I must disagree. When you talk about “unfiltered reality” I think you’re really talking about an ideal, an ideal that you and I share. Reality is that George Bush and the GOP won the election. I also don’t know how you can point at “record deficits” and then claim Bush won on “fiscal conservativism.”

You’re right. A lot of people voted for Bush because they simply weren’t informed (I have my own problem with IQ tests). But there were also a large number with credible concerns such as Kerry’s often incoherent voting record, worries over a national health care system (always pointing to Canada’s troubled system as proof), and what they saw as the best defense strategy.

Prentiss,

Thanks for the info. I’ll make sure to check out all the links more thoroughly. My gut response though is that your typical Republican would trust MoveOn about as much as Michael Moore. If this small idea were to turn into an actual marketing campaign, it would rely on the converted bloggers to do the evangelical work, not a PAC.

Woojay,

I agree. Have you seen the LA Times voting results map by county? It tells a much different story.

Kate and David,

Thanks for Trackbacking. I look forward to getting to know your blogs better. Kate, I’ll be commenting on your posts tomorrow.

Abogado,

Well said man. Different people vote with different criteria and “gut feeling” is certainly a part of it for both all sides. I think that’s part of a democracy … realizing each citizen is free to make his/her decision not only how by also why he/she sees fit.

With that said, in my experience, the more someone engages in constructive, intelligent discussion and hears both perspectives, the better informed that person is to vote. With you, Moreno, and me and our guest blogger I can assure you we will get beyond the partisanship. There’s more I want to write, but I’ll save it for another post.

Coturnix,

My boy Revaz just recommended his books to me. I’ll be looking for them at the library on Monday.

One of the few areas where I ever hear reasonable logic-based debate between the right and left is in regard to economics and efficiency. But when you really dig in to each side’s logic the underpinings are always inherently political judgment calls. Any time someone (on either side) uses an economic argument for a policy justification you should be suspicious and question their assumptions. You may agree with their analysis completely and come to the polar opposite conclusion because of a fundamentally different starting assumption.

The process of self-analyzing your own beliefs is incredibly difficult. It certainly helps to have people around you to faciliate that process – a Socratic gadfly that will not let you get away with unquestioned assumptions. If you have a faulty foundation for your ideas and beliefs you truly have constucted a house of cards. But as Socrates, Plato and nearly every philosopher/scientist/thinker since has realized, there is no faster way to social ostricization than to shake an individual’s belief foundation – let alone an entire society’s. We are inherently resistant to change and people will often cling to their beliefs until their death even in the face of contradictory evidence. This is one reason why we tend to associate oursleves with those who agree with our assumptions and reinforce our beliefs. I think this is a mistake. We need to confront eachother on equal terms with intellectual honesty and dispassionate reasoning if we are to get anywhere. Unfortunately though, we are not talking about whether the earth is round or flat (which ironically elicited plenty of passion at the time), we are talking about politics.

I’m not saying it is impossible to have a constructive conversation, but it will take some serious effort and restraint. As Oso mentioned, my girlfriend was/is a republican. In years of telling her why I believed what I believed I never made serious headway in to her politics. She is a very different person than I am and what seemed like uncontrovertable evidence to me meant nothing to her and, likewise, small things made a difference in her opinions that I would never even have noticed. The most important thing I did, that anyone can do I think, is to show that there is another way to look at something and to let the person come around (or not) on their own. I never got anywhere by arguing, but I may have gotten somewhere by prodding and questioning. Maybe she can explain herself, I probably had nothing to do with her vote anyway

Anyway, I think this is a noble idea and I would like to see it carried out. I believe that the core of people that voted for Bush cannot be convinced, but I met many people who were not happy with Bush at all, but couldn’t stand Kerry, and I don’t blame them. Kerry never presented a clear alternative. He was Bush Lite (not a good beer and not a good President). Our ideas are still in the majority, but they were not being represented by either candidate. In other words I hope we can take this discussion outside of partisan politics or even politics in general and bring it to a much more fundamental level. I never enjoyed defending Kerry anyway.

I think a fundamental question we also need to address is how the regional split between Democrats and Republicans came about. The trend seems to be that most people in urban areas voted Democrat, while people in rural areas voted Republican (even in a strongly red state like Georgia, people in the big cities like Atlanta voted Kerry). So where exactly does this difference come from? Perhaps that is where the answer lies for Democrats hoping to win back more people in the next election(s).

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040823fa_fact

http://www.errolmorris.com/html/election04/election04_main.html

https://www.moveonpac.org/donate/switchad_winners.html

If only that had done the trick.

Looking back, my guess is that the cool, brainy style was hitting the wrong demographic, even if they got testimonials from ordinary Americans. Something pitched at, say, NASCAR viewers would have been more like it.