Obviously I'm interested in figuring out what to do next. I'm ready to go forward and rebuild a Democratic Party that is in severe need of refurbishment. Granted, we've already seen a tremendous amount of progress, but frankly, before Howard Dean got on the spot the party was pretty decrepit.
It would be stupid to assume the Bush victory was any sort of a mandate on his governance. Millions of people are really uncomfortable about his uber-right social agenda, but they voted for him because they didn't understand the issues, they didn't really know what Kerry stood for, and they didn't yet trust the Democratic Party.
Yesterday in one of my social circle's discussion groups I jumped down a friend's throat because he called himself a "Social Democrat but a fiscally cautious Republican." I got angry because in his mind the word Democrat still gets linked with "fights for the underdog, but loves to spend money and wants to raise taxes" whereas the Republican Party had overtones of wanting to run a tighter checkbook.
In todays world, those assumptions can't be further from the truth. I pointed out that Democrats have been working hard to trim costs, reduce the size of government, and (especially under Clinton) strengthen our businesses. And for full irony I pointed out that Nixon attempted (unsuccessfully) to create universal health care and created the Environmental Protection Agency.
I don't think I saw a single campaign this year where the Republicans didn't say "[Democratic] Candidate X wants to raise your taxes. [Republican] Candidate Y thinks you know how to spend your money better than the government." I'll grant that there are probably a number of Democratic candidates who believe in social issues so much that their sense of fiscal restraint is strained, but for many many Democrats this is not the case.
But the Republican media outlets are relentless in drilling this impression so deeply into the public's deep subconscious that George Orwell could envision a more effective mind control system.
The New Republic has an article "False Dawn: The Left Still Lacks a Megaphone" that goes into this in detail. It's an interesting read. The essence is this: over the past couple years we've just now created this media infrastructure, but it's still in its infancy and competing against decades-old established Republican counterparts.
The Democratic Party needs a new PR machine. Only President Clinton seemed to have the uncanny gift for getting his message across untainted, and voters put him in office because they knew where he was headed. The Democrats suffer from the challenges of extreme diversity, and as a consequence it can take on a schizophrenic visage that Republicans gleefully exploit.
So what am I going to do about it? I think my efforts for the next four years are going to be to nurture and develop all local Democratic PR/media outlets I can. My blogging work and my efforts in creating the website for the Stonewall Young Democrats was a good start, but it needs to go the next step, and I need to figure out how to integrate with real, tangible organizations rather than just the nebulous "blogosphere".
Posted by Murray Todd Williams at November 4, 2004 06:03 AMYou might also want to point out to your friend that while the Republicans claim they want smaller government and fewer taxes, what they really want is bigger government (more government involvement in business by giving out huge subsidies to their corporate cronies) and more taxes (more taxes for middle class and lower class people, and fewer taxes for the wealthy). Don't let the guy believe the smokescreens.
Also, the Evangelical Christian vote turned out in force -- that's why Bush won. Until we on the left can understand the full magnitude of the Christian vote, and get secular folks to the polls in equal numbers, we are screwed.
See this article about the Christian Reconstructionists: http://www.counterpunch.org/bageant05252004.html
Posted by: Carole Mah at November 4, 2004 10:30 AM