Skip to comments.Lessons for Losers
Posted on 11/04/2004 5:34:31 AM PST by veronica
Having offered advice to Republicans last week about how to behave if we lost the election (and catching a whole lot of hell for it), I'd like to take a turn now and offer some advice to the actual losers, the Democrats.
First of all, start by admitting you lost. That would be a big change from the last election when, after four years, Democrats never really conceded losing in 2000. Operating under the delusion that the election was "stolen," they were able to dismiss everything George Bush did as illegitimate. Even September 11 -- why, that was just Bush's fault as well.
Second, it's time to admit you have become the minority party. This isn't so bad. Republicans were a minority party from 1932 until 1994. I know it's hard because for Democrats the political is always personal and the personal is political. But there are other things in life. Look at the trial lawyers. They're essentially the Democratic Congress in Exile, out of office but functioning like the "private attorneys general" they fancy themselves and making a lot of money as well.
But it isn't the same, is it? To Democrats, politics means changing things -- equalizing income, dispensing social justice, curing the sick, creating sustainable ecosystems. Pass a law and watch it happen! It never occurs to you that people can pursue these goals in the private sphere -- and can accomplish things rather than just telling other people what to do.
The Old Democratic Party is going to have a tough, tough time dealing with this. The truth is, John Kerry was about the best candidate the Democrats could have offered. He had a war record, a patrician air, and enough verbal felicity to win people's trust. Yet Kerry was rejected. Somehow his vague "plans" about Iraq and health care never range true. People have gotten smart. They aren't seduced by Democratic ideals anymore.
It isn't going to get better. Since Southerners stopped fighting the Civil War and joined their conservative brethren in the GOP, sectional differences have become meaningless in America. Instead, the country is divided rural vs. urban, cosmopolitans versus the average American. The cosmopolitans are able to project their vision out from New York and Hollywood, but people aren't listening anymore.
You could see this the morning after with Katie Couric trying to cope with the idea that the election was decided by "values." Values? What the heck is that? It never occurs to her that three hours later viewers will be treated to an afternoon of soft-core pornography masquerading as soap opera. None of this raises an eyebrow in Manhattan, but parents in Peoria trying to keep their kids away from the television are sick of it.
SO HERE THE DEMOCRATS are, stuck in a country with a bunch of rubes who believe in things like going to church and not being enthusiastic over homosexuality. Bruce Springsteen's lyrics have come full circle. (He wasn't originally very happy about being "Born in the USA.") Is there any way that Democrats can function in this environment?
First you must begin by realizing that American values are real and the American electorate only entertains liberal ideas when it is feeling secure and experimental. John Kennedy won office because people had become almost bored with the prosperity of the 1950s. Jimmy Carter got elected because he was an innocent waif floating on the Sea of Watergate. Bill Clinton won because we had triumphed in the Cold War and the country had little to worry about.
Those opportunities aren't going to present themselves very often. Today we live in a dangerous, dangerous world. On Election Day a Moslem extremist in Holland murdered the great-grandnephew of Vincent Van Gogh because he had made a movie critical of Arab culture. These are not ordinary times. We have enemies who don't play our game but are striking at the very root of our civilization.
Democrats have got a lot of thinking to do about our place in the world and the roots of our culture. They don't have a very good record. In the 1960s, liberals loosened the screws on the criminal justice system just because it might be fun to see what happened. They expected crime to drop. Instead, it rose to unprecedented heights for thirty years. Only in the 1990s when states started reinforcing the death penalty and Rudy Giuliani decided to reimpose social order did the wave subside.
Democrats will face their first big test when it comes time to confirm that long line of federal judges. Can they finally acknowledge that appointing judges is a prerogative of the governing party? Or will they reduce themselves to an obstreperous minority, grinding the system to a halt rather than admitting defeat?
It's time for a different agenda. Sooner or later, liberals must reconcile themselves that they are indeed "Living in the USA."
true...but somehow the Democrats think (even after LOSING!!!), that WE are the ones that have a lot of thinking to do. WE are the ones who now need to reach out. WE are the ones that need to change.
they're never happy, are they?
Maybe we could encourage Michael Moore to make a "documentary" critical of Arab culture.
More to the point: will Senate Republicans actually act as if each and every one of 'em actually owns a functioning pair, and bring the hammer down on any attempts to unfairly obstruct W's rightful perogative to select Supreme Court justices in line with his (and his party's) core beliefs, just this once, please, G-d...?
hmmmm....but there's that whole 'pig' thing with the Arabs...so it would be more of an autobiography?
And the former senator from SD can be the example. The other constant obstructionists , especially those from moderate staes, will see how "the people have spoken" in SD and America as a whole.
If the Senate Minority leader, with 18 years in the Senate, and an adult life in Government isn't secure, who is? THE PARTY IN POWER, the party that listens to ALL of the citizens...
Hopefully, there will be no need for a "third."
You might be right. We'll have to wait and see. But I will be very surprised if the liberals in Congress agree to any appointments that GWB tries to make. They have continued to veer to the left over the years, despite the fact that the American people have made it quite clear over and over again that we are moderate to conservative. I don't think their arrogance will allow them to learn anything from this election.
I think Kerry may get it now...his concession showed class, and the Senate is 55 to 44 (+1), if the Pubbies and President can get 5 or 6 to step acreoss the aisle, then the logjam will be broken.
Perhaps offering a cabinet job to a Dem Senator in a state with a Republican Governor?
I don't know if that would be a good idea or not at this point. I think that liberals need to learn some hard lessons before we become coniliatory with them. And I have to admit that I'm not a good person to ask because I don't know that liberals can ever be trusted to do the right thing in positions of power.
coniliatory = conciliatory
My advice would be simpler. Cut the socialists and crazies loose. If the Democrats were still the party that Zell Miller waxes nostalgic about, the country would be better off. I'm a firm believer in a two party system, but not a system where one of the parties is controled lunatics.
The purpose is not conciliatory, but to remove a Dem roadblock and have the Republican Governor appoint a Republican replacement. This allows the Dem to avoid having to cross the aisle, and say the purpose of "joining" the administration was to be conciliatory...
First they should admit
that people do not LIKE them!
Already I've heard
'Rats whining they failed
to communicate their views
to America . . .
They never admit
they did communicate well,
and we all DECLINED!
Do you think that a Dem Senator would be willing to give up his Congressional seat for a cabinet position?
They're in shock right now, especially since both their "Big Dogs" went down. If they're smart they'll make Lieberman the Minority Leader, if not, they'll give it to Hillary.
Don't you think that Joe Lieberman has strayed too far from the pack for them to select him as minority leader? It will be interesting to see who they choose because it will show us whether they have learned anything from the election or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.