I've thought about this a lot since the election (the dem "position".) Here is why I am discouraged.
My perception is that as the years go by, national candidates must be more and more "photogenic", and it becomes more important to have a simple message without negativity or details. Republicans have essentially been speaking with one voice for the past several years. With repubs, you pretty much know what you are going to get; lower taxes, focus on security, smaller government/less waste, and support for businesses. My feeling is that repub candidates avoid talking about how to acheive these thngs, or what they will cost, or what the tradeoff is. They are concepts that we know they will try to address, but we have to trust them to find a way.
Dems, on the other hand, by DEFINITION, do not speak with one voice. Candidates are all over the place on various issues. Voters have to pay attention a little more to each individual candidate to see what they are about. Also, nobody would disagree with the repub "concepts". But by articulating these ideas consistently, repubs make it seem like they are republican issues. Democrats are left trying to explain how we can have security (for example), but it's going to cost a lot of money. Nobody wants to hear that, and repubs then get to say that dems just want to spend money all the time. Or that we can make life easier for companies, but at the expense of the environment or worker safety. And then repubs say that dems are hindering businesses.
So, since repubs are all on the same page policy-wise, we only have to choose the one we "like" the most. And since whatever message any particular dem is pushing is somewhat complicated, most voters will also just try to pick a candidate they "like", without getting too deep into the issues.
There's only a small percentage of voters who are "in play", that is, are willing to vote for either party. I think most people who pay attention to politics already know where they are philosophically, so they already lean towards one party or the other. Therefore, I believe that most "swing" voters don't want to be bothered too much by politics, and will be swayed by intangible things like looks, personality, and the way they are presented by the press.
So, a good dem candidate would have to have some compelling issue to make sure that the base actually goes and votes, plus, they must look good, speak well, and have no significant negatives, to get the swingers to vote for them. This is very hard when the repubs have simple, emotional policies that really cannot be argued with. If the dems let them get away with not having to explain the trade-offs and costs, they can't win. But the voters who can be persuaded don't want to hear all that negativity, and the dems end up sounding like they are against everything.
I believe this is the legacy of Newt Gingrich. Politically, it's genius. Consistent, simple message, can't be argued with in principle, only in the details or application. My problem with it is that I think that in the long term, it does a disservice to voters by obscuring what we have to give up in order to get the things that are promised. I think repubs are essentially saying, "if you vote repub, here's what you get. Trust us to make it happen so that you won't feel any pain. " And if you didn't pay too much attention to politics, how could you NOT vote for the guy who is promising less crime and lower taxes? EVERYBODY can relate to the prospect of lower taxes, but almost nobody thinks that THEY will be affected by less government services. And everybody wants less crime and a good business climate, but very few think they will be affected by an erosion of civil rights, degradation of the environment, less worker safety, or war.
So I don't have much hope for 04. But by '08, after 8 years of repub policies, (especially if there is a repub congress), we will see what we have wrought.
My time is up. You've been very kind. Please stick around for Thin Lizzy.
My perception is that as the years go by, national candidates must be more and more "photogenic", and it becomes more important to have a simple message without negativity or details. Republicans have essentially been speaking with one voice for the past several years. With repubs, you pretty much know what you are going to get; lower taxes, focus on security, smaller government/less waste, and support for businesses. My feeling is that repub candidates avoid talking about how to acheive these thngs, or what they will cost, or what the tradeoff is. They are concepts that we know they will try to address, but we have to trust them to find a way.
Dems, on the other hand, by DEFINITION, do not speak with one voice. Candidates are all over the place on various issues. Voters have to pay attention a little more to each individual candidate to see what they are about. Also, nobody would disagree with the repub "concepts". But by articulating these ideas consistently, repubs make it seem like they are republican issues. Democrats are left trying to explain how we can have security (for example), but it's going to cost a lot of money. Nobody wants to hear that, and repubs then get to say that dems just want to spend money all the time. Or that we can make life easier for companies, but at the expense of the environment or worker safety. And then repubs say that dems are hindering businesses.
So, since repubs are all on the same page policy-wise, we only have to choose the one we "like" the most. And since whatever message any particular dem is pushing is somewhat complicated, most voters will also just try to pick a candidate they "like", without getting too deep into the issues.
There's only a small percentage of voters who are "in play", that is, are willing to vote for either party. I think most people who pay attention to politics already know where they are philosophically, so they already lean towards one party or the other. Therefore, I believe that most "swing" voters don't want to be bothered too much by politics, and will be swayed by intangible things like looks, personality, and the way they are presented by the press.
So, a good dem candidate would have to have some compelling issue to make sure that the base actually goes and votes, plus, they must look good, speak well, and have no significant negatives, to get the swingers to vote for them. This is very hard when the repubs have simple, emotional policies that really cannot be argued with. If the dems let them get away with not having to explain the trade-offs and costs, they can't win. But the voters who can be persuaded don't want to hear all that negativity, and the dems end up sounding like they are against everything.
I believe this is the legacy of Newt Gingrich. Politically, it's genius. Consistent, simple message, can't be argued with in principle, only in the details or application. My problem with it is that I think that in the long term, it does a disservice to voters by obscuring what we have to give up in order to get the things that are promised. I think repubs are essentially saying, "if you vote repub, here's what you get. Trust us to make it happen so that you won't feel any pain. " And if you didn't pay too much attention to politics, how could you NOT vote for the guy who is promising less crime and lower taxes? EVERYBODY can relate to the prospect of lower taxes, but almost nobody thinks that THEY will be affected by less government services. And everybody wants less crime and a good business climate, but very few think they will be affected by an erosion of civil rights, degradation of the environment, less worker safety, or war.
So I don't have much hope for 04. But by '08, after 8 years of repub policies, (especially if there is a repub congress), we will see what we have wrought.
My time is up. You've been very kind. Please stick around for Thin Lizzy.
Last edited:
Lauren, check out 
Boy - you don't know how lucky you have it. You didn't get to have Brother Rom teach Chemistry! Those were the days when things were tough!
