It was the clever graphic at left that first caught my eye. But the article which accompanied it by Jason Bradfield, a once-conservative activist who came to his senses and is now working towards progressive pragmatism in D.C., explains what might have been going through a Bush voters head in 2004 — from the perspective of someone who had voted for Bush in 2000.
He analyzes the way which progressives may be able to speak to the “hyper-individualistic ‘me-first’ worldview” of so many of those voters in the future.
It’s a fairly heady but extremely articulate analysis as is Bradfield’s own blog “Random Thoughts of an Ex-Conservative”. Both are well worth the read.
This is a very good article as far as it goes, but in my view it doesn’t even touch the main issue.
I agree with him about the need for unity of purpose and clarity of vision, but we need a lot more than that!
Here’s the conclusion of the article:
"… the Republican party did not win this election, the conservative movement did and they started campaigning over 30 years ago for the hearts and minds of the American people. It is past time for a new generation of progressives to learn from the successes of Right and build a political movement of their own. The future of the Democratic party depends upon it."
I would say:
"The Republican party did not win this election, the voting machines did. It is past time for a new generation of progressives to learn from the successes of Right and build their own voting machines."
😉
I agree with the last writer. I know it is still in the realm of "Leap of Faith", but we won, and a good through scouring of all the votes would prove it. Nothing is more important right now than getting that straightened out. I also agree, we need a better use of our language to persuade the undecided, or the still malleable. Some of the brains of the right can never be reached. They just see the world differently. But in their hearts, most of the population agrees with the progessive views. Sometimes, they just don’t know it. pj
And I agree with both of you 🙂
I should have mentioned in my original piece that Bradfield takes for granted that "conservatives" (which is not what they are, but we’ll call them that) did indeed "win" (which I don’t believe they did either).
That said, inside of the fact that they were able to bottle and sell their "message" as effectively as they did in light of the complete and utter disasters of one of the most poorly run Administrations in the history of the country, there are lessons to be learned.
Sure, we could just start lying about everything, as they do, but I don’t recommend it. I do, however, recommend looking at some of the items Bradfield hits upon. Had progressives done so before the election, than *no* amount of stealing this election could have *possibly* succeeded. Had the pre-election polls been more like 80%-20% for Kerry as they should have been if the Dems had either an educated populace, or a program in place to counter the brilliantly orchestrated campaign of conceit and corruption that the Right orchestrated, then the country could not have tolerated the shenanigans that — for now — gave Bush a "victory".
A lot too goes back to the dissolution of the Fairness Doctrine in 1988 by Reagan, which I look forward to delving into here whenever the next phase is able to begin.
interesting article. I agree with the above posts that sorting out this electoral mess is of the utmost, but even with that, Bush still got at least 40% of the votes. How’d that happen? What are progressives doing wrong? And HOW do we come up with a clearer message? and HOW do we make the progressive message appeal to someone with a me-first attittude? How can we clearly and simply explain how we are all related and that voting for your fellow man helps you?
Why don’t you guys just use "liberal" instead of "progressive." That is what you are. Why are you afraid of that label?
Your message is getting out and it is hurting you. We get it loud and clear. Keep on trying to get your message out, repackage it to try and fool people, and the Republicans will keep winning!
I have a list of 45 communist strategies for America that was put into the congressional record in 1963. It reads like the Democratic Party platform. It says to take over one of both US political parties. Well, the party with the most liberal, socialist, and communist ties is the Democratic Party. So, they have succeeded in getting at least one party.
So…lemme guess, Paul. You didn’t bother to read the linked article.
Big surprise. Too bad, it’s all about folks like you!
I read the stupid article!
Paul, you may have read the article, but clearly you didn’t understand it. Typical. This election was the "Triumph of the Ignorant".