Compromise
Feb. 11th, 2007 09:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sabotabbyYou know, I wasn't going to comment on the Democratic candidacy race because there are enough Americans blogging about it that you don't need some Canadian anarcho-cynicist adding to all the noise and because, let's face it, I don't really care who wins. But there's been some genuine stupid going on, and it's the sort of stupid that won the last two elections for the Republicans, and while I'm sick of saying the same thing all the time, it seems that some people just aren't getting it.
Here's my free piece of advice for the Democrats: Don't compromise with people who won't vote for you anyway.
That means you, Obama. The Right is going to make up all kinds of stories about Obama. It doesn't matter if any of them are true (or easily debunked by 30 seconds of Googling); truth is not the issue. The intent is to convince the public that Obama's middle name sounds like Saddam's, and his last name rhymes with bin Laden's, so he's basically a one-man link between Iraq and neverforgetSeptember11.
That's ridiculous, of course, and the correct response is to point and laugh at one's detractors, possibly using a visual of the alphabet to demonstrate the distance between "B" and "S." But, of course, no Democrat is astute enough to counter criticism from the right because they're all too obsessed with making friends. Instead of mockery, Obama seems to have responded by telling everyone what a good Christian he is—and that's a trap, because regardless of how Christian he is, by responding to this idiocy as if it can be taken seriously, as if it's worthy of debate at all, he's taken the bait and he's now on the defensive whether he realizes it or not.
And even worse—none of the people who freak out over his name or whether he grew up in Indonesia or what have you are actually going to vote for him anyway. They're registered Republicans. So why try to appeal to their prejudices at all?
It's a piss-poor strategy, but the Democrats do it all the time. Republicans don't compromise. People vote for them because they appear decisive, because they force the dialogue to the right rather than meeting their opponents in the middle. They control the debate. They'll keep winning elections, no matter how much it visibly fucks up their country and the rest of the world, because no one likes a waffler.
Let's look at it in simple terms. Say two candidates are competing to lead a group of ten other people. Four of those people passionately love cats, and will only vote for a candidate who advances pro-feline interests—universal access to catnip, laws against declawing, regular scritches, etc. Four of those people passionately hate cats, and not only do they not want any cats, they also don't want anyone else to have cats. The two remaining people are kind of confused about cats; they could be convinced to adopt one if someone was persuasive enough, or they might join in on a mass movement to purge cats from the face of the earth.
The anti-cat candidate is very firm about his beliefs. "Cats are bad. Let's get rid of all cats." He's able to express himself in simple terms. He doesn't care about the four pro-cat people, and he knows that the anti-cat people have his back regardless. He goes after the two indecisive people and tries to get them on side using all kinds of anti-cat propaganda and by eating a kitten on camera.
[Error: unknown template 'video']
The pro-cat candidate wants everyone to like cats but doesn't get that some people are dog people and some people are allergic and some people are just plain bastards. So she tries to convince the four anti-cat people that cats aren't so bad, and that all ten of them have common ground.
"Sure," she says, "cats can be annoying. They scratch your furniture. They hork hairballs in your shoes. They wake you up at 4 am. I don't even own a cat! When you think about it, cats can kind of be dicks sometimes..."
[Error: unknown template 'video']
"...but," she continues, "Think about all the great things about cats. They're cute. They keep your house mouse-free. They are snuggly. Cats aren't so bad, so you should all be pro-cat."
[Error: unknown template 'video']
Notice how she conceded the initial ground to the anti-cat faction. (That's what Hillary Clinton does when she argues that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare.") She tells her opposition that they have a point. The four anti-cat people still won't vote for her, because the other guy is more anti-cat. The two indecisive people are kind of confused, and will probably vote for the other guy because he's more convincing and easier to understand. The four pro-cat people now feel quite betrayed by their candidate's anti-cat beliefs; some are going to be alienated and not vote. Perhaps they've noticed that both candidates work for dog food companies.
This is the mistake the Democrats make every time: pissing off their base in order to appeal to the most extreme end of their opposition. (Also, their campaigns should include more kittens.)
[Error: unknown template 'video']
Of the lot of candidates, it seems like Edwards is the only one who gets it. Apparently he did the right thing and didn't fire Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan after the right-wing blogosphere got the vapours over their cussing and criticism of the Catholic Church. His official statement was pretty weak, but he was apparently savvy enough to know that he has zero chance of appealing to Donohue, Malkin, or anyone who reads them.
This has been your rant for the evening. I'm off to scoop the litter box.
Postscript: Looks like I spoke too soon. Amanda has resigned from the Edwards campaign. Good thing I don't have any faith in electoral politics, or I'd be quite pissed.
Here's my free piece of advice for the Democrats: Don't compromise with people who won't vote for you anyway.
That means you, Obama. The Right is going to make up all kinds of stories about Obama. It doesn't matter if any of them are true (or easily debunked by 30 seconds of Googling); truth is not the issue. The intent is to convince the public that Obama's middle name sounds like Saddam's, and his last name rhymes with bin Laden's, so he's basically a one-man link between Iraq and neverforgetSeptember11.
That's ridiculous, of course, and the correct response is to point and laugh at one's detractors, possibly using a visual of the alphabet to demonstrate the distance between "B" and "S." But, of course, no Democrat is astute enough to counter criticism from the right because they're all too obsessed with making friends. Instead of mockery, Obama seems to have responded by telling everyone what a good Christian he is—and that's a trap, because regardless of how Christian he is, by responding to this idiocy as if it can be taken seriously, as if it's worthy of debate at all, he's taken the bait and he's now on the defensive whether he realizes it or not.
And even worse—none of the people who freak out over his name or whether he grew up in Indonesia or what have you are actually going to vote for him anyway. They're registered Republicans. So why try to appeal to their prejudices at all?
It's a piss-poor strategy, but the Democrats do it all the time. Republicans don't compromise. People vote for them because they appear decisive, because they force the dialogue to the right rather than meeting their opponents in the middle. They control the debate. They'll keep winning elections, no matter how much it visibly fucks up their country and the rest of the world, because no one likes a waffler.
Let's look at it in simple terms. Say two candidates are competing to lead a group of ten other people. Four of those people passionately love cats, and will only vote for a candidate who advances pro-feline interests—universal access to catnip, laws against declawing, regular scritches, etc. Four of those people passionately hate cats, and not only do they not want any cats, they also don't want anyone else to have cats. The two remaining people are kind of confused about cats; they could be convinced to adopt one if someone was persuasive enough, or they might join in on a mass movement to purge cats from the face of the earth.
The anti-cat candidate is very firm about his beliefs. "Cats are bad. Let's get rid of all cats." He's able to express himself in simple terms. He doesn't care about the four pro-cat people, and he knows that the anti-cat people have his back regardless. He goes after the two indecisive people and tries to get them on side using all kinds of anti-cat propaganda and by eating a kitten on camera.
[Error: unknown template 'video']
The pro-cat candidate wants everyone to like cats but doesn't get that some people are dog people and some people are allergic and some people are just plain bastards. So she tries to convince the four anti-cat people that cats aren't so bad, and that all ten of them have common ground.
"Sure," she says, "cats can be annoying. They scratch your furniture. They hork hairballs in your shoes. They wake you up at 4 am. I don't even own a cat! When you think about it, cats can kind of be dicks sometimes..."
[Error: unknown template 'video']
"...but," she continues, "Think about all the great things about cats. They're cute. They keep your house mouse-free. They are snuggly. Cats aren't so bad, so you should all be pro-cat."
[Error: unknown template 'video']
Notice how she conceded the initial ground to the anti-cat faction. (That's what Hillary Clinton does when she argues that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare.") She tells her opposition that they have a point. The four anti-cat people still won't vote for her, because the other guy is more anti-cat. The two indecisive people are kind of confused, and will probably vote for the other guy because he's more convincing and easier to understand. The four pro-cat people now feel quite betrayed by their candidate's anti-cat beliefs; some are going to be alienated and not vote. Perhaps they've noticed that both candidates work for dog food companies.
This is the mistake the Democrats make every time: pissing off their base in order to appeal to the most extreme end of their opposition. (Also, their campaigns should include more kittens.)
[Error: unknown template 'video']
Of the lot of candidates, it seems like Edwards is the only one who gets it. Apparently he did the right thing and didn't fire Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan after the right-wing blogosphere got the vapours over their cussing and criticism of the Catholic Church. His official statement was pretty weak, but he was apparently savvy enough to know that he has zero chance of appealing to Donohue, Malkin, or anyone who reads them.
This has been your rant for the evening. I'm off to scoop the litter box.
Postscript: Looks like I spoke too soon. Amanda has resigned from the Edwards campaign. Good thing I don't have any faith in electoral politics, or I'd be quite pissed.
