Reply #171: I would like you all to read the article in its entirety ... [View All]

[PittLib]

then comment.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253472&kaid=124&subid=307

This is what are really talking about ... not our like/dislike, trust/mistrust of Kos. I read it, and I can't make sense of it. It seems to be a Republican strategy. Democrats should criticize them for their actions, but somehow emulate them as well. It is a plan on how to win over the average American with language ... yet without actually clarifying where we stand, rather playing on base emotion.

Take these paragraphs for example:

"When Americans ponder such questions today, their frame of reference is not the Vietnam War, but Sept. 11, 2001. The terrorist attacks evoked the most powerful upsurge in patriotic feeling since Pearl Harbor, and thrust national security back into the center of American politics. Democrats have yet to come to grips with this new reality. More than anything else, they need to show the country a party unified behind a new patriotism -- a progressive patriotism determined to succeed in Iraq and win the war on terror, to close a yawning cultural gap between Democrats and the military, and to summon a new spirit of national service and shared sacrifice to counter the politics of polarization.

Winning the war on terror. Democrats' most important task is to articulate a tough but smart strategy for winning the ideological struggle against Jihadist extremism. Yet many liberals remain fixated instead on Iraq. It's true that Team Bush has badly fumbled the occupation, but an anti-Iraq message alone won't reassure voters that Democrats can take charge of the nation's security. On the contrary, the conflation of partisan animus toward Bush with anti-war sentiment has shoved Democrats in a decidedly dovish direction.

Intellectually, of course, it's possible to separate Iraq and the war on terror. But as University of Maryland professor William Galston observed after the 2004 election, "President Bush succeeded in transforming the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism into questions of basic values and American national identity." And that, Galston wrote, exposed old fissures among Democrats:

"While Republicans stood united in their belief in American exceptionalism, Democrats were badly divided, as they have been since Vietnam. President Bush was able to rally his party by sounding the trumpet of American virtue on the global stage. By contrast, John Kerry struggled to bridge the gap between Tony Blair Democrats, who agreed with the president's principles but deplored his inept policies, and Michael Moore Democrats, who rejected, root and branch, the idea of a global fight against terrorism and for democracy."


What is this suggesting? Can someone please explain this to me? In order to undo the damage that this administration has done with its deception, we need to play along with this new perceived "reality" (even if we know it to be patently false) and attempt resolution within their terms? That because they have convinced a large number of Americans that correlations (ie.9/11 = Iraq) and possibilities (winning the "War on Terror") exist, that they magically do? That instead of drawing attention to the root of our problems and accepting responsibility for our foreign policy missteps ... that we continue on course as though we are complete innocents? That we should suddenly be war hawks to gain votes? That we should ignore the endless hypocrisy? Or perhaps we should forget the individual and jump on the corporate bandwagon.

Sorry - but no way in hell. I'll support candidates that represent my ideals, not the "party", particularly when the party no longer has discernible positions. I'll support candidates that believe what they claim in a consistent manner, not those who decide based on the wind - meaning, I want to know what and who I am voting for. I see no purpose in voting within my party, when my party ceases to represent what I believe - for even a win will not be a victory.

"It is time to summon the strength of America's character once again. Today, the nation faces challenges as great as any we have ever faced: Radical extremists are doing everything they can to destroy our way of life."

Sound familiar? Kind of like "They hate us for our freedoms", no? Try again. The DLC seems to view the world and our place in it, in a similarly narrow view held by the Republicans ... one that allows us to be righteous and free of blame. If you don't believe me, read the first few paragraphs of "How America Can Win Again" on the same site. The quote above is just a sampling. Though I do agree with some of the claimed goals, the language suggests the same empty, pseudo-patriotic, ethnocentrism that has gotten us where we are today. Hell, they even slide in a religious reference for good measure.

I am not targeting every member of the DLC, mind you ... but if this is representative of what they stand for, I'll be paying close attention to those with alliances. This a time to stand up for our beliefs. We should spend more time spouting our values, for our values are consistent and inclusive and equalizing ... and no more time parroting the right as a form of damage control.