Do Liberals Let Policy Trump Politics To Their Detriment?

[ruggerson]

I admit, I'm fascinated with POLITICS. And by that, I mean strategy, speech making, image fostering, media savvy, everything that must move in harmonious circuitry in order to win an election.

But I've noticed, especially here on DU, the committed idealogues on the left eschew and disdain all of that in a kind of blind faith that the American people will elect our guy/gal, solely because they are right on the issues.

I hate to break it to you, but you are dead wrong. Politics in 2007 is a bloody, media driven contact sport. Remember how Dean self destructed in a week in Iowa? It wasn't just the scream, which most people remember, the scream happened AFTER two weeks of horrible strategizing and terrible media performances. Dean was miserable in the last debate, not coherent and forceful, and to top it off, when the media dug out an ancient talk show clip wherein he dismissed the Iowa caucuses as meaningless and unimportant, instead of handling it with deftness, humor and aplomb, the nation saw him running down a corridor, angrily and dismissively responding to reporters trying to ask him about it.

Dean was right on every issue. But totally unprepared as a POLITICIAN on the national stage.

When it comes down to it, Hillary, Obama, Edwards would all govern relatively similarly. Their positions on the issues are within inches of each other.

The American people don't make their judgement, in a presidential race, based solely on issues and policy papers. They make it on gut instinct. Who do they respond to as a person - who comes across as more authentic, more inspiring, more like a confident, tough leader.

All those variables are shaped by master strategy, not by positons on Iraq or healthcare.

We have to learn to play the Presidential sweepstakes game as well as the Republicans do. They learned the lesson that politics actually trumps policy a long, long time ago.

[The Magistrate]

1. At Times It Seems So, Sir

At bottom, the problem is that there are two competing models of how persons in the mass are moved. One holds that people behave rationally in their own best interests, and one that people are driven by their emotions to act in ways they find gratify them. People on the left tend to adopt the former view, and leadership on the right acts on the lines of the latter view. History suggests the latter view is more nearly correct, or at least can be made to work for electoral success more often.

The further one gets out towards the left-most poll of the political spectrum in our country, the more a further element sets in, that also works to hamper political analysis towards successful mass action. Many on the left in this country are people who value 'outsider' status as an element of their personalities and sense of identity. They are proud to be somewhat divorced from the general run of the people of the country, often viewing them as sheep and fools and low-brow dolts. Persons who have this attitude necessarily have some difficulty understanding what actually might move the mass of the people of the country, and the lines they suggest for doing so will generally be futile, and often actively counter-productive.

[w4rma]

13. I agree. (nt)

[sampsonblk]

2. I will cure your confusion

The issue has nothing to do with liberals. Most people who have strong beliefs would like to see those beliefs turned into policy to some extent. I think everyone here at DU understands what drives current politics in America. But that doesn't mean we have to approve of it. What's so fascinating to you also happens to be absolutely corrupt. An awful way of picking leaders. So enjoy it if you must. But expect to have a lot of us sickened by this vulgar spectacle.

[ShortnFiery]

3. "sickened by this vulgar spectacle"

Yes, I understand why many people don't vote. What our politicians must OFTEN become in order to be elected by those who actually go and vote ... well, they are often not people I like or trust. :(

[LWolf]

12. More on that here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I think that we as voters should be doing the same things we want to see from our elected representatives.

"Being the change," so to speak.

[ruggerson]

4. No, the rightwing is far more effective

at playing the game than we are. Largely, because they understand it. Your post is an example of what I am referring to - progressives feel as if they are morally above the "sickening spectacle" and that playing the game hard and furiously is somehow demeaning and distasteful. Guess what? You don't get to implement policy unless you WIN. So who's putting the cart before the horse and who's being realistic about what it takes in 2007 in the U.S. to effect change?

[sampsonblk]

7. No

Friend, I understand that you really believe that you're onto something. But let me tell you this: this board is full of people who understand what you are saying. I am a grown up. And I have been around a long time. I understand full well how this game is played.

Putting the 'game' above doing what's right is immoral and disgusting. What you are promoting is definitely the unsavory underbelly of American governance. Please burn your copy of Profiles in Courage immediately.

[leftofthedial]

5. the opposite is the problem

the "democrats" have placed politics above policy (or even worse, above principle) at every turn since they realized they had sold their souls to the insurance companies when the Clinton's health care reforms were gutted by "democrats." This gutlessness has destroyed the heart of the party and LOST, not won, the uncommitted middle.

[LWolf]

6. If policy does not drive politics, then politics is nothing more

than a blatant power play.

I'm not interested in power plays. I'm not interested in empire. I'm not interested in "beating" anyone.

I'm interested in policy. Period. I only value politics as a tool to affect policy. And not just any policy. Policy that fosters social and economic justice.

Politics without that underlying drive? Politics for the sake of power-mongering?

I find it corrupt. I find that it degrades the higher evolution of the human species.

I cannot glorify in manipulating people.

[ruggerson]

8. Of course policy is the end to the means

but you cannot effect policy unless you persuade the majority to vote for you.

The whole idea of gloriously losing, because we won't "lower" ourselves to actually winning elections, is kind of a pointless fool's game, imho.

[ShortnFiery]

9. I guess that's why "the meek" will inherit The Earth

after the vicious ones end up destroying each other. IF there is any earth to inherit.

IMO, our political system has morphed into "Animal Farm" - this version though is authored by Karl Rove. Most of us in America play the role of the hard working, but unaware, work horse "Boxer."

Oh, now I'm really depressed. :(

[LWolf]

10. I don't glory in "losing."

The difference is that I consider electing a corporate, bought, paid-for, and owned, candidate as "losing" whether or not they put a "D" next to their name.

Electing a candidate who will not do the work on policy that brings me to the polls to begin with is not "winning."

My definition of "winning" an election is this: Putting someone in office who will actually do the job I want done.

Electing someone who will not do that, and then celebrating a "win," is a fool's paradise. In my opinion, of course.

[sampsonblk]

11. Amen

[ruggerson]

14. You're having a different conversation than I am

Policy is the reason we are all participating in this, hopefully. Dedication to changing the course of the nation is what makes us committed, political individuals.

No one is suggesting that you compromise your policy goals, nor suggesting you support a candidate (in the primary) with whom you may have some glaring differences.

I am suggesting, however, that too many of us give short shrift to the PROCESS of politics, the media creation of a candidate that, yes indeed, helps propel the mushy center into voting for them. The center is comprised of people who will sway with their gut, not because someone has a well thought out healthcare plan. They are swayed by things too many liberals deem distasteful: hard, slugging political warfare.

When I said that politics trump policy, I'm referring only to the process of winning elections. I'm not suggesting we nominate someone solely because they are a skillful politician. Hopefully, we can get the best of both worlds in one person.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Shades of gray are so much less difficult to argue than stark black vs stark white.

I think you make good points and I generally agree with you ...... both this post and your OP.

[Telly Savalas]

17. But it's our present of process of politics which leads to such terrible policy.

If we're to succeed in the longterm we need to change the way the game is played.

[The Magistrate]

18. It Is Hard To See How That Could Be Readily Done, Sir

The game is played as it is because the ground on which it is played requires the sort of moves that are made.

The electorate is large, with roughly one hundred fifty millions of potential voters. It is also various, composed of persons differing greatly in their beliefs and attitudes and stations in life. Anything that is to appeal widely must be simple, in the nature of a lowest common denominator, so that the greatest possible number can be moved to say, "Hey, that's what I think, too!"

The greatest proportion by far of the electorate consists of persons who have little interest in politics, and are possessed of even less information concerning them, and their economic and social under-pinnings, and the world and its events around them. They do not perceive these things to impact directly on their daily lives, and their tastes and interests run to different directions. Anything that is going to create a degree of interest in these indifferent spectators sufficient to move large numbers of them to the polls is going to have be catchy: will need some flash, some pizazz, a good hook, a driving beat, and most important of all, wide and continual and inescapable circulation.

[Telly Savalas]

20. I don't disagree with any of that.

I'm just saying that so long as the situation remains the way you describe, we're going to be extremely vulnerable to electing fools and nogoodniks.

Democracy can only work if its citizens care.

[LWolf]

19. I hear what you are saying.

My politics tend to reflect who I am in real life; that's probably common.

In real life, I AM a lone wolf. I am not a follower. I don't trust others to make my choices for me, in life or at the polls.

In real life, I don't relate to much of U.S. culture. I was born and raised surrounded by it, but not a part of it. It shows.

I don't judge people by what they look like, by their fashion sense, or by how they present themselves. I judge them by what I can figure out about who they are. I automatically distrust someone who hides behind hair styles, make-up, and clothes, who tries to "charm" me, who calculates the way they present themselves to me to get a particular reaction. I'm sensitive to that kind, or any kind, of manipulation, and don't respond positively.

That means that I'm pre-wired to respond negatively to the kind of campaigning you're talking about. If someone wants my trust, my support, I want them to be who they are. I want them to be transparent, up-front, open, honest, and consistent. A person like that can earn my support, whether or not I agree with them all the time.

I would no more choose a friend, a lover, or a political candidate based on physical characteristics, clothes, accessories, income, social status, or "charisma" than I would based on their favorite color.

I judge people by what they do, and by how what they do correlates to what they say. The same goes for my candidates.

I realize that this is not the typical American mindset. That's why we're having two different conversations. I'm talking about the kind of candidate, and campaign, that can earn my support, and you are talking about the larger group of voters.

I admit to a wistful, idealistic hope that we can move American values, politics, and campaigns away from form and towards substance.

[OHdem10]

16. Ruggerson is right on as things stand today.

Politics is not bad. It is the method by which policy either
gets implemented or discarded. You can have a bevy of the
most wonderful policies but if you cannot play the politcal
game, your policies will collect dust somewhere on a shelf
or in a file drawer--or stashed away in some hiding place on
your computer. Unfortunately, elections will be lost.

While it sounds nice to remain above the fray, not stooping or
lowering oneself to opposition's tactics, two impressions can
be left with the public. One might be --That person must not
believe in his/her position very strongly. They do not believe
enough in their own policies to fight for them. Or, some may
see this reticence as snobbery--I am not willing to condescend
to that Level. This is how the Righties have been able to smear
Democrats. You know, those Democrats are just a bunch of elites
who think they are better educated and know what is good for
the rest of us.

I am certainly not advocating, that our party be in a constant
"street fight" with the opposition, but EMOTION wins electiona.
We may not want to believe this but Emotion has put Bush in WH
and the GOP in charge for 12 years. Candidates must show passion
and the willingness to fight back. Sometimes we must start the
fight if we believe enough.