Big trouble lies‚Ćin the fact our side controls the legitimate media, which a hundred-million or so‚Ćof our fellows have abandoned. The reasons for this are numerous, but most relevant to our concerns is the fact that for very long we have treated a plurality as though it is an ignorable minority. Now they have FoxNews, Rush and the Weekly Standard–they can read the arbitrons and circulation figures as well as anyone. They know Toby Keith outsells and outdraws Madonna, but is seen nationally only on Ford truck commercials. They attend politically tinged evangelical events that draw 80,000,‚Ćbut the local news‚Ćignores the event to report on a NARAL protest at the local university.‚ĆThey rightly ask why their world is ignored. We, on the other hand, live in a college-town echo-chambers and have‚Ćdeluded ourselves into thinking we’re a clear majority.

I do not agree with Jane Smiley–the red states are not “unteachable.” It is in fact the notion that they ought to be taught that is the problem. Wolfe is right when he says, “[S]upport for Bush is about not wanting to be led by East-coast pretensions. It is about not wanting to be led by people who are forever trying to force their twisted sense of morality onto us, which is a non-morality. That is constantly done, and there is real resentment.”

I like that Wolfe mentions Zola. Perhaps we need to take a look at our own small-l liberal roots, decide what’s negotiable, and protect our core values to the death. I know the red states. America is a tolerant, if not approbational, place. Most Americans can agree on a baseline of tolerance, civility and common sense. Unfortunately, as a people–this includes me and your greencard toting behind, Sepoy–we are proud, easily offended and, regardless of our philosophical groundings, many of us hold to untenable beliefs that render the term cognitive dissonance useless for want of coverage. It would be fine if we could all admit that, find a lowest common denominator and get on with it.

For all our talk of the Enlightenment and our being heirs to it, we are weak. For many, our educations terminated with a sort of nihilist worldview borne of Humanities curricula deconstructionism. We know all the right questions and are convinced there are no answers. That’s the rub, I think. True as I believe our stance is, the fact remains that our adversaries have a narrative, they recite it, and assure our countrymen of its righteousness and their place in it. They frame issues in terms of must instead of ought. Look back–there was a time when our guys held the moral high-ground–FDR and JFK appealed to the best of us. They offered alternative worldviews based on rightness and wrongness, though at heart both clearly believed and practiced realpolitik. They allowed clear, shining optimistic choices, because they understood that people want a script by which they may live life.

We must decide whether following our purported stances to their logical conclusions, with which Rove and ilk‚Ćskewer us via reducto ad absurdum, is worth it. For instance, should we, the‚Ćclear victors in the abortion/life debate,‚Ćcontinue to defend late term abortions for the sake of not allowing the pro-lifers a single victory? (Read Cynthia Gorney’s Harper’s article this month). Maybe–but if so, we may also deserve our minority status. There is a price to pay for ideological purity, and we may
have just paid it.

Instead of using John Edwards’ moving and eloquent “Two Americas” observation to its fullest potential, we used it as our margin, and pulled back. After all, if reality itself is an agreed-upon fiction, why can’t we choose to do things another way? The beautiful thing about the Enlightenment, and our being heirs to it, is that we have freed ourselves from the old narratives and may‚Ćchoose how we order our affairs. It seems that we’ve confused freedom from narrative borne of our recognizing it as such with a natural absence of narrative altogether. It’s quite the opposite, and by withdrawing from political storytelling,‚Ćwe’ve created an ideological vacuum. It’s been filled, and we are the worse for it. Shame that the world may end for want of a story.

If we’re to be legitimate again, we must get our shit together and offer an alternative view that is articulable and defendable, rather than a patchwork of a hundred unrelated grievances. Wolfe is right about red state rebellion against East Coast pretense; thankfully, he’s wrong if he thinks that means America is‚Ćbig-c Conservative. The red states went red because‚Ćbecause we are scattershot in our aims, slapdash in our presentation, and incoherent in our reasoning. We have no story for them, and until we give them one, they’ll remain against their own interests where they’re welcomed and invited. To do otherwise would be impolite.

To quote Bush’s favorite political philosopher, and a favorite of mine as well, “Remove the plank from thine own eye,‚Ćbefore you remove a speck from thy neighbors.”

Class warfare is also a piece of the problem – and a large one at that. There is another element, however, that I didn’t notice in Manan’s post, but that I feel is one of the most fundamental problems facing democrats today. It is a lack, if you will, of Cajones. We don’t have the balls to stand up and present ourselves as different. We don’t choose a candidate who will present the democratic platform as distinct from the republican, but one who will seem as close to one of the republicans as possible, while still being different.

I’m not saying that Kerry is a conservative dem (ha), I’m saying that the entire campaign was engineered to make him appear to be as little different from bush on the issues as possible. Sure, towards the end he started to take stands -but these stands came because he was forced to them by the lack of yeast in his numbers. If our political strategy continues to be how can we make sure we don’t piss off anyone at all we will continue to get fantastically whomped in every election.

Here’s what I think can reach across these red-blue borders in our country: courage and conviction. I think people in every state – perhaps particularly those who are often caricatured as the red voters – respect courage. Respect a willingness to stand up and say this is wrong. this is right. And this is what I believe. Most democratic candidates do this when they are forced to by the political winds. Republicans do it at the drop of a hat.

Now of course this is an over-generalization, but just the same. The way to reach across is to show the voters candidates who believe in their stances as much as they say they do. Not candidates who pay lip-service to a liberal position, but candidates who believe in them. If we are going to ever hope to change people’s minds on these ingrained issues, first the candidates have to convince people that THEY believe in them.