Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 February
2008 January
2006 April
2006 February
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
My Links
Google News
Salon.com
Washington Post
Trump Fires Bush Video
Bush You're Fired Tshirt.com
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Notes on the Dysfunctional Democratic Party |
| 11.20.04 (9:57 am) [edit] |
|
As that great Monday Night Football philosopher John Madden once said, “Winning is the great deodorant.” Winning allows one to overlook problems and shortcomings, and simply bask in self-satisfaction. Conversely, losing tends to lead to recrimination, overreaction and often stupid and precipitous solutions, as the despondent loser tries to come to terms with failure. This is where the Democratic Party currently finds itself, behaving as if it had just suffered a defeat of landslide proportions, one that only dramatic changes can remedy. While there are certainly reasons for despair, they stem largely from the fact that George W. Bush was one of most flawed and vulnerable candidates that the Democrats have seen in some time (yes, Bob Dole was worse), and still John Kerry could not prevail. This has given rise to a set of hurried and hysterical prescriptions for how the party should change, virtually all of them, by my reckoning, worthless. Let’s take a look at one of them: Values. The great post-election theme is values, and the pigeonholing of Democrats as the party out of step with American values. It was this concern that gave rise to the most frightening story that I’ve heard since the election: Newsweek’s report that in the final days of the campaign, Bill Clinton called John Kerry and urged him to campaign in favor of referenda that would ban gay marriage in eleven states. Here is how Newsweek put it: “Looking for a way to pick up swing voters in the red states, former president Bill Clinton, in a phone call with Kerry, urged the senator to back local bans on gay marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, ‘I’m not going to ever do that.’” While it is heartening that Kerry refused to consider Clinton’s advice, the fact that an astute politician such as Bill Clinton would offer such harebrained and cynical advice is deeply troubling, and reflects the battle going on now within the Democratic Party. One can understand Clinton’s Machiavellian calculus: Anti-gay marriage measures went 11 for 11, with the breakdown including 9 red states (Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah) and 2 blue states (Michigan and Oregon). Collectively, 20 million votes were cast on this issue, with tally running 2 to 1 in favor of banning gay marriage. This number includes a whooping 86% in that great bastion of enlightenment, Mississippi. Despite how troubling the Clinton advice is, and despite the fact that most likely, taking such a position would not have gained John Kerry one single vote, Clinton’s strategic counsel is useful for one major reason. It forces us to ponder the deeper ethical question: Are there elections that are not worth winning? Is there a point at which trying to win over those proverbial NASCAR dads involves such a retreat from principle and decency that it becomes a Faustian bargain that is not worth making? Any discussion of the future of the Democratic Party should start with a clear recognition of why the party lost it’s hold on the South in the first place; it succumbed to Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy” because the Democrats supported Civil Rights. In 1968, Richard Nixon winked at the Deep South, and let them know that he would not promote any sweeping changes in the racial landscape. Using the now-familiar code phrase of “big government,” Nixon assured southerners that he was in no hurry to enforce integration laws or affirmation actions court decrees. By deftly continuing to appeal to racial fears and broad anxiety about social change—that is, by turning the party of Lincoln on it s head-- the Republicans in 1994 ended 40 years of Democratic rule in Congress. Let me put it simply: The very policies that alienated the South were the greatest triumphs of the Democratic Party in the 20th century: The Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act, and The Public Accommodations Act. Do the country’s changing demographics and electoral demands mean that Democrats should run from this noble and progressive legacy? The existence of the now-entrenched, solid Republican South raises two questions for the Democrats: 1) How much should the Democratic platform be held hostage by a region of the country? 2) Would pretending to be “good ole boys” win the Democrats any Southern states anyway? Despite all the hand wringing, despite all the calls for centrist and southern Democrats to take over the party, I believe that the blueprint for future Democratic success can be seen by observing what the Republicans did after Barry Goldwater was walloped by Lyndon Johnson in 1964, losing 61% of the vote: The Republicans stayed the course. Indeed, when Ronald Reagan took over in 1980, Goldwater’s views were still in full force; they merely had a different and far more charming messenger. As I’ve said before, the problem with the Democrats in 2004 wasn’t the message, it was the messenger. No one fully grasped during the primary season how wobbly and easily caricatured John Kerry would be. Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post, writes of the special access that seven Newsweek writers received from the Kerry campaign, on the promise that they would not file any stories or publish any book until after the election. Kurtz summarizes some of Newsweek’s findings: “Kerry was both "cranky" and more indecisive than he was portrayed by the media. "I couldn't get the man to make decisions," said former campaign manager Jim Jordan. As late as days before the Democratic convention, Kerry was still "dithering" and presiding over endless discussions on whether to abandon public financing for the fall campaign before deciding against private fundraising. Top aides grew so tired of Kerry continuing to seek advice on issues they considered settled that they took away his cell phone.” “Teresa Kerry was a major "distraction" who "demanded everyone's attention, including her husband's." During the primaries she told Jordan: "I want you to issue a challenge for me to debate Howard Dean." On a Grand Canyon hike meant to provide footage of a happy family vacation, "Teresa was soon complaining of migraines" as the candidate kept pulling along "his sullen wife and children." Later, Kerry confidant John Sasso told her that she was being too critical of her husband and depressing his spirits. Reporters said last week that the billionaire heiress was banished to travel on her own before they could write about her impact.” However, it is the Boston Globe that put its finger on the transforming event of the campaign: "On the afternoon of Aug. 9, John F. Kerry stood on the lip of the Grand Canyon, about to make one of the biggest mistakes of his three-year quest for the presidency. A stiff wind was blowing across the canyon, and Kerry, whose hearing was damaged by gun blasts in Vietnam, had trouble understanding some of the questions being thrown his way. But he pressed on, coughing from the pollen blowing on the breeze. "Would Kerry have voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, one reporter asked, even if he knew then that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction? 'Yes, I would have voted for the authority; I believe it's the right authority for a president to have,' Kerry replied, as aides stood by, dumbfounded. . . "Back in Washington, the Bush campaign pounced: Kerry now agrees with the president! Bush media strategist Mark McKinnon crowed about Kerry's 'forced error,' while the president repeated Kerry's answer over and over on the campaign trail and the GOP later advertised the Democrat's varied Iraq statements. 'How can John Kerry protect us,' the narrator in those ads intoned, 'when he doesn't even know where he stands?'” Finally, if we needed any more evidence of John Kerry’s dysfunctional campaign, we have only recently learned that he left 15 million dollars squirreled away, unspent, from his primary campaign. This is money that could have been channeled into get-out-the-vote efforts, money that could have helped senate candidates like Tom Daschle in South Dakota, money that could have been plowed into Ohio and Florida, bolstering registration efforts among Hispanics and African-Americans. Kerry’s non-use of campaign funds is a fittingly bizarre post script to the election. Why would any candidate in such an important election leave 15 million dollars unspent? It is a disgrace that John Kerry will be a long time living down. Since it has become de rigeur to offer cures for the Democratic Party—most of which sadly involve watering down the party’s message, let me offer my own “rules for picking future Democratic candidates”: 1) Never pick a candidate who doesn’t know what he believes. 2) Never pick a candidate who starts to sweat when asked “are you a liberal?” 3) Never pick a candidate about whom people reflexively say, “He’s the nicest, most decent man I know.” This is a euphemism for “he’d make a damned weak candidate!” Pick a candidate with toughness and moxie. 4) Never pick a candidate whose spouse looks like they’re anxiously waiting for the campaign to end [prime offenders include Kitty Dukakis and Teresa Heinz Kerry]. 5) Pick a candidate who relishes the fight, who enjoys the rigors of intellectual combat, and equally importantly, is able to show it. 6) Pick a candidate who can project emotion, who is larger than life, who doesn’t suffer fools gladly, and who isn’t afraid to show anger. There are three gold-plated examples of current politicians who meet these criteria. Two of them would have beaten George Bush: Al Gore and Joe Biden. And the third would have waged a hell of a fight, may well have won, and certainly would have done the party proud. Yes, I say it and I mean it: Ted Kennedy. |
| 1 Comments |
| The Myth of Our “Coarsening” Culture |
| 11.15.04 (5:12 am) [edit] |
|
In the aftermath the 2004 election, I am forced to revisit a notion that irks me like few others, a notion that I regard as one of the great fictions of our era. My bete noire is the idea of “the increasing coarseness of our culture.” As I watched Karl Rove take his victory lap last Sunday on Meet the Press, Rove made the point for the thousandth time that voters who were concerned about values—or in his preferred term, “morals”—sided overwhelmingly with President Bush. Opined Rove: “…(people) are concerned about the coarseness of our culture, about what they see on the television sets, what they see in the movies, what they read in the newspapers, how they see the values of the country, what they see as the future for our country.” Rarely has an idea been more universally and uncritically accepted than this view—indeed this myth--that society has become increasingly coarse. Evidence for this notion centers on radio shock jocks, explicit music videos, and sexual enhancement ads on television that make many cringe. The problem is, if these are the best examples of coarseness and indecency in our society, then I have to conclude that we live in a virtual Utopia. Far from being coarser, this is the least coarse society America has ever experienced. A little historical perspective is in order: 1) A few generations ago, in 1964, Lester Maddox of Atlanta, Georgia, became the darling of his community by standing in front of his restaurant, the Pickrick, with a pick-axe in his hand to ward off any black customers. In doing so, he was thumbing his nose at the 1964 Public Accommodations Act, which explicitly forbade such discrimination. On June 3, 1964 Maddox swung the pick handle and smashed the hood of the car of a black minister who was attempting to eat at Maddox’ restaurant. Maddox also waved a 22 caliber pistol around, and as a result, was indicted on gun charges. He was later acquitted of all charges by an all white jury. Two years later, in 1966, the citizens of Georgia showed their appreciation by electing Maddox governor of the state (after Maddox defeated in the primary a fellow Georgian named Jimmy Carter). Say what you will about Howard Stern, rap videos, and Cialis ads; the story of Lester Maddox is the quintessence of coarseness by an individual, a state, and a society. 2. In 1957, Little Rock, Arkansas was something of a model of civility by southern standards: By 1957, three years after Brown v. Board of Education, seven of Arkansas’ eight universities had been integrated; the law school had been integrated since 1949; the buses, the zoo, and the public parks had been integrated by 1957. However, Little Rock reached its limit of tolerance when it came time to integrate its public high schools. The focus of attention was Central High School in 1957. On September 2, the night before the start of the new school year, Governor Orval Faubus dispatched the Arkansas National Guard to prevent any black students from entering Central High School. Integration was temporarily forestalled, as twenty days passed before a Federal judge overturned Faubus’ order. The judged mandated that the nine new black students be admitted to Central High School. On September 23, 1957, Central High was surrounded by Arkansas troops, and the Little Rock Nine, ages 15-17, were snuck into the school through a side door. When the group of 1000 white demonstrators who had gathered in front of the school learned that the black students were inside, they became irate, beating reporters, throwing bricks, breaking windows, and surging toward the school. Inside the school, the black students were tripped, spat upon and threatened. Civil rights activist Daisy Bates recalls mothers screaming to their children, “Come out! Don’t stay in there with those niggers!” The situation became so dangerous that the Little Rock Nine were evacuated by noon that day. The editor of the Arkansas Gazette described the situation this way: “The police have been routed, the mob is in the streets, and we’re close to a reign of terror.” Subsequently, President Eisenhower intervened, and under the protection of the 101 Airborne Division paratroopers, the black students were able to finish the school year. Even though each black student was initially assigned a personal protector, the white students made their experience hellish. Here is how civil rights activist Daisy Bates described it: “To ensure that the Little Rock Nine could complete a full day of classes, President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock. The 101st patrolled outside the school and escorted the black students into the school. In addition, the black students were assigned a personal guard from the 101st who followed them around the school. Still, they were subjects of unspeakable hatred. White students yelled insults in the halls and during class. They beat up the black students, particularly the boys. They walked on the heels of the blacks until they bled. They destroyed the black students' lockers and threw flaming paper wads at them in the bathrooms. They threw lighted sticks of dynamite at Melba Pattillo, stabbed her, and sprayed acid in her eyes. The acid was so strong that had her 101st guard not splashed water on her face immediately, she would have been blind for the rest of her life." "Gradually, the 101st Airborne left Central High and the black students were left to fend for themselves. By the time Christmas rolled around, they were certainly ready for a vacation. Unfortunately, vacation did not come soon enough for Minnijean Brown, who dumped her lunch tray over the heads of two boys who had been taunting her on December 17th. Even though the boys said that they "didn't blame her for getting mad" after all the insults she had endured over the course of the year, Minnijean was suspended for six days. She was "[r]einstated on probation [on] January 13, 1958, with the agreement that she would not retaliate, verbally or physically, to any harassment but would leave the matter to the school authorities to handle." But she was expelled in February after she called a girl who was provoking her "white trash." The whites in the school were jubilant, making up cards that said, 'One down...eight to go!'" The following year, however, rather than continue to integrate the high schools, Governor Faubus closed the public high schools, forcing the black students to take correspondence courses. In 1959, Central High reopened. The stress of these incidents took their toll on the Little Rock Nine, as some parents of the children lost their jobs, and others were forced to move away. When the school reopened in 1959, there were 4 students left from the original nine. Two of them were sent to integrate a newer school, Hall High. Of the original Little Rock Nine, three graduated from Central High: Ernest Green, Jefferson Thomas, and Carlotta Wells. While this story is on the one hand a profile in courage, on the other it is a profile in coarseness, immorality, and indecency. Remember it the next time some Bible thumper waxes nostalgic about the good old days when morality and decency reigned. Emphatically suggest that they read a little history. 2) In 1934, Walter White, the head of the NAACP, presented evidence to First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt of the thousands of lynchings that had taken place in the South since the end of Reconstruction. White’s goal was to have the First Lady enlist FDR in the fight to enact the Costigan-Wagner bill, a federal anti-lynching bill. Despite the fact that the NAACP had put together a catalogue of brutal murders (many of them done in the name of “Christian values”) that would make a modern-day terrorist proud, despite the fact that such lynchings constituted the largest collection of unsolved murders in the nation’s history, FDR did nothing to support the bill. Why? Because Roosevelt did not want to expend political capital on this issue that he felt he would need on other legislative matters. In truth, despite the fact that FDR tolerated Eleanor’s activism, the White House clearly regarded the NAACP’s campaign as a nuisance and an irritant. Eleanor’s famous letter of response to Walter White is a model finesse and diplomacy, putting her husband’s political timidity in the best possible light: “The president feels that lynching is a question of education in the states, rallying good citizens, and creating public opinion so that the localities themselves will wipe it out. However, if it were done by a Northerner, it will have an antagonistic effect. I will talk to him again… I am deeply troubled about the whole situation as it seems to be a terrible thing to stand by and let it continue and feel that one cannot speak out as to his feeling. I think your next step would be to talk to the more prominent members of the Senate.” Numerous anti-lynching bills were proposed, and some made it through the House of Representatives, only to be stopped by senate filibusters which trumpeted “states’ rights.” Consider the horrific irony of a country that now has a doctrine of “preemption” for foreign terrorism, but when confronted with domestic terrorism, took no federal action for the first two-thirds of the 20th century. Indeed, the coarseness of those times is embodied in several representative lynchings, taken from the thousands that occurred (the NAACP has documented 5,200 lynchings but clearly there were more, since many were deemed unworthy of notice by authorities): 1) Emmett Till. In 1955, a fourteen year old boy from Chicago, visiting relatives in Mississippi, whistled at a white woman in a grocery store. Several days later he was kidnapped in the middle of the night, and was found later, shot, beaten, and burned beyond recognition. An eye was cut out, an ear was missing, and he had been shot in the head. Two men were detained and put on trial before an all-white jury. They were acquitted after a mere hour of jury deliberation. Once acquitted and free of the fear of further prosecution, the two men described how they had committed the murder in an article published in Look Magazine, for which they were paid $4000. If there is any consolation to this story of inhumanity, it resides in the strength of Emmett Till’s mother, who insisted on an open casket at his funeral to show the world the nature of the brutality visited upon her son. At the funeral in Chicago, 50,000 people viewed the casket. Recently, new evidence has emerged that may result in indictments of other participants in Emmett Till’s lynching. One new suspect is the very woman, Carolyn Bryant, who was the original object of the whistling. 2) Violla Liuzzo. In 1965, Viola Liuzzo was a white 39 year old, housewife from Detroit Michigan. She had watched the work of the “Freedom Riders,” civil rights workers from all over the country who were challenging illegal segregation in all forms of interstate transportation in the south—buses, trains, planes. She had closely followed the great voter registration efforts taking place at that time. But what really pricked her conscience was the death of Jimmy Lee Jackson, a 26 year old black civil rights worker, who was slain by police during a voting rights demonstration in Selma, Alabama. Even during an era rife with brutality, the death of Jimmy Lee Jackson Jackson struck a particularly agonizing chord among the civil rights community. In response to Jackson’s death, Rev. Martin Luther King called for a peaceful march of protest from Selma to Montgomery Alabama. On March 7, 1965, the march, now known as “Bloody Sunday,” took place, as 500 marchers were beaten with clubs as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Congressman John Lewis (D-Ga) was brutally beaten on Bloody Sunday, and bears the scars today. Subsequently, Rev. King sent out a telegram to all people of conscience across the country, particularly clergy, to join the movement. One clergyman who responded was Rev. James Reeb, a white male and a Quaker, who administered tirelessly to the Boston poor. He arrived in Selma on March 9. On his first day in Selma, Reeb was beaten by an angry mob of whites, and died two days later. On March 8, Viola Liuzzo decided that she had a moral obligation to participate in the civil rights struggle in Alabama. Her drive from Detroit to Selma took three days. Once in Selma, Liuzzo helped with the essential support work of such a complex operation: first-aid, transportation, and orientation. She walked the final leg of the Selma-to-Montgomery march, which ended in Montgomery on March 25, 1965. The march, which began with 3200 activists, was 25,000 strong by its conclusion. At the end of the march, Liuzzo, along with African-American activist Leroy Moton, drove several marchers back to Selma. Here is how writer Joanne Giannino describes what happened next: “Gary Thomas Rowe was a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) informant and a member of the Klux Klan (KKK). According to his court testimony, events transpired as follows. After the passengers were delivered, he and three other members of a KKK "missionary squad"—Collie Leroy Wilkins, Jr., William Orville Eaton, and Eugene Thomas—spotted Liuzzo and Moton stopped at a traffic light in Selma. They followed her car for twenty miles. While she attempted to outrun her pursuers, she sang at the top of her lungs, "We Shall Overcome." About half way between Selma and Montgomery the four men pulled their car up next to hers and shot at her. Liuzzo was killed instantly. Her car rolled into a ditch. Moton escaped injury.” It should come as no surprise that no one was convicted for Viola Liuzzo’s murder, though three men did receive 10 year sentences for violating her civil rights. Hence, in one bloody month in March of 1965, three noble citizens were martyred in Alabama for the “crime” of seeking social justice. In 2002, the Selma Memorial Plaque, honoring the memories of James Reeb, Jimmy Lee Jackson, And Liola Liuzzo was dedicated at the Unitarian Church Headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts. Even today as we register our shock at the ethnic strife in the Middle East, or the Balkans, how easily we forget about the ethnic brutality here at home, just forty years ago. It couldn’t have been more shameful or coarse. If it sounds like I am singling out “red states” in my examples--the cradle of the contemporary Republican Party--to some extent I am. I could just as easily have written about the violent response to busing in South Boston, or the rabid reaction to Martin Luther King’s 1963 march through Cicero, Illinois. I chose the examples I did because the preponderance of voters who claimed that “moral concerns” guided their 2004 vote, not only live in such “red states," but moreover, many of them lived through the atrocities of the 1960’s. It is my continuing frustration that if the Jerry Falwells, the Pat Robertsons, the Trent Lotts, and the Karl Roves of the world ever expressed outrage over the coarseness and inhumanity of society during that era, I never saw it. |
| 3 Comments |
| Election Post-Mortem: Winners and Losers |
| 11.05.04 (3:20 pm) [edit] |
|
Pardon the hiatus in my blog entries, but I am just coming out of the funk into which the 2004 election threw me. It is now time to take a step back from that heart-breaking outcome and look not only at the storm clouds ahead, but also at any silver lining that can be found in those clouds. It is in this spirit that I identify in this blog entry, the big “winners” and “losers” of election 2004: 1) WINNER: "Machismo theory." Once again it was borne out that the candidate perceived by Americans to be tougher and stronger, “the better leader,” won the presidential election. This election trend is so robust that Democrats need to actively consider this dynamic in choosing their future nominees. 2) LOSER: Clinton bashers. Remember all those “sophisticated” pundits who told us that Bill and Hillary in their heart of hearts wanted John Kerry to lose? I said at the time that such pundits were idiots, and my view was squarely confirmed by events. Let’s tell it like it is: Bill and Hillary worked their asses off for John Kerry. Bill Clinton lugged his weary body from state to state, campaigning passionately for Kerry, while Hillary was a prominent presence as well, particularly in Florida. Whatever Hillary’s political future, her support of the Kerry/Edwards ticket was both strong and admirable. 3) WINNER: Barack Obama. The most impressive politician in this election cycle, bar none, was Barack Obama, senator-elect from Illinois. Not only did he put a severe whupping on sad-sack opponent Alan Keyes without even breaking a sweat, Obama offered the Illinois electorate an uncompromising progressive agenda, and articulated it with such clarity, confidence, and brilliance that he brought the Illinois voters along with him--both through the difficult primary and the main election. He stands as a shining example of how a liberal philosophy can be a winning philosophy, as long as it is offered clearly and cogently. Further, Obama was one of the few major figures who did not succumb to war fever at the time of the Iraq War Resolution. Along with individuals like Ted Kennedy and Bob Graham, he saw that the evidence for war was fraudulent right from the start. To give credit where credit is due, let’s list the 21 Democratic senators who voted against the war resolution: Daniel Akaka, HI; Jeff Bingaman, NM; Barbara Boxer, Cal; Robert Byrd, WVa, Kent Conrad, ND; Jon Corzine, NJ; Mark Dayton, MN; Dick Durbin, Ill; Russ Feingold, WI; Bob Graham, FL; Daniel Inouye, HI; Ted Kennedy, MA; Patrick Leahy, VT; Carl Levin, MI; Barbara Mikulski, MD; Patty Murray, WA; Jake Reed, RI; Paul Sarbanes, MD; Debbie Stabenow, MI; Paul Wellstone, MN; Ron Wyden, OR. Perhaps it is even more illuminating to list the names missing from this profile of courage. Here are some of the big names to support the resolution: John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Chuck Schumer (yes, when you're a senator from “ground zero,” the pressures to play “super patriot” are great), Joe Biden, Tom Daschle, Chris Dodd. To put it bluntly, as a senator, the higher your political aspirations, the more likely you were to get it wrong on the resolution. LOSER: Focus groups. Remember when Al Gore ruefully acknowledged several years after the 2000 election that if he had it to do over again, he would have said to hell with the consultants and focus groups, and simply campaigned from the heart? Clearly John Kerry learned nothing from the Gore experience. From focus groups, Kerry got such nuggets of wisdom as the need to make the Boston convention “nice,” because the focus group didn’t like “negative” campaigning. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Believing focus groups that say they like high-toned rhetoric, is like believing Nielsen families who say they only watch Masterpiece Theater on TV. Some day the Democrats are going to find a candidate who believes enough in his message that he doesn’t need to pre-test and pre-package his views. That candidate is going to win. WINNER: Joe Biden. As the campaign progressed, the most powerful voice against the incompetence of the Bush war effort was Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. Not only were his critiques of the war devastating, they were so statesmanlike in nature that he typically received the rhetorical backing of Republicans like Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and John McCain. No one will ever convince me that Kerry wouldn’t have won with Biden as his sidekick. LOSER: Teresa Heinz Kerry. First ladies don’t matter, you say? During the campaign I was shocked in my random surveys to learn how often Teresa Heinz Kerry was brought up by people as a reason not to vote for John Kerry. Teresa Heinz Kerry was perhaps the least appealing First Lady aspirant in our lifetime. Her internal censor broke down far too often, she gave off the consistent vibe that she loathed the campaign experience, and frankly didn’t look all that fond of John Kerry either. Those are three characteristics that are sure to alienate your constituents. WINNER: Jon Stewart. Despite his recent juvenile outburst on Crossfire, Jon Stewart had a sensational year, skewering the high and mighty in hilarious fashion, and bringing some degree of political awareness to many in the public who are typically too self-absorbed, apathetic, and amoral to believe that politics matter. Stewart will continue to be a force to be reckoned with well into the future. LOSER: John Kerry. Back in the beginning of the primary season, when progressive friends of mine from Massachusetts warned me about John Kerry, saying that he could be at times opportunistic and jelly-spined, I pooh-poohed them, and felt that they were exaggerating. However, they were right and I was wrong. What happened in election 2004 is that John Kerry’s karma caught up with him. When you consistently poll second to George W. Bush in strength and leadership, you know that you are doing something wrong, sending out bad signals about your own character. When deep into the campaign, you cannot give a clear answer to the question, “If you knew then what you know now about WMD, would you have supported the war resolution?” frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself. When over a period of 3 months you cannot give a cogent answer to questions about your vote against the $87 billion appropriation—something like, “I strongly believe that when you fight a war, you don’t ask your children to pay for it; my vote was an attempt to force the president to not only support the troops, but to also fund them”—then you are a bad candidate. When during the entire campaign you run away from the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay scandals—scandals which, now that the election is over, will soon metastasize into worse messes than we ever dreamed--like a puppy with its tail between its legs, then you are a flawed candidate. And when you rely on focus groups, rather than your own seasoned political judgment of twenty years, you deserve to become a negative role model for all future candidates. WINNER: John Kerry. Whatever his many flaws as a candidate, flaws which at times gave one a deep nostalgia for Howard Dean, I salute John Kerry for throwing his heart and soul into the campaign. In football parlance, he left it all on the field. Kerry was a tireless campaigner, and truly gave every ounce of energy that he had. Indeed, the demands of running against an incumbent president (however defective that president may be) are Herculean in nature. The one thing the Kerry did, was out-work and out-hustle George Bush. The fact that his great energy expenditure did not succeed is disappointing, depressing, and maddening in nature. However, out of the shambles of this disastrous election, I expect all of us in the progressive community to draw from John Kerry’s energy and tenacity, and emerge stronger than ever to fight the good fight. |
| 1 Comments |
I'm a psychologist in Washington, DC, and have a progressive outlook on today's political scene.
jeffrowan111@aol.com Jeff Rowan, Ph.D.