November 24, 2004
Fraud! We Lost! Fraud! We Lost!
I've written before about the argument the left is having in trying to reconcile the results of the election.
As is the case with most arguments, the problem isn't so much the content of the argument, but the emotion behind it that isn't being admitted.
In the red corner, you have the "Fraud!" folks. There's definitely a wide swath of these folks, from the people that are methodically going through elections data and holding them up to rigorous standards of truth, to Peter Smith on the other end of the spectrum. Many of them hang out in the diaries at Daily Kos, and Democratic Underground.
In the blue corner, you have the "We Lost!" folks. There's a wide spectrum of them, too. These are the people analyzing what went wrong, and what we need to change to have more of a chance in the future. I'd count myself in this camp, along with the folks over at MyDD.com and most of the main page columnists at Daily Kos.
There's an argument going on between the two camps. Many of the "Fraud!" folks believe that the "We Lost!" folks think that all the election irregularities should be swept under the rug. Many of the "We Lost!" folks believe that the "Fraud!" folks are certain that we actually won the election. Both sides believe the other side are going to throw away any hope we have at winning future elections.
What are the emotions behind it? Well, the "Fraud!" folks see the "We Lost!" folks as being defeatist, for not paying the appropriate attention to the irregularities. They feel justified in opposing them because they are opposing defeatism. When actually, the "We Lost!" folks merely believe that it's important to accept a reality of losing before you can lay the groundwork to win again.
And, the "We Lost!" folks see the "Fraud!" folks as being in denial. They feel justified in opposing them because denial is embarrassing when you're witnessing it from the outside. When actually, the "Fraud!" folks are right to be centrally concerned about vote integrity, because of the opportunity for future fraud.
What's really sad is that both side's judgments fuel the problem. The "We Lost!" folks hate being called defeatist, and being called defeatist plays into their view that the "Fraud!" folks are in denial. The "Fraud!" folks hate being dismissed as they have been dismissed, and know very well that people are rolling their eyes at them, and it plays into their views that the "We Lost!" folks aren't taking their concerns seriously enough.
And so of course, both sides end up being a bit poisoned. It is no wonder that the "We Lost!" people want to stop thinking about election irregularities entirely. And in turn, it is no wonder that the "Fraud!" people start to wonder if more things are being swept under the rug out of mere expedience. Which further reinforces each side's judgments, etc.
What is the truth?
Well, let's go back to logic class. Remember sufficient and necessary conditions? If you have a desired outcome, there are conditions that need to be met to bring about that outcome. Some are sufficient conditions - enough to bring about the change. And some are just necessary conditions. Ingredients and pre-requisites for the outcome, but not enough by themselves.
The fact is that if our desired outcome is a Democratic win, both camps in this argument are defending necessary conditions, and neither are sufficient conditions. We can fix the election irregularities, but if we haven't changed the party, it's moot. And, we can change the party, but if the fix is in, it's moot.
It is interesting because people have been trying to make this point, but it has a very labored feel to it - usually with underlines, capital letters, and a metaphorical gasping for oxygen. It feels similar to how people labor to make the point that they are anti-war, yet still support the troops. There's an implicit acknowledgment that two points of view are incompatible, when that acknowledgment doesn't even deserve to be made. Of course they're compatible.
It's the same here. Of course we need both. That's not just equivocation. It's not just, "Can't we all just get along?" They're both necessary ingredients for political survival.
That said, a bit of a love-in wouldn't hurt.
Sounds good...I'll bring the beer.
On a slightly more serious note, I had a brainstorming event at my house about 2 weeks after Black Tuesday...yeah, that's what I'm calling it...it makes me feel better about the whole sordid affair.
Anyway, my group ranged from 'Fraud' to 'We Lost' to 'We Lost and I'm Beyond Pissed' to 'We Lost Because of Fraud and Amsterdam & Canada are sounding really nice right about now'.
So we got to drinking and talking and eating and talking some more. The cool thing was that even tho we all had different viewpoints, we could respect each other's perspective. And we took each other's perspective to draw up a loose 'to do/to think about list'.
Our general consensus was that we need to focus on the most basic level of grassroots while not losing track of what happens at the National level. Ideas ranged from National elections, combining voting techniques (early voting, mail in voting, scantron, paper ballot), infusing new blood into our local DEC, and finding, grooming and aiding progressive candidates from school boards all the way up.
The social aspect of the evening helped, the strategic thinking was constructive, and we all left feeling better about the future.