House of Eratosthenes

If nothing else, the 2008 election will resolve the question of whether the Democrats have been losing the White House in recent decades because of their message or because of their candidates’ inability to articulate it well.
:
After the 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 elections, Democratic leaders argued that the American people had not rejected their ideas or governing philosophy. Instead, they said, their nominee had not effectively communicated the party’s core message. It wasn’t the American people rejecting those views and values, they contended.

Whether that was an accurate reading of the electorate or a self-serving analysis by the party’s elites, it has made wonderful cocktail party fodder for years. But it has also been used as a rationale by those who didn’t see the string of defeats as a call to retool the party’s message.

These Democrats argued their politics were not out of step and there was no reason to overhaul the party message; they just needed to tinker with it around the edges and find a better communicator to make their case.

Well, give the democrat party for being consistent with itself, for once. If you think you’ve got a good message and you continue to fail at the presidential elections because your “messengers” suck so much, it would logically follow that someone with a polished talent for delivering messages would really capture your excitement.

The part about the message being perfectly decent, or adequately decent, doesn’t quite fit in though. Five elections lost in 28 years, comes to 71% failure. The same guy won the only two elections that went to the democrats in that time — so that’s five democrats out of six who lack the hunting talents to go out with this bait and bring something back. What kind of message needs a turd-polisher so impassioned and so skilled, that he has to bubble up to the eighty-third percentile before he can think about taking it on? It’s not quantum physics. It’s “vote for us and we’ll stiff those other guys to give you some bennies.” I have a reputation for making essays much longer and more bloated than they need to be, and in the verbal medium I’m not nearly as much fun to listen to as Sen. Obama, but even I managed to fit that on one line.

The editorial continues:

Nevertheless, it’s clear that if Sen. Barack Obama loses this November, Democrats will have to conclude that yes, in fact, their defeats are linked to their brand of politics, not their salesman’s communication skills.

Not only is the political playing field stacked in the Democrats’ favor — an unpopular war, an even less popular Republican president, and a slow and perhaps shrinking economy–but also their White House candidate is the extraordinary communicator in this race. Sen. Obama is clearly the most charismatic candidate and the best public speaker that the Democrats have offered in many decades. Some might say since John F. Kennedy; others might go further back.

Therefore, the argument goes, if the Illinois senator, who could sell ice to Eskimos, can’t close the deal, there is a pressing need for a serious overhaul of the Democratic mindset.

I doubt that very much. What the hell are they going to do, say to themselves “well, we tried driving a wedge between the classes for all these years and we failed, I guess America is the one garden on the globe where the weed of socialism can’t take root.” And then find a sudden hitherto-undiscovered loyalty to capitalism, free trade, the right to self-defense, the right to worship freely, to eat meat, to drive big cars, to leave the coffeemaker plugged in, to defend the country on the battlefield and in the public discourse without apologizing for doing so? To travel overseas and say “I’m American” without “sorry” tossed in immediately afterwards?

No. Obama could get creamed like Walter Mondale — which I highly doubt is what’s gonna happen — and four years onward they’ll be back to sell us the same crap. Everybody who has money must have stolen it, everybody with a different skin color is out to screw you, sacrifice is the only noble human virtue, the Constitution is a living breathing document, you’re breathing too but you shouldn’t be because you’re poisoning the planet, you shouldn’t have guns, you shouldn’t worship a god, you can’t drill for oil because the caribou will be upset, there’s nothing that can be done about high gas prices but to blame Republicans.

In short, you aren’t here to do anything, you’re here to be comfortable. And everything in your life that’s comfortable is because of us — even though our central purpose is to make sure you can’t do anything — and everything that makes you uncomfortable is because of those other guys. Vote for us, we’ll make sure you have everything you need or want, limited, of course, to the extent to which we think you should want it. You’ll eat the food we think you should want to eat, go to the schools we think you should want to go to, drive the cars we think you should want to drive, pay your carbon sin taxes, rely on a public agency to defend your family from the guy breaking into your house…and, basically, become a well-managed non-unique human ball bearing.

That kind of message has to do with preserving an aristocracy. The ivory tower types get to make up the rules as they go along, the hoi polloi down in the trenches just go where they’re told and do what they’re told. democrats have a real passion for this, and it’s the kind of passion that comes from personal insecurity and a desire to control others.

If it was the kind of “message” that would be dropped after a string of electoral defeats, it woulda happened by now. No, the message will not be changed. It is expected to endure even throughout the most discouraging setbacks; it is designed to so endure. And that’s proven easily: You’ll not hear it defined, by a democrat, with the level of clarity that was used above. It’s stated by those who seek to promote it only in vague terms, behind thick veils of obfuscation, peppered densely with buzzwords like “choice,” “wealthy,” “working families” and “environment.” Such protections are not available to messages that are subject to dismissal, if & when they are found to be bad messages. These are the protections wrapped around fake ointment products, that will continue to be sold, no matter how many people reject it or how many times they so reject.

Simply put, snake oil salesman don’t give a rip about the oil. There are the sales that are made, and there are the sales pitches that make those sales happen. That’s all that matters to the snake oil salesman. That’s one of the most reliable ways you can tell he is one.

Except for the fact that any criticism of Obama’s policies are an attempt to distract from the important issue of uniting together to elect a Democrat.
- JohnJ | 06/24/2008 @ 13:25

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

democrats’ MessageTuesday, June 24th, 2008

democrats’ Message
Tuesday, June 24th, 2008