Monday, June 05, 2006
Pessimism, Quagmires and a Microphone
The mainstream media, generally left-leaning, generally supportive of the Democratic Party and generally anti-Bush and anti-war is very much locked into a pessimistic theme. Low presidential polls, high gas prices and Iraq War challenges (and now Iran) all feed the pessimistic theme. Meanwhile, the MSM overlooks an exceedingly strong economy, high rate of job formation, low unemployment, historically low interest rates and reasonably high consumer and business confidence readings. It also overlooks the many successes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and so forth. Why this negative bias repeated over and over, into a very high powered microphone?
The Democratic Party of LBJ, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Waltern Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Howard Dean and John Kerry -- bot notably not Bill Clinton -- focused on flaws in the American system. Whether it was over issues of war, bigotry or wealth distribution, this Democratic Party adopted the notion that America was troubled, flawed, unjust and unfair. Some of this was a function of Socialism of the Henry Wallace variety, some from genuine pursuit of social justice for women and minorities, some from pacifism -- in other words, it came from a large group of sources - some who understood the flaws to be artifacts within a good system, others who rejected the system outright.
Now the batting average of that Democratic Party in Presidential politics isn't so good. Meanwhile, the Republican Party -- plagued as it was by Nixon's appalling Watergate scandal -- was reborn as a result of Reagan's sunny "Morning in America" optimism. One would think that the lesson of Reagan (or, frankly, Truman, JFK and even Bush) would be that optimism about America is a political winner, and pessimism a pathetic loser. Clinton demonstrated that as well, albeit with the aid of a wacky third party candidate who got 20% of the popular vote, coupled with Bush Senior's bizarre election year pathos.
In any event, the lesson of political competition in America seems to be to accentuate the positive about it. Speak to the vibrancy of its freedoms, of its entrepreneurial spirit, of its can-do attitude of it near limitless opportunity for personal fulfillment. But don't denigrate it. Political leaders who consistently bemoan it will not win national elections. Antiwar candidates like McGovern and Dean don't win -- they lose, and lose badly. Tax raisers tend to lose too (simply because raising taxes tends to hurt the economy). Yet the mainstream press fools politicians into being more negative than their better instincts - bad news gets ink, good news and optimism tend to be scoffed at. And politicians need ink. So even Republicans get in on the negative act. Frankly, it's the only way they might ever get a quote in the NYT.
It would help the Democratic Party quite a bit to have a charismatic leader with a sunny disposition who speaks to America's virtues -- as Clinton did -- rather than bizarre spokespeople like Dean, dullards like Kerry, monotones like Hillary or prosecutors like Feingold. And not just her virtues, but her exceptionalism. It's just a very funky bunch is all I can say. Leaving Bush aside and all the negative passion he inspires in so many Democrats, is there a Democrat around whom folks can rally with positive passion?
12 Comments:
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Mon Jun 05, 07:17:00 PM:
Americans don't know just how good they have it here...
By 
, at
Mon Jun 05, 08:51:00 PM:
I would say Mark Warner has a 50/50 chance of becoming our next President in 2008. He is a national unknown and can win a Southern State or 2.
I predict he will quietly emerge by NOT being like all the others you just stated. 2008 Demo primaries will be like a big horserace and I think he will come out on top.
You heard it here first. So yes, I think he will display mostly a postive image of America and America will elect him President with 51%.
Dan
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Jun 05, 09:23:00 PM:
"The mainstream media, generally left-leaning, generally supportive of the Democratic Party and generally anti-Bush and anti-war"
...and just as likely to report untruths as you were with the Iran Yellow badge story?
What in God's name are you talking about? The press has fawned over Bush, it cheerled the Iraq invasion, and there hasn't been a positive story written about leading democrats in ages.
Now on to the rest of this post. You want an optimist. You say Dems are pessimists. What I want is a realist. Call the good good and bad bad. They're both here. The Bush administration has taken to calling everything good - from torture to spying to the deaths of 100,000 civilians in an unnecessary war of choice. That's not optimism, it's propagandistic madness.
The Democrats who will capture my attention is the one who most often tells the truth. Since that's my leading indicator, I'm ruling out Hillary, Kerry, and the rest of the DLC gang. I could see myself supporting any of the following - Gore, Obama, Feingold, Edwards, or Clark. I don't know enough about Warner to say anything about him.
I wonder where the Republicans will find a truth telling standard bearer. No one seems to be stepping up to the plate. Bill Frist would love to be President, but he's a liar.
I'm going to get behind the candidate who speaks the truth. We haven't had truth in so many years that it hurts. Secondly, I'll want someone who's demonstrated the ability to form broad coalitions and represent the majority of Americans rather than the narrow cultural values of the base. I want a left-leaning centrist.
p.s. How about that fake Iran Yellow Badge story you tried to pass off as the truth?! That was something else. Trying to foment some warriorism with lies...
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Mon Jun 05, 10:15:00 PM:
Screwy, there has been more to say about the Yellow Badge. I think the conflicting information has not yet settled, but I believe that it will be clear that a real attempt was made to include this.
If you're looking for truth, you might want to drop the 100,000 civilians, as well as the convenient definitions that have to be used for "torture" and "spying."
The word "liar" seems to fall easily from your lips.
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Jun 06, 12:12:00 AM:
How many civilians is it then?
The word liar doesn't fall from the lips of those who won't call a lie a lie. In this era of language mangling, it seems that Republicans are quick to let their own off the hook while still gnashing teeth about "that woman".
By cakreiz, at
Tue Jun 06, 10:31:00 AM:
I don't see Warner getting the nomination, although I agree that, on the surface, he would appear to be an electable general election candidate. He's too conservative for the Donk's base.
By , at
Tue Jun 06, 10:39:00 AM:
Screwy:
I gather you would rather hear propoganda as truth for that is what you spout and that is what you get from those people on your list of favorites.
Such childlike obeisance to your party is commendable - in an apparatchik.
The yellow star: You really need to acquire an understanding of the way other countries are governed. The parliament passed the resolution approving specific clothing for separate classes. It is now up to the all knowing religeous overseers as to whether they will let the law become law. Such a knowledeable person as yourself would also know that the clothing requirements were part of Muslim requirements in the past, as late as the Ottoman Empire which ended in 1918.
By , at
Tue Jun 06, 10:45:00 AM:
Screwy:
Keep on writing the way you do. You speak to your base. Unfortunately for you, your base is the left of left.
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Jun 06, 12:21:00 PM:
Davod,
There is no law requiring Yellow Star Badges. End of story. There may be dress requirements, but CardinalPark's efforts to give this story creedence in order to whip up visions of the Holocaust are abhorrent.
My base? That's why Bush has only 35% approval ratings! That's why a majority of Americans feel that the Iraq war was a mistake! It's because I'm out of the mainstream, another loony lefty barking at the moon.
It's you on the fringe now, friends.
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Jun 06, 03:12:00 PM:
Yeah, me too.
But that's from a fascist perspective. Some would say the people who call people like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry liberals are operating from just such a perspective.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Jun 06, 08:21:00 PM:
"Now on to the rest of this post. You want an optimist. You say Dems are pessimists. What I want is a realist. Call the good good and bad bad. They're both here. The Bush administration has taken to calling everything good - from torture to spying to the deaths of 100,000 civilians in an unnecessary war of choice. That's not optimism, it's propagandistic madness."
You're right. This is propagandistic madness. Har har.
So what you want is someone who completely agrees with you. Because someone who doesn't think that all of the above is bad (which you obviously do) doesn't have to be a liar. They just have to operate from a different perspective. Hence, the existence of political parties. You're not interested in 'truth' so much as a similar belief system, which ought to be obvious when you put forth Gore as a truth candidate...
"What in God's name are you talking about? The press has fawned over Bush, it cheerled the Iraq invasion, and there hasn't been a positive story written about leading democrats in ages."
You're mad. Or completely blind. Or so used to the cult of victimhood that it's completely overtaken your thinking. I vote for the third option.
You yourself have said here on this blog "put 'Bush failures' into Google and see what you get." Go ahead, do it. how many hits? More than 15,000,000? Now put in "Bush successes." Less than 10,000,000, and the first hit was "Bush successes – do the media care?" Hmph.
Cheerled the Iraq invasion... The *Democrats* you are so fond of, including Clinton, Kerry, Clark, etc., also cheerled the Iraq invasion. They just don't talk about it now because it's not politically useful. (how about that integrity thing now?) They must be pro-Bush, right? How about SCIRI? (or whatever they changed their name to) They wanted Saddam overthrown too, so they must be pro-Bush as well? Who'd have guessed that there were so many Bush supporters in the world... And now, large parts of the press flat *refuse* to print good news from Iraq. This isn't speculation or conspiratorial. I know for a fact. I've heard them say it. 'This paper will not print that story because we are against the war and President Bush.' We (in the Army) don't even talk to the press anymore. We just assume that they're all bastards who will distort everything we say to spin it how they want it to sound, not how we said it.
And I'm hard pressed to think of anything that Democrats have done lately that warrants good press. LA governor totally botching her state's evacuation? Nope. Rep. Jefferson selling influence to a foreign government? Nope. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pushing unfounded conspiracy theories for political points? Nuh-uh. That other Kennedy who wrecked his car under the influence? No... Rep. Murtha alienating the entire military establishment, yet still trying to act as though he is close to us (the pompous, deceitful bastard)? Not that either. Al Gore selling purposefully misleading "documentaries" and spewing angry hateful rhetoric in a sad attempt to garner attention as election years approach? Well... no. Well what about various Dem. senators calling for the impeachment of the President with neither evidence, a Congressional motion, preliminary hearings, or even a sound legal footing so that other Dems had to publically shun them and avoid the press for two days? Definitely not.
Praytell, what has the DNC and co. done lately to warrant praise? Because the Democratic Party that I've known since I became of voting age has been a collection of whiny, "we can do better but we don't know how yet," "ask the UN for permission first," "we haven't fought a successful war since FDR but we still know better than you do," little bitches who scoot by domestically on ethnic politics and pandering socialist (excuse me... "progressive;" the same euphemism the Soviet KGB used to use. just an FYI) policies to special interests.
And before you turn this into a partisan war with "well your guys suck too!", I'm not Republican. I don't generally like the Republicans because they are too conservative. But I hate the Democrats, and I will vote againt them long before I vote for a Republican. Aside from the above, here's a sampling of quotations from their National Committee Chairman. Just so we understand each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean
By Gordon Smith, at
Wed Jun 07, 09:40:00 AM:
Well that got you good and fired up, eh Dawnfire. I'm glad your soup is still warm.
Democrats don't represent my views all or even most of the time, but they do represent some of the values I hold dearest. Values of equality, a government of three equal branches, equal opportunity, cooperation, and human rights.
My Congressional candidate, Heath Shuler, is what's known as a conservative Democrat. This means he is against abortion, against gay marriage, against gun legislation, and against a rapid American pullout from Iraq. I'm behind this guy 100% despite the fact that I disagree with him on all of the above points. Why? Because he supports health security for all Americans. He supports workers' rights. He supports a clean natural environment, and he supports fully funding our public education system.
I'm not looking to fall in love with my candidate. I just need him to adhere to the Constitution, tell the truth, and try to make America a better place.
In the next election cycle ('08), I'm going to work harder to see to it that candidates who more closely mirrors the values I listed earlier. Until then, I'm going to choose the people who come closest.
Your "Hate" of the Democrats is clouding your thinking. I'm sorry you've come to this.
