Niccolo Medici
08-11-2004, 23:44
The letter I hold in my hand is directed to all members of the NS community, and indeed, of the entire political world, who feel anger at the re-election of George W. Bush.
The letter is brief.
"Don't shoot the messenger."
The explanation is a bit longer. Get comfy.
Like many people on November 2nd, I was quite anxious, nervous even. I had spend the recent months here at NS, reading the various posts about the election, watching endless news programs, feeling the butterflies in my stomach grow bigger and bigger as the time came near. I wanted it over and done with, but the days dragged by with endless debates. As everyone knew, so much hung in the balance on that fateful day, I couldn't just dismiss it as someone else's problem.
I overreacted a bit in the end it seems. At around 7pm on November second I collapsed on my bed, coughing up blood. I spent the next day half-delirious with high fever; I had aggravated an ulcer in my body from sheer anxiety. When I recovered a few days later I went online and saw something that deeply disturbed me.
I saw so many of my friends, so many associates, and so many NS posters decrying the Bush victory. That was nothing unexpected. But most, if not all, blamed the very US citizens they hoped to cultivate for themselves on Election Day. Endless speeches about how dumb people are, how foolish, questions about IQ levels and sanity.
Don't shoot the messenger!
All of you who opposed his re-election, the Democratic challenger, perhaps the entire world thinks they just lost the 2004 US election due to voter stupidity. But you did not lose because of the voters; they merely sent you the message. Now, rather than stamping your feet in frustration and talking about how dumb the American people are, take a good long look at your mistakes and stop making them!
Did John Kerry run a flawless campaign?
Did some leading personalities in the Democratic camp alienate voters?
Did the issues get framed in a way beneficial to the Democrats?
Did the Republican attack machine get neutralized?
Was John Kerry's Running mate an asset?
Did the Democratic party have a clear, united vision to place before the US?
The answers to many of these questions will depress you. And they should. In the face of a widely hated president and having a highly energized democratic base, this should have been a cakewalk. Why wasn't it?
Leadership. Not just John Kerry's, the entire Democratic party's leadership was confused, disjointed, and de-centralized. There was no cohesion, no clear grand strategy, and far too many competing interests.
The famous quote, "I'm not a member of an organized political party. That's right, I'm a democrat." Still rings true. It should not, and must not remain that way if you wish to stand a chance against the far more effective centralized structure that the Republican party now employs.
For all the energy and vigor behind the anti-Bush movement, it was unfocused and thus, unproductive. Bush bashing is merely a form of fighting, debates are merely the battles of the political world. Skirmish with the trolls all you want on the NS forums, but the real fight doesn't take place here. Believe it or not the large majority of Republicans warned you about that in advance; how many posters told you that "Just because Bush is bad gives us no reason to vote for Kerry" or similar things to that effect?
Seeing how military records played such a big part of the election, I'll use this quote; "The good general wins first and then fights, the poor general fights, then tries to win." Guess what? The Democrats haven't been good generals...They needed to come up with a cohesive vision and gameplan before doing anything else. Instead they relied on the fighting spirit of the many citizens who were fed up with Bush, then placed Kerry at the head. He didn't direct the troops, he didn't choose his battles; instead he sat at the head of a huge army of anti-Bush groups and absorbed fire from the political Right.
This post would be even more massive if I went point by point down the list and demonstrated just how this happened, and how the Democrats screwed up, when and where the Republicans got it right, pointed out your mistakes, or missed opportunities themselves. I will rely instead on your collective memories to recall the campaign, from the inception of the anti-Bush groups, to the first anti-Kerry attack ads, through to the Debates and on till Election Day.
The point is the history of the campaign is a painful lesson for democrats. OR, AT LEAST IT SHOULD BE. If you continue to blame the American voter for giving you the finger on Nov 2, expect that same digit to be upraised in four years. A good general doesn't blame the troops for the general's mistakes; the democrats can't blame the American people for their own.
You have 4 years to get it right. 2 if you count the mid-term elections. You don't suffer from a lack of good potential leaders; you don't suffer from a lack of good ideas. The Democratic Party has rising stars throughout the nation; good solid chances remain open to you. Allow me to break it down for you.
1) Hillary Clinton
2) Barack Obama
3) Unknown "electable" statesman
These are your three real choices for the next presidential election. You can pick Hilary Clinton, an in-party elite with strong ties to the Clintonian legacy. Barack Obama, with his rising star status and high charisma, and the traditional route; some unknown statesman who while respected, isn't particularly well liked, kinda seen as "electable", if only for the fact that there isn't anything outstandingly bad about them.
You can see where I'm going with this. There are many potentially good presidents in the democratic party, but you're not gonna win with 99% of them. Especially considering what you (potentially) might face in 2008...
1) Colin Powell
2) John McCain
3) Jeb Bush
Now, I know it’s doubtful in the extreme that Powell will run for president period, let alone after the Bush presidency left him on the outs with his own party. But he's overcome that opposition before and he would be a dangerous candidate.
John McCain lost to George Bush before he was wildly popular on both sides of the isle, before his name was synonymous with integrity. It took some of the nastiest push-polls in campaign history to put down McCain before he was popular; try running against him now.
Jeb Bush is an outside chance in 2008; if I know the grand strategy of the Republicans at all, they'd shy away from looking like Dynasts any more than they do now. They'll keep him in reserve for 4 to 8 years after George W leaves office. He still might run though, depending on how popular his Brother is in 2007.
Of course, any number of other candidates might come out in the future. But with any those three potential contenders to deal with, perhaps you'll see the gravity of the situation. The Democratic Party is in trouble, they are in desperate need of internal reform and blaming the American people won't help.
Don't shoot the messenger. Listen to what the American people have to say. Find your goals, find your message, and centralize power enough to coordinate your actions on a national level. You need to do more than mobilize, you need to organize.
Oh, and by the way; I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. I am an American.
I despise the notion that the governance of political parties is becoming more important than the government of the nation. But if helping the Democrats realize their mistakes helps America get better government, I'll do it. I have remonstrated with both sides, as those who have seen me post here know.
The letter is brief.
"Don't shoot the messenger."
The explanation is a bit longer. Get comfy.
Like many people on November 2nd, I was quite anxious, nervous even. I had spend the recent months here at NS, reading the various posts about the election, watching endless news programs, feeling the butterflies in my stomach grow bigger and bigger as the time came near. I wanted it over and done with, but the days dragged by with endless debates. As everyone knew, so much hung in the balance on that fateful day, I couldn't just dismiss it as someone else's problem.
I overreacted a bit in the end it seems. At around 7pm on November second I collapsed on my bed, coughing up blood. I spent the next day half-delirious with high fever; I had aggravated an ulcer in my body from sheer anxiety. When I recovered a few days later I went online and saw something that deeply disturbed me.
I saw so many of my friends, so many associates, and so many NS posters decrying the Bush victory. That was nothing unexpected. But most, if not all, blamed the very US citizens they hoped to cultivate for themselves on Election Day. Endless speeches about how dumb people are, how foolish, questions about IQ levels and sanity.
Don't shoot the messenger!
All of you who opposed his re-election, the Democratic challenger, perhaps the entire world thinks they just lost the 2004 US election due to voter stupidity. But you did not lose because of the voters; they merely sent you the message. Now, rather than stamping your feet in frustration and talking about how dumb the American people are, take a good long look at your mistakes and stop making them!
Did John Kerry run a flawless campaign?
Did some leading personalities in the Democratic camp alienate voters?
Did the issues get framed in a way beneficial to the Democrats?
Did the Republican attack machine get neutralized?
Was John Kerry's Running mate an asset?
Did the Democratic party have a clear, united vision to place before the US?
The answers to many of these questions will depress you. And they should. In the face of a widely hated president and having a highly energized democratic base, this should have been a cakewalk. Why wasn't it?
Leadership. Not just John Kerry's, the entire Democratic party's leadership was confused, disjointed, and de-centralized. There was no cohesion, no clear grand strategy, and far too many competing interests.
The famous quote, "I'm not a member of an organized political party. That's right, I'm a democrat." Still rings true. It should not, and must not remain that way if you wish to stand a chance against the far more effective centralized structure that the Republican party now employs.
For all the energy and vigor behind the anti-Bush movement, it was unfocused and thus, unproductive. Bush bashing is merely a form of fighting, debates are merely the battles of the political world. Skirmish with the trolls all you want on the NS forums, but the real fight doesn't take place here. Believe it or not the large majority of Republicans warned you about that in advance; how many posters told you that "Just because Bush is bad gives us no reason to vote for Kerry" or similar things to that effect?
Seeing how military records played such a big part of the election, I'll use this quote; "The good general wins first and then fights, the poor general fights, then tries to win." Guess what? The Democrats haven't been good generals...They needed to come up with a cohesive vision and gameplan before doing anything else. Instead they relied on the fighting spirit of the many citizens who were fed up with Bush, then placed Kerry at the head. He didn't direct the troops, he didn't choose his battles; instead he sat at the head of a huge army of anti-Bush groups and absorbed fire from the political Right.
This post would be even more massive if I went point by point down the list and demonstrated just how this happened, and how the Democrats screwed up, when and where the Republicans got it right, pointed out your mistakes, or missed opportunities themselves. I will rely instead on your collective memories to recall the campaign, from the inception of the anti-Bush groups, to the first anti-Kerry attack ads, through to the Debates and on till Election Day.
The point is the history of the campaign is a painful lesson for democrats. OR, AT LEAST IT SHOULD BE. If you continue to blame the American voter for giving you the finger on Nov 2, expect that same digit to be upraised in four years. A good general doesn't blame the troops for the general's mistakes; the democrats can't blame the American people for their own.
You have 4 years to get it right. 2 if you count the mid-term elections. You don't suffer from a lack of good potential leaders; you don't suffer from a lack of good ideas. The Democratic Party has rising stars throughout the nation; good solid chances remain open to you. Allow me to break it down for you.
1) Hillary Clinton
2) Barack Obama
3) Unknown "electable" statesman
These are your three real choices for the next presidential election. You can pick Hilary Clinton, an in-party elite with strong ties to the Clintonian legacy. Barack Obama, with his rising star status and high charisma, and the traditional route; some unknown statesman who while respected, isn't particularly well liked, kinda seen as "electable", if only for the fact that there isn't anything outstandingly bad about them.
You can see where I'm going with this. There are many potentially good presidents in the democratic party, but you're not gonna win with 99% of them. Especially considering what you (potentially) might face in 2008...
1) Colin Powell
2) John McCain
3) Jeb Bush
Now, I know it’s doubtful in the extreme that Powell will run for president period, let alone after the Bush presidency left him on the outs with his own party. But he's overcome that opposition before and he would be a dangerous candidate.
John McCain lost to George Bush before he was wildly popular on both sides of the isle, before his name was synonymous with integrity. It took some of the nastiest push-polls in campaign history to put down McCain before he was popular; try running against him now.
Jeb Bush is an outside chance in 2008; if I know the grand strategy of the Republicans at all, they'd shy away from looking like Dynasts any more than they do now. They'll keep him in reserve for 4 to 8 years after George W leaves office. He still might run though, depending on how popular his Brother is in 2007.
Of course, any number of other candidates might come out in the future. But with any those three potential contenders to deal with, perhaps you'll see the gravity of the situation. The Democratic Party is in trouble, they are in desperate need of internal reform and blaming the American people won't help.
Don't shoot the messenger. Listen to what the American people have to say. Find your goals, find your message, and centralize power enough to coordinate your actions on a national level. You need to do more than mobilize, you need to organize.
Oh, and by the way; I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. I am an American.
I despise the notion that the governance of political parties is becoming more important than the government of the nation. But if helping the Democrats realize their mistakes helps America get better government, I'll do it. I have remonstrated with both sides, as those who have seen me post here know.