Five Reality Checks For Democrats: Dump Kofi, Moore, Dopes (article) - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-16-2004, 09:57 AM   #1
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,153
Local Time: 07:11 PM
Five Reality Checks For Democrats: Dump Kofi, Moore, Dopes (article)

Quote:
Five Reality Checks For Democrats: Dump Kofi, Moore, Dopes

by Tish Durkin



Democrats of Manhattan, rise and shine! It’s been over a week now. The American people have spoken, and what they said was: They don’t want you. The vote is in, the map is more red than blue, that smirking jerk you love to hate is back for four more years. So now what?

Clearly, your most frequently stated option is not a realistic possibility. If you were really going to kill yourself in the event that President George W. Bush got re-elected, you would have done so by now. This leaves you, like every other loser, with two things: a bitter taste in your mouth, and a choice. You can sit around and keep telling each other how stupid and scary the winners are. Or you can put down the hemlock and the Häagen-Dazs, splash some cold water on your face, look in the mirror and tell yourself some awful truths.

Read your lips:

Bush is not an idiot. Kofi Annan is not an oracle. Michael Moore is not Everyman. Women are not ovaries with feet. And to be an American is not an embarrassment.

Lest this sound like gloating, I confess to having a pronoun problem here, and will hereby switch from "you" to "we." I voted for John Kerry. As a liberal separation-of-church-and-state type, I don’t like the idea of a President who owes his political life to a conservative religious base. I can’t fathom George Bush’s policies on the economy and the environment. As for Iraq, while I find nothing of genius in the Democrats’ prescriptions at this point, I find astonishing the idea that the administration’s performance there is, on balance, something to reward rather than something to punish.

Curiously, then, it is not the party I voted against that is driving me nuts right now. It is the party I voted for. It’s the same feeling that I got about the Democrats after 2000: I agree with them, but I can’t stand them, in the exact same way I can’t stand anyone who would rather whine than shine.

Now as then, Democratic partisans seem to be more interested in coming off as wronged rather than defeated. We have lost an election—and so far, we are acting as if we have lost a contact lens, crawling around the red parts of the map in search of the speck of strategy that would have turned it blue. We are all set to keep on ridiculing the President’s syntax, when it is our message that no one can make sense of. The party of F.D.R. and J.F.K. has turned itself into the political equivalent of the woman who responds to her husband’s leaving her by living in her bathrobe for years: It’s O.K. for her to be miserable, so long as enough people around her know that he’s the bad guy.

In short, the Democratic Party is losing the American people—and so far, we aren’t even looking for them.

To get started, we should go with the five rules of reality-checking:

Reality check No. 1: Bush is not an idiot—and even if he were, saying so, over and over again, would not be a strategy. It would be an insult to the 59 million Americans who voted for him; a gift to anyone and everyone who wants to paint the Democratic Party as a coven of elitists—and a slap in our own face. For a group of people who pride ourselves on intellectual superiority, we seem remarkably capable of ignoring the most basic questions. Here is one: If Bush is an idiot and he has beaten us twice, what does that make us?

To hear many of this week’s wound-lickers tell it, it makes us the poor, put-upon souls who are simply too intelligent to live in this country with the moron majority. And anyway, the beef goes on, George Bush didn’t win twice. O.K., he won this once, but barely; if a few precincts in a few states had gone the other way, Democrats would be reaching for the Champagne rather than the cyanide. And his first election, of course, he stole from Al Gore.

Such is the Democratic stuff of which Republican dreams are made. Once the drama of 2000 subsided, the question that would have obsessed a vital political party was not whether the Supreme Court ought to have decided on Florida as it did. The question would have been: In a time of peace and prosperity, why was it anywhere near that close? Similarly, the real question now is not what could have been done here or there at the margins to put John Kerry over the top. The question is: If the economy is a mess and the war is a disaster, why isn’t the President a lame duck? If, as the Democrats would have it, it is so obvious that Republican policies are harmful to so many Americans on so many fronts, foreign and domestic, how is it that more than half of the Americans who voted have been solidly convinced otherwise?

If one is serious about finding answers to such questions, one can look in two places. Either their side is at least partially right on some fairly major points, or our side cannot articulate its way out of a paper bag. In neither one of those areas is the stupidity of the opponent a fruitful field of analysis.

Reality check number No. 2: Kofi Annan is not an oracle. Whenever an incumbent has a mess on his hands, it is natural for the challenger to reach for the easiest possible alternative. In the case of Mr. Bush and Iraq, the alternative put forth by Mr. Kerry was the specter of some wider, broader, happier international coalition which would allegedly make a great deal of difference on the ground.

Far be it from me to suggest that international co-operation does not have its uses, or to argue that the Bush administration has done anything other than deprive itself unnecessarily of those uses. That said, the most perfect coalition is a thing of serious imperfection. To take a quick case in point: Of all the things that makes Iraqis distrust and despise Americans, none is more pressing than the fact that after the first Gulf War, the first President Bush urged the Shia majority to rise up, then failed to support them, thereby sending countless rebels—and non-rebels—to their slaughter. Right or wrong, his decision to hold back was a function of the constraints placed upon him by the broad international coalition that he had assembled. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have assembled the coalition and then kept his word to it. It simply serves to remind that just as a coalition can buoy an effort up, it can also bog it down.

Second, it is worth bearing in mind that one of the most salient and disturbing features of the situation in Iraq is that of paralysis, and therefore it is worth entertaining the possibility that a broader and more active coalition might make that problem worse. Exhibit A is Falluja. Sickening though it is to say in light of the many innocent people who live there, it is simply a fact that that city is a home base for terrorists who are, in effect, more anti-Shia than anti-American, and whom local sheiks have proven, over a very long period of time, unwilling or unable to expel by peaceful means. As Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has long grasped, unless and until these killers are killed, Iraq will remain a bloodbath. This week Mr. Annan, for his part, advocated against the taking of any action against Falluja, without offering any viable alternative—probably because there isn’t one. Now if Mr. Annan were an oracle, he would know that inaction would lead to greater peace and stability. But since he isn’t one, it is at least as possible that a U.N.-backed approach would cause the situation to deteriorate even further.

Finally, in order to assess an argument for a greater international coalition, one has to consider what that beefed-up coalition would be expected to accomplish. No question, the arrival of more countries on board would mean a welcome sharing of the burdens of occupation. Not so clear is the link between the presence of more countries and the mitigation of horror. After all, the violent chaos in which Iraq finds itself is, in large part, the work of foreign jihadis coming in from neighboring countries, both feeding and feeding on the forces within Iraq. Thus, in order for an international coalition to have an effect on that, it would have to include nations like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Good luck.

Reality check No. 3: Michael Moore is a filmmaker of talent and a self-marketer of genius. He should never have been appointed Democratic ambassador to the working man. I bring up Mr. Moore not because I think that he played some role in Mr. Bush’s re-election, or that he doesn’t have his base-stirring uses. It’s because he so strikes me as the personification of the Democratic Party, in that he so robustly refuses to hear or see so many of the people he purports to champion. What is missing from his films is precisely what is missing from the Democratic approach to the electorate: the quality of searching. Never, in the course of viewing a Moore film, does one get the feeling that he is putting his own worldview through the paces, finding out something that he didn’t already know. Like the Democrats, he also seems to have missed American political life since 1980. He doesn’t seem to entertain the possibility that an honest-to-God, respectable, working-class American might also be a true-blue conservative, and even have reasons for being such … not reasons that a liberal has to embrace, but reasons that a non-losing liberal would have to take seriously in some way. Just so, the Democrats are on God knows what cycle of fighting a class war that is of no interest to the class on whose behalf it is supposedly being fought. The tax cut benefits the rich, so we are going to spend yet another election blasting the tax cut for benefiting the rich, never to delve into the issue of why so many non-rich Americans so manifestly could care less.

That doesn’t mean that such Americans aren’t downright wrong; one can, of course, argue that those traditionally Democratic constituencies who have defected to the G.O.P. have done nothing but hurt themselves in the process. But the task is to get those people back. Ridiculing their recent taste in candidates is an interesting way to go about this. This isn’t rocket science: If you were a blue-collar Democrat who had voted Republican for the past several elections—whether out of national pride, or social values, or a belief that the tax cut was good for you—and then somebody came along to lampoon you and all your candidates, how would you react? Would you hit yourself on the head and say, "Hey, they’re right! What have I been thinking?" Or would you say, "These arrogant windbags have no idea who I am," and go out and get a Bush-Cheney sign to stab smack in the middle of your front lawn?

Reality check No. 4: American women come in all shapes and colors. Three of those colors are conservative, very conservative and extremely conservative. Thus, it is time to shed the notion that politicians who are 100 percent for abortion rights are good for women, regardless of what else they favor. Long treated as the price of admission to viability as a big-time Democrat, this is, in fact, the flip side of the right-wing fanaticism which says that any politician who is against all forms of abortion is morally superior, regardless of what other positions he holds. Democrats would argue that Republicans are bad for women on a host of non-ovarian quality-of-life issues, too—but they sure don’t spend much time spelling that out in a way that could appeal to a woman who does not necessarily view Roe v. Wade as a gift from God.

And finally, reality check No. 5: Democrats cannot lay claim to leading a country when so many of them speak so frequently about leaving the country. The United States just had a hugely contentious, hyper-democratic election in which many people voted, nobody got killed, and the day happened to be carried by the other side. And what is the chic line for Democrats to take as a result?

"I’m moving to France."

Now that’s the way to get America back!
I agree... long read but interesting points.
__________________

__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 10:29 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 08:11 PM
The writer of that novel is very intellectual. Very honest and sincere about how some people are over-reacting to the election news. Very important points are made, I recommend it to everyone as well.
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 10:31 AM   #3
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 07:11 PM
wow. It's going to take this kind of thought for the democrats to start regaining ground again.

Well said.
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 10:36 AM   #4
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,153
Local Time: 07:11 PM
Some of the analogies and metaphors were hilarious, like...

"Women are not ovaries with feet."

"We have lost an election—and so far, we are acting as if we have lost a contact lens, crawling around the red parts of the map in search of the speck of strategy that would have turned it blue."
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 10:50 AM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 08:11 PM
Reality Check #5 is probably the most amusing to me. It doesn't apply to most democrats, but the few that take that route ruin it for everyone.

I would also like to summarize RC#3. Michael Moore may be powerful to the liberal democrats, but he has no appeal as someone who can unite America. The dems can use some new faces as spokespeople like Obama, and other optimistic, youth-appealing, working class leaders.

I might be wrong about this, but isn't Bill Clinton the only liberal democrat (very pro-choice, pro-gay, etc.) who's ever been elected president in the US?

I would have to consider Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson to be conservative democrats.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 11:15 AM   #6
War Child
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 706
Local Time: 05:11 PM
Interesting piece. I have one problem with it. It says Bush is not an idiot. Then goes on to say "if Bush is an idiot and he has beaten us twice, what does that make us?"

Bush had little to do with his re-election, or his first election for that matter. Do you think Bush could've gotten elected on his own, given his qualifications, performances in the debates, in Iraq, and in the economy? Of course not. The evil genius behind it all is Karl Rove. Rove is the one who told Bush on that fateful day in the 70s that the greatest and still growing power in the American electorate was the white, protestant evangelicals. These are the kind of people you want on your side as a politician. So Bush became one. Y'see, Evangelicals—more than any other brand of believers—are convinced they're wrong about nothing. Trust me, I know, because I AM one. We all believe OUR belief is the ONLY correct belief. We actually publish phone books so you only have to do business with fellow Evangelicals.

And that stubborness carries over on election day as well. Once they're on your side you've got 'em for life. Bush could be a presidential disaster, but as long as he got the evangelical vote, he could still win. He could get annihilated in all three debates, take us into the greatest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam, preside over the worst federal deficit in American history... and he would STILL get a vast majority of the evangelical vote. Er wait...that actually happened.

That's why Bush won. And it doesn't mean he's not an idiot.
__________________
LPU2 is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 11:57 AM   #7
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 340
Local Time: 06:11 PM
Quote:
I agree with them, but I can’t stand them, in the exact same way I can’t stand anyone who would rather whine than shine.
So she writes a column whining about how much the Democrats are whining ... and then says she doesn't like whining. No irony there.

I'd say that this entire article is based on serious misconceptions of Democratic stances (Kofi Annan an oracle?), but there hardly seems to be a point. It's an accurate account of Dem stereotypes, though. I'll give it that - apparently we're just a bunch of elitist, Michael-Moore-worshipping, baby-killing bunch. Oh, and we hate America.
__________________
strannix is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 12:17 PM   #8
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LPU2
Interesting piece. I have one problem with it. It says Bush is not an idiot. Then goes on to say "if Bush is an idiot and he has beaten us twice, what does that make us?"

Bush had little to do with his re-election, or his first election for that matter. Do you think Bush could've gotten elected on his own, given his qualifications, performances in the debates, in Iraq, and in the economy? Of course not. The evil genius behind it all is Karl Rove. Rove is the one who told Bush on that fateful day in the 70s that the greatest and still growing power in the American electorate was the white, protestant evangelicals. These are the kind of people you want on your side as a politician. So Bush became one. Y'see, Evangelicals—more than any other brand of believers—are convinced they're wrong about nothing. Trust me, I know, because I AM one. We all believe OUR belief is the ONLY correct belief. We actually publish phone books so you only have to do business with fellow Evangelicals.

And that stubborness carries over on election day as well. Once they're on your side you've got 'em for life. Bush could be a presidential disaster, but as long as he got the evangelical vote, he could still win. He could get annihilated in all three debates, take us into the greatest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam, preside over the worst federal deficit in American history... and he would STILL get a vast majority of the evangelical vote. Er wait...that actually happened.

That's why Bush won. And it doesn't mean he's not an idiot.
But that means Bush was smart enough to hire Karl Rove, right?

And why do you classify Karl Rove as evil? It doesn't seem like you read the first thread of this post.
__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 01:44 PM   #9
War Child
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 706
Local Time: 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by wolfwill23


But that means Bush was smart enough to hire Karl Rove, right?

And why do you classify Karl Rove as evil? It doesn't seem like you read the first thread of this post.
*L* Bush did not hire Karl Rove. Rove has been associated with the Bush family for 30 years and he, much like Dr. Frankenstein, created the George W. Bush that we know and love/hate today.

And I don't classify Karl Rove as evil. At least not in the Biblical sense. More in a Superfriends Hall of Justice kind of way.
__________________
LPU2 is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 03:03 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:11 AM
Personally, I've never been a big fan of MM's, and I'm still not. Yes, I saw F 9/11. It was flawed. I particularly didn't agree with his take on Hamid Karzai, who actually has pretty damn good credentials as an Afghan/Pashtun nationalist. I knew about him getting hurt in battle and hanging in there, going on to take Kandahar from the Taliban; I didn't know he'd been a consultant for a U.S. firm and quite frankly I still don't care about that. He was chosen as the leader of the country by the leaders at that big meeting of Afghan leaders in Germany. That doesn't matter?
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 09:03 PM   #11
War Child
 
mistyrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Where Life Is Worth Living
Posts: 587
Local Time: 08:11 PM
Do you have a link for this article?
__________________
mistyrose is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 09:29 PM   #12
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,153
Local Time: 07:11 PM
Go to www.newyorkobserver.com

It should be on the main page....

I'm thinking of posting the article on The Incredibles and how it's Republican propaganda.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 09:33 PM   #13
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 399
Local Time: 12:11 AM
(slightly off topic)
hey flying fumanchu... by chambana (on your profile) do you mean you went to u of i? i go to u of i!!!
__________________
Anirban is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 09:42 PM   #14
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,153
Local Time: 07:11 PM
Yeah. I went to U of I. I think zoney/ zonelistener is another U of I person. I actually noticed another Interference poster from U of Illinois, Champaign, couple of days ago. Small world.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 10:00 PM   #15
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 399
Local Time: 12:11 AM
wow..what a coincidence. i always feel left out when people talk about meeting in new york or san fran etc...
i think i shall change my location to champaign (when i registered i was at home in the burbs)
__________________

__________________
Anirban is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com