Rebel Flags, "Bring 'em On" and why Democrats are so Boring

This is what ultimately bugs me about Dean's Confederate flag flap.

I heard him say it before it became an issue, and it didn't jar me. Rather, I just saw it as an example of what Dean's appeal is to many people. He speaks directly, like a real person.

The way the other Democratic candidates have made Dean's statement an issue is really annoying, and ultimately self defeating for our side. Dean was basically making the same point that Democratic "centrists" make all the time, but disguise it with careful consultant terms like "appealing to swing voters."

Dean's use of the Confederate flag image may have not been the wisest choice of words. But the overall statement in its complete form was the opposite of racist, and it was not being condescending to southern whites either. He was basically saying we have to get past the artificial divisions and look at our common interests.

If our side becomes so ultra cautious that we avoid saying anything to avoid offending anyone, or anything slightly complex, we're going to continue to float up the creek without a paddle.

One reason GW Bush is "popular" among many people is the same reason as Dean. He conveys the sense that he talks like a normal person, instead of a programmed politician.

As a result, Bush comes out with stupid phrases like "bring 'em on."
But the reason Bush gets away with it is because people are willing to overlook such misstatements because they prefer that to politicians who are so programmed that they only say the most innocuous things possible.

People would rather have a politician who seems genuine than one who so controlled that they never make mistakes. People would rather have a candidate who occasionally puts his foot in his mouth than one who always says "the right thing" but actually says nothing.

You are right...every day Bush's mistatements and soundbites
are overlooked and even rewritten in the mainstream media...

That's what gives Bush the illusion of being an ordinary guy. Although liberals hate the "bring 'em on" remark, Bush was basically saying what many ordinary people think and say privately. Even though it was stupid, it came across as a normal human reaction of defiance. People don't always say temperate things in the heat of the moment.

Likewisae, Dean was just saying what many Democrats think and say privately. If he hadn't put the Cinfederate flag reference in there, the statement would probably have gone unnoticed. But, in fact, his use of it was a direct statement of truth.

What I dread is another presidential election where the Democrats continue to avoid stating things

There is "plain talk" and then there is illiterate mumbling and unintelligible banter. Dean speaks plain but he is articulate. Bush speaks with the vocabulary of a dunce (that's not plain talk) and he is inarticulate to even the infamous "focus group."

Your are correct to a degree. However, both have in common that there are times when they say emphatic things to make a point, and those hit people viscerally. While that may get them into trouble at times, it also is what attracts people to them.

Southern white men curious about Dean, and when they see he won't take their guns away, that will be another plus. To many southerners and folks from rural areas, the gun issue is the SINGLE issue they vote on.

Any state, area or region staking its future to a flag they hold as equal or higher than Old Glory and see guns as the ultimate life or death issue, i believe not voting Dem is the least of my concerns and the least of their problems.

BUT -- and I like Dean -- his unwillingness to admit that he, as you say, "put his foot in his mouth", is weak. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and I wasn't assuming that he had misspoken; he had a chance to explain last night what he exactly meant, and I was listening. But it didn't work. He neither justified his use of words (actually conceding that the confederate flag is a 'racist symbol', and getting busted by Al Sharpton for equating poor whites in the south with pickup trucks/confederate flags, without a proper response) nor did he admit to having misspoken. It isn't a huge deal or anything, it won't make me stop supporting him, but it was a flop, and perhaps a necessary learning step.

I agree with you about Bush, and I think the same can be said for any of the presidents over the last 25 years. You would never see a Trent Lott or a Tom Daschle type president because they both rerpresent two extremes of the the same type of politician - the inaccessable DC insider. Nobody can Identify with them personally and nobody would vote for them. Now take Bill Clinton and GW. Both are very different politicians (obviously), but both illicit the same effect on the middle of the road voter in that they are type of guy the swing voters would like to hang out with.

I think what Dean said was dumb because he pigeon-holed almost all of these people as southern rednecks.

I would bet that hardly any (if any at all) southerners with confederate flags would vote Democrat. However, the swing voters will, and a lot of the dems have moved away from them. So dean was right in a sense - he just said something a bit foolish.

Your comment

"People would rather have a politician who seems genuine than one who so controlled that they never make mistakes. People would rather have a candidate who occasionally puts his foot in his mouth than one who always says "the right thing" but actually says nothing."

needs to be emphasized over and over and over.

I would add that even if in some ways it is silly that people vote this way, people do vote based on whether they perceive the candidate as being a "fighter." I suspect that one of the reasons people vote against their actual interests sometimes is because they perceive the candidate they do vote for as being a scrapper and a fighter -- the "alpha male", if you will. & they identify with that aspect of the candidate instead of with what the candidate's position on issues is.

canned idates. I do not think Bush is a plain speaking man--he is dishonest and liar--that says it all. All of his "plain speaking tough talk" is theater. I read a recent article on the net by a professor at UCLA named Lakoff. I think he is a linguist--his argument is that the Republican party wins because it does , indeed, change the language--it is out there foremost with the slogans that reach deep down into the unconscious and conscious minds of people--and some of the voters I do believe are unconscious when they vote. Nevertheless, his solution is that the Democratic party , because it is far behind in this wonderful , but spurious use of the language, get with it and develop the ability to spin the language like the Republicans do--with a great deal of success.

I am not sure I agree with Lakoff. I looked for the article


http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

I think it's possible to look at the use of language in two ways. One can be very analytical and look for "frames" and phrases that reach people on the unconscious level.

But often that kind of analytical approach comes to the same conclusion as "seat of the pants" intuition. That's something the GOP has figured out. Most of their messages are very intiutive. "It's your money." Perhaps they came up with that after many focus groups. But ultimately, it's simply the way many people feel.

Unfortunately, I believe the Democrats have uswed such scientific approaches to have an opposite effect. It ends up with phrases that are detached and bloodless, rather than affecting peopel on a gut level.

It's when we get beyond that that I think we succeed. The phrase of Clinton's that I still remember was "If you elect me, I'll fight for you until the last dog dies."

I think, like any politician, Bush is usually "on message" and says carefully scripted things.

However, at times, he does react viscerally and says things off the cuff. Those moments, IMO, are what attracts people to him. It also repels people like us who dislike him. But Bush will never win over his diehard opponents anyway.

Those white southerners with confederate flags on their pickup trucks are working class people. As long as we let the bosses divide the working class along lines of race or of (foolish) nostalgia for the lost cause, we are dead meat. Somehow, we have to overcome racism (where it exists) and appeal to the common interest. Some working people, not only southerners, are racists; and most black folks are working people. Whatever divides us makes all of us weaker.

Huey Long made it work. Maybe Dean can, and if so, power to him.

over a polished politician that reads from a script. Dean may make some slip ups, but listen to what he says. I think most people will and they will react to their gut feelings.

explanation.

I have no idea what people are talking about except they are all talking about Dean. How many threads today are Dean threads? Dean and Clark both have a strong Internet following. Whose name is on every message board this morning? Maybe the old adage is true... There's no such thing as bad publicity. :shrug: It was speculated a time ago that Dean did not have name/face recognition for most of the country. Something tells me that changed. Can't swing a bat without hitting a Dean thread today. Time will tell how this all works out.

The debate was spectacular - first debate, really. Later, Candy, Klein and Zahn told us it was boring -I didn't believe them! In fact I wrote cnn:

cnn@cnn.com
Subject: The Rock the Vote Forum - it rocked!

From someone who complained bitterly about the last debate : this was it! The very first actual debate! I finally got to learn something about the candidates (great things on some, ugly on others) Excellent moderator - tell Judy to take notes!(and keep her away from future debates, please!)
The only sour note: after the show, your own pundits started dissing your own show, claiming it was boring - all candidates were terrible (except for Dean which they try hard to salvage). Funny, Paula, Candy and Klein: I swore I heard applause all along. In fact, I went back to the video - the audience connected just fine with the candidates - both live and at home. I am looking forward to part two- I'll just switch channels when the pundits come on.

It was looser than most, and the questions got more of the huiman side of the candidates out.

(I actually didn't even mind the exchange between Sharpton and Dean, because it seemed like a genuine argument. Althouigh it's not good for the Dems to argue in public, at least it had real passion to it.)

My point was in a larger sense though. If every phrase our candidates utter in the general election is thrououghly cleanesed and tested for correctness, with no spontaneity, then the race will be really boring, miss the key concertns of people and put GW back in the White House.

Let's take the risk of more plain speaking, and not be afraid to stir the pot this time around.