the limits of outrage

By
Like all hardened life-long Democrats, I'm hoping for a sea-change in American politics in the 2006 election year. (Hence my work with Joshua Grossman on that gargantuan overview of House targeting.)

I'd like to make a simple point about "sea changes" that is not always apparent on the blogs.

#1: Peer pressure is a significant component in American political life. It's what's kept Bush and the GOP in office.

#2: The people who change their votes aren't necessarily the ones talking about politics, but they are the ones who are listening.

Peer pressure happens at exactly the point where people who are open to change their vote LISTEN to what's going on in the political environment and decide: "time to give the other side a shot." This is a rational and social process...but not so much an ideological one. (In my mind "loyalty to party" in the US comes out of coalition victories that acheive results...not out of "ideological conviction.")

I think 2004 represents the limits of traditional ideological push...ie. outrage driven politics...for both parties.
There is a real danger of "outrage fatigue." Democrats in 2006 need to understand the power of the water cooler, of the "quiet conversations." Corruption, competence and good government count for much more than outrage in the current environment.

Blogs are great tools for outrage, but outrage has limits.

My message to Democrats: build the 2006 campaign around the concept of good government and reform of corruption. We need to be the party that's fired up to "set things right, and do right by the public."

Eagerness for good government and reform, not outrage, will carry the day.

Comments

janinsanfran said…
I think we have to remember that people don't want to percieve themselves as changing. We need to offer them a path to voting differently by which they can say to themselves "I'm the same good person; those guys changed and became bad."

With this in mind, the reform of corruption frame can help them. They never would have voted for corruption, so the Republicans aren't their fault.
12:52 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

a serious moment

By
I was really struck by this photo , which graced the cover of Tuesday's New York Times, showing Ariel Sharon, Condoleeza Rice and James Baker attending a memorial of the late Yitzhak Rabin in Israel. There's something in that picture...in Rice's face, jaw set, eyes hidden behind rockstar sunglasses...and how she is flanked on either side by two men who've played hard-ball power politics for decades: Ariel Sharon, peering beneath his furrowed brow and, always conscious he is being observed, gesturing and thinking...and James Baker, completely hidden behind a permanent dimplomatic mask, an impenetrable sphinx. Of course, that photo sends a powerful message to the world. Rice was in Israel to do serious business . The fact that she brought Baker with her meant that the full weight of the U.S. military-industrial complex... the old guard ...was with her. That trip to Israel was important; and I would guess that U.S. plans and actions regarding Syria were part of that
Read more

James Watson: racism alive and well in the USA

By
I've spent the last 24 hours reading as the fires ignited by Nobel laureate James Watson have spurred hundreds of racist comments on message boards across the world . The racial views espoused by Watson are not simply pernicious, they are unamerican. The premise that you could walk out your door in the United States and make the claim, with a straight face and in a public place, that you presume that someone is less intelligent than you because of the color of their skin or ethnic background is abhorrent. Watson claims that everyone with Black employees “knows that they are not the equals of Whites” and, somehow, that is supposed to be acceptable? We are supposed to take him seriously…as a scientist? I don’t think so. Watson is about to lose his job and what was left of his reputation. The equality of every citizen, respect for each other including our differences and a sense of the potential inherent in each and every citizen, especially our children, is essential to what it m
Read more

Sharks, Carp and Dolphins: applying a model from business to politics

By
From where I stand, it is encouraging to read essays expressing creative and critical ways to think about Democratic strategy in what is shaping up to be a significant election year.   Thereisnospoon has served up another solid challenge (always welcome) to Democratic assumptions...and bmaples addendem to that diary (including a nice summary of some thoughts from Markos) extended the idea of a  "broad assault" on conservatism that I (with many others) advocated in the wake of Katrina with flipping the rock . What I'd like to do with this essay is adapt a paradigm from the world of business strategy that I think applies to the Democratic party in 2006.  I think you'll find these ideas dovetail with the above essays, and, I hope, will prove useful tools for thinking about Democratic strategy in 2006... Dudley Lynch's 1989 book Strategy of the Dolphin: Scoring a Win in a Chaotic World divided business strategy into three competing paradigms:  that of Sharks, that
Read more