Embrace the suck

Over the last few weeks I've been thinking about why Democrats fare so poorly in rural areas.  It is particularly perplexing because the policies of the Democratic Party are much more friendly and helpful to rural folk than those of the Republicans.

Pretty clearly rural voters are responding to something other than actual party values.  Likely it's perceived party values.  Or, what I see here in Idaho, the voters reject Democrats based solely on the party ID.  Idaho voters have so thoroughly internalized the idea that Democrat=Bad that they simply ignore everything else.  Really.  I believe the run of the mill Idaho voter wants to know nothing other that the party affiliation.

My perception is that these voters aren't voting Republican so much as they are voting anti-Democrat.  Years ago Democrats got linked to "radical environmentalism" and the demise of logging.  That really hurt Democrats in North Idaho.  Best thing that ever happened to Republicans in North Idaho was the Spotted Owl.  Republicans here still brand every Democrat as liberal, and it seems to work.  Reality be damned.

As a thought experiment I've asked myself, What policy position could an Idaho Democrat espouse that would actually earn votes?  I've asked other people this same question.  The answer always is, nothing. Idaho Dems can't move any farther to the right, really.  And even if they did, Idaho voters don't look at policies, they just look at D or R.

It's not policies that are the problem, it's the perception.  And that's where I see a ray of hope.  Dems are on their back right now, and everyone knows it.  Perhaps if Dems embrace that and announce that they've seen the light, Idaho voters might take a second look.  It could be that Idaho voters might be interested if Dems say "We've got big problems, we know it, and we're changing."

As the Army says, embrace the suck.  Perhaps we have a rare and fleeting opportunity to get people to listen.  I guess I'm saying right now it's more about messaging than actual policies.  The election sent the message that Dems need to change.  Let's announce that we got the message.

White Nationalist in the White House

Bleh.  That election didn't go like I was hoping or expecting.  And as usual, any forecast I made was off the mark; when will I learn...?

Ah well, I'm trying to be philosophical, but it's going to take some time.

In the meantime, I'm watching the hue and cry over Trump hiring Stave Bannon as his strategic adviser.  Yes, his Brietbart news organization does appear to cater to white nationalists, and that seems wrong for a key administration adviser.  But, other than some alleged comments (reported by an ex-wife, so, you know, not exactly a disinterested reporter) about him not wanting his kids to be around Jewish people, I haven't seem much specifically attributed to him.

Yes, yes, yes, it's important to oppose Trump and drag him down and mess him up and move him sideways in order to stymie his forward progress (from my view, advancing to the rear), but I don't sign on to the slightly unhinged nature of it.  I'm not comfortable piling on the guy before we're clear that he's actually going to be a negative in that position.

And, is that really a negative?  I mean, if you're on the left it is hateful for a(n alleged) white nationalist to promote such policies at the highest level of our government.  But won't that just  hinder their effectiveness and hasten their demise?  If that view is truly out of favor in our country it will be exposed as such. And if it's not, well, .... well,  then we've got bigger problems than I thought.