In 2004, the hand wringing was constant and it was difficult to watch. It was difficult to watch because the reason we lost became painfully clear. Somehow over the last 30 years, Democrats stopped being authentic.
We stopped being the party of the people, and only for the people. The public came to view us as “the Government Party” that was more interested in being part of government than in connecting with regular people. We stopped sharing our personal beliefs and only shared our policy proposals. We stopped giving people a reason to trust us and voters began to doubt our convictions. And we stopped believing that giving voters a sense of who we are and where we come from was a critical part of communicating. It never stopped being important to voters, but somehow it stopped being important to Democrats.
If Democrats are not in sync with what is important to voters, then how can we be authentic–how can we regain their trust?
–al quinlan (real clear politics)
that’s exactly the point. issues matter. authenticity also matters in elections. of course voters want candidates who agree with them on issues that are important to them, like abortion, religion, and guns…but i believe that we also want them to be people who are geniune in their words and their actions. we want people that we can respect and people that we can trust. credibility is more easily achievable when a candidate takes consistent positions and doesn’t just pander to the groups that are politically popular. (this applies to both republicans and democrats.)
at times i do enjoy watching the democrats struggle. i’m partisan like that. it’s just that i don’t think that the average democrat is satisfied with the way the democratic leadership is representing their views. i also think it’s sad that the democratic leadership doesn’t seem to be interested in listening to that average democrat, and instead takes its marching orders from daily kos and arianna huffington. it shouldn’t be that way. if we really want to have a debate on ideas, and not just on personality/charisma, then we must have two strong alternatives. that’s not where we are with the republicans and democrats, who are currently looking to polls for their principles.
anyway…enough of me. read a better argument. read more of quinlan’s post here.
Technorati Tags: democrats
Based on your criteria for voting for a candidate you couldn’t possibly vote for a Democrat, they have no ideas, they pander to get votes and they have absolutely no consistancy.
Jon,
The Democrats do have ideas, but the problem is that those ideas are not easy to sell to the American people. I’m sure that the Democrats would say the same thing about Republicans, that we pander to get votes too, and I think there’s some truth to that. The difference here is that the groups Republicans cater to seem to have more popular support than the far-left groups that the Democrats are trying to appease. It’s a political truism that if you want to win, then you move to the center. Apparently Democrats want to test the conventional wisdom on this. Good luck to them.
I’m inclined to write off the the whole Democratic party, but I think at some point they will figure out how to change so that what they believe becomes more acceptable to the average person. I’m not sure how long it will take them to get to that point, however.
The Democratic leadership can’t even command the attentions of its supposed loyalists. The kindest thing one can say about them is that they’re very confused — unable to capitalize even on large and obvious opportunities.
Sheesh. I guess I prefer it that way. I have no illusions that the Democrats would under-spend the Bush Administration or the GOP-dominated Congress, and as for the War on Terror, is comment really required?
I agree. I don’t know if the president and his fellow Republicans in Congress have done everything right in fighting the War on Terror, but I’m not convinced that the Democrats have a better alternative plan for fighting terrorism.