The Demonizing of Liberal - Election 2004

Subject: Election 2004 - An Alternate Analysis & Resultant Democratic Party Strategy

You may analyze your exit polls, agonize the issues, debate the sudden predominance of catchall 'values', and you will likely be left with little or nothing of substance. It is behind these reflections that one must look much deeper into the shadows. It is imperative we grasp, and then loosen; the subconscious verbal chains which have parted us from the vote of many of the electorate to the ‘Center of Right’. If we do not address this deeper issue of emotional enslavement, we are doomed to fail the next election.

We all clearly know Election 2004 allowed the Republicans to be falsely perceived as the Centrists, regardless of their Rightwing agenda. They succeeded because, for Republicans, politics has become a war of words, not just the issues. For many a voter, it had ultimately become just a gut feeling at the poll. If only 1% of the voters, let alone 5%, 10%, or 15%, had been able to overcome the indefensible-Right’s insidious propaganda of words, it would not be this false “mandate” of the righteous-Right. The Democrats fought this election on the tradition of ideals and issues. The Republicans fought this election on ideals, issues, and ‘definitions’.

I’ve taken my exit polls with many of my kind and well meaning, “Gotta do right by God and Country” neighbors. Their aversion to the Democrats is not in the muddy analysis of ‘values’ themselves. Their aversion is not to be found in sharply reasoned issues (if it were issues, the Democrats should have won overwhelmingly ). Many of my neighbors voted against the future of the country, “ ‘cause they feel themselves to be [in reality], just good middle of the road Americans; and couldn’t vote for Kerry”. My neighbors of the Center professed not deeply enunciated feelings with issues domestic and foreign: simply a ‘feeling’. It was, a gut instinct transmitted to them by the words and verbiage of a campaign which was the culmination of the overall, long term Republican strategy.

Strategist Rove has made Machiavelli look like a novice. Through Rove we have his creation, God’s chosen ‘Prince of the righteous-Right’, speaking for the many. Reagan and Clinton took the White House because they captured the gut and mind of Middle America. During these last two elections, Karl Rove has steadily usurped the middle through a deliberate use of both tactics based on words, and the subtlety of words themselves.

One of the greatest men of ideas in the 20th Century, the (dare we say it) French philosopher Jacque Ellul has masterfully pointed out that propaganda is not to be trivialized as just the extreme expression of outright lies (which the Republicans did not hesitate to use), but rather more powerfully, an art of taking single ‘facts’ or incidents and, to the exclusion of all else, repeating them over and over and over and over. Goebbels mastered this in the ‘30s through the advent of radio. The results preserved in those black and white newsreels of adoring crowds hailing extremism are being created today with the same methods. Rush Limbaugh, Clear Channel, Falwell (et. al.), and (to a slightly lesser extent) Fox having been beating this drum of simplistic, pointed repetition for a decade.


Rove-Republicans have colored red basic gut feelings with the crucifixion and resurrection of words; most often avoiding content or social repercussion. ‘The Death Tax’, ‘Clear Skies Initiative’, ‘Unborn Victims of Violence Act’, ‘strict constructionists’, ‘family values’, ‘American values’, ‘tax and spend’, ‘flip flop’, and Liberal, Liberal, Liberal. These words are the art of a war of terror waged within the electorate’s synaptic responses. Did the London Daily Mirror’s reaction to Bush’s re-election have it right when they said, “How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?” Let’s just say that after all the ‘bread and circus’ of, “Well, I got my tax cut!” was done, when the propaganda of misinformation was over with, and the ‘salt of the earth’ Msr. America who just wanted to do the right thing (all-the-while keeping most of their pay check) had finished voting; the wrong party for the country was elected.

As words go, with the rise of McCarthy, the word ‘Socialist’ died a permanent death in America. Though America recovered from McCarthy’s discredited hysteria; neither did the changed Pledge of Allegiance, nor the allowance of a word for a left leaning, socially conscious anti-communism. Much of the rest of the world, not bathed in this muriatic expunging, still retains this word in its historical un-Americanized context. In the same way, and through the recent activities of the radical-Right, we must recognize and must wisely accede to the mental impressions that have poisoned the word Liberal. Liberal is a word no longer visualized in the Center. Although Liberal is an inherently noble word with a noble history, words, in themselves are not worth fighting for. Together, Liberals and Conservatives felled the Berlin wall. However, when the wall fell there was no longer a Pinko or Commie boggy man to rail and rally against. Rove and his followers have calculatedly over and over and over, propagandized Liberal to equal Left, Left equal Liberal, Liberal, Left, Liberal, Left. With the fall of Communism there is nothing to the Left of Liberal. They have steadfastly pushed Liberal into the chasm vacated by Communism. They have superimposed Liberal as a gut feeling on that portion of the electorate who think mainly in terms of the most basic ‘values’ of , “Who is right and who is wrong.” The rabid-Right just says, “We’re right and you’re wrong.”. They repeat it over and over. That unfortunately is their strength. The thoughtful to the ‘Center of Right’, are unprepared and swept away in maintaining the truth that there are, “Many points of view to consider.” This jagged, one sided, ‘Branding of the Opposition’: this is where the election was lost and this is our future to avoid as Democratic Americans!

John Kerry was interviewed and answered a pointed question on whether or not he was a Liberal. He basically replied, “On some matters I can be considered a Liberal and on others I am a Conservative such as /blah.../.” With that answer, he had just put one arm in the meat grinder. He was half off center: that was the impression left in the noble gut of many of the electorate. We lose nothing by amputating words if we don’t lose our principles and ideals in doing so. Reagan would just have said, “Well there you go again.” Kerry probably should have said, “Liberal?? That is merely a word for label mongers. My actions will be to /uplift/ the great Center of this nation and /safeguard/ it from the terror with out, while /protecting/ Americans of all sides from the /hypocracy/ within /blah.../.”

The ultimate points are these. Know why we have lost; and what verbal capital we have had corrupted. Know where we will be hit next and how. The extreme-Right is not far from turning the word Democrat itself to mean, less than the ‘moderate-Center’ of this nation. We must with fairness, accuracy, and conciseness, know the power intrinsic in the repetition of the simplest messages of all: singular words and phrases. We must guard the remaining words we hold dear and covet those that allow Middle America to naturally embrace the egalitarian values which they already hold. We must be better at communicating ultimate impressions than the extreme-Right.

There remains a just, ‘Thin Red Line of 44’ preventing the next 30 years of Supreme Court darkness. The Democrat’s duty is now to protect this Nation's future against that darkness, not just a thinking of the next election and advancing to retake the Center. The Supreme Court battle must be fought wisely with the deep understanding of perception. Handled correctly it may start to unravel the emperor’s clothing. Simplifying reality, it would seem best to take the high and defensible ground where Democrats are not allowed to be inevitably assaulted (and propagandized) as ‘obstructionists’. ‘Republic’ is not their word! Instead, wrapped in the cloak of ‘upholders of the Republic’, we will have raised proudly, clear, and visible our flag: “(its not a mandate, its 49%/51% and coninue the fight!” In rolling back the darkness looming over this land, ‘Democrats of the Republic’ must/should accomplish the preservation, unification, and cleansing of the Center; astride the word ‘Republic’ itself.

Focusing on saving our Supreme Court is the sacred endeavor facing this nation. This is a simple agenda to declare before the American people. It is one which will turn upon the ideals of Constitution of this Republic. Correctly done we may come know the Bill of Rights to be more the just the Second Amendment. We can not stand back and wait for baby Bush to hang himself with his fiscal, moral and foreign irresponsibility. We can not wait for the depletion of oil to make an energy policy politically sexy. The key would seem to be defining the Supreme Court issues with intense forethought. The issue can not wait until it is dropped in our lap framed as Liberals vs. their core of American values. If we wait, the Republicans will have been allowed to frame the issues and battle cry in their terms. Democrats would only be seen represented as a pro-abortion, obstructionist minority of Congress.

Inevitably, and here, the extreme-Right must be confronted. The grass roots evangelical-Right has co-opted the Republican Party. Special interests may continue to be the head, but the semi-saved Savonarolas-of –the-Right are the cold clear beating heart of the Republican Party. There seems no way to avoid confronting them and challenging them. A klan of intolerance should not speak for the Nation. When unmasked to expose the uncompromising-extreme-of –the-radical-Right, few evangelical votes will have been gained or lost by relegating unto them alone the words, “Republican Party”. If done carefully and powerfully it will begin to undo Rove’s mastery of the previous two elections. It must be an honest cleaving of the anti-Separation of Church State activists from their usurpation of the moderate and Christian Center. In necessarily focusing on the Supreme Court and the wide platform of values it provides, we may find it to be the best and most immediate means to begin resurrecting the Democratic fortunes in the eyes of Middle America. If not, God bless America for we will surely need it.
Addendum

Furthering the theme of sacrificing and defining specific words; along with dealing with some of the major issues, I would, as an extemporaneous rough draft addendum, offer the following:

Gay Marriage
- GIVE the Righteous and the Moderates their ‘word’. Even if it becomes an issue in the Senate, give them their blanket of ‘Marriage’. On this issue alone, there were enough votes lost over ‘just a word’ to have turned the election. What a grand gesture of common sense, compromise and Centrism to offer up this sacrificial, present day ball and chain of a word!

- I offer four good reasons why principle is not at stake with reason. First it is only a word rightly defined by its present social usage. Secondly, it may frustrate, but change the party affiliation of few gay or lay activists. Thirdly, in ceding the Center and Righteous back their perceivedly stolen ‘word’, it can be done with the inclusion of a quid pro quo Bill of Civil Equality, denying little or nothing to committed couples. When all is said and done, this will actually be a major step forward for civil rights based on personhood; and, it will found to be in tune with a pacified Center. What a step forward for Party strength and National unity, all-the-while filling in the fissures rent clear across the Center in accordance with the Rove plan. What a beautiful allowance for the delightful, and at times necessary, nuances of the English language. It is, and should be, ‘usage’ which makes the cleanest change of definition. On this point, we have been equally trapped by ourselves in concert with Rove. Never again.

Pro-Choice
- The Right-to-Chose is divisive by the nature and passion of the arguments involved. It is too bad RU-47 couldn’t moot the invasive-surety of those who would relegate Woman’s return to the status of property. An emotional victory will not be decisive based on the inalienable rights of the impregnee alone. This argument should be treated with assumptive constitutional closure. The rhetoric and debate should be turned to the real issue of defining (human) ‘Consciousness’; not its present context of ‘Life’. We have been fighting a losing battle desanctifying the definition of life as a word in the minds of the middle America. Cows have life; people are supposedly created with Consciousness. While eating their steak and eggs, intrusionists talk of life and end up instead, dictating the boundaries of Consciousness enforced with the draconian invasion of our civil rights.

- This larger and deeper issue of an individual’s God given right to chose what is right for them and their family in an inclusive society, free from Court and Government intrusion, must predominate any Republican simplification based on the mantra of, “pro-Life”. One can acknowledge the pro-life contingent their opinion and activism, but it must repeatedly be put in the correct context of that not dictated by some ‘strongly-opinioned-Constructionists’. Intrusionism should not be allowed to be reduced to a single issue upon which a Party’s morals are calculatedly smeared, on which Congress should be bullied, or on which Governments should rise and fall.

- Rove will again target those proponents in the Center to re-inculcated this issue as a moral wedge. Beyond the organized moralizing of the pre and post-zygote-absolutists, this issue has often been used to substitute a gut negative association overshadowing the broader Democratic platform. Acknowledge this as a religious issue! Rightly, this issue should be defused and relegated to the arena of an acceptable difference of opinion based on the definition of ‘Consciousness’. It is a religious issue which should not be opinioned into the constitution or the courts of the Republic; let alone enforced on the liberties of the free.

Bush’s Shame: Iraq
- Support our troops until we can bring them home. Hammer home the real truth of this war as the personal choice of a man with no foreign policy experience or vision. His vision is based on a, “calling by God” to run for President. His vision is based on, “planting American values” by the crusade of “right” and force of arms. Iraq is a personal undertaking which Bush coveted long before 9/11. I don’t think the majority of ‘My Country right or wrong.’ would accept the Christian or correct course of action which might be an apology to the world. However, I do think the unfolding reality of our urban Viet Nam will show, when we do exit an inflamed Iraq with the Arab world cheering and jeering, that we didn’t have an al Qaeda problem when we went in, but we sure as hell did when we left ‘honorably’ with our dead, wounded, and deficit.

Tax and Spend (equally the hardest given the general aversion to math)
- [Here, we should legitimately usurp or co-inhabit the ‘word’ Conservative.] This will be a will be a pay as we go government in a true bi-partisan fashion with fiscal conservatives of all parties - we are the party of fiscal responsibility. First cut while leaving only that which the American people demand of their government like < ‘abc’>). Stick to the truth that if we concentrate on only the service needed and then, that only those taxes needed to pay for it will be levied; then we get back to putting the horse before the cart. Avoid the talk of taxes: focus on bi-partisan necessities, stewardship, reality and responsibility.

- We are NOT the Party of, “Lie and spend” / “Deficit and spend” / “Spend today, nobody pays” / “Fiscal irresponsibility” / … When differences are stark, it is often wise to be defined rather by what one is not. It is the opposite of trying to be all things to everyone. It also offers less of a target for the water torture of labels such as the calculated art of “flip flop” and ‘Liberal’. As we have been shown, this pre-emptive labeling means that every time any opposition must define themselves, it is through a chosen lens of predefinition.

Prayer and Creationism in our schools
- Keep God out of the cockpits of 747s and, in the name of Separation of Church and State, for the same reasons, keep Her out of our schools. We need not the appointments of , ‘intrusionist’, ‘invasivist’, ‘anti-seperationist’, ‘re-constructist’, and ‘counter-constitutionalists’. We may be one Nation under God, but if God is Unity, it still doesn’t make someone else’s God your God.

Methodology
- At present the Republicans own much of the Center by virtue of words. In the light of equal treatment, they must be removed from this contrived and unrealistic advantage. It must necessarily include the repetition and intensity learned from the Republican’s own game plan: (where justified) Right equal extreme-Right, extreme-Right equals Right, Right, righteous-Right, Right, far-Rightwing. This is unfortunately, a shedding of light on the evangelical-Right more so than the self–interest of favored corporate interests. It must need not be an attack on the value of God. It must be the shedding of light on an extreme Right who thinks their God is your God and that America is Judeo-Christian Nation making any separation of Church and State the abominated reasoning of ACLU radicals. It is a mater of fact affirmation of the Separation of Church and State. It is a political repudiation of a Right who thinks that the Scopes trial was a mistake and who claims Bush’s 51% is a carte blanche mandate from God.

- It would be better we are legitimately seen as the conciliatory and true bi-partisans who can be generally seen to have, “worked with (rubber stamped since there is little choice anyway) the majority of our President’s initiatives; but filibustered only on extreme judges.” Not only will the fight for the Courts be the right thing to do but, it can be used to selectively underline the ideals the Democratic Party stands for. It can be justified starting tomorrow by pre-emptive volleys of being reasonable in that we have approved ‘x’% of judges which Bush has put forth yet under Clinton they approved, ‘y%’ of judges. “Who’s fooling who in the name of the American People?” “Issues, you want issues? They are the issues at the foundation of the Republic: they are the issues of Constitution of the United States of America!”

- There must be a strong counter-offensive based on trivializing and refuting Republican attempts at negative labels. There must be an honest and wisely selective focus on a few of the stark difference of position. The Republicans may talk the talk with many issues of the middle class. We should therefore identify with their slogans but expose the walk. When found, duplicity and selected error (for god’s sake lets not go after flu shots and the Saudi royal family) must be framed and focused upon in the same way. Legislating is certainly not on the horizon for at least the next two years. However, using a verbal pen encompassing the wit of sarcasm, the pointed darts of humor, and the optimistic certainty of purpose, our minority position must come to be seen as the voice of reason for American family and Constitutional values.

The rest I would leave for those paid to be more familiar with the practicality of issues and the broader realities of vision.