Stop Peddling Smut: Ban the Liberal "Circle Jerk"

I have been thinking long and hard since the November election about what Dems did wrong in 2004. And beyond just the Dems, what are the challenges endemic to the liberal mindset that make it hard for us to win elections even when facing a weakened candidate who purports to have every "family value" but lacks veracity? I have been formulating some thoughts since November on the theory that if we are to win in 2008 we need to not only fix what was wrong in 2004 but ensure that in 2008 we do not make the mistake of re-fighting 2004. If we approach 2008 with "lessons learned from 2004" as our handbook, we will lose again. Hands down.

Here is my opinion, which will no doubt have me hooted off Majority Report Radio: What we as liberals need to do is truly have a "come to jesus" meeting about whether we would rather be right--or be in power. A good friend of mine called it The Arrogance of the Disenfranchised. It's the compulsion to insist on all-or-nothing outcomes when the social, psychological, and political work has not been done to appropriately secure those outcomes. Some of us call it The Liberal Circle Jerk: we talk at each other, we all clap for each other, and it never occurs to us that our time would be better spent educating those who disagree or don't understand, rather than congratulating ourselves because we all are in accord with each other...as we go right off the electoral cliff.

We feel so strongly about the "rightness" of our issues, in a very genuine way, that we almost lose sight of the point of having life-affirming ideas that benefit other humans: gaining the power to enact those ideas. Without taking the necessary steps to put our beliefs into action, what is the value of those ideas? Zero. It is a Circle Jerk. "Yay me! Good for me! I'm such a good person! Whoo! look at me!" Impact of circle jerk: Zero. Impact of strategic organizing around a shared set of values that may get you near to, but not exactly, to where you feel your issue deserves to be: Immeasurable.

The Right has done a fantastic job of empowering their constituents to ACT upon their beliefs in a way that, as you can see unfolding before your very eyes, has given them the power to enact them into policy and law. That could have been us, but we squandered it with our political orthodoxy. Yes. The Liberal Political Orthodoxy. If you aren't A, B or C, then you are not a good liberal. Sure, the Right has their orthodoxy too, but THEY WON, WE DIDN'T. So they are doing something right that we are messing up. Agreed?

So where have we gone wrong? One incredibly smart woman I know put it this way: "I knew John Kerry was going to lose in April 2004 when I attended the March for Choice in DC." At the march, the "c word" was thrown around by speakers and attendees alike, the message was "get angry and stay angry for 8 months"...and that was it. There was no "take this handbook on how to go home and mobilize 10 of your friends to bring this issue to the attention of your local area and to ensure that those who agree with you vote...oh, and here are the words to use to reach those who aren't yet with us." The ONLY purpose in having a one million person march is to show the powers that be your political numbers--and therefore clout. But if the powers that be know that for every one voter you reach, your "c word" rants are turning off another two voters, then they are happy to let you march all the way into the electoral minority. The Christian Right, by contrast, provided talking points, sample letters to the editor, ideas for voter mobilization, coffee klatches to drum up support for local, state and national candidates. In short, they taught their members how to speak to people who were on the fence or just needed a little motivation to actually go and vote. They avoided their 1996 mistake of putting Pat Buchanan on the podium during prime time, or of having him represent them at all. We didn't. We sqaundered the efforts of one million people simply by believing that we could somehow convince people of our positions--by speaking to them in OUR language rather than in their own.

After a survey showed that suburban women's main impetus for voting GOP was fear, Michael Moore led a whole effort to tell Americans not to be scared, and that fear was not a reason to vote for GWB. Stupid, stupid, stupid. People feel what they feel. Meet them there. Acknowledge it. Embrace it. And then show them YOUR ideas for calming their fears. GHWB made that mistake in '92 when he refused to acknowledge that the economy was in the toilet. People simply wanted to hear him say, "I know people are hurting, and I am working to ease that hurt. My plan is different from Clinton's but the point is the same: to ease your economic hurts and fears." Nope. GHWB kept insisting that all was well with the economy. Fiddling while Rome burned. Which is what Michael Moore did last October. You can't TELL people not to be scared. You can only acknowledge that they are and meet them on that level. Unfortunately, the Dems and liberals in general, for being truly caring, decent human beings on a personal level, have zero ability to do just that on a macro, electoral level.

Another case in point: In college, as crazy feminist as I was, I still considered myself somewhat strategically minded. As a bunch of us were creating signs to take on a pro-choice rally to the statehouse, I expressed concern about a couple of the signs requesting that the government "stay out of my [P-word]." I tried to remind the women that we were going to a sort of suburban area where that word is not only not used, but is considered so offensive as to actually prevent us from having an impact, therefore making the whole bus trip a complete waste of time, so could we perhaps not speak to ourselves with these signs but to the people we were trying to reach. Well, you'd have thought I was advocating chastity belts with the drama and questioning of my "commitment" that ensued. I went on the march but kind of just felt completely homeless within the women's movement. I just wanted to say, "guys, it doesn't GET more liberal than your girl E, and if you are offending ME, then you have lost a whole chunk of potential support from people far less liberally-minded." Which is exactly how my friend felt at the March for Choice: homeless within the women's movement, even while being a raving liberal.

So what's the solution? Well, greater minds than me will I'm sure have suggestions. But for my 2 cents, you'll have to tune in for Part 2 of Stop Peddling Smut: TLCJ.

In the meantime you can visit Sozadee.com
for additional ranting and discussion.