Letters to the Editor
Chaostician
Published Letters: 56 Editor's Choice: 17
-
Response to Repsonse
[Read the article: Meaningless charade]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]All right, I usually try to avoid back-and-forth Table Talk style discussion on these letters to the editor pages, but since you call me out by name, I shall respond.
Regardless of your doubts, my main point was not that the filibuster itself would harm Democratic chances, but that drawing out the confirmation process with a filibuster would increasingly distract the media and public attention from those very items you list- Iraq, wiretapping, corruption, etc. It is exactly because those are the issues that will motivate the swing voters, that the Senate Democrats will roll over for Alito in order to keep the spotlight on their stronger issues.
The "obstructionist" label would indeed be harmful- especially when repeated over and over by GOP-controlled pundits and talking heads. When you consider the increasingly narrow margins of victory and loss in recent elections, losing even a few percentage points to voters who can be convinced that the Democratic party impedes progress could turn the tide in a few elections, which could be enough to alter the balance of power in Washington. If the Dems hope to make any significant gains in November, every possible advantage needs to be pressed to the fullest degree possible.
Your assertion that "playing it safe... violates a long, deep historical record" strikes me as a little naive, no offense intended. Ideologically, I agree that it would be nice if our politicians would vote their consciences. It would be great to go back to the good ol’ days of gentlemanly politics. What a wonderful world it would be if there were no lock-stepping partisans- consistently putting party loyalty above their own convictions. However, we don’t live in that world- we live in the world where approximately 50% of a mostly uninformed public chooses leaders based on 30-second sound bytes, talking points, and the endorsement of their preferred talk radio mouthpieces. (The other 50% can't be bothered to vote at all!) Our world is one where a politician’s hairstyle can count for more than his views. In the real world, Vietnam veterans can be tarred as unpatriotic for not endorsing the curtailment of civil liberties with sufficient zeal. The right wing took control of the GOP and the nation not by pushing the party rightward, but by controlling the message, and rigorously enforcing party unity. It has become all about sales, branding- politics as product. One of the major weaknesses of the Democratic party is that there are still too many reasonable people who will admit two or more sides to any particular issue. The GOP has no such wishy-washy weaknesses- they speak with the strength of absolute conviction, and demonize any who disagree. (See also: "clinton impeachment," “swift boat veterans,” “push polls,” “flip-flop,” “unpatriotic,” “freedom on the march,” “mission accomplished,” “plan for victory,” “war on terror,” etc.)
Mobilizing the base is important. Capturing the middle is important. Bringing those angry disenfranchised Nader voters back into the fold is important. Door-to-door canvassing is important, as are all those who work the phone banks and polling places. But you were absolutely correct that the “middle” – those obstinate folks who classified themselves as “undecided” right up to the last election day – is NOT paying attention. The only way to grab their attention away from TomKat/Brangelina/American Idolatry is to control the message in the media, as has been consistently and painfully demonstrated by the Karl Rove School of Political Manipulation. It doesn't matter if the Swift Boaters claims have a shred of veracity, as long as their charges are repeated every night on the news the damage is done. Pick good, easy to remember talking points and stick to them. Appeal to emotion, not intellect. Unfortunately for the Democrats (and democracy), that means picking your battles, and sometimes even allowing right wing ideologues a seat on the Supreme Court. I fully agree that it isn’t “right,” but it has become the unfortunate political necessity. If I had my druthers, we’d disband both parties and elect a whole government of intelligent independents who would view every issue without partisan filters. But that isn’t going to happen, and so I ally myself with the party of lesser harm.