I think the Democrats lack a clear, consistent and easily distillable message. People love soundbites, and they haven't got any. The Democratic candidate was an intellectual. A big problem with intellectuals is that they often fail with the simplest forms of rhetoric, the type that can stick with the "average" person and cement decisions in their minds. If you confuse people, they tend to gravitate towards someone who acts as if they have answers. Hence, the popularity of organized religion.
At least, that's how I see it.
I totally agree with you. However, it's just a sad day for democracy when, in order to get people to vote for you, you have to simplify your message so much that it bears no resemblance to what your actual policy is. Simple policies are easily understood, but they usually don't work. *shrug*
(And I can't believe that your ex-boyfriend didn't go WITH you to that clinic! Ugh, that's awful!)
check out springheel_jack
. i do believe this country has knocked itself so disasterously far off-course as to be unrecognizable.
i just wrote about five pages on the importance of voting, but i'm not posting it right now. i hope you have the time to post the uk's reaction to our collective short-sightedness and idiocy; i'm interested to know what they think, not what the talking heads tell us they think. cheers - there'll always be an england, as they say.
Just really quickly, I wanted to note that every British person I've met in the last three weeks - every European person as well - that I've talked to for more than five minutes has (a) immediately tried to suss out my political views and (b) been vehemently anti-Bush. These are all middle-class people between the ages of twenty-five and forty, so it probably is a somewhat biased cross-section.
bias, shmias. back here, remember, that group makes up a good part of our blood-red heartland. it's no big secret that bush isn't on anybody's hit parade (outside his own borders), it's the level of vehemence i'm curious about. i think my instincts about it are probably right.
Okay, how about this: I have yet to meet a British or European person who didn't think he was a horribly destructive, short-sighted, evangelical boor. They are deeply offended by his disregard for international input in the global decision-making process. They believe he is trying, in the most ham-handed way possible, to build an American empire without actually taking responsibility for it. They ask me (or us, if Marco is there) to explain to them why he has any kind of support from the American populace, because they simply cannot understand how someone with what they see as extreme and backwards views could have been elected.
(If you do decide to post your thoughts on the importance of voting, please let me know so I can link it here.)
oh, thank you! just what i needed!
(i will soon enough post my voting thoughts, but as the sun's almost up here it's time i return to my coffin and get some sleep.)
asks "How do we get "US" and "THEM" (the prevailing attitude this morning in everything I'm reading, and frankly, I've certainly been guilty of having it myself) to just be "US"?"
Everyone else has mostly been asking 'what's wrong with them
', 'why did we let them
do this'. I like that Scott is not following the standard divide and conquer line, because I think it's one that has been handed to America on a plate - and for very obvious, scary political reasons.
Thanks! I wish I knew the answer to that question, but I really don't. I suspect part of it probably involves not sitting around mumbling to ourselves on the internet about it, though. :-D
There is some good reading on that list. Can't wait to go through it all. Thanks for pointing it out to us with less comprehensive friends lists.
Awesome! I'm glad someone else found it useful. :-)