Jagged Knives in the Candidate Selection Process: Good Idea?

[AuntiePinko]

Dear Auntie Pinko,

I am supporting a certain Democratic candidate for President in 2008, who I’m not going to name, because that’s not the point. What I want to know is, is there any possibility that the Democrats will win the election in 2008 and be able to put together an effective Administration, since the only Democrats running, including my candidate, have something seriously wrong with them? And the ones who haven’t declared but are likely to run all have something seriously wrong with them, too?

I mean, if the Democrat who runs for President only gets nominated because all the wrong people are using money or influence or whatever to get them there so that they can keep screwing the American people, what’s the point? It doesn’t seem like there are any good Democrats to run, they all have something wrong with them. They’re un-electable, or they’re tools of the DLC, or they’re pro-NAFTA, or they voted wrong on something ten years ago, or whatever. And if someone like that gets elected, how can they ever do anything right? Even if they try, other Democrats who know what bad people they are won’t trust them and they’ll only end up selling out to (name your favorite group of villains here.)

I guess it’s obvious that I’m being sarcastic but I really wonder if we can get all the way to the other side of the 2008 election without self-destructing or making it so difficult for whatever Democrat runs that they won’t be able to do the job effectively even if they are elected. Auntie, how should Democrats pick a candidate? Give everybody jagged knives and let them fight it out until only one is left breathing? Is there any other way?

Sandra
Newport, RI


Dear Sandra,

Democrats have never been very good about things like unity, and compromise, and so on. It may seem as though we have too many dedicated watchdogs for various concerns and issues snapping and snarling and mistrusting each other, and the only time we’re ever able to come together on anything is when we have a strong Republican opposition to work against. (And some would argue we don’t manage it even then.) The Party as a whole will never be activist enough in this or that area to make this or that group happy. The Party as a whole will always be too activist in this or that area to make this or that other group happy. There’s always some Democrat, somewhere (not too far away, usually!) to explain why the Party has sold out, screwed up, and is on the way to the hot place in a handbasket.

Perhaps the most difficult aspect of living with a two-party system is that those two parties each have to somehow encompass the wants, needs, and concerns of fifty percent plus one of all Americans. Given how diverse our wants, needs and concerns are, that’s an unreachable goal. And it does seem as though, in the last forty years, we have forgotten that we all need to give a little, cooperate a little, delay gratification a little, and even compromise a little on what we want or need, so that others can feel they are getting some of what they want, too. And we have certainly forgotten how to be gracious, resigned, or even polite when compromise is forced upon us.

The more we end up despising and disliking those we disagree with, the more they will dislike and despise us. We are losing the art of living comfortably with differences among ourselves. That has some pretty grave implications for the tattered social contract enshrined in our Constitution, where we promise to respect one another’s rights, and find peaceful, equitable solutions to our problems and differences.

A very nasty genie was uncorked when Mr. Gingrich and others decided that hate, fear, contempt, anger, and division were useful tools and worthy to bring into the body politic to achieve their ends. We have been living with that foul miasma so long that I think some people have forgotten there is any other way to operate, or that any other tools can be effective. We can see the signs of it when Democrats put as much venom and determination into tearing down other Democrats, as they do into opposing Republicans.

But there are other ways. Instead of saying (for instance) “How can you support Candidate X, when Candidate X is so bad?” We could say “Well, you may support Candidate X, but I prefer Candidate Y because I think s/he would do a better job because (reasons.)”

There is no denying that negative campaigning is effective. That’s been proven again and again. But just because something is effective doesn’t mean that it is a good idea to do it. Sterilizing people with genetic handicaps would be effective at reducing the number of genetic handicaps passed on to future generations, but does that make it a good thing to do? Burning down a house will solve the problems with mold in the walls, but it’s not something we should encourage.

I doubt that anything Auntie Pinko could write will keep Democrats who feel passionately about their concerns from attacking other Democrats who don’t share those concerns or who differ in their views. Nothing Auntie Pinko could write will prevent some Democrats who feel passionately about their concerns from believing that those who differ with them shouldn’t even call themselves Democrats. We all know those folks. Most of us are those folks at some point or other (I know I have been!)

If there’s a ray of hope on the horizon, Sandra, it’s in the reality that the Republican Party will have a very difficult time effectively opposing almost any Democratic candidate in 2008. They don’t appear to have many potential candidates who will have enough appeal to pull together strong, unified support within their Party, and they’re very unlikely to be able to appeal to swing or undecided voters with any of the current crop of hopefuls. They are (for now, anyway,) a spent force with little more than money, the energy of fanatical intra-party factions, and a real talent for sleazy and unprincipled manipulation of the political process among their current leadership. I think it will take them another ten or fifteen years to re-make their Party into something that can effectively appeal to fifty percent plus one Americans.

In the mean time, Democrats who care about restoring viable ways for three hundred million people with very diverse views and concerns to live together in reasonable peace and prosperity need to work hard. We need to model civil public discourse, substantive public debate, and informative communication. We may be in a minority, even in our own Party (although I think it’s a large minority!) but I do feel America is reaching the point of revulsion with the status quo. Persistence might help turn the tide.

Keep telling people why you think your candidate would be a good choice, Sandra, and listen politely to their differing opinions, and try to avoid getting into slanging matches no matter how tempting. Maybe others will get the hint, and thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!

[bluescribbler]

1. As Will Rogers said,

"I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." It's just as true now as it was then. What we need to do is to avoid the circular firing squad which has plagued us so often in the past.

[Stevepol]

2. I'm not so sure negative campaigning works. In fact, I think the reverse is often true.

In the Max Cleland election, for example (GA, 02), Chambliss and the Publicans tried to smear him as a candidate because of his weakness on defense. Cleland almost certainly won the election and probably by more than the pre-election polling would indicate (he was ahead in most polls by about 5% points. The voting machine results are absolutely irrelevant in terms of the REAL vote. The voting machines had him losing by about 8% I think, which is next to impossible and certainly didn't happen). In this case, I think the negative campaigning actually helped the candidate.

In some cases I think it might be true that negative campaigning helps, especially if the smear comes very close to the election or if there is a good basis for the smearing. And of course if the vote counting is fair, which is not really possible in America any more.

I think it's about half and half. Negative campaigning works about half the time and has the opposite effect about half the time. In Cleland's case, I feel sure it caused those who were drawn to Cleland in the first place to reject the negativity and in fact to be more strongly drawn to him because of his military background and hero status.

[swwallace81]

3. Max really

got screwed by Saxby "my knee hurts too much to go to 'Nam" Chambliss. Auntie is right in the fact that Democrats have to remember that they can't always have it all. As the Stones say, you can't always get what you want. But instead, we fight about so-and-so not doing enough, not pushing harder, not whatever. Republicans start with 35% of the population who will vote republican no matter what. We only have about 20% so splintering to a Ralph Nader only helps the repubs. Was John Kerry perfect, no. But I would have voted for a trained seal before I voted for Bush. Later, I changed my mind to think I would have voted for an untrained seal! I wish the dems could adopt the old Reagan policy of not criticizing fellow repubs. Of course that worked for Reagan since he was so popular, and coming from behind adds a sense of urgency that candidates can't get past. Sorry to ramble.