I just read David Brooks’s column in today’s New York Times: “The Values-Vote Myth”. Usually, I don’t agree with much that Mr. Brooks, a conservative, has to say. But this article gave me pause, and I wrote the following letter to him. Since he probably won’t read it, I thought I’d share it with the five other people that read this blog. 🙂 Send me your thoughts if you have the time.
Dear Mr. Brooks:
“The Values Vote Myth” is the first column you’ve written that I have ever agreed with in its entirety (well, except for the fact that every time the word “liberals” appears, it still manages to sound like a dirty word). With all of the “liberal” talk about fear and loathing in the Red States, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how this election cycle was driven by Liberal Fear. My thoughts, if you are interested, are the following: It is ironic that the “liberal” press blames the loss of the election on the cowardliness in others’ hearts, as if liberals were the would-be fearless leaders of a cowering, weakened populace. Liberals *are* very afraid (and for many good reasons, in my opinion). What Conservatives seem to have figured out is how to define the election in terms of one, over-arching fear: fear of terrorism (although slightly peppered with a dash of homophobia, for good measure). In the face of that fear, nothing else matters, at least to 52% of voters. Liberals and Democrats failed twice-over in their inability 1) to reassure voters on their competency to handle national security, and 2) to shift the terms of the debate to what they see as the other, equally important threats to our national security: erosion of civil liberties, inadequate health care, a failing public eduational system, and disasterous environmental policies. Bush is actually scarier to liberals than terrorists are. It was perhaps an impossible task, but Democrats failed to show why America should be more afraid of Bush[ies] than Osama Bin Laden[s]. Democrats didn’t miss the boat in this election: they just got on the wrong one. And it was fear that made them do it.
Addendum: As long as Democrats fail to face their own worst fears with courage and conviction, their losses will be many and ignoble, their victories hollow and few.
November 21st, 2004 at 5:00 am
I haven’t read his article, but i think that you nailed it on the head concerning the Dems’ lack of conviction hurting them (especially for Kerry). In a republican government (type, not party), those elected subscribe to one of two goals: 1. govern for what they believe is right. 2. govern for what they believe the people want. The most successful politicians give the appearence of both. Some would say that what the people want IS right, but that is another debate. All politicians –to some degree — try to appear more inline with what the people want, since many are worried about re-election. This goes for both Dems and GOP types. Both go about it different ways, but the main draw back to the Dems approach is conviction. They pander (feel free to use your own word) to too many diverse factions to try to gain influence. The GOP has there problems as well, but they tend not to have the problems of conviction. I could get more detailed about this, but i’m tired of typing.
December 15th, 2004 at 9:48 pm
BRO1 correctly identifies the US as a republic. We hold up the concept of democracy, and we call ourselves a democracy, but we are not truly a democratic nation. (Just like Russsia was never trully a communist or socialist nation.)
Politicians used to speak to ideals. Hunt down and read speaches by Senator Robert Byrd. Note the way he speaks, the reverence he seems to have for his office and governance. This used to be the way of things.
Democrats had their convictions, and Republicans had their convictions. People spoke in idealistic terms. The closer the Democrats come to the center, the further they are from their base “convictions”, and the more it seems that they have none. The Republicans, therefore, can move even further right and pound their core “convictions”.
Laura talks of a re-definition of liberal, turning it into a dirty, traitorous word. Kerry ran away from that word, and tried to make himself a strong centrist leader. But that is not “democratic”. And it did not sound like others in his party, such as Howard Dean. Since Kerry was running away from this term, and since liberal = left = democrat, he watered down his message and appeared like the flip-flopper they labelled him.
Bush won because the democratic party itself failed, not just John Kerry, and not the voters. How does the democratic party attract swing voters when the majority of its people are saying “I am not voting FOR Kerry, I am voting OUT Bush.” We were asking people to put faith in someone we did not particularily have faith in ourselves.
Wait a minute. Did that have anything to do with Laura’s statements, or was it just a rant? Hmmm, maybe I should run for office.
January 28th, 2005 at 2:40 am
Laura I love this: “Bush is actually scarier to liberals than terrorists are.” I watch Brooks on MacNeil-Lehrer, and I have to say, the scariest thing about watching *him* is that he is 1) articulate and 2) not evil. Those two things make it seem like a conservative might actually be humanoid. Holy ad hominems!