Slate has been providing a series of debates on "why America hates Democrats," which I assume have some merit to them, but the title just turns me off. A moderate Republican friend of Mark Kleiman summed up nicely the ideal battle plan of the Democrats: "get a spine, get some discipline, and get a strategy." In other words, the Democrats have to be emphatic about their beliefs, defend them aggressively and proudly, including not being ashamed about being against bigotry, supportive of privacy rights, and believing in a social safety net.
And, get some good leadership -- the idea that we should not damn Sen. Kerry and his strategists because it is somehow in bad form, is just plain stupid. Thus, though it could be helpful to bring in someone from a Red State, what is essential is bringing in someone with a strategy and message that can connect with enough closely divided red/purple states to get the brass ring. I just don't find this rocket science and along with the benefits of incumbancy, the way President Bush took advantage of the War on Terror, and so forth, overanalyzing it seems a tedious affair.
[For instance, some analysts note that more white women and Hispanics to some significant degree voted for President Bush this time around. First off, since the guy received around three percent more of the vote this time, we are talking about thin pieces of the electorate. At some point, one can go crazy when dealing with such small numbers.
Second, the whole "security mom" phenomenon is not rocket science, though I guess it might be given how much people are talking about "values." Finally, the conservative nature of various Hispanics is notable, but it is not news either. At the end of the day, the Democrats lost for basic reasons, and overanalysis might make them miss the forest for the trees.]
After providing a useful reminder of such things from a moderate Republican who probably was not too enthused with the winner of the election, Mark Kleiman decided to join the liberal bashing brigade. There is a hazy line between being critical of the self-satisfied liberal who doesn't quite realize why anyone would find them "culturally non-threatening" and stereotyping liberals overall. Mark Kleiman does so, even if he is trying to make a point. And, he is not alone -- the level of missing the point is ridiculous.
To give an example, Richard Cohen had a column on how voters really aren't confused. For instance, the idea Kerry would pay for his programs by just cutting taxes on the rich was surely ridiculous. First off, the many voters were confused, unless we suddenly have evidence Saddam Hussein had WMDs and had a role in 9/11. Second, that is an oversimplification of Sen. Kerry's programs. As an example, let's remember that currently those without insurance still at some point often receive emergency health care, which often is more expensive in the long run. One aspect of Kerry's plan would have supplied such coverage, resulting in savings in the long run. It's so much easier to stereotype, even if you are a putative supporter (Cohen voted for Kerry).
Anyway, Kleiman really put some effort is his "liberals don't get it" post, and it might be useful to answer the complaints. If the Democrats want to regain their majority, they have to at least have the support and understanding of their natural allies. And, "Democrats" might not be the same as "liberals" (one person who challenged my p.o.v. over the last year or so is a Democrat, but is also in my eyes clearly a conservative), but Kleiman basically considers them interchangeable in his comments. The caricature he sets up really makes this interchangeability hard to take, but I guess it shows the importance of having more standard bearers (such as the lady senators from Alabama and Louisiana, perhaps) that don't seem so liberal, a term on par with "socialist" these days.
In particular, liberals are taken, correctly, to be morally uncomfortable with the need to inflict pain on wrongdoers, both domestically and internationally. Conservatives, by contrast, think that punishment is not only necessary but right. That's a position on which most people instinctively agree with the conservatives.
Thus, he starts off badly. Not only is pain and punishment not necessarily the same thing, liberals do not feel punishment is unnecessary and/or wrong. Their concern is on the degree and sorts of punishment. This is not just a shading or anything, it goes to the substance of the position. What is the value in furthering a stereotype that liberals believe criminals should just get away with their crimes? There is a germ of truth to his comments but "by contrast" seems to imply just that.
Linked to their uncontrolled compassion is liberals' perceived (and to some extent real) indifference to the Puritan virtues -- chastity and sobriety and hard work and thrift -- or at least their unwillingness to act on behalf of those virtues in any way that might seem to imply disapproval or intolerance of those who display the corresponding vices.
On the other hand, liberals are perceived -- again, not entirely falsely -- as having their own set of strongly-held moral commitments and as being willing to impose them on other people.
First, to the degree any of this is true, liberals are not the same as Democrats overall in this regard. If so, it is unclear how blacks, union members, and those who make fun of President Bush for not working for his money are members of the party. It is not simply that "liberals" like myself (no matter what I consider myself, I'd probably be labeled a liberal by many) believe strongly in "hard work and thrift" as well as chastity (to some degree), but it's just an exaggeration overall. The "to some extent real" aspect of the libs here amounts to a pretty small kernel of truth.
As to the OTOH, the moral commitments are such things as being against discrimination and so forth, though also various things like environmental regulations, which has often has some sort of nature religion flavor to it (though the mention of Al Gore exaggerates the point). True enough, quite defensible in many cases, but yes, liberals should keep in mind that it isn't all some sort of scientific obviousness that is taking place here.
The Democratic platform is arguably rather "Christian" in fact, which is why many believers find the party copacetic. I must note however that if Kleiman finds the President Carter going on television with a sweater is a problem (libs don't want us to turn up the heat), how does this compare to the stuff the other side tries to force on the public? Thus, I think Mike Kinsley has a point:
We on my side of the great divide don't, for the most part, believe that our values are direct orders from God. We don't claim that they are immutable and beyond argument. We are, if anything, crippled by reason and open-mindedness, by a desire to persuade rather than insist. Which philosophy is more elitist? Which is more contemptuous of people who disagree?
[Yeah, Kleiman answers, but such a "live and let live" attitude doesn't work too well when you find the activities inhumane. If you believe abortion is murder, saying it should be an individual choice is akin to making child abuse an individual choice. Interesting example given how many support corporal punishment and look at child services with a questioning eye, but okay. Still, I say each side at some point might cancel each other out, so the libs do not come out badly. And, the cries of elitism and victimization still seems a bit hypocritical when it comes from the conservatives.]
Mark Kleiman in another post suggests that truth and right should not be put aside just because a majority (bare or not) believe otherwise. Leaders in this country might have to appeal to the people at large because it is expected in a democracy, much like a king's courtiers appeals to him in a monarchy. But, if a majority supports torture, it does not make it right. Wise words. Kleiman seems to forget about them in his remarks that stereotypes liberals in an attempt to point the way to obtaining an electoral majority.
At best his comments is a sort of devil advocacy, one I will continue responding to in the next post, but even on that level it is poorly done. And, the tenor of his comments suggests he truly believes "liberals" have such problems. Such stereotyping must not be allowed to become conventional wisdom ... too late, I guess.