There is this insane need, on the part of Republican Party supporters, who find themselves unable to commit fully to the Republican Party in 2006, to have a rational position on the Democratic Party.
Kevin Drum found an example from Andrew Sullivan the other day:
Andrew Sullivan, in an apparent attempt to drive me insane, writes today that although he's appalled by Republican ineptitude in the war on terror, he's still waiting for a serious Democratic plan to come along that he can get behind. Without that, no dice.
Now this is where I begin to start pulling what remains of my hair out.
It is this silly need for the Democrats to give Andrew Sullivan (and many who think like him), a
reason to not vote for Republicans.
Let us ponder that for a moment.
Andrew Sullivan supports much of the Republican Party platform (maybe not all), but in 2006 he really doesn't feel comfortable with the Republican Party winning, yet it is now encumbent on
the Democratic Party to, in essence, come to him.
There is an intellectual laziness that surrounds people like Andrew Sullivan.
Republicans don't do nuance. Why? Because nuance requires thought.
You could go down the list of issues, and in many, if not most cases, the Repubican position is the simple one.
Democrats, on the other hand, do nuance. Why? Because very few issues can be painted in black and white terms.
I have had discussions in other forums with people who have made the same argument. Namely that it is encumbent on Democrats to present something
to them that they could get on board with. It is encumbent on Democrats to give
them what they want, in bite-sized chunks.
In evitably, when I point out to some of these people, that the information they want can be found in various places (be it on a candidates, or some other orgs website), the complaint back to me, is that it is too difficult for them to figure out what the position is.
Namely, it isn't presented to them in a 5 second sound bite.
So, what is it really that people such as Andrew Sullivan want when they call for Democrats to "woo them" over?
Do they really want the Democrats position on a given subject? No. They want the 5 second sound bite. Even if the logical, and correct solution cannot be summarized in a 5 second sound bite.
What should be done about it? I am sure that many political consultants will tell you that you
must get your point down to the mythical 5 second sound bite.
What was the primary complaint against John Kerry? Verbal diarrhea.
It was Kerry's inability to explain a position in 5 seconds or less.
I know it is impossible to underestimate the intelligence of the American public as a whole, but the attention span of the average American is more than 5 seconds. It is all too easy to point the finger at the news media, as they are the ones who ultimately created the narrative that John Kerry spoke too much. However, the American public at large created this monster. The people stopped watching news, because the news got boring. Boring cue card readers, presenting boring stories tailored to the corporate masters boring points of view.
As a result the viewing public stopped watching news. The boring cue card readers then tried to "jazz up" the news broadcasts, which lead to the 5 second sound bite.
Which in turn lead us to the American public expecting policy positions to be explainable in 5 seconds. Which gave us George Bush, which gave us the horror of the past six years. Which spawned Andrew Sullivan, which leads us to what started this post.
Andrew Sullivan demanding that the Democrats give
him a policy position that a) he agrees with, and b) can be presented in a 5 second sound bite.
So if I may, I will, for the sake of Andrew Sullivan, and those who think like him, give them the most definitive reason for supporting the Democratic Party, and not supporting the Republican Party:
In just about every case, from foreign policy issues to domestic policy issues, the Democratic Party has been consistently correct.
Technorati Tags:
Andrew Sullivan,
Kevin Drum,
Democrats,
Republicans,
Media