home

A Wrongheaded Reactive Theory Of Change

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 04:44:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings writes an interesting post that includes a a reactive theory of change that strikes me as wrongheaded and even dangerous:
For that reason I think that Democrats should prepare a sort of Aikido strategy: turning our opponents' attacks against them. We should try to set things up in such a way that if the Republicans go after our candidate in an underhanded, dishonest, and despicable way, that fact will be as clear to ordinary voters as it could possibly be. . . . . . . [P]eople [are]. . . ready to see Republican scorched-earth tactics for what they [are]. . . . If we capitalize on that fact, we have the chance to change people's perceptions of the two parties in a serious and lasting way. If we do not, then this will be one more election, which the Democrats will probably win, but it will not be a game-changer.
This is wrong in almost every particular. The problem Democrats have had, as Ruy Texeira and John Halpin demonstrated, is that people do not believe they stand for anything! More . . .

Hilzoy is proposing that Democrats run an inoffensive campaign with a politically bland candidate. This is just wrong. Democrats have to fight for Democratic values, stand up for their principles, and negatively brand the Republican Party.

"People" are ready to believe the worst of Democrats because some Democrats says the worst things about Democrats and Democratic values. Hilzoy is buying into this "postpartisanship" nonsense. It is an absurdity. And NOT nominating Hillary will not bring it to be. It so happens that I think a non-Hillary candidate could best carry the Fighting Dem mantle. Obama has rejected it. Edwards has stopped fighting for it. Hillary wears it by default. In essence, all three candidates are inadequate at this point.

But Hilzoy's political prescription is the most inadequate part of all - it will lead to political disaster, the blurring of Democratic values, a mandateless Democratic win. It is the worst of all worlds imo.

< Biden's Wife, Edwards' Daughter in Traffic Accidents, Neither Hurt | Ex DA Mike Nifong Files Bankruptcy on Day Answer Due in Players' Suit >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Wrongheaded Reactive Theory Of Change | 3 comments (3 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Forever amazed (none / 0) (#1)
    by RalphB on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 05:48:57 PM EST
    at the Democrats never ceasing attempts to seize defeat from the jaws of victory.

    "Standing for Nothing" could be the party slogan and is the major reason Democrats lose and, even when they win, they have no mandate so precious little gets accomplished.

    Howard Dean, who had his own problems as a candidate, tried to change that in '04 but the voters beat him back.  That was a shame.

    Um: No (none / 0) (#2)
    by hilzoy on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:54:19 PM EST
    "Hilzoy is proposing that Democrats run an inoffensive campaign with a politically bland candidate."

    No: I'm proposing that we not run a candidate about whom many people are already predisposed to believe the worst. There's a difference.

    ""People" are ready to believe the worst of Democrats because some Democrats says the worst things about Democrats and Democratic values. Hilzoy is buying into this "postpartisanship" nonsense."

    Um: where, exactly?

    My argument, basically, is: this year, I think that a significant part of the electorate might actually see through Republican tactics. While my main reasons for supporting Obama are policy-based (and, fwiw, include the fact that he stood up against the Iraq war while Clinton and Edwards were playing dead), I think it's also very important that nominating him would dramatically increase the odds of this happening. As I try to make clear in my post, this is not because he's post-partisan, etc. It's because the Republicans have not already spent 15 years vilifying him.

    How this managed to morph into the idea that we should nominate a candidate who won't stand up for Democratic values, I have no idea.

    Simple (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:50:37 PM EST
    Because the moment people do stand up for Democratic values, a lot of people, day 35-40% of the country, is going to NOT like them anymore and be predisposed to believing bad things about them.

    You seem to believe that policy had nothing to do with the GOP dislike of the Clintons.

    Your view seems rather naive to me.

    OR you unfamiliar with John Kerry's unfavorables at the beginning of the campaign in 2004? What did he do to make demonizing him acceptable?

    Sorry, your views DO seem to believe in a post  partisan world.

    [ Parent ]

    A Wrongheaded Reactive Theory Of Change | 3 comments (3 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment