Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Lawrence O'Donnell vs. Glenn Greenwald

Although this topic has been covered quite extensively, I think it's a great discussion on why the Democrats lost handily in last weeks elections. This started out as a somewhat contentious debate between Lawrence O'Donnell and Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com on MSNBC's Morning Joe. It started like this:



Since time ran out for the discussion, Lawrence invited Glenn on his show last night. The debate continued, although in a less contentious fashion:



I think both bring up valid points.

Glenn contends that Democrats lost the election by not clearly defining the party's goals and accomplishments and how those affect everyday people in America. He believes that by "Alienating your own base by moving to the Right via Blue Dog dependency is obviously a bad electoral tactic for Democrats." He suggests that Blue Dogs are corporatist Democrats who watered down major legislation, for example health care reform, by catering more to the corporate dollar as opposed to whats best for the Democratic base.

Lawrence believes that the United State electorate is generally moderate, and by pushing overly liberal policies, such as health care reform, the Democrats lost. He contends that Blue Dog Democrats were needed in order to maintain Democratic control of Congress as they serve as a check to the "liberal" Democratic issues.

As I said, I agree with both points. But I think if the Democrats follow Glenn's suggestion in boiling their message down to policy and how those policies would directly benefit them, Democrats may have a better chance. If you watched the second clip above, Lawrence, a former writer of the West Wing, showed a clip from the final season of the show where Santos, the fictional Democratic presidential nominee, sung the praises of liberal accomplishments over time, and that liberal is not the dirty word that Republicans make it out to be.

Santos: I know you like to use that word 'liberal' as if it were a crime.
Vinick: No. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used that word. I know Democrats think liberal is a bad word. So bad you had to change it. What do you call yourselves now, progressives? Is that it?
Santos: It's true. Republicans have tried to turn liberal into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country.
Vinick: A Republican President ended slavery.
Santos: Yes, a liberal Republican; what happened to them, Senator? They got run out of your party! What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.

Ask anyone, liberals or conservatives, if they value those programs, and I'm sure you'll find that the vast majority people in our country are indeed liberal and value these "practical socialist" ideals. There are many of the practical socialist ideals out there, waiting to be successful in the U.S. such as Universal Health Care.

No comments:

Post a Comment