I created this account on blogger a few weeks ago, but haven't posted anything until now. To be honest, I was too busy worrying about the Presidential campaign until November 3rd, and after that I was too depressed and tired (a self-feeding loop) to commit my thoughts to a blog. I was in Las Vegas helping out with America Coming Together (ACT), hoping to "turn Nevada blue." The experience was great, and even more extensive than my earlier trip to Reno. But unfortunately, this one ended at a "Democratic victory party" at the Rio. That was probably one of the most depressing places I've been in a while. After the election, there were two dominant themes bouncing around my head:

• I was angry at the media portrayal of the election as being about "moral values." Articles like one at the Washington Times said the big surprise of the election was that moral values was surprisingly the most important issue to voters. The implication in all of these articles is that "moral values" means "right-wing Christian values." I voted on moral values. I believe that it is not moral to start a war for false reasons. I believe that it is immoral to allow a large number of people to live in poverty. I believe that it is immoral for so many people to not have access to adequate health care. But this story was gobbled up by the lazy media, which doesn't like to think too much about information before coming to a conclusion. It took a little while, but fortunately the narrative shifted somewhat. The Human Rights Campaign (of which I'm a member) posted other results from the same exit poll showing that, in fact, 60% of the electorate supports gay marriage or civil unions. So much for a resounding victory for right-wing, hypocritical "moral values" surging in America. There is also a great Frank Rich article along these lines, On "Moral Values," It's Blue in a Landslide. Rich points out that even if 22% of Americans said that "moral values" was the number one issue to them, that is the same percentage of Americans that call themselves evangelical. They have a right to their opinion, but the other 78% of Americans are by far in the majority.
• The bigger, and perhaps more constructive idea rattling around my brain is an internal debate on how I can best help the Democrats win back Congress in 2006. My primary focus in this area has been on message development. I honestly believe that if each American could hear an eloquent Democrat and and eloquent Republican debate, the large majority would support the Democratic ideals. Since that obviously is not going to happen, we need to find a better way to communicate our ideals. One thing we do not need to do is "move to the right." George Lakoff has a book Don't Think of an Elephant (which I first heard of through a recommendation by dailykos founder Markos Moulitsas Zúniga). The basic premise of the book is that you can't just throw facts at people to convince them, you need to break them out of "frames," or ways of thinking, that the right-wing has been masterful at creating. One of the most egregious examples of this is the "War on Terror" (or "War on Terrorism" depending on whom you are speaking to). This is a ridiculous and expansive name for a war--terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. It's like having a "War on Bombs." I do not disagree that we are in a war (even if there are some who aren't even willing to concede that). I think of it as a War on Anti-Western Islamic Fundamentalists Who Use Terrorism as a Tactic. Of course, this is the main problem--no one is going to actually use that phrase. A shorter form could be "War on Islamists," though I think some people would be uncomfortable using that phrase because it sounds vaguely racist. Regardless, the Democrats are afraid to make sense, and to stop using the term "War on Terror," because then the Republicans can accuse them of being "soft," "unpatriotic" and Osama-lovers. And many Americans would agree with them. There are, of course, other ways to help out in 2006. Unlike this year, when I didn't really get involved in the political campaign until October, I intend to get involved much earlier. I had an unfounded fear of helping out, worried that I would be too nervous or shy. But fortunately, I was wrong. I loved helping out; I actually enjoyed knocking on doors to encourage people to get out and vote. I don't have solid plans for helping out in terms of message in general or helping individual political campaigns. I reckon this blog will be a good place for me to put down ideas as they become more concrete.

So that brings me to the end of my first post. My intention is for this blog to convey my thoughts on the fight to make America as good a country as it can possibly be. But this blog will also contain other things as well--whatever I feel like writing about. I'm fully aware that I am likely the only person who will ever read this blog. But that is okay--the exercise of writing down thoughts helps to solidfy them and makes taking action a bit easier.