18 September 2005 - 5:45pm
So which to you want? Coke or Pepsi?
Of course, if you don't want a cola -- or any kind of sugared, carbonated beverage -- this kind of question doesn't help.
It seems that the same kind of thing is happening in politics, where people increasingly are seeing the two main brands, Democrat and Republican, offering two slightly different variations on the same basic treacly, gassy content.
You'd think that the disruptive nature of the internet would mean that bloggers, who ostensibly are not constrained by the mainstreaming pressures of mainstream political cultures, would be pushing for real progressive policies, or, for that matter, real conservative policies.
Strangely, when it comes to the mainstream bloggers, that does not seem to be the case. (Or maybe it's not so strange, considering how some bloggers are now in bed with political PACs.)
And so we see a lot of agitation within the Democratic Party, and its supporters, to ditch its traditional values and just go for market share. Like New Coke and Pepsi Free, we get Cherry Democrat and Republican Lite, two competing products from brand names who don't care about anything but market share.
People have noted how politics get marketed to the public. But what's increasingly clear is how the two major parties are bringing market-think into politics.
The logic may make sense in business. MTV started with music videos, but eventually transformed itself into a reality television network, all in an effort to boost ratings, and thus perfectly "valid" for the corporate bottom line. But is this the way to go in politics? Forget what people stand for, just elect the right gangbangers, no matter how awful they are?
Does it really make sense to advocate a political direction that deliberately abandons the people who've counted on the Democratic Party to stand up for them? How is this a winning strategy? I thought ends-justifying-the-means rationales were discredited centuries ago.
Alas, the temptation to give in to the dark side is too great.
Some people think environmentalism is too inconvenient politically, despite the evidence that environmental problems are much bigger than politics. Some people think that women's equality and reproductive rights are too inconvenient politically, despite the horrors that are happing across this country. They think a party should change its politics as willy nilly as MTV changes its program offerings, as long as it might gain market share.
The thing is -- and perhaps this represents a break-down in my analogy -- not even Coke or Pepsi would be so cavalier towards their the formulae of core businesses.
So why should the Democrats?
media girl also blogs at other places.
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
Before I start down my response... have you ever seen the South Park episode where they have to have a new school mascot and are forced to choose between a douch and a turd sandwitch? I think it's a half and hour of laughs at our system of elections where out choice is really drawn down to to unpalatable items.
One of the reasons that many people claim to stay with the Republican party is that they have a consistant focus ( not really, but they are much more focused than the Democrats even if they are wrong much of the time ).
Democrats need to standardize their platform in a way that all of the core principals are retained under a new broad umbrella. Do away with much of the old school rhetoric and replace it with simple to userstand sound bites that don't change our goals, but change out outward appearance.
Womens' rights / Gay rights / ... => Equal rights for all citizens. We should not be flying so many different banners for what is just one point. Under this we will have different focus groups to apply this to different areas of legislation and social development.
Pro-Choice => Pro Education. The #1 way to reduce the number of teen pregnancies and abortions is a good education and opportunity. It's not that womens health is any less important, but the terms we use are a stone around our neck. What we would think of as pro choice would now fall under Equal rights and equal protections. Our goal should be to reduce the need for abortions through education, job training, contraceptives, and any other tool at our disposable.
Environmental => I think we need to take a step back and evaluate some of the platforms that are popular. Nuclear energy is clean and effecient compared to the alternatives. Gone are the days of chernoybl since newer reactors can never suffer the same fate. I would rather we look into nuclear energy rather than more coal burning or oil. In the end environmental advocay should be about the balance between todays' needs and tomorrows needs. We should make every attempt not to take from our children to finace things we don't need ( also see fiscal policy ).
Fiscal Policy => Fiscal responsibility. !!! This is one where the democrats can trounce the Republicans at this point. GWB has spent more and racked up more debt than any other president. This is not fiscal responsibility it's fiscal sucide. Sure, it takes money to make money, but you can't keep going forevery if you are always borrowing today... eventually the bills come due. The government can do some handwaving, but what it comes down to it either massive devaluation of the dollar and or massive inflation neither of which is a pretty picture. It will happen it's just a matter of when.
Open government => accountabile governemnt. Not everything needs to be open and transparent, but at a minimum everything must be accountable to one or more elected officials. I don't mind much of the Patriot act, except when the Judiciary is not involved. Once you remove the checks and balanced you remove the accountability and invite abuse.
One thing the Democratic platform must affirm is that government money is a two edged sword. While the buying power of the federal goverment can bring many things within reach, it's that same money that is stealing from our children and grandchildren. We need to do something about healthcare in this country, but it should not be finaced through our children's future profits. Once you start to relize that you start to see that entitlement spending is a poor tool much of the time. Long term goals will require sacrafice and skimping on your starbucks grande latte, but in the end we can acheve the most needed goals without sacrificing any more of our childrend futures.
My motto that I think we can all agree on is "We should give our children at least as much opportunity to succeed and flourish as we had".
I would take issue withe a couple things:
Reproductive rights is a lot more than simply education. It's also having control over one's own body and privacy in medical decisions. It's having access to birth control, without obstructionism by pharmacists out to make a political statement, and without government obstruction to access of Plan B contraception. It's having healthcare coverage for OB/GYN and pre-natal care. And it's about the right to terminate a pregnancy. Not all unwanted pregnancy arises out of ignorance, after all.
Nuclear power is not clean, and just because we have reactors that have lasted 30-40 years doesn't mean that they'll last 30,000-40,000 years -- which is how long they and their fuel will be radioactive at toxic levels. That's a very very very high-maintenance technology, with a downside that could mean the extermination of all live in the region, perhaps on the planet. The fantasy of "clean nuclear power" is put forth by men who want to profit from it, but will be long gone for 99.9% of the time where the mess they make must be managed.
Otherwise I like your comments.
I never said that it should go away, but the current rhetoric is killing the democrats. What we would not see as the Reproductive right and Pro-Choice areas would be broken down into equal rights, reproductive education, and opportunities for all. We cannot give up the fight, but we must give up the words that are killing us with moderate and socially progressive conservatives that have fled for more "comfortable" surroundings.
I just wanted to state that you have been terribly misinformed on nuclear energy and you comment shows that. I would recommend that you not take my word but go out and research this topic for yourself and get away from the sites that just re-itterate what you have posted here since it's terribly inacurate and unscientific. In terms of cost to benifit to risk ratio nuclear energy is far superior to all other forms of energy that we have at our disposal at this time. I would not shed a tear for the energy industry when we move to solar as our primary source, but right now the yeild is far to low and the production far too toxic for a global shift.
...is physics. The laws of physics are not subject to political intervention, contrary to what some believe. The Sphinx is anywhere from 5,000 to 9,000 years old, depending upon the archaeologist or geologist you ask. If it had been a nuclear reactor, it still would be toxic today.
Are our structures really so much superior that we don't have to worry about age?
If you think I'm misinformed, then maybe citing some sources instead of rhetorical posing would prove more productive.
Nice article.
I absolutely love your cola analogy, it sums up perfectly my opinion of the American political scene, rock on media girl!~