|
Edited on Sat Nov-06-04 05:54 PM by liberalpragmatist
Kerry would have made a fine president. But let's face, it: he got clobbered in the rural vote and the traditionalists' vote. We need to make inroads with this group.
I don't really blame Kerry for this, however. Kerry ran a good campaign, and he correctly saw that the party needed to reposition itself towards really taking on the Republicans on foreign policy and security.
In the end, culture became the main obstacle. It's true that Kerry, as a wealthy, educated, intellectual Northeasterner, was out of place here, but the truth is that that in and of itself SHOULD not be a problem.
There was a time when rich Northeasterners were able to carry the rural vote. FDR, JFK, RFK (had he been not been killed), to a lesser extent Hubert Humphrey (until '68 at least, and no, he wasn't rich, but he was liberal and northern).
If the party had a better image among more culturally-conservative voters and voters in red states, Kerry's background wouldn't be a problem.
What we have to face is that the Democratic Party is a minority party. We haven't won a majority of the vote since 1976, and even then it was only just barely at 50.1% and came in the aftermath of Watergate. In fact, we have to look back 40 years to 1964 for the last time a Democrat really carried a healthy margin. You could even make the case that our party had started losing our way long before that. After all, Kennedy just barely won, Stevenson lost overwhelmingly in the '50s, and you may have to go back to Truman to find a time when a Democrat didn't have any problems with traditional voters and rural voters. Kerry did as well as he could, but we have to face the fact that the Democratic Party starts out with a disadvantage in EVERY RACE b/c of it's inability to reach rural and more traditional voters.
If the party were healthy, we would not be hearing the refrain that we MUST have a Southerner leading the ticket. That's a false solution. Certainly, if a Southerner in '08 is the best candidate, by all means, we should go with him or her, but we should not delude ourselves into thinking that will solve all our problems. It's merely a band-aid, not a cure. The candidate we nominate should be the best candidate and the best presidential material, period, regardless of regional origin.
If we successfully change the image of our party, something that can be done without losing our values our goals, but merely by repackaging and straightforward, we can win, even when we have a "Massachusetts Liberal" on the ticket.
|