Living Poor, Voting Rich (or: Why We Lost)

[Mike L]

In the coming (or current)war between the DLC and the Left-left wing, I'd like you to consider this OP-ED column from the NYT. The left-left wing must realize that middle America is moderately conservative and we can't win Presidential elections with isssues like gun bans and gay marriages floating around. We have rightly criticized Chimp for being a blind ideologue. Are we going to stick our heads in the sand and refuse to admit this about middle America?

Flame away!



NYT
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Living Poor, Voting Rich
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: November 3, 2004

n the aftermath of this civil war that our nation has just fought, one result is clear: the Democratic Party's first priority should be to reconnect with the American heartland.

I'm writing this on tenterhooks on Tuesday, without knowing the election results. But whether John Kerry's supporters are now celebrating or seeking asylum abroad, they should be feeling wretched about the millions of farmers, factory workers and waitresses who ended up voting - utterly against their own interests - for Republican candidates.

One of the Republican Party's major successes over the last few decades has been to persuade many of the working poor to vote for tax breaks for billionaires. Democrats are still effective on bread-and-butter issues like health care, but they come across in much of America as arrogant and out of touch the moment the discussion shifts to values.
--------snip--------
To put it another way, Democrats peddle issues, and Republicans sell values. Consider the four G's: God, guns, gays and grizzlies.

One-third of Americans are evangelical Christians, and many of them perceive Democrats as often contemptuous of their faith. And, frankly, they're often right. Some evangelicals take revenge by smiting Democratic candidates.

Then we have guns, which are such an emotive issue that Idaho's Democratic candidate for the Senate two years ago, Alan Blinken, felt obliged to declare that he owned 24 guns "and I use them all." He still lost.

As for gays, that's a rare wedge issue that Democrats have managed to neutralize in part, along with abortion. Most Americans disapprove of gay marriage but do support some kind of civil unions (just as they oppose "partial birth" abortions but don't want teenage girls to die from coat-hanger abortions).

Finally, grizzlies - a metaphor for the way environmentalism is often perceived in the West as high-handed. When I visited Idaho, people were still enraged over a Clinton proposal to introduce 25 grizzly bears into the wild. It wasn't worth antagonizing most of Idaho over 25 bears.

"The Republicans are smarter," mused Oregon's governor, Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat. "They've created ... these social issues to get the public to stop looking at what's happening to them economically."

"What we once thought - that people would vote in their economic self-interest - is not true, and we Democrats haven't figured out how to deal with that."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/opinion/03kris.html

[Mike L]

1. well?

Is there any way to win back middle America?

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Election reform would help, but

so would perhaps having progressives run as independents so that they can avoid being ignored due to a D by their names.

-----------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT! Take this country back one town and state at a time!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[NorthernSpy]

3. actually, economic self-interest will win out, but only IF...

... it comes couched in the same kind of polarizing, us-versus-them hate politics that the repukes use to win on religion and race. A politics that draws heavily on a feeling of "righteous resentment".

We should totally go there! We already KNOW the repukes are scared of it. I've seen outright appeals to working class folks win races for Dems in the North -- and even just consolidating our Northern base is a worthy goal in and of itself.