The Bishop gets serious for a moment
Cass R. Sunstein's New Republic article is a reminder of that too-often unacknowledged truth: at the federal (national) level, conservatives hold all the aces.
The evidence is obvious re: the US scene. Republicans have occupied the Oval Office for seven of the last ten presidential terms. At The New Republic (here, here, here or here), what commentator thinks any blue contender stands a chance against the likes of McCain in 2008? And consider this: would Democrats ever profit by proffering the slur ‘Kentucky conservative’ in response to ‘Massachusetts liberal’?
The logic is equally simple. America is steeped in paternal imagery—‘founding fathers’ and the like. The President (any president) no less—in spirit if not in competence—than those who came before. The upshot: the President is Dad. And as much as none of us look forward to his wrath when we write off the car, at the end of the day we all want the old man to be strong; not a pissant.
In the national eye—that silent majority of Americans not absorbed or engaged by politics—any Democratic Daddy is a pissant.
He’s softer on drugs; softer on crime; softer on ‘hard graft’ (who, when it comes down to it, do we respect more? The father who tells us to get out there and get a job, or the one who lets us spend all day asleep on the couch?). And, most of all, softer on standing up for house and home.
It is not that the 2004 presidential race was about character. Every presidential race has been about character. Thus Democrats, nee liberals, are rendered helpless by the very things they stand for.
What to do?
Democrats can only move so far to the centre before the very word becomes worthless. But if they’re serious about a serious national presence, they have to become hawks on national defence.
‘Tough on terror, fair on freedom’ must become their mantra. Their rhetoric must match—even out-match—the Republicans at every turn, while hammering the indisputable justice of centrist-liberal values re: the day-to-day at home.
There must be no nuance about this. No well-reasoned arguments. Just the techniques of oratory and mass communications that have served the conservative cause so well. We may look back on the days when our leaders would quote Shakespeare instead of spin doctors, but that is only because they had not yet seen they could achieve much more with much, much less.
Remember, as the present administration teaches, rhetoric is not action; that ends do, sometimes, justify means; and that the public memory is short. This may be a cynical view, but it is a cynical truth, and it is better to be led by a capable cynic than an incapable idealist.
The evidence is obvious re: the US scene. Republicans have occupied the Oval Office for seven of the last ten presidential terms. At The New Republic (here, here, here or here), what commentator thinks any blue contender stands a chance against the likes of McCain in 2008? And consider this: would Democrats ever profit by proffering the slur ‘Kentucky conservative’ in response to ‘Massachusetts liberal’?
The logic is equally simple. America is steeped in paternal imagery—‘founding fathers’ and the like. The President (any president) no less—in spirit if not in competence—than those who came before. The upshot: the President is Dad. And as much as none of us look forward to his wrath when we write off the car, at the end of the day we all want the old man to be strong; not a pissant.
In the national eye—that silent majority of Americans not absorbed or engaged by politics—any Democratic Daddy is a pissant.
He’s softer on drugs; softer on crime; softer on ‘hard graft’ (who, when it comes down to it, do we respect more? The father who tells us to get out there and get a job, or the one who lets us spend all day asleep on the couch?). And, most of all, softer on standing up for house and home.
It is not that the 2004 presidential race was about character. Every presidential race has been about character. Thus Democrats, nee liberals, are rendered helpless by the very things they stand for.
What to do?
Democrats can only move so far to the centre before the very word becomes worthless. But if they’re serious about a serious national presence, they have to become hawks on national defence.
‘Tough on terror, fair on freedom’ must become their mantra. Their rhetoric must match—even out-match—the Republicans at every turn, while hammering the indisputable justice of centrist-liberal values re: the day-to-day at home.
There must be no nuance about this. No well-reasoned arguments. Just the techniques of oratory and mass communications that have served the conservative cause so well. We may look back on the days when our leaders would quote Shakespeare instead of spin doctors, but that is only because they had not yet seen they could achieve much more with much, much less.
Remember, as the present administration teaches, rhetoric is not action; that ends do, sometimes, justify means; and that the public memory is short. This may be a cynical view, but it is a cynical truth, and it is better to be led by a capable cynic than an incapable idealist.
posted by Salisbury at 11:44 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home