This Open Letter to the Democratic Party is all over the web this morning. A friend passed it along to me and 85% of that letter is exactly how I feel. The writer put it so well. I’d say I personally didn’t have the “fear-factor” that she mentions, and I don’t think I really wanted to vote Democratic, but what I would’ve liked is for the Democratic party to have given me a candidate and a platform that I would want to really consider making a choice for. In the end, the writer nails why I never considered voting for anyone except the President:
He won because he has values, clearly defined values, and even though I agree with little of what he believes, at least I know what he believes. At least I know that he really does believe in something. At least I know that he will do what he says he will do.
Posted in Current Events |
November 8th, 2004 at 10:49 am
I’m only through #6, but I’m seriously agreeing with most of it. I wish I could have said it like that.
November 8th, 2004 at 2:14 pm
Great link…. thanks for taking the time to post it.
November 8th, 2004 at 2:35 pm
I hope you took the time to read the comments other readers left on that site as well as reading the woman’s inital essay. While she does make a few good points, specifially that she’s not stupid, the readers that disagreed with her positions had much stronger arguments in my opinion. Here’s just one example, to compare with your quoted excerpt.
“Kerry’s position wasn’t so much unclear as it was detailed. He had his reasons for each vote, and I tend to think they wer actually the real ones, the reason they weren’t concise was because they weren’t built for campaigning, they were just his reasons. If you really listen closely to Kerry he’s coming from the same place each time.
His bottled message was the ‘wrong war wrong place wrong time’ thing, but of course there’s no attempt at all to be vague here once agian, and if you look at the war closely youll find that each of these three rejections is pretty much spot on. wrong war:it wasn’t a war on terrorism, Wrong place: Iraq, hello, I don’t see terrorists here, fascists and evil bastards sure but no terrorists, the correct place would have been afganistan, Iran and probably the isreal palistine conflict, Wrong time: george rushed, seemingly because he felt the the 9/11 wave of blind support was waning, and needed to move, and I tend to think he just can’t stand dealing with the UN, I can understand that but man this is a big world and when youre gonna start taking over other countries its not a bad idea to court a few other powers to the party, (peace is maintained in the world because of strong diplomacy) ”
Sure, you know what Bush believes and what he’ll do. It just seems that he has been wrong many times, and unwilling to admit it.
November 8th, 2004 at 5:56 pm
I also thought that the article was well written. I wish I could be that eloquent. Since I was at work, I didn’t have time to read all of the comments, but I read as many as I could (while giving the ITBS). It seemed that those who disagreed did so in a way that was rational, which was a pleasant change from what I’d been hearing in my day-to-day conversations.
November 8th, 2004 at 8:54 pm
A Response To The Open Letter
Wendy linked to an Open Letter to the Democratic Party, one person’s discussion on why they really wanted to vote for a Democratic candidate but ended up voting for the President for re-election. The letter is, in part, a listing…
November 13th, 2004 at 2:43 am
It’s sad that people fall for this rhetoric. Yes, it’s well-written but that’s about it. The worst argument of all (and one that fooled so many people over the course of the campaign) was that, because Kerry’s voting record was not completely consistent over 20 years in the US Senate, he was incapable of making reasoned judgements. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. Each issue should be considered on its own merit, in context, taking all the relevant information into account; sticking with one position no matter what the context is just stubbornness, and to some extent, sheer lunacy. Why is it wrong to vote against $87B in funding if he felt it was fiscally irresponsible (as everything Bush does is)? It’s respectable to be able to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of an issue. It’s respectable to accept the fact that personal AND popular beliefs can change over time, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Does nobody care that Bush has never admitted that he made a bad decision? The worst thing he did in four years was “appointed a few people” that he wouldn’t even name? He lied to the American people about WMD, and his irresponsible tax cuts have turned a budget surplus into a massive deficit. He doesn’t respect the separation of church and state. He wants to make the first amendment to the Constitution that would DENY rights to specific people, as opposed to the other amendments which GRANT rights (except for prohibition, which was repealed anyway). Despite the fact that the author of the Open Letter does not point to moral issues as the reason for her vote, Bush is clearly anti-gay and looks down on anyone who doesn’t believe in his “god”. How’s that for condescending?
To give someone your vote because you “know he will do what he says he will do” is the worst possible reason I can think of to give someone your vote. I fully agree that I know exactly what Bush will do, and it wasn’t entirely clear what Kerry would have done, but at least with Kerry there’s a much better chance he wouldn’t make as many selfish, irrational decisions as Bush did.
Why is it that everyone is saying the Democratic Party should adopt more moderate views, but nobody is complaining that the Republican Party is as viciously conservative as it has ever been, and moving further to the right than ever? If that trend is a reflection of how the general public is feeling, the country is in for a very disappointing few decades (or more).
November 15th, 2004 at 9:27 am
Anonymous, there are a number of holes in your comment but rather than taking them individually let me address this single statement:
“Why is it that everyone is saying the Democratic Party should adopt more moderate views, but nobody is complaining that the Republican Party is as viciously conservative as it has ever been, and moving further to the right than ever?”
The simple answer is this: because they won. A slightly more expanded answer shows that they won more convincingly than a party, as a whole, has done in over 60 years. The White House is only a piece of that. Even in that election Bush won a plurality that he didn’t have four years ago, he won three states that he didn’t win in 2000 and his margin of loss in those states that Kerry won tightened as well. The percentage of the vote that he won in almost every demographic improved except for one: 18-24 year olds. The problem is that, again, people under 24 didn’t vote in this election.
Looking more broadly, the Republicans also won a greater majority in both houses of Congress and maintained their lead in state governorships. Put that together with the wins the GOP garnered in the last mid-term cycle. Given the fact that this is the first time that a party has regained the White House and established gains in both houses of Congress since World War II, it seems like the answer to your question is simple. Politically, being conservative works for them.
I think the problem that the Democrats have is more fundamental than developing a more centrist message. They need to develop a single message that is compelling on its own merits so that they can build a liberal base to counter the conservative one. Consider that many Kerry votes were garnered as a part of the ABB crowd. The Democratic Party as it stands right now is little more than a confluence of independent issue votes, and that requires much more compromise to simply come up with a candidate.
The Republicans, OTOH, are generally more single-minded in their approach to candidacy. The conservative platform is pretty well-established and is compelling to enough people on its own merits that people buy in. Further, because they know that platform makes political hay, you don’t find candidates stepping off of that platform very often. For example, GOP legislators that voted against the PATRIOT Act say that they’re for the spirit of it, they just don’t agree with the wording. Republicans toe the party line more often because it’s clear, concise, and it works.
As a last piece of evidence, consider this point. About 40% of Americans self-identify as “conservative” compared to about 28% as “liberals”. Given that fact, all a candidate has to do is firm up her base, split the moderates and they’ll win elections. If that doesn’t demonstrate the need for a more singular and compelling “liberal” message, I don’t know what does.