Why do we fear (or crave) what Republicans think?

The last few days, we’ve hashed out who should/will become the next chair of the DNC. As in the primaries earlier this year, we’ve already broken into Dean/stop-Dean movements.

Yes, some version of this topic has appeared in diaries on Kos.

Eugene’s incredible diary .

This diary by Jack109 .

And of course, Kos’s own Memo to the world.

But I’m talking about something different. I’m going to look at the arguments we hear from the shift-right folks. The arguments I hear against Dean as DNC chair come from our friends on the conservative side of the party. With the exception of the holdouts who simply (and fairly) prefer another player, these arguments are all different forms of the same thing: Republicans and conservatives don’t like Dean because he’s too liberal, ergo he’s the death of the party.

I’m going to address this one part of this: Why we’re even discussing what others think about liberals. This is not intended to sway anyone towards Dean; just to get us to talk honestly about what WE want, not what THEY want.

Why do we care what others think? Why do we spend time on statements like “They already think we’re too far left” or (a favorite pre-Iowa caucus) “They can’t wait for Dean; they’ll cast him as a flip-flopper and tax & spend liberal”?

Republicans don’t bother for one second considering how we feel or think about them. They don’t care what we think of their actions. They’re not afraid of us at all. And they didn’t get here by following us to the left; rather, they led us where we are by the nose.

They don’t have these conversations. When Ed “Goebbels” Gillespie was appointed RNC chair to replace Marc Racicot, no one moaned in despair that the Democrats would paint him as too conservative or extreme. They knew that he’d do exactly what Racicot does, which is keep the party disciplined and be in front of the media every freaking day. And they didn’t. care. what. we. thought.

And you know what they say when they get in front of the media? They say that Democrats are too liberal and out of touch with mainstream America. They said it about Dean, about Kerry, about Edwards – they’d say it about Holy Joe if he wasn’t such a reliable vote. It doesn’t matter who we nominate for President or who we appoint as DNC chair – they will be labeled IMMEDIATELY AND PERMANENTLY as a tax-and-spend big government liberal who is borderline insane, anti-religion and pro-forced-abortion.

So can we please stop acting fucking surprised when they say these things? And can we learn that fearing these labels and dancing all over the ideological map will not prevent their use of them?

Every time we chase them to the right, they respond with another rightward shift, proudly proclaim what they are, and win elections. And we respond with more analysis of how they labeled us and what we can do to “appear” more to the “center”. And we keep losing elections. We cede some ground on issues. And we keep losing elections. They lead, and we follow. And we lose elections.

Don’t believe me? In 2000, we were against the tax cuts, because they were irresponsible. But Senate and House Dems became afraid of being labeled tax and spend liberals with mid-term elections coming up, so we compromised. Just SOME tax cuts (Bush, of course, got 90% of what he wanted), and the people will think we’re for tax relief, too (we even adopted their language). In 2002, House and Senate Dems feared for their jobs if they voted against the Iraq war, so many (not all, but many) voted for it just to take it off the table in the election.

And we got our asses kicked. We got our asses kicked because we didn’t vote for it FAST ENOUGH. We wound up explaining ourselves to liberals who were furious, and conservatives who’d become convinced by negative ads that we were soft on security. The issues themselves didn’t matter; a majority was opposed to the tax cuts when they passed! A majority was opposed to the war when it passed! It was the appearance of leadership for them, and lack of it for us, that did us in. We looked weak, because we caved and we danced, and they looked strong, because they fought and attacked.

It never really mattered how we voted on tax cuts or Iraq. They will paint Democrats as weakling tax and spend liberals no matter what we do. Their arguments won’t change even a little bit no matter what we do. So why not stick with our principles? At least we’ll have our own arguments to make about the merits of our positions – and perhaps we can start to win the framing game, instead of playing “me too!”.

Stop being afraid of them. They can be exposed. Dean exposed them with ease. And it didn’t hurt him a bit. Dean wasn’t done in by Republicans; he was done in by a crappy Iowa ground game, media blitz, crappy commercials, and a rookie Prez candidate with a big mouth. And let’s not forget, Dems who were afraid of what the Republicans would say about him. The electability plan worked out nicely, didn’t it?

I don’t care what they think of me or my politics. Fuck ‘em. They control the media at every level except the internet, yet they whine incessantly like babies at the unfair treatment they get. They’re weak and pathetic. They have to amend the constitution to get their way because they know they don’t have a legal leg to stand on with gay marriage. They’re weak and pathetic.

But we’ve been weaker and more pathetic, because we’ve followed them to the right in our own fear of being called names. And it’s time it stopped.

On the issues:

• Tax cuts. We've ceded this to the Republicans.
• Abortion. We've ceded ground on this.
• Iraq. We've ceded this to the Republicans in the 2002 votes.
• Gay marriage. Our party platform and all Prez candidates save two opposed this. So now it is suggested that we give the Republicans the amendment and take it off the table.

Question: If we’ve ceded ground on tax cuts, abortion and Iraq, yet these are still used to beat us into quivering masses of fear, why will we get a different result when we cave on gay marriage? Where do you draw the line on issues you’re willing to cede? What would happen if we stood up and fought? We might lose, you say? How is that different than today? Even more importantly, what good is winning if we run on their hand-me-down platform?

But what if we showed some leadership, and some principle? We might actually start to win.

If we act on our beliefs instead of dancing around their accusations, we can start winning. Most people don’t share the neo-con’s beliefs. Bush’s supporters were notoriously uninformed about his beliefs. But they didn’t care, because he leads. He just “says what he thinks, and acts on it”. But let’s not forget the lies they have to tell to get elected. They are weak, and they know that. They have to lie. They have to rig elections. They have to change the rules. They have to redraw Texas.

We may have to learn some of their tricks; but by God we can use their tricks against them while we at least tell Americans what Democrats stand for, not what we think they want us to stand for.

We stand for equality. This is not controversial. We stand for fiscal discipline. We need to start proving it, and standing by it (something I’m desperate for D’s not to screw up in WA State this session). This is not controversial. We stand for real national security in ALL forms, not just military. This is not controversial. We stand for fairness. This is not controversial.

Will these beliefs ever get us 500 electoral votes in an election? Probably not. But these are things most Americans also believe in. We need to lead, not follow. We can have disagreements among ourselves about the proper course – I have no problem discussing with our conservative friends how we can achieve our mutual goals. But I will not, ever again, allow someone to tell me why I should react to Republicans or be afraid of being “too liberal”.