In Case You've Forgotten What A Democrat Sounds Like

Dear MeanMesa:

The movie Green Lantern opened on Friday, to mixed reviews.  Maybe the reviews would have been better if the movie had included this powerful exchange, from Green Lantern #76:

African-American Man: I’ve been readin’ about you . . . How you work for the blue skins . . . and how on a planet someplace you helped out the orange skins . . . and you done considerable for the purple skins!  Only there’s skins you never bother with – the black skins!  I want to know . . . how come?!  Answer me that, Mr. Green Lantern!

Green Lantern:  I  . . . can’t . . . .

I may never have the chance to talk to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, or any of the other Masters of the Universe who led and misled our country for eight long years.  Nor may I ever have the chance to speak to Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the other savage right-wing loons who want to finish the job that Bush et al. started.  But if I could, I might say:

Me:  I’ve been readin’ about you . . . How you work for multinational corporations like Big Oil. . . .  And how you say you built all those roads and schools and bridges in some country in Asia.   And in some other country in the Middle East someplace you got rid of some dictator.  Only there’s one country you never bother with – America!  I want to know . . . how come?!  Answer me that, Mr. Flag-Waiving Patriot!

Them:  I  . . . can’t . . . .

Well, I can answer that.  For a generation now, we have seen the heartless, callous erosion and destruction of all the things that make you a member of the middle class in America:

A job.

A home.

A car.

The chance to see a doctor when you are sick.

A pension or retirement account.

Social Security and Medicare.

And we’ve seen them replaced by endless war, falling home values, no pensions, lower wages, and now what Karl Marx called a “reserve army of the unemployed” – to keep wages down forever.

Even after only two years in office, as one out of 435 in the House, I can point to a lot of things that I did to preserve, protect and expand the middle class in America, and to help those of us who were falling through the cracks.

I look at our so-called leaders on the other side of the aisle, and I see nothing like that.  Only a perverse delight in eliminating programs that help my fellow Americans in need.  They’ll lead us, all right – they’ll lead us straight to ruin.

The next time you see one of them -- at a town hall meeting, in their plush offices, or just on the street – ask them this:  “What have you done to help the people?  Answer me that!”

If they’re honest, they’ll say what Green Lantern said:  “I can’t.”

Courage,
Alan Grayson

In brightest day, In blackest night, No evil shall escape my sight. Let those who worship evil’s might, Beware my power: Green Lantern’s Light.

2012 Part Two -- Collecting the votes

 Part two of a two part series regarding our preparations for the 2012 election.  "Where are the votes?" and, "How do we get them?"

 The Almost Invisible Subterfuge

MeanMesa visitors have already heard the grotesque and the bizarre issuing out from GOPCon radio and television pundits.  The Republican "talking points"  design of such media investments is exquisite.  The outrageous is carefully implanted under some gaseous cover of recent events, uttered boldly then immediately diluted back to some socially acceptable irrelevance.

Of course, stranded without a media, the Democrats do nothing.  There are no impassioned counter arguments or pointed refutations.  Even if there were, hardly any Americans would ever hear them.

These Republican verbal "emoticons" are not particularly credible even to the hill billies in the GOPCon base.  In fact, we can consider them to be around, say, 15% credible.  That means that only about 15% of that base actually believes all or even part of these carefully crafted incendiaries.

However, when the psychological backgrounds in the minds of the Republican base retain some tiny amount of such commentary and elevates it, subconsciously, to the position of "fact," a gradual, almost unbelievable, accumulation of "credibility" begins to materialize in a rather durable fashion.  Late at night, over cheap beer in an American Legion bar, these "talking points/facts" are regurgitated amid the grumping and burping to an enthusiastic response of "Yeah!  Yeah!"

It is at this point that more rational Americans wonder how in the world the country has become so divided.  Well, quit wondering and get busy.

In addition to these "talking points," a slightly more thoughtful crowd is also targeted by the media psycho-masters.  This is the second realm of manipulation -- the one ever so slightly more sophisticated than the outright "emoticons" mentioned before.

Stand by, We'll Define "Balanced"

For an example of these subtleties, just this morning, MeanMesa, as usual, was listening to Stephanie Miller (The Stephanie Miller Show, AM1350 KABQ, Albuquerque, 7 to 10 AM weekdays).  One guest, Eric Boehlert of Media Matters, made the following point as he discussed the statistical spread of guests on the popular Meet the Press.

Eric Boehlert of Media Matters (image source)

When the editorial staff of Meet the Press was criticized about the relative number of Republicans and Democrats invited to the show, the response was, well, predictable.  During the autocracy, many more Republicans were interviewed than Democrats.  The editorial staff explained that during the autocracy, all the parts of the government were controlled by Republicans, so their preponderance as guests was understandable.

The editorial staff continued, as Boehlert commented on the number of guests from the Democratic party being invited now, while the Democrats controlled two of the three parts of the government.  The editorial staff reply reveals much.

David Gregory of Meet the Press (image source)

"Our show continues to be balanced because we have invited an equal split of spokesmen.  Half and half.  Half from the Republican party and half from the Democratic party."

Further, this specific example is not the only one.  After the bin Laden killing, Meet the Press interviewed an almost exclusive "clutch" of guest  Republicans from the George II administration.  Why?  These were the same people who couldn't get to bin Laden after they spent a $ Trillion dollars and worked on it for six years.

The Republican media goals of both the outrageously low credibility stuff injected into the American Legion crowd and the ever so subtle stuff being injected into the slightly more aware crowd watching Meet the Press every Sunday morning, can be listed by a fourth grader.

The President becomes an "outsider."  The Democratic party is imaged as a forlorn, desperate "has been."  All the "important" and "news worthy" ideas are from Republicans.

Back to the 2012 Election

Singling out these two obvious examples of the field media preparation being conducted by the Republicans might be a legitimate lamentation for anyone trying to soothe the pain of losing yet another election in 2012, but such complaints must be reserved for some other posting.  This is about how to win the 2012 election, not explain why it was lost.

There is clearly little reason to expect a return to unbiased news reporting from the now terminally soiled domestic media.  The independence -- and credibility -- of the commercial  "Fourth Estate" is now as permanently extinct as the independence of its ownership and vanishing editorial honor. 

As Part One of this series divided the "lower" end of Republican voters into the American Legion bar crowd and fickle, "pseudo-issue" independents, a third group emerges.  The folks in this third group occasionally watch internet news coverage while generally dismissing the increasingly biased commercial media.  Democrats do very well with this third group.

So, where, exactly, is this reservoir of potential Democratic voters?

The answer is simple enough.  It resides in the "second group."  Voters in this part of the electorate are neither watching commercial media nor looking for information on the internet.  A large majority of this population is entirely ready to vote for Democratic candidates based on an intuitive background, and an effective campaign to collect this voting block must squarely face the challenge of augmenting that background inclination with information, developing it into material action.

But, without either the media or Democratic candidates with sufficient spine to actually speak to this group through any other channel, this second group remains abandoned -- that is, remains informationally disenfranchised.  The cast iron, ossified campaign mechanisms which have delivered mindless Democratic votes in past elections have died a slow death in the national division so carefully crafted by the Republicans and their slogans.

When no political party makes the effort to effectively communicate with them, they respond by simply not voting.  For a fundamental explanation of this, we, once again, return to the bad feeling voters get after they cast a ballot while remaining uncertain about whether or not they have voted for what they wanted.

There Is Absolutely Nothing To Be Done

MeanMesa won't buy this depressing possibility.

In a few weeks, this blog will post a campaign designed to counter this dismal forecast.  The current plan is to implement this in a few, low voting precincts in Albuquerque, but the idea may, in fact, be a bit more viral than this.

Across the country, we find an attractive number of precincts with the same problem.  They are filled with voters who are already inclined to vote for Democratic candidates, but who remain reluctant to vote at all because "no one has asked them for those votes."

In election cycles which have recently been decided by single digits of percentages, these votes can swing elections, most notably, the 2012 election.  The message here is straightforward indeed.  MeanMesa wants you, a valued visitor to this little blog, to consider just exactly how determined you might be to rid our country of the folks who intend to take over in the next election.


It's no time to be feeling hopeless.

It's exactly the right time to be making plans.

Stay tuned.

2012 Part One - The Trouble With 2010

A MeanMesa Note: This is the first part of a two part series on the 2012 election. Here we will examine what happened in 2010 a little more closely.  In the second part of this series, MeanMesa will introduce a 2012 election strategy to respond to this latest calamity.

Realism and Elections -- A Little History

Looking over a recent history of the performance of the two parties in the House of Representatives, the record is a predictably symmetric one.  If an additional "line" were to be created straight through middle of the bouncing curves, it would represent the Republican vs. Democrat ratios of a perfectly divided House of Representatives, and, at least theoretically, an equally "perfect" division of voters' priorities.

Yearly Majorities and Minorities in the House (source)

It's suspiciously attractive to lament the demise of the "good old days" when votes could be presumed to be the result of ballots cast on issues or a general "party" selection based on the "brand image" of the parties.  The development of voting blocks founded on these considerations led to conclusions about what to expect if one party of the other were to gain a majority.

Republicans developed a party image of being good for business and strong on national security.  Democrats developed a party image of being dedicated to the interests of middle class voters and cultural/social development.  If the issues arising from the "burning question of the day" failed to inspire voters, these general party brand background images stepped in to drive the decisions.

Running along with the causes of the respective majorities being elected into the House seats, are the consequences of those elections.  For the more analytical among MeanMesa visitors, these consequences can be mapped into the diagram above.

• The VietNam War ran from roughly 1961 to 1973.
• The Gingrich "Contract on America" was adopted at the beginning of 1994.
• Ronald Reagan initiated the fundamentals of the economic collapse during the 1980's with numerous middle class tax increases and anti-labor legislation.

In these example cases -- and there are, of course, many more -- the control of the House of Representatives shows a gradual migration for or against the party which was "held responsible" for the consequences.  

The reaction was seldom as dynamic as what we see in the 2006 mid-term election as the country recoiled from the issues originating in the autocracy.  The majority reversal in 2010 was significant, but not as decisive as the "pressing horror" of stopping Gorge II's plundering campaign in 2006.  

The speed of the voter response to "consequences" may be mapped into the question of "How fundamental to American ideals are the issues being changed by the consequences?"  When the issues of the government come closer to American fundamentals, voters respond more quickly.  When the "consequences" are longer term or more theoretical, voters are usually willing to wait an election or two to see how things will turn out in the longer term.

There have always been "base" voters on both sides of the elections, and there have always been "independent" voters in the center of the spectrum unwilling to commit much durable sentiment to the respective "brand image" of either of the opposing parties.  Although it is a mistake to attribute election success to any particular vote, these "fickle" independents have become increasingly important in recent elections because the "base" votes on either side have remained essentially equal.

MeanMesa Conclusion Number One

The 2012 election will show a return to voters responding to "party brand image."  The Republicans have not hesitated to promote their party's "brand image" continuously whether an election is approaching or not.  The Democrats will need to take this same approach as the 2012 election nears.

Independents like to pride themselves as voters who are responding to issues.  However, the "issues" being presented to them currently by the Republicans have become grotesque and increasing unpersuasive.  Further, the disparity between Republican performance and promise has grown larger and larger, moving fairly informed independents further from the Republican base.

Acting as an advantage to Republicans, the economic pain has been successfully "re-imaged" in a manner which can detach it from previous Republican performance -- at least when it comes to the Republican base.  When the "memory" and "information" levels of independents are introduced as "vote deciding" factors, the numbers change, not because independents particularly like the premises of the Democratic "party brand image," so much as because they are becoming increasingly frightened by the Republican "brand image."

2012 will mark a return to "party politics," whether we like it or not.  Democratic campaigns will have to return to the bold position of asking for votes based on the qualities of "being a good Democrat."  No more hiding away in "androgynous political positions."

The "Prize" Hidden In Otherwise Rational Elections

With the relentless ideological "grooming" of the Republicans, the "base" voting block of the party has become immune to persuasion.  There is essentially no reason for Democrats to expend campaign resources attempting to move Republican base voters from their election positions.  Although at first glance, this may seem to be an accomplishment of Republican strategists, a closer look reveals what may well be a typical Republican "over reach."

The original challenge to Republicans was to consolidate their party base with just enough ideology to firmly persuade base voters' loyalty while not alienating the fickle independents with the same thrust.  This first goal was fairly well realized some years back, but instead of tempering their ideological message -- and the party's performance -- Republican strategists became infatuated with these early successes at persuasion.

Rather than a strategic move toward the attraction of the independents, every Republican effort was made to further consolidate the mood of their party base.  At this point, this aim has been accomplished in spades.  The result is a Republican base who would rather cut off a foot than vote Democratic, but large numbers of independents who are looking askance at the prospect of "cutting off a foot" to be members of the Republican base -- even temporarily, that is, long enough to elect more Republicans in 2012.

So, who's left?  Where can Democrats find the votes they will need in 2012?

Happily, there are plenty of votes remaining "in play."  We can look at immense reservoirs of potential Democratic votes and the grisly selection of highly predictable Republican strategies to deny them to Democratic candidates.

The Democratic Voting Majority

Republicans accept as "written in gold" that the more Americans who vote in an election, the less likely a Republican candidate will win.  The subsequent conclusion seems to be the one with which they have a greater difficulty. 

That conclusion? 

There are more Democrats than Republicans in the United States. 

This isn't simply a MeanMesa dream, either.  The polls consistently reflect that more Americans are "nearly ready" to be Democrats than Republicans.

Yet, Republicans won in the 2010 election because Democrats did not vote.  The reasons why Democrats did not vote is absolutely central to our plans for the next election in 2012.  What, exactly, caused this phenomenal accomplishment on the part of the GOP?

The Republican party convinced these otherwise Democratic voters to either vote for "anyone else" or stay home during the 2010 election.  The media pundits attributed this to a high level of dissatisfaction with these voters with respect the the economy and to the Democratic leadership.  We'll deal with the leadership question first.

MeanMesa agrees.  The behavior of Democrats, especially Democrats in the House, could not be called anything else but a walking surrender to the media glacier forwarded by the Republicans.  The GOP used its ownership of the media and its bottomless barrels of cash very, very effectively.  By the time the election came up, the Democrats were acting as if the situation was hopeless.

 

Because of the Democrats, it was.

It was nothing new, either.  The Democrats had been acting as if the situation was hopeless for months prior to November.  The potential Democratic voter carried a very damaging question with him as he entered the polling booth.

"Why should I vote to elect a Democrat?"

The astonishing side of this was also simple.  No middle class American voter who was familiar with the facts would have ever voted for a Republican.  But why, then, do we now have a House of Representatives full of illiterate tea baggers?

Simple.  Voters were not "familiar with the facts" at all.  Most potential Democratic voters were still wondering why the economy hadn't been "fixed," why there were still no jobs, why his house was worth 60% of what he had paid for it and why Wall Street was still gleefully dancing the maranga on his retirement account.

The President, effectively abandoned by House Democrats who would have sold their mothers into sex slavery to survive the 2010, was looking like a forlorn battleship after ten days of strafing with no covering cruisers.  The fact the he was steadily accomplishing his campaign promises had died the "death of a thousand cuts" as it became an unspoken rule for House Democrats to never mention so much as word about it.

The "low" part of the description "low information voter" had reached, well, a new "low."  If there remained a "questionable issue" in the mind of a potential Democratic voter, it had been thoroughly bathed in day old mayonaise and added to some dated bologna.  Every one of the "questionable issues" had been ruthlessly addressed by the Republican talking machine.  The Democrats had said practically nothing.

Certainly not anything which might have countered even the littlest fish in the torrent of lies.

Low information voters don't feel good when they vote with too many "questionable issues."  In fact, they feel so bad, that not voting feels better than walking out of a polling booth wondering if one has just slit his own throat.  Democrats were too busy doing, well, something else, to make even a low octane effort to remedy this, and they paid the price.

We all paid the price.  We are all still paying the price.  The people in charge of the House of Representatives have no idea how to run a government.  Their adolescent meanderings may seem funny at first, but our ankles will be bleeding well before 2012.

Would you prefer to lay on your belly to do this bleeding or try it on your feet?

Stay tuned for Part Two.