Donkeys need a makeover

Republicans don't like to share. They have captured the flag, laid claim to the nation's values, created a monopoly on Jesus and, some say, stolen an election. They dominate the majority of governorships and state legislatures, both houses of Congress, the White House and soon, most likely, the Supreme Court.

But the Democrats have let the right have the right of way. Instead of presenting an image that appeals to the Average Joe, the party is pandering to itself. A certain intellectual arrogance sets the Democratic base on fire, but the heat puts off average voters. The Democrats have never been this in touch with their loyal base or as out of touch with their traditional blue-collar supporters and swing voters.

The average working class voter clearly benefits more economically from Democratic economic policies than from Republican tax cuts for the rich and irresponsible deficit spending. The majority of these voters has decided that social and personal issues are more important. And when it comes to these issues, the Democrats do not present the image that Middle America wants to see.

Republicans, on the other hand, are experts at telling people what they want to hear. It's relatively obvious what the country wants, and the Democrats are making a conscious choice not to give it; America is looking for leaders who are openly religious, patriotic, personable, down to earth and southern. But, this year, the Democrats offered up a reserved, Catholic, war-protesting, sleep-inducing, convoluted, Massachusetts liberal. The party needs to stop being led by idealists and start listening to pragmatists.

First, the Democrats need to get religious. No hardcore liberal voted against Bill Clinton because Clinton believes in God, but his conviction did tip many voters off the fence toward the left. We need a candidate who won't just claim religiosity when asked about it. The party needs a leader who voluntarily and naturally discusses his or her faith, someone who will remind America that Jesus is not a Republican. If this election has taught us anything, it's that you can never be too religious.

Along with religion, "values" (whatever that means) was the deciding issue for one fifth of this election's voters, most of whom voted Republican. And that's the Democrats' problem: They took the "whatever" stance. They don't appear weak on values because of what their values are; they appear weak on values because no one knows what those values are. If Democrats want to be pro-choice and pro-gay rights, that's fine, as long as they are assertive. (It wouldn't hurt to take a more representative stance either.) The hardcore religious right won't vote Democratic anyway, but by strongly arguing the other side of the coin, a debate is generated. After all, when Democrats are vague about their values they are essentially conceding moral superiority to the right.

Republicans have also managed to convince voters that Democrats hate America, and the left has provided plenty of fodder. Liberals have a tendency to complain about conservatives and government in general, regardless of the political climate. Although it goes directly against our notion of democracy, there is a view in this country that it is unpatriotic to criticize the government. Democrats even got tagged with the position, although it is certainly a minority view, that the phrase "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, an unpatriotic sacrilege. Democrats need to pick their battles and stop being bogged down in semantic wrangling.

Leading up to the election, all the pundits were spouting that the presidential vote was very "personal"; that's the politically correct way of saying voters want a President with whom they can sit down, drink beer, eat nachos and watch football with. Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush all fit the description. Kerry, on the other hand, seems much more likely to be a wine snob than a beer buddy. There are plenty of friendly Democrats, but few of them have run for President. The Democrats need to pull their heads out of the clouds and have some down to earth fun.

But elitism isn't just a personal repellant; it also stops the message from getting out. Democrats have an unquenchable urge to show that they know more than the person next to them. But as intellects grow, comprehension withers and dies. If liberals can learn anything from Republicans, it should be that simplicity is the name of the game. There is a place for weighing all the pros and cons, and that place is in the quiet of your hotel room, your office or your own head, not a presidential debate. All the public wants to hear is one or two good-sounding reasons for an opinion, not a dissertation. Redundant argumentation quickly appears uncertain, while brevity and clarity appear resolute.

Fundamentally, the issue at hand is not the issues at all; it is their presentation. The political debate does not exist in a vacuum; it is qualified by its syntax and by its presenter. If Clinton could run for a third term, it seems inconceivable that he would lose, even if he ran on the same platform Kerry used, because Clinton understood that in politics, the who and the how is just as important as the what and why. For the past four years, the Democratic Party has been an idea; it needs to turn itself back into a group of people. Among politicians, Democrats can be as subtle as they please, but to the public, less is more.