we need to re-devote ourselves to that latter, and more vital, process.

The Morning After

I'm still formulating my thoughts on last nights results. In fact, I expect to be formulating those thoughts for the next few years. Here's just a few of them:

• I've been hearing lots of "screw the youth vote" on the blogs this morning. A lot has been made of reports that the percentage of 18-25 year olds was no higher this year than last time around. But, as Josh Marshal points out, the youth vote did increase from last time. It was just obscured by the increased turnout among all demographic groups. A backlash against young voters is not what we need right now. We need them to feel like they are still valued so they will stick around for the next cycle.
  
• Also, we shouldn't blame Kerry. Kerry was not my first choice in the primaries. I was especially hard on him back then because I thought he was a poster child for all that had gone wrong with the Democrats over the last decade. Yet, despite the fact that he never had a clear, compelling, positive message, despite the fact that he was a "northeastern liberal", despite the fact that he was not the warmest personality on the stump, despite the fact that he was trying to unseat an incumbent president in a time of war who not two years ago was polling 80+% in the polls, despite all that he still managed to pull within 2 points of beating that president. We should all be thanking Kerry this morning for serving his country and his party admirably. It is not at all clear that anyone could have done any better.
  
• It is not at all clear that anyone could have done any better. That point needs to be re-iterated. There will be a lot of "would Dean have done better" columns in the coming days. I am a huge Dean fan, but even I am not sure he would have fared any better than Kerry. Dean would have beaten Kerry on at least one point: the voters would have had a better idea where he was coming from. But would that have been enough to overcome some of his other weaknesses?
  
  Candidates are not plug-n-play. You can't exchange them in the historical narrative and ask how they would have done in the same campaign because the campaign is shaped by the people who run it. A Bush vs. Dean race would have been a different race with different dynamics and no one can say for sure that those dynamics would have been to Dean's advantage.
  
• Clearly, the gay marriage issue helped the Republicans this time around. But it wasn't Bush's support for the Federal Marriage Amendment that did it. It was the eleven ballot measures banning gay marriage, many of them in swing states, that did the trick. It brought out the Bush base better than Bush himself. I should have figured it out when I noticed there were a lot more "One Man/One Woman" than "Bush/Cheney" bumper stickers.
  
• I'm already seeing some rumblings out there that our organizational effort sucked. I disagree. We did increase turnout for our guy. We just didn't account for the increased turnout that their guy got as well. Just because we didn't outpace them is not a reason to beat ourselves over the head. We did good. Just not good enough.
  
• What I think we are lacking is message. The biggest problem Kerry had was that it was hard to articulate a positive case for his presidency. I am convinced that the American people wanted something different than Bush. But people like him will continue to win as long as they have a message that people can understand, even if they don't necessarily agree with it.
  
  The message is clear: clarity beats nuance.
  
  Being right on the details won't matter as long as we can't wrap it in a nice package that appeals to the voter's sensibilities. That's why I think that the work of George Lakoff on framing will be so essential to future Democratic success. Lakoff is right when he says that it is the way you frame the debate, not the specifics of the debate, that matter most to the voters.
  
• Which leads me to my final point: don't blame the voters. I understand how tempting it is to denigrate those who voted for Bush. Lord knows I've had those same thoughts myself. But you don't win over people by starting with a message that says, "You would be stupid not to agree with me".
  
  Most of these people aren't stupid. They just see politics as, at best, a necessary evil. Devoting their time to studying the issues in sufficient detail, sufficient to recognize shit from shinola, is and always will be anathema. Just consider the fact that many establishment journalists fall for the bullshit, and they are paid to study the issues in sufficient detail..
  
  We need to embrace and learn to work with the fact that most people just don't want to know the details. We must stop railing against it. We must understand and speak to people on their gut level. The facts can be used to make that appeal. But the facts themselves are not the appeal.

To that end, I plan to devote myself over the coming months to training myself and others to better communication. I'm going to learn how to frame the issues in a way that even the "stupid" can understand. I'm going to learn how to talk to people who honestly believe that Bush is a great president.

Whining is for losers.

 

The following posts played a significant role in shaping my own thoughts:

• Jacob Weisberg on why simplicity works.
• Steve Soto gives the most raw dump of his emotional thoughts. I had the same thoughts, even though I ultimately come to disagree with most of them.
• Cliff Shecter also gives us a raw dump of his emotional thoughts. Especially on the role morality played in this election.
• James Wolcott provides some necessary levity in the gloom.
• The Moose presents democrats with a lot of positive thoughts to consider.

Predictions (just under the wire)

I came to a realization of something today. I could predict a squeaker finish and Kerry could still lose. I could predict landslide for our guy and Kerry could still lose. Either way, I would be disappointed afterward. But at least before hand I'd feel really good.

Kerry in a landslide!

Don't think of a draft

Vintage Breslin:

Oh, but these young people never vote, the tales read. They will this time, and because of a one-word issue.

Draft.

Every time Bush, or one of these generals he has, stands up and says there will be no military draft, everybody young figures this means there probably will be one by January, which will put them in the real battlegrounds. They rush to register, and then today they go to the polls to vote.

Ha! I am reminded of George Lakoff's latest (and highly recommended) book, "Don't Think Of An Elephant". The title comes from an exercise Lakoff uses with his students. He tells them not to think of an elephant, which of course causes them to think of an elephant. The point being that a blatant attempt to dissuade people of a notion always has the consequence of making people think of that very thing. The classic example he uses is Richard Nixon's "I am not a crook" moment. The minute Nixon said that the American people had no choice but to think of Nixon in terms of being a crook. The denial fed the very thing he was trying to deny.

Breslin has correctly pointed out that the repeated denials by Bush and his sycophantic generals that there won't be a draft has only succeeded in pushing the issue to the front of young voter's minds.

For once the framing works for the Democrats.

Did Jackie Robinson ever whine?

James Wolcott's thoughts are similar to my own:

... If Kerry wins, do you think conservative Republicans are going to take to their beds for soul-searching? They have no souls to search, most of them. No, they'll be scheming to ratfuck a Kerry presidency, and if history is a reliable guide they'll have allies in the elite media who can't wait to start snarking over Teresa as First Lady and the timidity of Kerry's cabinet picks, whatever. Reporters and pundits who've paid scant attention to the casualties and carnage in Iraq will suddenly find their consciences tucked away in a file drawer, and start wondering when Kerry will show the strength and resolve we expect from our leaders. They will hound him about Bin Laden in ways they never did Bush.

Kerry is going to win and Wolcott is right that Republican's won't waste a lot of time burying their heads in their pillows crying over the results. Why should Democrats give proof to the stereotype by doing just that?

Wolcott is also spot on about the coming hypocrisy. The usual suspects will be all over the tube in the coming days wondering why President Kerry hasn't fixed the problems in Iraq yet and why he hasn't captured bin Laden yet and why he hasn't turned the economy around yet, all before he is even sworn in!

Kerry will be in the position of Jackie Robinson on the day baseball was integrated. If he wants to get fair treatment he can't just be good. He has to be great! But we, as Democrats, better not waste time whining about this situation. It is the reality we have to deal with so we better start dealing with it.

The first challenge for President Kerry

The Bull Moose weighs in on what will happen after Kerry wins:

In short, if Kerry wins, Republicans will move on Wednesday to delegitimize his victory. The Moose is not necessarily referring to ballot challenges, although that will likely occur. What the Moose is referring to is an attempt by the vast right wing conspiracy (take the Moose's word - he was there and Hillary was exactly right about this term) will seek to strangle the Democratic Presidency in its crib.

The era of presidential honeymoons is over. Time was a new President could expect at least a few weeks of fairly smooth sailing in office before the opposition party turned up the heat. Not now. Kerry's honeymoon will last only so long as the time it takes Bush to make his concession call to Kerry. The minute he hangs up the phone the elephants will be rampaging across the land doing anything in their power to make it impossible for him to govern.

Even if that means making things worse for most of America. Even if it means tanking the economy. Even if it means forcing a disastrous collapse in Iraq. Even if it means letting bin Laden escape once again.

Which is why it is paramount for Kerry to make capturing bin Laden his #1 priority. He should, of course, do everything he can to fix the economy and the problems in Iraq. But until he captures Osama, he will never be given a moments respite from the right wing attacks. Getting bin Laden will be the only thing that will confer any sense of legitimacy on Kerry's presidency.

Kerry has made the failure of Bush to get bin Laden a focal point of his attacks on Bush. From the moment Kerry finishes taking that phone call from Bush, the Republicans will spend every waking moment of the next four years reminding him and us that he hasn't caught Osama yet.

Which is why it is so vitally important that he do so.

If Kerry does not get bin Laden by 2008, you can pretty much kiss off any chance of him getting re-elected.

If Kerry does not get bin Laden by 2006, you can pretty much kiss off any chance of the Democrats increasing their control of Congress.

If Kerry does not get bin Laden by 2005, you can pretty much kiss off any chance he will have of implementing any of his domestic programs.

If Kerry does not produce bin Laden as the highlight of his inauguration speech, you can pretty much kiss off any chance he will have of passing any of his domestic program through a Republican disabled congress

This is the reality President Kerry and the rest of us will have to deal with soon. We better be prepared.