“Why Didn’t I Win”, by Elizabeth Warren (2020)
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?
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, 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".
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.