|
KICK FROM AN OLD DONKEY
Republican pundits taunt us with not being able to say what we stand
for besides criticism of them and opposition to their "reforms". They are
half right. But even now, before the next election, we are winning on
certain issues. We are regaining some old ground. We are better than we
used to be at listing what we want for the common good--things we're for
and things we're against.
Of course we must continue to do so in debate and in discussion with
voters. We are starting to make the distinction between political issues
and the so-called "moral values" of religious fundamentalism, and to
defend a reasonable understanding of the Constitution. Our electoral
tactics are improving. However, we haven't yet found a concise and memorable Preamble, or
intellectual umbrella, for our Party with which to answer the simple
question of what we stand for. We need to show that our ideas are related
to each other according to a political philosophy which can be named,
recognized, and developed in think tanks and the public media.
It is hazardous to rely entirely upon a long or short list of what we
approve, hope for, or resist. A list does not explain what the items have
in common as our basic motivation or ultimate values. More important,
especially in canvassing, any list may happen to omit or include an item
of particular significance to any one voter, thus raising objection to the
list as a whole without further reasoning. We may be judged by the
presence or absence of one cherished item that is in fact of much less
real-life importance to the voter than all the others.This political hazard is especially true in the case of so-called "moral
values", and is well understood by Carl Rove's students. I believe that
the Republicans won the last election precisely because they were careful
not to expose their own ideological list. In clever mass mailings and
rallies they segregated and selected specific target-groups, picking and
choosing from their dictionary of inconsistent talking points.
The point is not that we should practice this kind of dishonesty, but that
we should face up to the problem. Many people who don't agree on all the
issues still vote and serve as Democrats because they understand that our
objective is the common good. They know, as most "independents" don't,
that we are united by the underlying idea of a commonwealth which
represents national and international interests of the country as a whole.
There is plenty of room for collegial dissent about particular means to a
common good. We are a democratic fellowship of converging motives.
Continued in Second Kick |
|
Jonathan Bayliss's guest column in the GDCC newsletter of May 2005. |
|
Gloucester
