Compromise
Feb. 11th, 2007 09:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
You 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.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 04:21 am (UTC)But then again I'm one of those pinko kitten lovers, so maybe I am not the target audience.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 04:30 am (UTC)Oh, YouTube! I love you so, but you keep me from going to bed at a normal hour.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 04:34 am (UTC)Daj has his cute-rays set to kill, and is on your side.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 05:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 02:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 05:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 03:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 05:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 03:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 05:26 am (UTC)Obama steered clear of the controversies over his names past few weeks, mainly by being honest about the fact that it's something he didn't choose but was given, but that may have cost him the support of people with funny names and evil middle names; and the topic of his religion may actually end up hurting him, since he belongs to a "black power" church. On the other hand, religion is going to be a big problem for the likely Republican candidate (Mitt Romney), as well--he is a Mormon, and one fourth of American voters distrust his religion.
I know this will not win him over with you, but, in the interest of honesty, Obama seems to be mainly pro-dog. *nervous chuckle*
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 03:06 pm (UTC)The name thing is laying the groundwork for an attack strategy in the unlikely event that he wins. As racist as the U.S. is, it would be gauche for most mainstream political commentators to attack Obama on his skin colour. It's perfectly acceptable to slur Muslims, though, so my guess is that they're going to paint him as Muslim or Muslim-ish and have at it.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-02 12:03 am (UTC)Okay, so I am a little late, but when remembering presidential pets, don't forget Socks. I'd say the Clintons have gotten somewhere in American politics!
The previous White House cat was Amy Carter's Misty Malarky Ying Yang. So really what you mean to say is that Democrats are cat people, and Republicans are dog people.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 05:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 03:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 05:33 am (UTC)I suspect Barrack Obama is getting a lot of bad advice. The Democrats, I think, got the idea in their head that compromising worked last year, when in reality it was that the country was so utterly disgusted with the Republican Party that the Democrats won by default. I'm afraid the victory just validated the Democrats' worst habits.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 03:13 pm (UTC)The Democrats, I think, got the idea in their head that compromising worked last year, when in reality it was that the country was so utterly disgusted with the Republican Party that the Democrats won by default. I'm afraid the victory just validated the Democrats' worst habits.
Agreed. Acting like Republican Lite is just going to encourage people to vote for the real thing.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 05:38 pm (UTC)He has the advantage of having said that he would have voted the right way on Iraq had he the opportunity; at the time, he was not in the House of Representatives or the Senate, just an Illinois state legislator who was turning up to anti-war rallies in the Chicago area and didn't have to put his money where his mouth was.
Now that he's in the Senate, and his money and mouth are in much closer proximity to one another, his actual position on the current state of affairs in Iraq is, so far as I can tell, indistinguishable from Hillary's.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 06:00 pm (UTC)Which, come to think of it, is the same problem I have with Clinton.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 07:44 pm (UTC)I think Harry Truman once said, "When Democrats run as Republicans, the Republicans always win."
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 06:37 am (UTC)Cuddly wuddly fuzzy wuzzy spoily roily baby CATS!
Love them! I love ALL of them!
FUCK Republicans! FUCK 'em! FUCK THE MUTHAFUCKIN' REPUBLICANS!!!
Give me more fuzzy babies! NOW!!!
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 03:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 07:11 am (UTC)When it comes to the 08 election, I'm really torn. If the democrats can win, I can point out to liberals that nothing's changed; if the republicans win again, I can laugh at frustrated liberals, but these same liberals will have another 4 years during which they can say they'd do things differently.
What to hope for... hmmph!
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 03:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 04:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 12:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 03:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 01:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 02:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 03:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 03:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 01:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 03:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 02:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 03:28 pm (UTC)OMGKITTEEZ
Date: 2007-02-12 04:43 pm (UTC)Re: OMGKITTEEZ
Date: 2007-02-12 04:55 pm (UTC)Okay, they are not particularly helpful with painting.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 05:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 05:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 06:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 06:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 07:39 pm (UTC)Somebody with guts, please.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 07:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 09:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 10:08 pm (UTC)(Actually, if you can believe it, I checked my mail and saw that Yahoo article about Obama, and got all ranty, and then the cats started meowing and I got distracted, and then I was like, hey! I get geek-points for putting Obama and kittens in the same post, right?)
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 10:14 pm (UTC)Absolutely.