Campaign 2004 and beyond (LONG but 100% correct article by Rick Perlstein)

[LimpingLib]

http://bostonreview.net/BR29.3/perlstein.html

If you only read 1 article then THIS IS IT.Its all about winning but in the context of policys (without even mentioning any specifics),timeframe , history (real history not DLC propaganda), and every other important detail.

Again , every point made is correct (except for the history, its everything I and others have been saying over the last 5 years wrapped into one large truthful article). I always like listening to political history from 1960-1988 as I know very little and most of it is DLC propaganda 95% oposite from the truth. Funny thing is Perlstein who is in his mid 30s really appreciated the perspectives on things that happened before he was born and 10 or so years after as well , as it enlightened him alot.

Id make a special effort to finish this even if it seems too long.Nothing he says is wrong. I dont know how he did it. I wish I could find a single wrong detail to nit pick over. (well he could have additionaly mentioned that Clinton campaigned on increasing taxes on the rich)He says nothing abrasive either, I would have been attacking and bashing left and right. Its just plain scholarly.

On EDIT: You can save some time by QUICKLY skimming or even skipping the first 11%-14% of the article but dont skip a single word or stop after the Boeing type stuff ends.

[jadedcherub]

1. Whew. Long, but an excellent read. Thanks. (n/t)

[ulysses]

2. clearing the decks

There is a more elegant explanation for why the Democrats succeeded in every election of the 1990s but one. It is, simply, that the core Democratic message of economic populism appeals to people—despite, not because of, the Democrats’ retreat from that selfsame message. And that the old ’60s bugaboos no longer keep people from voting for Democrats because so many voters are too young to remember, or care.

Yup.

[ulysses]

3. this is pure gold

Try to woo a bloc of swing voters—“soccer moms,” “NASCAR dads,” whatever—who are by definition fickle, and a political party hollows itself out by ignoring stakeholders who aren’t short-term: activists, institutions like labor, minorities whose commitment to the Democratic Party is historic.

[eridani]

4. Good one

See also--

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18395

According to Robert McNamara in the "Fog of War," the first lesson of life is, "empathize with your enemy." In order to understand the conservative movement's ascendancy in American politics, progressives should take McNamara's advice and try to view the world through the business lens of conservatives.

Think of a "marketplace of ideas" where the products are policies, positions, and issues all competing for dominance. On the surface, this may seem like the stuff of dreams for "free market" conservatives, but it turns out it's a nightmare. You see, what we find is that in this marketplace, Democrats actually have the better product and Americans prefer the policies of Democrats by a wide margin to those of the GOP. In the realm of ideas, just as in any marketplace, the superior or preferred product usually wins out, but not always. An inferior product can dominate in the market when it has superior marketing, and this is precisely what we have seen come to pass in U.S. politics over the past two decades.

When we fail to view the world through the conservative business lens, we can easily see all of this as a vast rightwing conspiracy. However if we recall the frame of the marketplace of ideas, then we see it for it is: a well-run operation that recognized its weakness – a less desirable product – and figured out a way to dominate in the marketplace through an incredibly successful, integrated marketing strategy. Branded by the right and blind-sided by the conservative marketing machine, for more than a decade Democrats have been running to the right and abandoning core progressive issues and values in an attempt to keep pace with conservatives. This has been completely the wrong response.

[eridani]

5. Remember August 2002?

All the polls said that most people didn't think of Iraq as a threat, and that the WMD issue was best dealt with by inspections. Did the Repukes say "Oh, dear, we'd better get more moderate to be in synch with the electorate"? Hell, no! They embarked on an intensive sales job to change public perception.

[Bread and Circus]

6. The article is a long one, good find, but in typical academic...

fashion, talks much to say little.

Nonetheless, the points are there, and a lot of it I agree with.

The question is, are John Kerry and John Edwards a sign of long-term steadfastness or that of political expediency?