That is certainly one
reasonable perspective. Motivating one's base is more important than converting fence sitters. I saw (progressive
Democrat) Dennis Kucinich speak out here in Oregon at an Earth Day celebration, and was amazed at his ability to
whip a young, progressive-oriented crowd into a frenzy quickly (way better than Nader, or even Arnold with his
crowd). It was like measuring the acceleration for zero to sixty in a drag race. With almost no introductory
remarks, he said in a rapid fire fashion numbers of things the crowd wanted to hear, with a look of glee on his
face. He overwhelmed them with one articulate policy statement after another; statements that were essentially the
opposite of the incumbent's. After about a minute with people's eyes getting bigger, people couldn't stand it any
more and just started screaming, as if what he was saying was like oxygen to them, and/or too good to be true.
The fascinating thing about Kucinich's campaign was that he actually received more contributions (as opposed to
more dollars) from private citizens than any other Democrat up until he dropped out; including Kerry! Unfortunately
for his supporters, these were small (like an average of $20.00) contributions. Were campaign finance reforms in
place (say, limiting contributions to $100.00 per person, or basing limits on the average American's ability to
make them, and doing the rest with public money -- that's a concept, no?), he may well have won the nomination.
He certainly demonstrated an ability to motivate the grass roots, and earned the support of small contributors. The
trouble was he couldn't afford to campaign much on his budget, compared to the other candidates; as he refused PAC
money. There's a concept for Bel and you other political process reformers: Campaigning for president without "soft
money" or PAC money!
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Dennis_Ku
cinich_Government_Reform.htm
http://w
ww.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00003572
Since Democrats are significantly more
progressive than Republicans anyway, their challenge is always partly to, literally, lead with
strength of thought and conviction; that is, to stay a little ahead of the crowd, arouse their conviction, and nudge
them forward compellingly. People should rationally expect that from Democrats anyway, and not be shocked when they
see it. Though polls are useful, that is the problem with relying on polls inappropriately. Some things are such
that typical folks don't think about them much or don't know much about them; and shouldn't be expected to have
well-formed, permanent opinions. You have to enlighten them and wake them up a little bit. You as a leader are the
one they would be turning to for inspiration and guidance. On the other hand, you don't want to be too much more
extreme in any direction than your own base. Kucinich will have to build a bigger base for himself to be successful.
But since he is no friend of big business, this will be difficult.
Bookmarks