What Electability Has Wrought

by Chris Bowers, Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 09:37:28 AM EST

Electability is the most pernicious of all lies to penetrate the Democratic psyche. Electability, as frequenter commenter JollyBuddah termed it, is "a fairy tale told by bloviating pundits." It is the sort of mendacity used by swindlers and tyrants: a few simple gimmicks can solve all your problems. Find the right person, from the right state, in the right region, with the right resume, and presto, that is all you need. Simple falsehoods of this sort can appeal to desperate people who, like Democrats, seek immediate relief to crushing problems. We want to believe that all it takes are a few simple tricks, especially when times are at their worst. We want to believe this because we need hope.

What has electability wrought? What do we have now that John Kerry has been defeated?

Do we have a network of volunteers who, now that the election is over, are available to work on projects other than the 2004 election? Not really, as our massive volunteer efforts were geared toward a single purpose that has now passed, and many were not even from the areas where they were volunteering.

Do we have down-ticket Congressional and gubernatorial success to celebrate apart from the Presidential race? No, as the current congressional makeup is very similar to 1994 and 1996.

Do we have stronger local organizations anywhere outside of Montana and Democratic areas of swing states? Not really, as we have no new grassroots structures from the campaign.

Do we have any new issues raised during the campaign that we can seize on as part of a developing national message that can be used to raise the level of debate and bring more people to our side in the future? Not really, unless you count Edwards and Obama. For the majority of the campaign, Kerry's message was his bio. We do not have a single ideological narrative with any national resonance.

No, no, no and no. Kerry's campaign, and subsequent defeat, left us with few improved outlooks on the future. We do have improved netroots, massively improved small donor fundraising, much better voter registration in important Democratic areas and our most favorable partisan index map in decades. There were some long-term victories, but not many. Further, what we did gain, long-term, was entirely as a side-effect of our all-out effort to win at any cost. We improved in swing states because we saw swing states as the key to defeating Bush in 2004. We improved in small donor fundraising because the campaign needed the money. We registered more voters in swing states purely in an attempt to win in 2004. If there was a long-term project we ignored, it was ignored because it was not seen as central toward victory in 2004.

In other words, because we are a party in the death-grip of electability, we consistently fail to work on engaging in the long-term structural organization needed in order to improve our fortunes, long-term. More after the jump.

Last week I got into a pretty heated argument with my roommate (commenter Spartacus) over my Evolving Partisan Strength series. Near the end of the argument, he said something along these lines: I can't believe that in an article that long your entire point was that Southerners cannot improve on Democratic chances in the South in Presidential elections just by virtue of their very southern-ness. That is a pretty small point to make for an essay of that length. I was trying to make a few other points in the essay, but he was correct in identifying my central argument. My response was that that was not a small point at all, and the notion that the South can still swing to Democrats if and only if we nominate a Southerner is was one of the central misconceptions fueling the electability argument. Like many other "electability" misconceptions, it is so hard-wired into our national psyche and repeatedly reified by bloviating pundits. When the lie runs deep, it takes a lot of work to demonstrate that it is, in fact, a lie.

There are several other electability myths that I would like to work to debunk, because from what I can tell over two years of blogosphere bickering surrounding the term, every aspect of the electability argument is untenable. Here are a few more:

A line on a resume will compensate for a person's ideological and/or popularity weakness on a given policy issue (veterans will help us on the military, doctors will help us on health care, ministers will help us on religion, teachers will help us on education, etc). I don't buy this. Quite frankly, it assumes that people are idiots and blank slates dazzled by resumes and bright shiny things more than ideas.
A moderate will increase our appeal among moderates, or a liberal will increase our appeal among liberals.
Winning "this election" as all that matters. This is the big one, and it need to be discussed in full.

Winning "this election" is never all that matters. What we do, or do not do, in any given election alters our chances in future elections. If we do not build local grassroots structures in all fifty states during a Presidential election because everything is sacrificed at the alter of swing states, then we will have serious problems in congressional, state legislature, gubernatorial, and senatorial elections outside of swing states in future elections. If we do not work on a national message, and seek instead only to appeal on the given potluck of issues in a single cycle, we will still be lacking a national message in future elections. If we believe that a line on a resume, even if that line is a place of birth, can swing people more than message, we will be lacking in message altogether, which spells permanent electoral doom. If we think that simply being "moderate" will swing people, without ever explaining to people what "moderate" is, then we will be actively working to push more people into the conservative camp, and participating in our own destruction.

What do we have now that the election is over? Why should we be optimistic about our future? What has electability wrought? Trippi has one answer:

Mr. Kerry was a weaker candidate than Mr. Gore. He lost so much ground among women, Hispanics, and other key groups, that the millions in Internet money, the most Herculean get-out-the-vote effort in party history, and the largest turnout of young voters in over a decade, couldn't save him. Had the young stayed home, the sea of red on the map would have grown to include at least Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Hampshire--perhaps one or two more.(...)

Since the Democratic Leadership Council, with its mantra of "moderate, moderate, moderate," took hold in D.C., the party has been in decline at just about every level of government. Forget the Kerry loss. Today the number of Democrats in the House is the lowest it's been since 1948. Democrats are on the brink of becoming a permanent minority party.

What do we have in return? Pretty much, just money: A Republican sweep of the White House and control of Congress hasn't stopped the Democratic National Committee's fund raising.

The DNC announced Tuesday that it had raised at least $13 million in November. The total includes $10 million collected after the Nov. 2 election in which President Bush won a second term and Republicans strengthened their House and Senate majorities.

Due in part to growth in fund raising over the Internet, the DNC raised more this election cycle than it did before corporate, union and big individual donations known as soft money were outlawed by a 2002 law.

The committee raised at least $400 million in the 2003-04 election cycle, compared to $210 million in 1999-2000, the last presidential election cycle in which it could collect unlimited donations.

The party's fortunes are crashing, and we are still controlled by the electability mindset, and the sychophantic mendacity of the chattering classes currently manifested in an Anyone But Dean movement for DNC chair. It might as well be phrased as an Anything But a Fifty-State Strategy movement, an Anything But A National Message or Ideological Narrative movement, or an Anything But Change and Grassroots Movement. The electability mindset has almost single-handedly ripped our party to shreds, but unfortunately for us, many Democrats out there seem unwilling to try something new, something difficult, and something long-term.

Any reality based community would properly reject "electability" as the lie that it is. To bad more of us are not doing the same. Howard Dean for DNC chair.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Comments

21 Comments

Sort by

permalink

So where do we start?

How do the lively discussions at the netroots level work their way up the party? We do not have much faith in the party establishment and over at Talkingpointsmemo.com, Josh Marshall just posted a piece in which he argues that Dems in DC still don't realize why the party has become so weak. Is there realistically any way of ensuring that Dean or someone with similar credentials becomes DNC chair?

by KDMfromPhila 2004-11-30 10:08AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: So where do we start?

There are signs of life from the DNC in an article from The Hill: "Dems plan to redirect DNC away from presidential race" linked text

In behind-the-scenes positioning, key congressional lawmakers are seeking to prevent the national party from lapsing into another four-year presidential gestation cycle, where the DNC serves as nothing more than an incubator for the party's ambitions to capture the White House, say leadership aides.

That congressional strategy to deemphasize the presidential race is being paralleled at the state level, where party chairmen are withholding their endorsements and plan to swing their 112 votes in one bloc for a single candidate. ...

Those party leaders will seek to extract concrete assurances from the eight potential candidates for DNC chairperson who have been invited to address the Association of State Democratic Chairmen (ASDC) on Dec. 11 in Orlando.

Mark Brewer, chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party and of the ASDC, said that his group, with its 112 members, "represents at least a fourth" of the 447 total votes, "or even a third, if some of the other committee members don't show."

"What we'd like to see is much more focus on the state and local parties in every state," Brewer said. ...

"[House Minority Leader] Nancy Pelosi [D-Calif.] and others are making it very clear that something has got to change," a well-placed Democratic leadership aide said. ...

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) are also demanding that the next chairperson dedicate more time and effort towards reaching out black and Hispanic voters.

by Gary Boatwright 2004-11-30 04:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

A True Definition of Electibility

has to include backbone and gutsiness.

I mentioned this in a previous thread after learning of conservatives who voted for Feingold for this reason even though their political views aligned themselves with his opponent. This was reiterated today in comments on the Trippi article about Bush voters who would have voted for Dean for being a gutsy guy with new and original ideas.

by RedStateIndie137 2004-11-30 10:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

What is the lesson of Kerry's loss?

Kerry almost won running on biography and probably would have if it were not for the Swift Boaters. Furthermore, people who listed specific issues as the most important factor voted for Kerry overwhelmingly (except for those who listed terror). He basically lost on character and I don't think having a better message would have fixed that. I think the real lesson of this election is that they can and will smear anyone effectively. I know it sucks having to whine about it, but one of the reasons they keep getting away with their smear jobs is after the election Democrats blame themselves. Then we seem surprised when they do it again the next time. We have to regain some control of the political dialogue and that starts with message discipline on our side, crying foul when we need to, and getting better (and better prepared) spokespeople. The Right controls everything yet they have no problem screaming like babies at the mearest slight. That said, I agree about the need to think long-term and nationally. Furthermore, I think the DNC chair is a great position for Dean. It matches need with strengths perfectly. Hopefully, he can help the long-term project of crafting a coherent and successful Democratic message. Once we have a better message, we can fit candidates into that just like they do. Also, having a strong message to fall back on will help candidates weather the attacks.

As an aside, it is a little disconcerting that a lot of Dean people seem to think that because Kerry lost it necessarily follows that Dean would have won. It is impossible to predict how people would feel about Dean after 9 months of getting blasted by the Right-wing attack machine. They make good candidates look bad. Thats what they do and they are good at it.

by TJonBergman 2004-11-30 10:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What is the lesson of Kerry's loss?

It's not just Dean people who think Dean would have won. At the risk of being branded a Kerry hater, I was encouraged when Kerry talked about fighting back against the right wing slime machine and baffled why he didn't do it. Week after week after week he was getting pounded by the swiftboat liars and he didn't say a word.

The primary, number one, polestar, critical, definitive lesson we have to learn from Kerry's loss is "we won't be fooled again." I know I'm not the only one that thought from Kerry's talk that the DNC and DLC had figured this lesson out from the Dukakis and Gore campaigns. We were wrong. It was like they had never heard of Lee Atwater or Karl Rove.

The corollary lesson we have to learn is that Bob Shrum and Mary Beth Cahill should be banished from Democratic politics or traded to the Republicans for a Bush bobble head doll.

It may be impossible to predict how people would feel about Dean after nine months of getting blasted by the right. It is also impossible to imagine that Dean wouldn't have struck back and struck back hard.

In addition to the disappointment of Kerry not fighting back from day one, a lot of us were furthur crushed when Kerry conceeded. A lot of us who had contributed to the election challenge fund by the way. That's two betrayals in one campaign.

The lesson we need to learn is that being a fighter and having a message is far more important than being "electable".

by Gary Boatwright 2004-11-30 04:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What is the lesson of Kerry's loss?

I agree with your points.
Looking back, Kerry's campaign was a train wreck waiting to happen.
In our frantic rush to select a nominee, close ranks, project unity...we tripped over ourselves, racing to anoint Kerry w/o any due dilligence. I was thrilled to have a purple heart/war hero going after the draft dodger. Ok, so he lacked the poetry of Cuomo or the charisma of Clinton, I thought he was a winner on character alone. I was astonished by the swiftboat toads. I wasn't aware of John O'Neil prior to this summer. I'm slightly embarrassed to admit that. I didn't know about this site either. Were others here clued into the scope and relentlessness of O'Neil from the beginning?
Yes, damnit, electability was and is important. I have egg on my face now because I feel somewhat duped. The magnitude of controversy surrounding Kerry's service record, had it come to the surface during the early primaries would have negated his "electibility", or at the very least, guided and shaped his entire pitch, convention speech...In august, when the swiftboatads exploded, I felt like we were George McGovern, and Kerry was Tom Eagleton.
If we made a big mistake, it was not thoroughly vetting Kerry. I like Dean a great deal, but his knock-out factors were readily apparent. I lived through McGovern, and while it was an important event of my youth, I have no desire to relive that experience.
I just saw a report on cnn about the Washington Gov. contest. Rossi, the telegenic but scary republican beat Gregoire, the dem. by 42(?) votes. The lib. party candidate took Gregoire to task for not pushing hard enough for gay marriage. She ultimately received 96,000+ votes, many, no doubt from self-righteous activists thrilled to be making a statement. If you see them as heroes, our die is cast for 06 and beyond. Me, I would personally like to slap every one of them. To paraphrase Clinton, "Wisdom and strength(of commitment)are not mutually exclusive"

by xpat 2004-11-30 05:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

I'm glad you're back, Chris...

Keep pounding this message.

I've been thinking about what effect issues have on the campaign. Here's my thinking:

On any issue, there's a "reasonable" range of options. So for example, on social security, here is the entire range:

Expand SS benefits. Don't worry about fiscal responsibility.
Keep SS as it is, raising taxes to make the books balance.
Keep SS essentially as it is, but cut benefits until the books balance.
Keep SS essentially as it is, but privatize a tiny portion of it, while simultaneously cutting benefits.
Privatize social security.
Eliminate social security.

So here's my theory: if the candidate picks an option outside the "reasonable range," then the issues will hurt him. But if he picks an option inside the reasonable range (in this case, 2-4), then the voters will perceive him as a reasonable man.

So basically, I don't think it matters whether the candidate is a little left of center or a little right of center, for one simple reason: the voters are capable of recognizing a reasonable man.

by joshyelon 2004-11-30 10:37AM | 0 recs

permalink

Thank you

A couple weeks ago, I heard Carville say that the primary goal of political parties is to win elections. For some reason, that made me cringe (and I like Carville). This piece crystalized for me why I cringed: as long as we focus solely on winning elections in the short term, and not developing a cohesive ideology, we're screwed.

by mfeld356 2004-11-30 10:44AM | 0 recs

permalink

There's an old story

about a man who said he'd rather be right than be President. He was never President.

by Gary Boatwright 2004-11-30 04:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Would Dean have won?

In fact, Dean probably would have lost, because the proper organization of a political party is as follows:

The candidate himself must appear to be a simple, sensible man who merely repeats common sense.
Meanwhile, a network of proxies should be working to define "common sense." To pull this off, they have to give a lot of bold, moving speeches, they have to make a lot of attacks, and they have to fight hard. All of this makes you a potential target. But that's OK, that's why they're proxies: there are so many of them that the Republican attack machine can't keep the media focus on all of them at the same time.

Dean as a candidate was a mistake: he's our strongest voice. The candidate shouldn't be the strongest voice, the candidate should be our most attractive voice. The strongest voice should be in the role of coordinating the network of proxies. So yes, I agree that DNC chair is perfect for Dean.

by joshyelon 2004-11-30 10:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Media....

I don't disagree with the premise of the post. But my concern is that the "message" wouldn't be getting out there because of the mainstream media coverage we are getting. What good is a national message if it is constantly being distorted in its presentation?

I think we need a media strategy first and foremost. I (personally) am not smart enough to suggest an actual strategy, but I do see a need for one.

One of my (simple-minded) beliefs is :
If I look at the way media works, its main goal is to sell advertising. The way to do that is to get ratings. Somewhere out there I have to believe that major media doesn't believe that liberal views get ratings.
I look back on the emergence of Fox News. They were the first network to be obviously right wing. And they soon became a ratings leader (compared to other cable news networks) I think CNN and the others slanted to the right BECAUSE of the success of Fox News. I believe they realised that partisan news is more 'attractive' than objective news. And it had a bigger draw (sure liberals tuned out, but ALL CONSERVATIVES tune in to Fox News.)

Where is our liberal equivalent ? If the George Soroses of the world really believe in the cause, why aren't they pulling a Murdoch??
ABC was in dire straights for a while, and Disney was being shaken up. It seemed like a logical time for a liberal group to step in and make a bid for ABC (even without ESPN in the deal).

It just seems like every time I heard our "message" being relayed by big media, it was being distorted. My gut tells me that we need to infiltrate it somewhere. We need a network who is objective on the outside, and liberal on the inside. And it would help if it's an established network.
AirAmerica is great, buts it sells itself as "lefty" and "liberal" therefore losing any "mainstream" facade. We need to fight fire with fire. For every "Fair and Balanced" slogan, there needs to be a "News from the Heartland" liberal counterpart. People seem to have a tendency to believe what they are being told (even in the face of contradictory facts) but we don't seem to have a strategy to capitolize on that tendency. (I know I am simplifying a bit, but I believe the general sentiment is accurate)

At least that's my humble opinion. Focusing on the message instead of the messanger is a great strategy, but only after we have established a medium that will allow us to get that message out undistorted.

by avagias 2004-11-30 10:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Media....

You are exactly right. We need to get liberal political coverage on a network or cable station. Kerry would have won if not for the incredibly obnoxious tv outlets. Few people noted it, but Kerry supported the breakup of TV conglomerates, as Dean likewise trumpeted before he was crushed by the machine. TV, not papers and not AM radio,(sorry Rush) is what decides everything. Vivendi, Newscorp, Viacom, ABC/Disney and GE control a staggering amount of US media, it has to stop. These are the entities that give Bush legitimacy and allow for US empire.

People still don't appreciate just how dangerous a controlled media really is. The government created and now enforces a limited media. After creating this fake limited access media, the gov't then allows for the networks control over what goes over the airwaves. Think about that for a second. It's so ubiquitous most Americans don't take time to say WTF. Let me make it clear one more time. The US government says only these very few companies can broadcast across America, enforces this completely unnecessary limitation with fines and imprisonment, and then lets the networks SELL access for profit. So we say first gov't is needed to limit what can go on, then we privatize out the decisions as to what actually IS broadcast. This is insane, corrupt, stupid, dangerous, anti-First Amendment and it is the single most important factor contributing to the sad place America finds itself in today.

Even with the advent of cable, the networks still have maintained a strangle-hold over channels. Most people aren't aware that the Discovery Channels, the History Channel, the sports networks, the HBOs and nearly all the rest are owned by the five mega-media outlets. If the anti-trust Department was worth a damn it would have stopped this long ago. Take a look who owns the digital satelite...you won't be surprised to find the same people. And although not nearly as important(sadly,) the publishing, newspaper and radio industry is likewise dominated.

Okay, but so what? Yeah we have commercial TV, you say, but what difference does it make, it's all nonsense? That is the point. We live in a fantasy, Huxley's Soma is television. Since tv is virtually ONLY commercial our make believe world is a strange one. The tv ad man plays on our most basic weaknesses, hunger, sex drive, fear/power/violence. Certainly people have the right to pursue all these, and entertaining oneself is not a mortal sin. The difficulty is that this entertainment culture, the fantasy violence and sex is allowed to control television. The internet is a clear example of the opposite. There are ridiculous amounts of porn and violence online, but there are far more blogs, news sites, sports and all the rest. The ID vision blasted into the heads of Americans is the poison. The current Iraq invasion provides the best example of how our idiot boxes keep the US population inline.

Although TV could show what's going on in Iraq (there are thousands of video sources daily ignored by the networks) TV filters out 90 percent of the bad and focuses on what you want to see. You want a report on Falluja? You've got it. Turn on Fox News, you'll see Falluja. However, you're going to see a special Falluja, a make believe version that focuses on the 15,000 non-injured American military.

Fox-Vision(and all US networks do the same basically) will only give hints of the 300,000 people that actually call Falluja home. That is the truth. You don't get to see much of the injured Iraqis, even though they far exceed the US presence. And let's be frank here, what you are allowed to see is perverse, it's just enough so you can feel, "I saw the terribleness of Falluja." When you get 20 seconds of wounded in a 2 minute report, what is that if not military porn? On a raid that's chief goal was to kill people, you only get to see the result for 1/10th of the report. And why won't you see anymore? Well you might just not like to see the truth..and that means you might change the channel and cost ratings/ad revenue. The Fallujans are simply war porn to sell ad revenue. It is bad enough that this goes on, but what's worse is that 90 percent of US TV will cover Falluja just like this. After Falluja, a special report on the lacy peterson trial, or gifts for the holidays. Stay tuned, they'll be more next after the break.

So what is produced on that 90 percent of TV when they arent glossing over sad reality? Well first we relegate "news" meaning, not acting/fake/story, to a program or a channel. Then we use the rest of the channels and programming time with completely worthless garbage. Shows so insipid, they've degraded to freak shows of Jerry Springer sister porking to Fear Factors eating excrement for money. Don't like those choices? How about sports, or leisure activities? Not playing them mind you, WATCH OTHERS as they are active. And it just goes on and on. It's all mental masturbation for your viewing/buying enjoyment.

And again I have to make clear that PBS is not what this is about. CSPAN is great, and the rest of what little "educational" tv out there is ok too. I'm not suggesting that people be made to view anything they don't want to watch. That is the point. If you want to watch the moron-athon that is on TV today, I'd just think less of you, but that would be your choice to make. What is not acceptable is our government providing near complete control of TV programming to these few commercial entities. Let NBC have it's network, what I object to is that across our country, Americans are raised HAVING to see these few networks and disallowing almost all other forms of broadcast. The problem is the limited access and then on top of that, giving 90 percent of the limited share to commercial networks.

Changing TV media is problematic to say the least. Today, there is no entity or group of entities approaching the all pervasive power of commercial television. .The number one problem is that tv has is an artificial market created by the gov't licensing and then privatized to the few mega-corporations. This should be our first target, break the Media.

We need a modern day TR, perhaps Elliot Spitzer? Alternatively, you could promote some sort of equal access requirement for cable networks going HD. We need to draw a line in the sand and stop these same media companies from controlling internet access(may be late on this front.) Whatever we do we have to do it NOW. I sincerely believe we are headed for a World War within the decade if we don't get control over our media. As the Neo-Con(vict) fatcats plan invasions to bank more money, the commercial media is forced to look away and pretend it's not happening, it simply doesn't get ratings or ad dollars to discuss US imperialism. War sells.

So onward Bush goes, mandate time now, Senate gains and all after being caught fabricating a causus belli leading us into the current craziness with Iraq. America is in cloud cookoo land, but I have news, the world won't stand another Reich. Thankfully, we aren't guided by anti-semitism, or make much of race overtly, but the US is just as enamored with our righteousness as were the Nazi's in Germany. America, we are in deep trouble.

by spectator consumer 2004-11-30 12:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Media....

The media loves Bush because of Michael Powell. Sumner Redstone admitted it and there wasn't a peep of dissent or astonishment. The media goal is getting more advertising revenue by getting bigger. The networks cut back from sixty minute news broadcasts to thirty minute broadcasts because big media doesn't give a damn about an informed electorate. Big media doesn't give a damn about democracy.

We need to renew the national conversation over the fairness doctrine and the scarcity rule that were enshrined in the Supreme Court case RED LION BROADCASTING CO. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969)
linked text

The decision seems quaint after 35 years, but the issues are the same ones that we need to remind people about to fight back Michael Powell and Bush for another four years. The First Amendment is under attack by the right wing and Big Media and they very well may win. All the news that Cheney and Drudge approve of.

by Gary Boatwright 2004-11-30 05:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Media....

Somebody has to buy a network, even if it's just Sinclair Broadcasting. McChesney points out in "The Problem of the Media" that it's not a ratings problem, it's an ownership bias problem. If it was solely about ratings one of the cable stations would have naturally moved to the left in response to Faux News.

That hasn't and probably won't happen because the media owners and the senior management are conservatives. The opinions of a true progressive commentator would be offensive to the owners and the advertisers. Economic populism is not a popular message in corporate board rooms where the real decisions are made. Arguments in favor of minimum wage are not popular with advertisers. Pro union positions are extremely unpopular with owners, advertisers, stock holders and media management.

Big media also welcomes the inaccurate "liberal media" label because it gives them protection for their anti-progressive bias. They get to pretend to be brave defenders of the "liberal" status quo against the barbarian conservative hoards. This is a classic win/win situation for the media conglomerates.

One very prominant solution is going around the media with a "Meet Up" strategy. Person to person contacts are much more powerful than the media. With just a wee bit of coordination and funding "Meet Up" can be a powerful Democratizing force.

by Gary Boatwright 2004-11-30 05:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Media....

I've often wondered why a liberal alternative hasn't emerged. When you actually take a look at the numbers of people that watch a given cable channel, their numbers aren't that impressive. A liberal channel would be assured to attract moderate ratings. A liberal channel might not be beat FoxNews, but FoxNews is the top of the heap these days, most cable channels would die for half of Fox's ratings.

We have multiple MTVs, multiple Discovery Channels, Home and Garden, the Hallmark channel, oxygen, lifetime, and the list goes on and on...there are channels dedicated to country music for godsakes but not liberalism. 57 million vote for Kerry, and yet we're supposed to accept there isn't an audience for a progressive message?

After thinking numbers of audience, then you might consider the liberal market. Now, most of us liberals aren't communists but we also aren't ones to focus on things like marketing studies and demographics. The truth is, libs are a huge market that advertisers already cater to, a liberal channel would be swamped with advertisers from day one. Think of all the products already sold to lefties, Whole Foods/vegan/veggie foods, Volvos, Subarus, mountain bikes, hybrid cars, computers, EVERYTHING arts and entertainment except for NASCAR, pro-wrestling and country music... Yes SUVs sell too well, but then again look at all the VWs you see on the road, the minis, the point is that we do represent a big share of the populace and can already can attest to being inundated with ad pitches 24hrs a day. There simply isn't a justifiable reason NOT to have a liberal channel, which leaves with Jolly's point.

For the networks, this isn't about money per se, this is about control. Media, TV in particular, has a special relationship with our government and is working to protect as well as advance the American Empire. Absent upheaval from within, this will continue.

Sinclair provides a great example of 1)the overt conservative bias in tv media 2)how difficult it is to make even modest changes and most importantly 3)finally showed we can beat them. Sinclair should be studied and applied to other cases, like the networks, as the same problems exist across commercial television.

How was Sinclair defeated?
1)Boycott movement initiated in blogosphere, getting message to the committed activists.
2)Email and letter writing campaign set up to Sinclair executives.
3)Advertisers on Sinclair we're threatened with Boycott as well.
4)Shareholders of Sinclair were notified.
5)Coordinated legal action planned.

The key is to remember that these are businesses. Corporations have to pursue profit, the CEO, Execs and Board Members are all shielded by the corporate veil only so long as they make reasonable business judgment. All the networks, like Sinclair, face a rather difficult explanation when they ultimately are called to account for their systematic bias. Phil Donahue was the highest rated MSNBC show when it was pulled. Advertisers really do love the college educated urbanite leftists the GOP so villify. Yes, there really is a huge gap in coverage when Grover Norquist, Pat Buchanan, Oliver North, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter and Jerry Falwell are routinely carried on commercial tv, whereas Zinn, Chomsky, Crispin-Miller, Molly Ivins, Gore Vidal, Matthew Rothschild, Mike Malloy, David Corn, Naomi Klein, Alexander Cockburn, Amy Goodman, Ramsey Clark, Ahrundhati Roy and most other prominent liberals rarely receive facetime. This isn't a case of questionable bias it's blatant.

The networks, being public corporations, need to justify to their shareholders that they are reasonably acting for profit, and as you can see, it will clearly be difficult to explain.

by spectator consumer 2004-11-30 06:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Yes, but...

...that issue, although important, is peripheral to the main point here, that of the need to jettison "electability" as a sacred cow and to start rebuilding the Democratic Party, starting with placing a Reform Democrat such as Howard Dean in the DNC Chair.

A major media network sympathetic to us, a liberal Fox as it were, is highly desirable. But it's going to take someone like George Soros, not thousands of grassroots activists, to pull it off. In the meantime, we need to focus our attentions on areas where we can make a difference. At the moment, one of those is to lobby members of Gang of Four Hundred and Forty for a Dean vote this February 12th.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I've often heard the "what good will it do if the media's against us?" argument as a rationale for avoiding action...in other words, until Soros or whoever writes the check for a nationwide network, there's no real point in stirring ourselves to asccomplish what we can. That's as much a death-wish as anything one could imagine.

by JDWalley 2004-11-30 09:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Yes, but...

JDWalley,

I agree with you. I do not agree with the "what good will it do if the media's against us?" position. It's a defeatist position and it buys us nothing.

I also agree with the sentiment that "electability" is a stupid issue and hopefully it won't show its face again. But that electability rationale goes hand in hand with media dominance. The media talked about it over and over and over again. So even if you never thought of it as an issue, if you heard it mentioned enough, you now start to think "yeah...maybe he isn't electable".

Don't you think the media played a part in bringing down Dean? Do you agree that the constant replaying of the "Iowa scream" hurt him? (Yes he made gaffes of his own, but those weren't highlighted the same way ) Was it really that newsworthy that I should have seen it on every media outlet as often as I saw or heard about it talked about?
Did Dean have a more reform type message?? I sure thought so, but who heard that message? Not the "masses". All they heard was "YEAAAHHHHH" over and over. The media framed it in a way that made you think Dean was unstable or crazy.

My point is I dont think this issue is that peripheral.

I do not want to sit and wait until some liberal millionaire buys something, but I also don't see the opposition making a stink about the status quo.

I look across the aisle and I see Republicans attacking the NY Times as "liberal" or "unfriendly", but I don't see Democrats do the same. (Let me pause here and say I am talking about politicians not pundits or radio personalities, because they do in fact attack conservative media, but even liberal pundits are becoming fringe. How many true liberal pundits do we see on most major news shows? The "liberals" seem to be centrists or right leaning moderates). John Kerry never attacked right-wing / corporate media, whereas Dick Cheney has attacked plenty "unfriendly" media outlets. John Kerry hardly talked about media consolidation, or corporate control over media. Why ? A majority of the senate voted against the new ownership rules, yet Kerry never made that part of his campaign. I know that isn't the same as creating a liberal network, but something has to start somewhere. If nothing else, the credibility of corporate media has to be attacked (the same way the GOP attacks "liberal" media). We should be hearing democrats say "corporate media" as often if not more often than we hear repubs say "liberal media". But we don't. Why ?

I agree that there isn't a total grass roots solution. But the liberal masses should be clamoring for this, if for nothing else, to show that a market is there. To show that the people want the airwaves back. To show that the wool is not being pulled over people's eyes.

The best message in the world is useless if it can't be distributed. This isn't an either or thing. We need a message of reform. But we also need to be actively working on a way to get that message out the way we want it to go out.

by avagias 2004-12-01 06:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Well...actually yes, in part

"Do we have a network of volunteers who, now that the election is over, are available to work on projects other than the 2004 election? Not really, as our massive volunteer efforts were geared toward a single purpose that has now passed, and many were not even from the areas where they were volunteering.

Do we have down-ticket Congressional and gubernatorial success to celebrate apart from the Presidential race? No, as the current congressional makeup is very similar to 1994 and 1996.

Do we have stronger local organizations anywhere outside of Montana and Democratic areas of swing states? Not really, as we have no new grassroots structures from the campaign."

www.democracyforamerica.com

(and there is a new D governor in Montana, I believe it is...)

and

http://dfa.meetup.com

News flash: The number of people who have RSVP'd for DFA Meetups is EXPLODING. People are looking for someplace to go and Gov. Dean, fortunately, has one ready for them.

Eric Davis
Democracy for Illinois
www.democracyforillinois.org

by ericd1112 2004-11-30 12:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Well...actually yes, in part

Susan and I have been preparing something BIG for DFA meetups, which we will introduce tomorrow.

by Chris Bowers 2004-11-30 06:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

Nice line but too nice:

"The party's fortunes are crashing, and we are still controlled by the electability mindset, and the sychophantic mendacity of the chattering classes currently manifested in an Anyone But Dean movement for DNC chair."

Damn, that's spot on but too scholarly and thereby rational for this argument. Let's call a spade a spade and call it like it is. I'll take the liberty to rephrase:

It's yet another losing season for the Democrats, thanks to a shit for brains strategy of playing not to lose, now showing itself again through the efforts of lying self serving sheeple too stupid to see a leader when presented with one.

Oh, and to the sheeple: up your nose with a rubber hose.

Screw polite. It's time we play to win. ;-)

by michael in chicago 2004-11-30 01:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Build a national party...

The Democrats need to run and be visible in EVERY precinct in the country.

Even if Kerry had managed to squeak out Ohio, where would we be?

Bush would have still won the popular vote. The Republicans would still have a large majority in both houses of Congress. Kerry would have found it almost impossible to govern.

The Republicans would control most of the country's state houses and Governorships as well. The bench for the Democratic Party would still be lean and getting leaner.

The key to success for the Democrats is to be a national party once again. They need a vision and a plan. They need to know where they are going and how they are going to get there. Then, they need to let the folks on the ground locally get the job done.

This does include being a "big tent" party. If a "Massachusetts liberal" like Bill Weld can still be a good Republican, then there should be room for Democrats to disagree on certain sensitive issues and still be good Democrats. If the message is that the Democratic Party is going to be the party that stands up for working Americans, then that message can and will sell in all 50 states.

This is "high tide" for the Republican Party. They have already shown signs that they are going to overplay their hand in the next two years. Good leadership and a focussed message will pay off big in 2006.

by wayward 2004-11-30 05:46PM | 0 recs