A National Election
I might consider: What will happen to the Democrats when they lose? They don't believe they can lose, but then they have no rational reason to believe they can win. They've offered nothing but opposition, criticism, complaint. They're cowardly. So what will happen when they lose?
In the same way as there is no rationality to their expectation they will win, there will be no rationality in their explication of their defeat. It will have been a plot. The same people who brought down the World Trade Towers will have stolen the vote, will have messed with the machines and taken from them the victory that was actually theirs.
I have heard it speculated that if the result is close, but the Dems not quite over the top, it will be weeks before we know who controls the house, because it will take that long for litigation to work its way through the courts. This for a certainty is true. But what if the Republicans actually gain?
I'm not certain that this is impossible. It's true that there's no particular reason to be excited by the Republicans, but how is it possible to be excited by Democrats? I've never seen a party stand for less, I've never seen a party more unpleasant, and I've never before seen a campaign where there was no counter vision offered at all.
But there is one vision in this campaign that is new, that is pervasive, that has not existed before, and it's one that every voter knows, and it's this, the one true, underlying, largely unspoken fear... of a bomb going off in our cities. That fear, only slightly acknowledged, underlies everything, because we know "those people" do that sort of thing, we see it all over the world, and that's what I think makes this a serious election, a national election. This changes the ordinary calculus, this makes this a very different election from any other.
And am I right in this, that the Democrat party of the last two years has been one different from the Democrat party in the two years before 2004? It seems to me that in those years of a presidential campaign there was argument, it seems I remember that the policy toward Iraq was to be "better and smarter". Since then I've not heard "better and smarter", I've heard Abu Ghraib, cut and run, detainee abuse, detainee rights, unlawful wiretaps, persecution of noble whistle blowers, and incompetence incompetence incompetence.
This is the platform of the Democrats, to bitch. "If elected: No terrorist ever again will have a panty draped over his head. This I promise. And the world will be a better place for all, and America will be safe."
And meanwhile the average America in odd moments wonders when the next bomb will go off in his city.
It's a matter of being serious. I believe that the party that can make Abu Ghraib a six month story is not serious.
That's why this is a different election. It's a national election because this is a national concern. "Throw the bums out" is not operative in this election. There is dissatisfaction, but there is no true anti-incumbency. Right now that would be a self-indulgence. This is a serious time, and I think people will vote not by trivial emotion but by reason as they see it.
Here of course is the uncertainty. The economy is splendid. To the American mind that means that things are as they should be, so no one will vote the economy one way or the other. On domestic issues Democrats will vote Democrat, Republicans Republican. No change. So that leaves the one thing and that's the war, and that doesn't mean Iraq it means the bomb going off down the street. This is everyone's subterranean thought, it could happen. And I don't know that the judgment on the war will be made on the basis of specifically stated policies, because in truth no one for sure knows what the best policy would be. But there is a difference in terms of who's putting in some effort, There is such a thing as being serious, and I think in our present climate that favors one party over the other.
..............
A note on the polls: I discount those that show approval ratings. With all the wailing in the press nobody's going to be much pleased with anything. Poll numbers on individual races are more problematic. I do think many of the disaffected, who are now placed in the Democrat column, simply won't vote. Because of the press they feel disgust, but disgust is not policy. They don't see an option and so will just stay home. Committed Democrats will vote, but since the entire point of their political philosophy is just to feel good about themselves they won't work very hard to get others to vote. Republicans though, are serious people, and they do care about their nation. They will vote, and they will work. I expect they'll do just fine.
.............. And I see I totally forgot my initial intent, which was to analyze the Democrat psyche, in all its gentleness and fragility. Oh well, another post.
....................
Note:Tom Dashle predicts the Dems will pick up 7 senate and 25 house seats. I bet I'm closer than he is.
Michael Barone notes the same underlying fear as do I, but fears we may be about to slip back into a holiday from history.
In the same way as there is no rationality to their expectation they will win, there will be no rationality in their explication of their defeat. It will have been a plot. The same people who brought down the World Trade Towers will have stolen the vote, will have messed with the machines and taken from them the victory that was actually theirs.
I have heard it speculated that if the result is close, but the Dems not quite over the top, it will be weeks before we know who controls the house, because it will take that long for litigation to work its way through the courts. This for a certainty is true. But what if the Republicans actually gain?
I'm not certain that this is impossible. It's true that there's no particular reason to be excited by the Republicans, but how is it possible to be excited by Democrats? I've never seen a party stand for less, I've never seen a party more unpleasant, and I've never before seen a campaign where there was no counter vision offered at all.
But there is one vision in this campaign that is new, that is pervasive, that has not existed before, and it's one that every voter knows, and it's this, the one true, underlying, largely unspoken fear... of a bomb going off in our cities. That fear, only slightly acknowledged, underlies everything, because we know "those people" do that sort of thing, we see it all over the world, and that's what I think makes this a serious election, a national election. This changes the ordinary calculus, this makes this a very different election from any other.
And am I right in this, that the Democrat party of the last two years has been one different from the Democrat party in the two years before 2004? It seems to me that in those years of a presidential campaign there was argument, it seems I remember that the policy toward Iraq was to be "better and smarter". Since then I've not heard "better and smarter", I've heard Abu Ghraib, cut and run, detainee abuse, detainee rights, unlawful wiretaps, persecution of noble whistle blowers, and incompetence incompetence incompetence.
This is the platform of the Democrats, to bitch. "If elected: No terrorist ever again will have a panty draped over his head. This I promise. And the world will be a better place for all, and America will be safe."
And meanwhile the average America in odd moments wonders when the next bomb will go off in his city.
It's a matter of being serious. I believe that the party that can make Abu Ghraib a six month story is not serious.
That's why this is a different election. It's a national election because this is a national concern. "Throw the bums out" is not operative in this election. There is dissatisfaction, but there is no true anti-incumbency. Right now that would be a self-indulgence. This is a serious time, and I think people will vote not by trivial emotion but by reason as they see it.
Here of course is the uncertainty. The economy is splendid. To the American mind that means that things are as they should be, so no one will vote the economy one way or the other. On domestic issues Democrats will vote Democrat, Republicans Republican. No change. So that leaves the one thing and that's the war, and that doesn't mean Iraq it means the bomb going off down the street. This is everyone's subterranean thought, it could happen. And I don't know that the judgment on the war will be made on the basis of specifically stated policies, because in truth no one for sure knows what the best policy would be. But there is a difference in terms of who's putting in some effort, There is such a thing as being serious, and I think in our present climate that favors one party over the other.
..............
A note on the polls: I discount those that show approval ratings. With all the wailing in the press nobody's going to be much pleased with anything. Poll numbers on individual races are more problematic. I do think many of the disaffected, who are now placed in the Democrat column, simply won't vote. Because of the press they feel disgust, but disgust is not policy. They don't see an option and so will just stay home. Committed Democrats will vote, but since the entire point of their political philosophy is just to feel good about themselves they won't work very hard to get others to vote. Republicans though, are serious people, and they do care about their nation. They will vote, and they will work. I expect they'll do just fine.
.............. And I see I totally forgot my initial intent, which was to analyze the Democrat psyche, in all its gentleness and fragility. Oh well, another post.
....................
Note:Tom Dashle predicts the Dems will pick up 7 senate and 25 house seats. I bet I'm closer than he is.
Michael Barone notes the same underlying fear as do I, but fears we may be about to slip back into a holiday from history.
posted by mouse at 1:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home