home
about
archives
|
LIGHT OR HEAT?
08/11/2008
A truism known to all psychotherapists is this: most people don't change because they see the light; they change because they feel the heat.
Until one's own self-defeating behavior becomes painfully self-destructive, until people finally come up against the painful consequences of their familiar habits and vices, they tend to stick to the same old behavior, rationalizing that it is too hard to change, or it is really someone else's fault that they are unhappy. Once the pain they feel outweighs the resistance to change, the majority of people finally do something different.
The same is true with voters and their voting patterns.
We have seen each of the two major political parties move from dominance to minority status not because people finally woke up one day and said "now I see what this party has been up to," but because they are hurting under the governance of one party, they have had enough, and they are willing to change parties or vote against old party loyalties.
In recent history (the past century) there have been two approaches to government, represented by the two main political parties. They can be summed up thusly: the Liberal (Democratic) approach to government is that government exists to help all the people achieve prosperity, health, and security and that government can be a positive force in people's lives. Thus it is in the interest of Liberals, even if they don't always succeed, to make government work for the people as well as guard the treasury.
The Conservative (Republican) approach to government is that government is an unnecessary intrusion into people's lives and that it is the private sector rather than the government that can help many (though not all) people achieve prosperity, health and security. Thus it is in the interest of Conservatives to make government fail, to be replaced by private industry, and even go bankrupt. Not convinced? Here are the words of some well known Conservatives.
Ronald Reagan: "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."
Grover Norquist: "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
Tom DeLay: "By the time we finish this poker game, there may not be a federal government left, which would suit me just fine."
Starting with the 1932 election of Franklin Roosevelt (which was itself a reaction to the failed Republican policies that culminated in the Great Depression), Liberal- Democratic ideas dominated Washington, all the way up to the election of Ronald Reagan. The people were helped by Roosevelt's liberal policies and had no desire to change them, re-electing him three times, and electing his successor Harry Truman once. With Truman's popularity waning because of, among other things, the escalation of the Korean War, the people turned to Republican war hero Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. But Eisenhower was still fairly liberal, by today's standards, and the people had not really rejected the idea that government could be their ally. In 1960, after eight years of Ike, the people returned to the Democrats, who continued to dominate until 1968, when another unpopular war, the assassination of the most popular candidate, and some questionable campaign tactics on the part of Republicans, led to the election of the Republican Richard Nixon, another fairly liberal Republican.
While the country still governed with a Liberal Consensus, the precursor to Conservative dominance was happening behind the scenes, under the leadership of Barry Goldwater. The Conservative wing of the Republican Party was growing and looking for an attractive spokesman to win over Independents and Democrats and end once and for all the people's attraction to Liberal Democratic policies. That person was Ronald Reagan, but he would not have been elected and brought the Conservative Republican ideology to dominance had the people not felt the heat of the failed policies of the Democrat Jimmy Carter. With the Iranian hostage crisis, but mainly the economic stagflation that plagued his presidency, the people were unhappy with government, and ready to hear the message that government was the source of their problems rather than the solution to them. Thus, it was only the election of Ronald Reagan that ended a fifty year period of liberal-Democratic dominance in the White House. Reagan was also able to use the typical Republican tactic of appealing to resentment ("Welfare queens driving Cadillacs") and fear (of Communism) to defeat his Liberal rival.
The year 1980 was the turning point when many Democrats changed party affiliation, or simply became "Reagan Democrats." With the popular Reagan as the charming new candidate, it became acceptable, even fashionable for people to say they were Conservatives. And those voters who became Republicans under Reagan, or became "Reagan Democrats" have largely stayed there for the past twenty-eight years, keeping Conservative ideas dominant, even when the Democrat Bill Clinton managed to win. It should be remembered that Clinton never got fifty percent of the vote, as there was always a third party candidate to take away votes from his Republican opponent, and that he largely governed as a Conservative (NAFTA, welfare reform) except for his tax hikes.
His would-be successor Al Gore, would have governed the same way, and did win the popular vote, but the man who promised to be a "Compassionate Conservative" actually took the White House. If there was any part of conservatism that American voters didn't particularly like, it was the mean spirited "you're on your own" kind of conservatism, and so Bush cleverly took that off the table and promised to be a kinder, gentler type of Conservative, even though he never followed through on that promise.
If it hadn't been for 9/11 and the "War on Terrror," as well as some ugly distractions which Republicans use whenever they face a formidable opponent, Americans in 2004 might have replaced the incompetent president, and ended Conservative dominance, with the much more able John Kerry. But Conservatism wasn't totally discredited yet, and the people hadn't felt enough heat from the failures of Conservative control of the government.
By 2006 the heat was much more intense, for while the unpopular Iraq War did not affect most Americans, a failing economy did. Poor economic conditions, an expensive and unpopular war, and a bullying and corrupt Republican Congress that did nothing for the people allowed the Democrats to retake the Congress and prepared the way for a possible Democratic victory in the 2008 presidential election.
It remains to be seen if the heat is intense enough to finally end Conservative dominance and bring back an era of Moderate to Liberal Democratic presidents. Since 2006, the war has become less of an issue but the economy is in meltdown, with inflation and soaring oil prices, causing many people to lose homes, jobs, and the ability to fill up their gas tanks. The people have pretty much had it with Republicans which is why for the first time in many years, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans, and the generic Democratic candidate beats the generic Republican candidate in presidential election polls as well as many polls for congressional races.
There seems little doubt that Democrats will not only hold onto power in the Congress, but increase their majorities in both Houses. But we still cannot be sure that the heat the people are feeling is enough to throw the Republican bums out of the White House.
This is mainly because there are things about this election that are unlike any other election, but also because Republican smear and fear tactics might work one more time before the people finally reject them for the long term. In other words, Republican personal attacks and wedge issues might work in 2008, resulting in a Republican victory in November. Such a victory, however, would only postpone the inevitable. The people are feeling the heat of the failed policies (or non-policies) of the Conservatives, and will feel sufficiently more pain over the next four years of Conservative rule, should McCain win, at which point they will finally turn to those who know how to use government for the benefit of the people, Liberal Democrats.
So what are the Conservative Republicans doing to retain power in a Democratic year, an election year in which the people are feeling the heat which prompts them to want change?
First as much as possible they are separating themselves from the current administration and even from traditional Conservatism. That is why they have nominated someone who has a reputation for being a "maverick" and standing up to his party, even though he has voted with them more than 90% of the time. Of course, Republicans are far more interested in increasing the volume on the rhetoric and clouding the issue of reality, so that voters will believe the maverick mythology and ignore the real voting record of their candidate.
Second, they are attempting to destroy the opposition with what is sometimes called "the politics of personal destruction." This is something they are very good at. They take a candidate's strength and use it against him so that even though the people are not wildly enthusiastic about the Republican candidate, they are more leery of the Democratic candidate. They took John Kerry's military service and lied about it, thus neutralizing his superiority as a person of character to the draft dodging Bush. Now they are taking Barack Obama's inspirational appeal to people hungry for intelligent leadership and calling it "celebrity." Never mind that the leader and patron saint of their movement, Ronald Reagan, was a huge Hollywood celebrity. When a Democrat has charismatic appeal, then it is a bad thing and must be attacked.
The Republicans knew long before Barack Obama had the nomination that he would be a formidable candidate, and because they had a lot of ammunition against Clinton that they were anxious to use in the general election, they wanted to help her defeat Obama in the primary. The accusations of being un-American, exotic, foreign born, Muslim, and a black radical, began circulating on the internet long before Hillary even thought of a negative attack against her rival. This is simply the life-blood of Republican strategists: destroy the reputation of the opponent, with any and every lie and half-truth you can get out there, so they vote against your opponent.
Third, the Republicans are doing what they are good at: appeaing to fear and resentment. Over and over when facing an opponent who is ahead in the polls or who is a strong opponent, Republicans play the fear card. In 2004 they painted Kerry as soft on terrorism when they said he looked "French" – pointing to the French people's opposition to the war in Iraq. They said he was a flip-flopper who wouldn't be strong. Only George W. Bush, they said, is tough enough to protect you from the terrorists. The fact is that appeals to fear often work and fear makes clear thinking impossible. Fear trumps rationality, so as long as Bush and his campaign could keep people in fear (remember all those pre-election terror alerts?) then a large number of voters remained paralyzed and stayed with what they knew.
There are two things the Republicans have to work with this time that they haven't had in past elections. One is Obama's race, which is something they have never had to deal with in a candidate, and the other is Obama's charisma and popularity, which they haven't seen since Bill Clinton. Barack's name and African American heritage is how they get away with labeling him a "secret Muslim" who will put women in Burkhas and be soft on terrorists. His race leads to hints that he is a black radical who will get even with the white race – remember his crazy pastor? His name, heritage and the fact he was not raised in the heartland prompts Republicans to contend he is not "one of us." None of this is true, of course, but remember that successful appeals to fear make rationality and the truth go out the window.
As for Obama's charisma, the Republicans learned from Clinton's two victories. They didn't attack his popularity and lost. So this time they are going after Obama's strength, and using resentment as a part of their attack. "Life in the spotlight must be grand" goes one of the latest McCain ads attacking Obama's popularity. He has three of these ads out now, touting Obama as merely a celebrity, on the one hand implying he isn't smart enough to be president, on the other hand appealing to (dare I say "white") resentment of the black candidate.
Finally, if all of the above fail, the Republicans are holding on to the possibility of bringing out the old standby: the politics of distraction. This type of campaign uses wedge issues, issues that appeal to religious sentiment, fear and/or prejudice to influence a certain number of voters to choose a candidate based on one or two "moral" issues. Most of these issues have absolutely nothing to do with how good a president their candidate will be, but they provide a sufficiently emotional issue to distract a certain segment of the population from the really important issues.
Some people, for instance, can be influenced to vote on the issue of abortion alone. Republicans have been playing the abortion card for decades now, using anti-abortion rhetoric to keep some voters believing they will finally make abortion illegal. Once in office, however, Republicans are slow to actually do anything to stop abortion, as it is a wedge issue they may need in the next election. Gay marriage is another wedge issue, and in many of the recent presidential elections, Republicans have made certain there are anti-gay marriage initiatives on state ballots in order to bring out enough homophobic voters to elect their homophobic candidates.
These and other issues, like flag burning, displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings, or a candidate's personal religion, all become ways to keep a segment of the population focused on the distraction so they will ignore the terrible policy proposals, or lack of proposals offered by the Republican candidate. Who cares if John McCain wants to keep our military fighting multiple wars overseas for a hundred years, if he promises not to allow stem cell research? What does it matter if the economy goes to hell as long as "fags" can't get married? Why worry about whether everyone has health care, or can afford gasoline or even food, as long as the Ten Commandments are displayed in every courthouse?
Yet, even if these issues and strategies work this time to keep the White House in Conservative hands, they won't work forever. If John McCain manages to cobble together the votes of enough ignorant, distracted, and ideological wing-nuts to become president, the reality is he will make a mess of governance as Conservatives always do, and in four years, if America survives, the people will only be feeling more heat.
Liberal Democrats make a big mistake by thinking if they just educate people, the people will finally realize they have been scammed. At any given time, over the past eight years, there have been dozens of new books out exposing the Conservative Republican fraud, attacks on the Constitution, and failed ideology. But books haven't changed anything. Nor have new liberal radio talk show hosts, nor Keith Olbermann, nor new liberal think tanks. Only when the people feel the full heat of the Conservatives' destruction of the benefits of government, will they finally begin voting against them.
Unfortunately, as bad as things are right now, unless enough people have reached their limit, and unless Obama prevails (which I believe he can) against the ugly and dishonest Republican attack machine, things may have to get worse before they get better. The people may have to suffer another couple of wars, perhaps with a draft, another depression, rationing of gasoline and worsening access to health care, before they finally wake up.
Hopefully, they will wake up before it is too late.
All content © 2005 outragedcitizen.com
|
