Today is DFA Link-up Day, the first Wednesday of the month and we're to start down the road leading to effective political campaigns--i.e. winning positions for Democrats. To help with that we've been sent a "training module" which, it's been suggested, was put together by someone who's really into "lesson plans" as a teaching tool.
(As someone who's used to using hammers and saws and pliers and screw drivers, I find references to instruction booklets and computer soft-ware programs as "tools" really irritating, but haven't come up with a suitable alternative)
OK, the training module for developing an "action message" that I found particularly irksome did ask a question that got me thinking, mainly because I didn't like the answer suggested in the module.
Question: "So, why are you a Democrat?"
Suggested 27-9-3 (27 words that can be spoken in 9 seconds and make 3 points) response: "I believe in right and wrong. It's wrong to deprive children of health care, to start immoral wars, and to abuse governmental powers. It's time for what's right."
Why do I have a problem with the response? Let me count the ways.
1) Beliefs are convenient 'cause you can't argue with them. Somebody can say they believe that the moon is made of green cheese and that tells you they're sort of nutty, or a humorist, but it doesn't tell you anything about their abilities and skills.
2) Right and wrong are convenient categories, but since most of the people we currently disagree with consider themselves to be "right," using their verbiage gives them an edge to begin with.
3) While it would be accurate to assert that to "deprive children of health care" is wrong, there's a difference between "depriving" or taking away and "not providing." So this phraseology is sugesting something that's not actually happening.
4) Nobody will disagree that immoral wars should not be started, but in this context that assertion implies a value judgement about a particular action with which a lot of Democrats, never mind Republicans, obviously didn't and don't agree. This assertion also doesn't tell us anything about the speaker's aptitude or even how he/she would deal with conflicts.
5) While those who actually have a clear idea of what "governmental powers" are, might be inclined to agree that they should not be exercised "abusively," the phrase "to abuse governmental powers" is rather murky. It's hard to see how a power can be abused. Abuse means to "use badly" and child abuse means to beat a child or starve it, just as "spouse abuse" means to beat a spouse, instead of treating her with tenderness. Indeed, given the prevalence of other kinds of abuse being practiced in the general population, the abuse of governmental powers might well register as a positive.
6) "It's time for what's right" is a meaningless phrase, just about on a par with "compassionate conservative."
*********
Of course, when I think back to the Kerry campaign, it was just this mealy-mouthed kind of verbiage that he and his handlers were spouting and ordinary folk just shook their heads and went with the devil they knew, rather than the one they didn't. And the real shame is that Kerry actually has some valuable skills, both as an administrator, a law enforcer, and a legislator. But none of that got into the national conversation.
**********
I have to assume that they are still teaching the relationship between subject and object, the actor and the thing acted upon, in school. Maybe not. Maybe that's why so many people don't seem to be able to make the distinction about who did what to whom and when. But, at least the people who are proposing to represent us in making decisions for the general welfare should have a clear idea of cause and effect and what the difference is.
That said (as an addendum to the above), let me go on to what I think a Democrat is.
Democrats are busybodies. Democrats care about the well-being of other people's children. Democrats don't want other people's house to burn down; they don't want it to be flooded, whether because of bad plumbing or a violent storm either. And it's not because they are altruistic. It's because Democrats know that, no matter how clever and self-sufficient they and their own children are, they will eventually have to depend on somebody else's children to provide some service and, when they do, they want that service to be good. And Democrats know that if somebody else's house catches fire and it's not put out, then the neighbor's house and finally their own is likely to be next.
So, being a busybody is really self-protective.
Republicans, on the other hand, have historically tended to be people who are inclined to mind their own business and expect others to mind theirs. Indeed, when it comes to the public's business, they prefer to "let George do it." Which is not an unreasonable position to take, as long as George actually knows how the things that need doing are to be done and does them.
But, what we've seen recently is that the people who present themselves as "minding their business," whether that business is concerned with generating a private profit or providing a public service, aren't really "minding the store." Instead, they've handed their business off to someone else who's got no know-how or expertise, while they goof off and play golf.
What's really ironic is that the people who have been traditionally committed to minding their own business have been persuaded not only to let others tell them how to vote, but to let those who should be delivering public goods tell them how to conduct their most intimate relationships. And that, if you ask me, is really strange. Why are people who just want to mind their own business letting other people tell them whether or not to have children?
Democrats don't do that. Democrats want other people's children to be well educated and skilled.They want them to be healthy and productive and artistic. They do not want to tell other people that they should and shouldn't have them. Mainly because Democrats realize that other people's children is all we have.
See, the nice thing about other people's children is that this concept includes everyone. Everybody is somebody else's child, regardless of their age or gender or ethnic origin, or whatever. It's what we all have in common. And yes, those who are inclined to elevate that somebody else to a position of super importance, identify that somebody, whose child we all are, as God.
That's what Democrats believe and act on. They just don't make a big fuss about it. Which, I guess is what's got to change. We've got to make a fuss and let people know that we know what we're doing and will do a good job, if they'll give us their business.
Posted by Hannah at October 5, 2005 08:56 AM