<Believe it or not, some people vote on the basis of ideas.

And believe it or not, some people vote on the basis of candidates' personalities.

After the Presidential debates, how many people said that Gore had a better idea of what was going on but Bush is the one they'd rather invite to the barbecue because he was more of a "regular guy"? How many people voted for the regular guy rather than the stuffed shirt?

As far as this "getting the message out" stuff is concerned, I can't tell you the number of times I've read things here that turned up within 5 days in the local Letters to the Editor written by one of our several right-wing amateur columnists. Do I think you're all on the same payroll? No. Do I think you're all taking direction from a Higher Power? No. Do I think you're all getting your talking points from the same sources? You bet your boots I do.

What I think: The conservative talking points all along have been, in politics, "My Country Right or Wrong", and in economics, "Every Man for Himself". These are very simple and easy to understand. That's helpful in Soundbiteland.

When the country is under attack, it's hard to oppose the first point, and those who do are often called traitors. I see this a lot around here, where the peace churches are criticized viciously for speaking out for their principles. In the same way, civil libertarians are accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy when they resist the urge to give up our liberty for a little temporary safety.

The second point is really easy to hold when one's own family is not affected by the lack of parachutes. This puts liberals in the uncomfortable position of having to wait for the economic erosion felt by the working poor to eat away at the beaches of prosperity frequented by people at the upper end of middle class, in other words, to wait until "them" becomes "us". Tom, you and others here have said that the liberals wish for an economic downturn, and in the way I've just described, it's true. The case for supporting the vulnerable is easier to make when it's someone you know. When some old lady is turned out on the street because her retirement was looted, it's either her fault for being gullible or a real shame and let's move on; when it's my great-aunt, it's a scandal and a crime, and where is the government, for crying out loud?

The problem with liberal firebrands is not that they all sound like Marxists, but that they all sound sanctimonious in good times and beside the point in bad times. The best one, a radical who avoided the sanctimony trap because he didn't have handlers, was nailed to a tree. But we can't use his talking points in a secular society, even though the Sermon on the Mount is absolutely perfect.

Come to think of it, you can't get much more socialist than pure Christianity, can you?

Regards--
Mary Anne