Post-Election Wrap Up
Okay, so it has been a while- I have been gone for a while- here in no particular order, it my wrap-up. Don't waste any time thinking for yourself, just let this pour in through your synapses as gospel- it's what James Dobson would do. WW James Dobson do?
Okay, overall, John Kerry ran a campaign of being "against" things. Of being against Bush, against Cheney, against the way the war was managed in Iraq (which Bush turned into against the troops), against Bush's very existence. This is a campaign which will get you up to about, oh, 47-48% of a polarized elctorate but not move you any further. I could have told you that at any time. Just election theory. As such, he failed a couple of tests, and that's why he lost.
1) John Kerry never gave me a reason to vote FOR him, rather than against Bush. I had, right after he clinched the nomination, ordered myself a John Kerry bumper sticker- I got a basic one, also they sent me "Kerry us to Democracy" one. So I got them months ago, and I made myself a little pledge...a challenge if you will...I will put these on my car when John Kerry gives me a reason to support him. Support him as a man, as a president.
He told me what was wrong with what Bush was doing, but made only vague noises on how he would do better. The campiagn is over, and does anyone really know how Kerry would have...fixed the economy? Made the situation better for our troops in Iraq? Improved the effectiveness of our War On Terror? Did Kerry ever if a "this is what I would do- 1,2,3,4,5" answer to anything? Solutions would have been nice.
Oh yeah, the bumper stickers? Never went on the car.
2) John Kerry, by being against things while not being clear what he was for (see above) became the negative candidate. We always, without fail, every year, elect the more optimistic candidate. Kerry woyuld come out here and tell us how bad the economy was in Ohio and that we had lost all these jobs because of Bush and blah blah blah. You know what, we knew the economy was bad already. Ohioans knew this state has lost more jobs in the past four years than any other. Bush would come out here and tell us things were getting better, that we had turned the corner- sunshine always sells. Again, what if John Kerry had come out and said "the economy is bad- with statistics" and then..."But you already know all that. You live here. You all know a family memeber or a close friend who has lost their job in the last four years. You all know a family member or a close friend that is worried about losing the job they are barely hanging on to now. you may know a small business owner who is reluctant to expand, to add new jobs, who is sturggling to stay afloat, because of all this "economic uncertainty" people like me keep telling you about. But that uncertainty is real. It is real people, real families, folks trying to go to work, play by the rules, and support their families, and live the American Dream. Here's what I would do to get the economy moving again and creating good jobs here in Ohio- 1,2,3,4,5. And that's how we'll do it together, with your hard work and just a little help from Washington we can get Ohio moving again!"
Not bad, huh? Took me 5 minutes to write. I never heard Kerry say anything like it. Notice, again, specificity is a moral value. (Bush's plan for everything- more of the same. He ran as if he were not already president and offered nothing new. The problem was, Kerry did not contrast this enough with new clear ideas.) Right there, Kerry would have positioned himself as a defender of the American Dream. Not a bad moral stance to take. "Make the American Dream a Reality" or "Defending the American Dream"? How about "Defnding the American Way of Life." Any of those are better than talking about being "respected in the word" because you know what, if I am a guy who lost my job at the plant in Springfield, Ohio, where I worked for 25 years and I got a buddy killed in Afghanistan I do not give a crap about what France thinks of us right now. I want my problems fixed.
Some have asked- was it the message or the candidate- to those, I say...what message? Ryan Lizza has a funny piece about this in TNR here. It's subscriber only, but you get the drift. Actually, really,I think Kerry was not bad as a candidate- he got to be much better as a speaker, he won the debates, he has the personality of my keyboard.
On the "Culture War" Kerry struggles with a basic New England problem, a reluctance to talk about themselves and their values. Howard Dean was exactly right when he said the Reublicans wedge the country with "guns, God, and gays." This is a horribly divisive strategy, but an effective one. But the problem is not Democratic values- we have them- but how we express them. Democrats have a well meaning, but ineffective tendency to see all points of view, to respect all points of view, to see gray where others see only black and white. Look at the abortion question. Kerry threw up all over himself trying to not offend anyone in the debate. For Bush, the answer is easy- "Abortion is Murder." Now, I do not agree with him, and since he supports abortion rights in cases of rape and incest, he does not actually agree with himself. Coming from W, this is unsurprising. But the point is, he has a postion and he says what it is.
On gay marriage- Kerry's position is actually the country's position! Kerry supports civil unions but not gay marriage. Bush says he supports states deciding the issue, but of course supports a constituational amendment taking away their right to do this. The proposed amendment would ban not just agy marriage but would prhibit states from granted gay (or straight) unmarried couples any type of benefits. If Bush's amendment took effect, what might happen to Mary Cheney (yes, let's bring her up) and her partner of 10 years? If something horrible happened to Mary her partner could end up with nothing. Could not get the house, the money, or even visit her in the hospital. Those are not my values, not the country's values, and Kerry should have brought this up.
Okay, overall, John Kerry ran a campaign of being "against" things. Of being against Bush, against Cheney, against the way the war was managed in Iraq (which Bush turned into against the troops), against Bush's very existence. This is a campaign which will get you up to about, oh, 47-48% of a polarized elctorate but not move you any further. I could have told you that at any time. Just election theory. As such, he failed a couple of tests, and that's why he lost.
1) John Kerry never gave me a reason to vote FOR him, rather than against Bush. I had, right after he clinched the nomination, ordered myself a John Kerry bumper sticker- I got a basic one, also they sent me "Kerry us to Democracy" one. So I got them months ago, and I made myself a little pledge...a challenge if you will...I will put these on my car when John Kerry gives me a reason to support him. Support him as a man, as a president.
He told me what was wrong with what Bush was doing, but made only vague noises on how he would do better. The campiagn is over, and does anyone really know how Kerry would have...fixed the economy? Made the situation better for our troops in Iraq? Improved the effectiveness of our War On Terror? Did Kerry ever if a "this is what I would do- 1,2,3,4,5" answer to anything? Solutions would have been nice.
Oh yeah, the bumper stickers? Never went on the car.
2) John Kerry, by being against things while not being clear what he was for (see above) became the negative candidate. We always, without fail, every year, elect the more optimistic candidate. Kerry woyuld come out here and tell us how bad the economy was in Ohio and that we had lost all these jobs because of Bush and blah blah blah. You know what, we knew the economy was bad already. Ohioans knew this state has lost more jobs in the past four years than any other. Bush would come out here and tell us things were getting better, that we had turned the corner- sunshine always sells. Again, what if John Kerry had come out and said "the economy is bad- with statistics" and then..."But you already know all that. You live here. You all know a family memeber or a close friend who has lost their job in the last four years. You all know a family member or a close friend that is worried about losing the job they are barely hanging on to now. you may know a small business owner who is reluctant to expand, to add new jobs, who is sturggling to stay afloat, because of all this "economic uncertainty" people like me keep telling you about. But that uncertainty is real. It is real people, real families, folks trying to go to work, play by the rules, and support their families, and live the American Dream. Here's what I would do to get the economy moving again and creating good jobs here in Ohio- 1,2,3,4,5. And that's how we'll do it together, with your hard work and just a little help from Washington we can get Ohio moving again!"
Not bad, huh? Took me 5 minutes to write. I never heard Kerry say anything like it. Notice, again, specificity is a moral value. (Bush's plan for everything- more of the same. He ran as if he were not already president and offered nothing new. The problem was, Kerry did not contrast this enough with new clear ideas.) Right there, Kerry would have positioned himself as a defender of the American Dream. Not a bad moral stance to take. "Make the American Dream a Reality" or "Defending the American Dream"? How about "Defnding the American Way of Life." Any of those are better than talking about being "respected in the word" because you know what, if I am a guy who lost my job at the plant in Springfield, Ohio, where I worked for 25 years and I got a buddy killed in Afghanistan I do not give a crap about what France thinks of us right now. I want my problems fixed.
Some have asked- was it the message or the candidate- to those, I say...what message? Ryan Lizza has a funny piece about this in TNR here. It's subscriber only, but you get the drift. Actually, really,I think Kerry was not bad as a candidate- he got to be much better as a speaker, he won the debates, he has the personality of my keyboard.
On the "Culture War" Kerry struggles with a basic New England problem, a reluctance to talk about themselves and their values. Howard Dean was exactly right when he said the Reublicans wedge the country with "guns, God, and gays." This is a horribly divisive strategy, but an effective one. But the problem is not Democratic values- we have them- but how we express them. Democrats have a well meaning, but ineffective tendency to see all points of view, to respect all points of view, to see gray where others see only black and white. Look at the abortion question. Kerry threw up all over himself trying to not offend anyone in the debate. For Bush, the answer is easy- "Abortion is Murder." Now, I do not agree with him, and since he supports abortion rights in cases of rape and incest, he does not actually agree with himself. Coming from W, this is unsurprising. But the point is, he has a postion and he says what it is.
On gay marriage- Kerry's position is actually the country's position! Kerry supports civil unions but not gay marriage. Bush says he supports states deciding the issue, but of course supports a constituational amendment taking away their right to do this. The proposed amendment would ban not just agy marriage but would prhibit states from granted gay (or straight) unmarried couples any type of benefits. If Bush's amendment took effect, what might happen to Mary Cheney (yes, let's bring her up) and her partner of 10 years? If something horrible happened to Mary her partner could end up with nothing. Could not get the house, the money, or even visit her in the hospital. Those are not my values, not the country's values, and Kerry should have brought this up.
posted by Scott L. Stuart at
7:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home