The virtues of passion and anger. ... They ["reasonable" sorts] preach a mindset of fear and defensiveness -- never articulate a view too strenuously and never be driven by principle or passion because to do so renders one an unmoderate extremist who will alienate normal Americans.
-- Glenn Greenwald
Exactly. This was in particular in response to a run by a former military sort running against Curt Weldon, someone who bucked the critics and actually supported changing our Iraqi policy, including redeployment. It helps that Weldon is a bit of a nut who has had various problems, including ethical concerns. All the same, political success is not for the light hearted. This is true even if your message is substantively moderate. Look at Bill Clinton, the demigod of some sorts. He played to the middle, but with a no apology passion against the Right. This is why people on the left remained so loyal to him, even though his policies left something to be desired.
This is also why I supported Howard Dean in '04. Now, honestly, I thought him not quite electable, but there really was not any ideal choice in the mix. I got tired of him being bashed for telling the truth. Thus, some were appalled at his tax policy, amounting to basically telling the truth and noting small cuts to middle class taxes nationally would be shifted to the states. Net gain: negative. [I was helped here by the Slate fray economic expert.] My secondary choice was John Edwards, who looks to be a credible choice in '08 (so his runs in '04 were useful), but clearly wasn't ready yet. And, then there was a bunch of nobodies, including the Republican candidate from Connecticut. As Glenn Greenwald notes in the comments to the piece, the ultimate "safe" choice didn't excite that many people.
This leads to loyal Democrats to defend Kerry and perhaps blame the slime from the Bushies (see Al Franken's book The Truth (with Jokes)). You sometimes get the idea that they really didn't think Kerry was going to win, but figured that he would give us a respectable loss. Or, they lied to themselves and made him in a better candidate than he was (e.g, Legal Fiction was unable to see Kerry was in trouble ... thinking the fact he did good in the debates somehow clinched it -- thus, he was shocked on Election Day even though the polls suggested it was a toss-up*). And, we had to ignore his weasel on Iraq in '02, especially since many (Al Franken, anyone?) actually bought it at the time. There is always the "Ohio was stolen" path (still would have won popular vote ... but hey, that isn't an issue ... oh wait ...).
Democrats tend to be by nature careful, partially perhaps because they aren't quite used to be out of power in D.C. (they did control the Senate '01-2, so it's not like it was for too long), and willing to let it all out. This perhaps is why liberal anti-free trade Ohio Senate candidate Sherrod Brown (against far from safe seat DeWine) voted for the Military Detainee Act of 2006. Since, hey, can't expect totally consistent liberal votes ... such as not voting for stripping habeas corpus and supporting immunity for torture and mistreatment of people in various cases not even guilty of anything. [On our respect for due process, and Iraqi judicial independence, see here -- note a U.S. citizen is involved, albeit, you know, not a white one or anything.] Or, not having Sen. Clinton voice support of torture in the phony "ticking time bomb" scenario.
Let's be realistic, right? F-that. I have written against those who want to spin passionate support of certain candidates (or opposition to people bad for our country's interests) as unreasonable petty "anger" and have been reminded that anger often is a useful rallying tool. Point taken, though it should be noted that my overall point was that the negative spin on "anger" was the phony issue. The idea people were just being led by irrational distaste for Bush and company, not for quite reasonable despair at what they did to the country. Being "realistic" would be to understand that people do not support change dispassionately, playing it safe. They tend to be quite passionate, often supporting people who do not just play it safe, but firmly address their concerns and fears.
Such passions and firm candidates helped lead to Republican control, including grass roots moves that led to local control throughout the country. Since the truth is on our side, can we not too work this route some? Firmness of principle, especially given what a mess Republicans made, should be our watchword. Success does not come from cowardice. If Oliver Perez (3-13) could gut it out for a win versus a flawed team, cannot the Democrats? Or, should we pussyfoot around, walking troublesome sorts, and suddenly being shocked when there is some upset?**
I know that would upset me.
---
* I also didn't like the clubby nature of the in effect group blog, it becoming some sort of clique in which a group of regulars interacted with each other (again) promoting a viewpoint I did not quite buy. This general sentiment, especially when involving commenters that I honestly don't like, feels too much like some high school "in crowd" drama.
** The charm of yesterday's game was possible comparisons to 1998, when the "couldn't be stopped" Yanks hit a snag, being behind 2-1 in the second round. Since I was there, I know they clinched in six (Cone hanged on after the Yanks went ahead early). And, they had El Duque to stop the bleeding -- the Mets only had him having a throw session, hopeful for a World Series start. BTW, some job by the Saints -- holding the ball for the last eight or so minutes, ending the game with a winning FG over the Eagles -- who earlier went ahead 24-17.