“Why Didn’t I Win”, by Elizabeth Warren (2020)
Also read "He who has eyes, let him see". But what should "She" do?
The real political paradox that no one in the media is even trying to explain is that statistically speaking the Democrats should be winning the majority of all elections, but they are not.
Based on the number of people who support the
Democrats and the number of people who support the Republicans democrats should
have the White House, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the most of
local legislatures and the majority of the governorships.
The facts however defeat this theory.
How can the Republicans keep winning with
less voters supporting them than the number of voters supporting the Democrats?
Pro-democratic media give basically only
one answer, they keep saying again and again and again that the Republicans win
because they cheat (in different forms, but the essence is the same).
But the statement that the Republicans cheat
is not an explanation; at the best it is just a constatation of a fact.
If the Democrats want to win big they have
to go beyond this trivial constatation.
If the Republicans win by cheating, the
first question for the Democrats is why does cheating work (not why do the
Republicans cheat – this question is not productive); and the next question is
how to beat the Republicans in their own game (whether we like it or not, but
politics is a game)?
I am afraid that after 2018 midterm
elections the Democrats are not going to even think about this because they are
euphoric after taking of the House of Representatives and picking up some
governors.
But the fact that in 2018 the Democrats got
the House and picked up some governorships doesn't mean that in 2020 the Democrats will still have the same
support.
Many of those races have been won by a
hair.
Voters who swung to the Democrats may easily
swing back to the Republicans, especially when the prize is the Presidency.
And what do the Democrats do to prevent
this from happening?
Nothing.
At least, nothing new.
The biggest problem the Democrats have is
that they are …
Well, now I would like to say “stupid” or “idiots”, but
some people find this language vulgar or rude.
I would say to those people that “rude”
has different meaning in different cultures. In some cultures that language
would be considered straight, direct.
Plus, words like “stupid” or “idiotic” have
a very simple and specific meaning: they both mean an inability to think; they
both describe a person who cannot think.
Just the reason for inability to think is
different.
“Stupid” describes a person who cannot
think due to some biological reasons, based on genetics. “An idiot” is a person
who can't think because of psychological reasons; this is more of a behavioral
issue based on the culture the person grew up in.
Saying that democrats are stupid or idiots
is not really different from saying that the Earth is round.
Firstly,
this is an approximation.
Secondly, this statement describes an
object/system as a whole.
The Earth is not exactly around, and the
Earth is not exactly smooth/even, it has mountains and valleys.
And many members of the Democratic Party
are very smart and knowledgeable people, no doubt there.
However the Party itself, as a system, is
functioning in such a way that its actions are simply not smart.
So, for people who prefer polite language
a say “the Democrats as a group are not smart”.
However, as I've been stating before,
I write for people who can move their emotions aside and concentrate on the
content, focus on the logic and the reason, and the plans.
What would the Democrats do if they were
smart (as a social group)?
I’ve got a whole blog on this matter, and I am not
going to repeat here again everything I said before.
But the most important steps are:
1. Accepting the fact that they have been
outsmarted by the Republicans in general and by Donald Trump in particular.
2. Accepting the fact that the core of the
Democratic Party has been corrupted, and the manifestation of this fact was the
2016 nomination of Hillary Clinton.
Everyone who disagrees with these two
statements will be an impediment to the Democratic Party.
Everyone who agrees with these two
statements may become a leader of the Democratic Party (or a leader of an
inflectional third party).
Let’s say one does not reject upfront the
statements I just made, at least may think about them, what’s next?
Then one needs to ask does he/she want to
do something about it?
If the answer is – yes, then I would
suggest actually take a break from actions and start reading.
It is obvious for me that America is on
the verge of large social changes.
On the Wall Street people call it a “correction”
(e.g. when a bubble bursts).
In science people call it a “paradigm change”.
In social study people call it a “revolution”
(does not have to be bloody, though).
There are many reasons for the changes,
this alone could have been a very long discussion.
But we should expect a drastic social
change, and we need to participate in making it to happen (there are many different
forms of participation).
The latte requires a very specific
knowledge, i.e. the knowledge of the laws governing social changes.
Those laws exist and they are as
inevitable as laws of physics.
All people who participate in a social
revolution are being divided into two groups: those who lead and those who follow.
The difference between the leaders and the
followers is very simple: those who lead have charisma strong enough to inspire
people and (very important for the right
outcome) base their actions on the knowledge of the social laws (or at least on
their interpretation of those laws). Those who follow do not have their own
logical understanding of what and why is happening (although usually think that
they do), but they are hypnotized by the charisma of the leaders and trust that
the leaders know what they do (for them political leaders are not much different
from other celebrities who make them feel good).
That is why everyone who seeks to be a
leader of a change needs to learn how those changes happen.
Every known social revolution had its
roots in small groups of people talking about future. People were so captivated
by the ideas of social change that they have invested a lot of their own time
into thinking, reading, talking, and writing about it.
Here is an example.
In the end of the eighteenth century Marxists circles in Russia were discussing
works of Karl Marx and other philosophers. In the beginning of the nineteenth century
Russia had several underground political parties. In 1917 Bolsheviks succeeded in
a political coop. Many of those people
who thirty years before that year were sitting in small rooms having heated
discussions about the meaning of “Das Kapital” now were leading thousands of hungry
Russians to take over the Capital.
BTW: this is a good example for supporting
a very well-known statement: “Knowledge is power”; but I prefer my version on
this statement “Knowledge becomes power” (also, this example shows a common timeline - i.e. decades).
The political process similar to the one that
was happening then in Russia, simply is not happening so far now in America.
Prominent politicians, including Elizabeth
Warren, believe that they know everything they need and act according to the
old patterns of political behavior which are already less and less effective (hence,
the title of this piece; however, there are at least a dozen more names which could
be used instead).
The new generation of politicians is yet
too self-centered and their charisma so far is strong enough to keep them in a
spotlight, so they feel no need to think beyond their immediate slogans (that
includes the bills they wave as a flag to demonstrate to their followers how
progressive they are).
This situation will eventually change, because
sooner or later their followers will begin to feel disappointed in their
leaders who will not be able to deliver on their promises.
This time may become fertile for people
who have been preparing for this time.
Preparing means investing their time into thinking
and rethinking, reading and discussing, and – based on the old laws – developing
new strategies for political actions required to make the political transition
from the current social-economic state to the new one (the picture of which
itself has to be developed during those discussions).
Ready to study?
Start from classics, add contemporaries, include
odd figures (like yours truly) – no need to discuss everyone, for that there
are experts who can shine a light. The main goal is to achieve a clear and detailed (!) picture of what is right, what
is wrong, why, and how to right the wrong.
Then and only then one should start planning
the actions.
There is no rush, there will be plenty of
time, social transitions do not happen overnight (at least in a democracy).
Finally, when having a more specific conversation
about the paradox mentioned at the beginning of this piece, I recommend to
start from making the list of all “bad things” the “cheating bastards” Republicans
do to win. The longer is the list – the better. And then think about it. And also
think about all those millions (30? 40? 50?) of Americans who blindly support
Donald Trump no matter what he says or does, and about people who do not support
anyone. For the future Democratic leader those people will have to become the
target audience – not the people who are already inclined toward the Democratic
party. And to win over enough of those people the future Democratic leader will
have to make to them a collective appeal, not just “I promise you”, but “I and …
promise you”.
But that would mean that the future
Democratic leader would be smart; and not just smart, but would be equipped by
the knowledge that came from the deep study of the classics, contemporaries,
and odd figures; and not just equipped by that knowledge, but would be able to synthesize
the new political strategy – strategy (!), political machinery (including the use of a third-party candidate), not just bills –
based on that knowledge.
Sadly, but realistically, there is almost
no chance for that to happen in 2020. Currently Democratic leaders demonstrate behavior which usually is described as narcissistic, they show jealousy toward each other, and they have no common vision of the "rights" and "wrongs".
01/05/2019
The links in the text represent a small
portion of the writing on the matter available on www.the3dforce.us. Those posts do not
represent a coherent view (it is not a book, it is a collection of essays, many
of which were just a reaction to a specific event). However, they contain bits
and pieces which when put together represent a coherent strategy.
Here is the place for my 2020 comment.
Here is the place for my 2020 comment.