The RESPECT Gap
Nothing gets my blood boiling faster than Democrats who completely miss the real reason why the American people prefer Republicans to our party on terrorism and war issues.
Fools like the Democratic Leadership Council, and other so-called “centrist” Democrats think that adopting tough rhetoric and positions on foreign policy will convince the public that we mean business.
Or worse, that we should practically adopt Republican foreign policy goals and tactics.
The problem the Democrats face on terrorism and foreign policy is not based upon rhetoric. It’s a psychological visceral reaction by the public. They sense that our politicans are weak and vaciliating, despite what they say about terrorism, not because of it.
Think about this for a moment. If you see a party and a politician that backs down from Republican attacks, and won’t stand up for its own principals when challenged, would YOU trust them to defend you from terrorists? I mean that at a gut level. If you had to pick either Dick Cheney or Tom Daschle to back you up in a barroom brawl, would you REALLY pick Daschle?
We all mock Bush’s pigheadedness and resoluteness, but when it comes to the issue of fighting terrorists, it worked dramatically to his advantage.
Why? Because no matter how withering the attacks were on his Iraq policy, he stuck to his guns. He didn’t back down.
And, in the end, it mattered in the election. He convinced enough people that when he said he was going to be tough on terrorists, he meant it.
John Kerry could have sounded like some comic book vigilante, and it wouldn’t have mattered. Bush painted him as a vaciliating, poll taker. A man without core principles who would say anything to get votes. Which, sadly, was probably true to a great extent.
So how do the Democrats fix this problem? By NOT caving in to Bush and the GOP on core issues. By not backing down, even if the polls seem to be against us. By taking the fight to our opponents, instead of waiting around for them to manufacture some issue to whcih we are forced to react.
If the voters see the Democrats as aggressively fighting for its core DOMESTIC policy principles, not taking and crap from the Republicans, and vigorously pushing its ideas and agenda…they will RESPECT us on foreign policy.
You see, that is what is at the heart of the problem. A significant portion of the electorate that might otherwise agree with the Democrats and many issues, doesn’t RESPECT us.
There are no FDR’s, or JFK’s or even Lyndon Johnson’s in our party anymore. Towering figures who command respect and fear from our opponents and the public at large. The closest you get to that is Bill Clinton, who probably gained respect more for the way he fought off Republican attacks than in any single polcy initiative or foreign policy goal he achieved.
It’s not about policy or rhetoric. It’s about R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
That’s why Howard Dean will turn out to be the Republican party’s biggest nightmare.
So, beware the Democrats who are moaning and groaing about being too aggressive and heate din its rehtoric attacking Bush and the GOP. THEY are the reason we are in this mess. And, guess what folks. They will chicken out and fall in line the more aggresive we are in attacking them.
They are, by nature, gutless. They will not leave the Democratic party. They will bwo down to the aggressive wing of the party.
Let us forever banish the stupid and inaccurate “left vs center/rightt” split in the party.
That is a fallacy perpetuated by the GOP media and the weenies in our party.
The true dichotomy lies between the tough, aggressive, take no prisoners Democrats, and the gutless, yellow-stained coward Democrats.
I know which side of the divide I am on. It’s time everyone made their choice.
April 4th, 2005 at 8:06 am
Thew Republicans are better at papering over the divisions between their corporate backers and the religious right. Their corporate backers know that there’s always going to be talk about “compassionate conservatism” but never anything done so they don’t get in the way of the slick sham of “principles” and continue to fund the party.
The Democrats don’t blend their corporate and principled parts at all well. Anyone who looks like a populist is attacked whereas in the Republican party they’d be the figurehead. But then in the Republican party they’d be a fake populist (sort of like Clinton but more so). Of course eventually the religious right nuts will figure it out.
Logically of course we’d be better of allying with the religious right nutcases than the Democrat corporate types. We have far more in common with them.
April 4th, 2005 at 9:10 am
But the weenies control the money, and are perfectly content to get paid to lose.
April 4th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
In a barroom brawl? Cheney or Daschle? Daschle, definitely. He had the balls to serve in the military. Cheney had “other priorities.” Plus, Daschle wouldn’t fall over from heart failure from being punched.
Fuck all republicans, anyway. I’LL KICK THEIR ASS!
April 4th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Why? Because no matter how withering the attacks were on his Iraq policy, he stuck to his guns. He didn’t back down.
Actually, he *did* back down, such as when he didn’t seek a second UN resolution (after chest-thumping about putting cards on the table) and when he accepted elections (on Sistani’s timetable, not his preferences). But his back-downs didn’t stick to his Preznitial Character, because the Democrats didn’t *make* them stick, and because the way he changed course made his positions closer to Democratic ones anyway.
April 4th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
I’m not trying to start a flame war, but can someone tell me how Dean is making the party ‘tougher.’ I just don’t see it happening. Everyone seems to be saying that Dean’s a tough fighter, but where are the goods? He’s not penetrating the mass media (A16 below the fold doesn’t count).
April 4th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
I am an independent here in FL, and I have not recently been voting Dem.
I think your essay may be one of the best I’ve read as to why I am not voting Dem much anymore.
I would also add this note: it is very discouraging to me to see Dems fighting each other constantly. Why would I want to join a team where the teammates all seem to hate each other?
Right now, as an example. I am thinking specifically of catty remarks made by Maureen Dowd in the NYT against Theresa Kerry almost as soon as Theresa came on the scene. I am not particularly fond of Theresa, but after reading a biting vicious column by Maureen Dowd against Theresa, I thought: Geez, these people just hate each other.
I realize Theresa Kerry was not running for office, but, she mattered to me, as I am a woman. In the end, I voted for Bush, and I always liked Laura Bush, despite the catty remarks made against her by the OPPOSITION. At least it’s the opposition, and not the GOP that hates Laura, who I have always admired.
April 4th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
I almost agree with the auther’s point but he ignors the fact that the Dems have never turned down donations from major corporations…same as the repugs…so what we have here is a one party government, of, by and for corporations, pretending to actually be 2 parties. The Dems weren’t even repug-light they were an extention of the repugnacan platform…Right-wing extremism (via the corporate agenda) won no matter what.
What is really needed is a new party (green?, progressive?, whatever) the Dems have failed us, the repugs are killing us, maybe its Nader! both parties jumped in his sh-t in 2004, maybe proof positive that they are both scared of him…the corporations certainly are! Lacking any spined Democratic leader, I’m voting independant next time and I should have last time!
April 4th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
Dean is doing the right thing. He’s actually doing something the Democrats haven’t done in a quarter century. He’s making trips to the South and meeting with “values’ based voters, something Terry McAuliffe never did, because he was too busy (1) kissing the Clinton’s asses, and (2) preparing his portfolio from his “windfall” at Global Crossing. The media didn’t like because he (GASP!) told the truth when he stated that the way to get back to a representative democracy is to de-centralize the media. So at least Dean is speaking to groups and attempting to compete for votes in the South. He’s done more for the Democratic Party in the South in the past 4 weeks than McAuliffe has done in 4 years.
April 5th, 2005 at 6:42 am
We have to oust the losers who have been leading the party for the last several years.Getting rid of shrum was a start,but we still have many hangers on who do not care if we win or not.To these guys its a job and not a calling, lets have a house cleaning.
April 5th, 2005 at 8:09 am
Which is why we need to show Joe Lieberman the door. http://www.timetogojoe.com/ is raising mony for ANY Democrat to challenge the DINO in the CT Primary. Maybe, is we show the backbone of cleaning house of those that appease the GOP we will be able to say that we have the backbone to do what needs to be done. In addition, by putting Joe into retirement from the Senate we can send a message that there is a united front that wants Democrats to be Democrats. If you want to be GOP-lite well, join the GOP.