Our opinions of and advice to the world. Updated whenever we get around to it.
Comments and suggestions can be sent to:
Dana - firstname.lastname@example.org
Bob - email@example.com
Syndicate this site:
My Favourite Hack - Dana
Good Advice On Judges - Dana
This Ever Happen To You? - Dana
Arg! - Dana
Around the Horn - Bob
A Prouder Canadian - Bob
Ass Problems - Bob
Very Cool - Dana
Please Spare Us - Dana
The Arab Press - Dana
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
One of the many reasons people give for voting for G.W. Bush was that their vote was a protest against the likes of Michael Moore, Dan Rather, etc... People do not like be talked down to by celebrities, the media, or any of the other 'elite' classes. As well people were put off by the extremes that many people who supported Kerry went to. Bush is not Hitler. Christians are not extremists.
Given that Democrat's have, to a certain degree, been taken over by the radical left one has to ask how it can be saved. How can it be pulled back to the mainstream so that it doesn't insult the lives and beliefs of 30% to 40% of the American population?
One scenario that I've been thinking about is that it may not be possible to pull it back. I say this due to the influence that the Internet now has over political parties and those who form their policies.
Before the Internet, it was much easier for a party to repudiate the extreme members of their own party. They could be denyed TV coverage during the election cycle. They could be denyed a presense at party functions. Today this is not possible because of the power of the Internet and its ability to allow people to reinforce the beliefs of likeminded people. Could this cause trouble for the Democrats?
Think of it this way, people will not vote for the party of extremists. Every American (and Canadian) election has proven this. The problem is that the Internet is an echo-chamber where those who are opposed to Republican policies scream and yell at each other until they've convinced themselves that they are the only ones capable of seeing the truth.
They take part in bizarre protests making claims that 9/11 was a plot by the CIA, that Bush is worse than Hitler, on and on and on...
How many people voted against Kerry after seeing pictures and video of such protests online? Was it significant? It's a tough call to make but if I was sitting on the fence I would certainly have had second thoughts about voting for Kerry after seeing such foolishness.
The first problem the Democrats have to deal with is how it can separate themselves from these extreme views. Is this even possible given the nature of the Internet and how it can reinforce someone's views on a subject. If you don't believe the Internet tends to reinforce someone's politics then ask yourself this question: Do you consider yourself a conservative or a libertarian? I bet 9 out of 10 of you answered yes to that question. If you weren't either a conservative or libertarian odds are you wouldn't be reading this post. That is the nature of the beast, and both lefties and righties are susceptible to reading articles that they'll agree with.
Secondly the Democrats have to separate themselves from the perception that these crazies are associated with them. The simple fact is that anyone who says something critical about G.W. Bush is automatically assumed to be a Kerry supporter even if this is not truely the case. That's one of the problems with a two party system. If you're not with us then you must obviously be with the other guy. It doesn't matter if you freak the other guy out, people will assume you support him.
I titled this post 'Is Timing Everything?' because Republicans are probably just as likely to fall for this phenomenon. The problem may be the Democrat's were just unlikely enough to have their moonbats more vocal at the same time that political blogging became popular.
Is the moonbat echo-chamber something the Democrat's can separate themselves from? I guess time will tell.
Post a Comment