What the DNC Must Do: A Comprehensive Framework

 
Or Strateg(er)y for Du(DEM)mies

Hi everybody

I've seen a lot of soul-searching, agonizing, suggestions, criticism, etc. regarding the election loss and the future of the party here. There are a lot of good ideas (better policies, better "framing," speaking to values, retake the media, make our own echo chamber, etc.), but one thing I think we're missing is a framework to put them in - that is, a comprehensive strategic guide to defining whom the party is, what it stands for, and how to win.

This post is meant to help fill that void. It is nothing earth shattering. I'm sure a lot of you have worked with strategic roadmaps, game plans, or the equivalent. The leadership of any organization should have one. Sadly, it is apparent that the Democratic Party leadership either doesn't have one or they have one that is really shitty. We wouldn't have questions like "What do we stand for?" "How can we frame this?" that don't have immediate and halfway decent answers if they were okay in this department.

This is quite long. But it includes some charts.

This sort of exercise would be done behind the scenes, so the rest of us would not (and should not) see it. But the results of it would be readily apparent based on party leaders' actions and how they communicate, and many of the action steps have a role for the broader party membership.

0. A Strategic Framework

This is a simple 6-stage framework for how we get from defining a set of core principles to winning elections. This table summarizes the six steps, and my take on the main problem I see in each step along the way.

I'll leave the history to others more informed, but that's the position we're in now, as I see it  If you are starting from zero, you would go through these stages in sequence, but in an existing organization, you would adapt different parts at different times. Although the Democratic Party is not starting from zero, the basic problem is that without a set of clearly articulated core principles, we are making the job that much harder for ourselves in all the following steps.

I will walk through each step and identify what needs to be done focusing on some areas more than others, depending on where I feel like I have something worthwhile to say.

1. Core Principles
The lack of clearly articulated core principles is the root problem, as we all know. Republicans have a crystal clear identity, and Democrats have a murky - if any - identity. Before rushing to fill the void, though, I hope the party makes an effort to clearly and objectively understand the current situation. They should do some market research of a variety of voters to get an objective view of what they think the two parties stand for. It's likely to reveal widely varied (if not outright contradictory) beliefs about the Democratic Party - even among self-identified Democrats. An example of what top line conclusions might look like:

So, we need to articulate our core principles: a set of precepts generally agreeable to nearly all of us that stand for who we are, what we want to accomplish, and how we would govern. They need to be:

• DISTINCTIVE - they position us competitively against our opponents
  
• CLEAR - simple to understand and easily communicated; and
  
• RELEVANT - they address the major concerns of peoples' lives.

I identify relevance in three areas of concern to voters - Security, Economy, and Values. This is of course debatable but I'm going to proceed with it so there is a clear structure. I also set an arbitrary but I believe logical limit of three two-word phrases that we should be able to boil it down to, one for each area of concern. Our core principles might look something like this, matched up vs. the Republican positioning:

I have drawn from discussion in previous threads (e.g., from dumb angel here) and my own thinking to come up with these. I didn't agonize over it for too long, so I mean it as a reference point, not the final word, but for anyone who wants to propose alternatives consider these limitations:

1. I would encourage both the inner circle and blogosphere to Keep It Simple Stupid like this and resist the temptation to throw in pet issues (deficit, environment) or sacred cows (social security, pro-choice) - these are the core principles, not the means to achieve them or a laundry/wish list.
   
2. We need a security/defense position -being "pro-peace/anti-war" just isn't going to cut it with enough voters. I also don't think we can "out-Strong Defense" the Republicans. I elaborate below how I believe we can position "Protecting Freedom" to our advantage in this area.
   
3. We also need an economic positioning that is more than "Corporations are Evil." Nobody likes Haliburton or Enron, but if that's all we got, it won't be compelling to pocketbook voters. Based on some of what I've read the last couple days, a positioning around moving society and out economy "forward" makes a lot of sense (example here from Joey Dee), and embracing science and technology, which the Republicans will have inherent problems doing (below) led me to label it "Progressive." (and by the way, for those who would stereotype corporate types, scroll down here to see that Harvard MBA's lean Dem)
   
4. I believe our "Personal Freedom" positioning should be captured under our security positioning because A. I think it resonates better with a larger audience - we would have to be in a virtual police state for many voters to start voting based on social freedoms and then it will be too late, and B. Part of the GOP base precludes them from being the "party of freedom" so I see it as almost a freebie for us, and more helpful to position it behind something else.

As I mentioned, all my ideas are debatable, but I believe the framework should follow this simple structure.

2. Define a winning coalition

It's nice to say we "need a candidate who stands for something" but that's all hot air if we don't have a plan for how it will succeed.

I am convinced that our party leadership has a 19th century view of voter groups (racial/income/gender divisions) or as a series of over-simplified continua (liberal-conservative, urban-rural) and that they actually listen when the media ramble about the voting bloc de jour ( "Nascar Dad" "Value Voters").

So much Bullshit.

Unplug yourself from the prattle and talk to people. Outside of our base and the wingnut base, people decide how to vote in very different ways - even people in the so-called bases have different reasons for being there (even within the base - see this recent roll call - even among this like-minded community you have an incredible diversity of reasons for being here.

Voters should be segmented based on their own criteria on how they decide to vote. The party needs to do extensive research on this and develop a breakdown of blocs of voters - what they base their vote on, how they tend to vote, why they might change their mind, how many of them there are, where they live, etc. Here is a link to what a summary page might look like for various voting groups - it's too big to paste here (but has some funny Simpsons references, so click through when you have time). Non-voter groups should also be analyzed for why they don't participate and how they might be persuaded to.

It is completely pulled out of my ass, but should give you an idea of what our party is lacking right now in terms of understanding voters. Pollster Stan Greenberg published something like this recently, but in my view it's too simple (I haven't read the book, I could be wrong. He also may have a more detailed insider version). I also do not find Sullivan's framework compelling either - it shows regional trends, but does not explain to me why people decide to vote the way they do.

Based on analysis, insight, and trial & error, party leaders can define a coalition that - if executed successfully - will give us a working majority based on how they vote and where they live, and allow to be at least competitive in nearly every state in every region of the country. This step of the process may be done in conjunction with the first and third (see next section), where you can adjust the articulation of core principles to test their appeal to different combinations. Even in many Southern states we have a 40%+ base, and can easily put much of it in play even if its not part of the core governing coalition (discussed by citizen lehew here). Republicans would love for us to declare Red vs Blue war, since they will always at least have the Senate, by the way - we have to be competitive nearly nationwide.

Let me emphasize that the results of this type of analysis are dynamic - people will change their voting criteria over time (for example, the Security-focused voting groups probably grew after 9-11), and that part of the analysis is determining how you might change someone's voting criteria - it is not purely reactive. If you are sinister like the GOP, you will also look for ways to move populations from one group to another (e.g., anti-union legislation).

Having a robust analysis like this would allow party leaders to evaluate the advice they get. If someone says that we need to reach gun-owners or moral values voters or whoever, that's okay. If someone claims we can motivate non-voters, also a possibility. We can listen. But they have to prove it.

3. Framing and positioning

Next, everyone's new favorite, framing and positioning our views to appeal to our targeted voters. Here is a general idea on how to reframe major issue categories around our core principles. The main goal is to frame all the major issue categories of the day within one or more of our core principles and thereby serve as a competitive position statement of what we believe on those issues vs. the opposition. My example:

The word capitalized emphasizes the competitive framing. For example. Republicans own the "Strong defense" positioning. We often try to cozy up to it, to match it, to out-Republican them. Instead, we can reframe our position as "Strategic Defense" (or Smart defense if you prefer) to emphasize decision-making. I believe this position can be salient and effective currently because our primary enemy is small, nimble, and stealthy, not a goliath, and because nearly everyone agrees Bush has made some very bad decisions.

These are my top-of-mind ideas and again, open to question, so I won't go through them all (some detail in next section). Many others are looking at framing, but I would suggest the most important framing in any debate stems from how core principle are discussed, not how Policy (below) is discussed, which many people focus on. For example, it is more compelling to a wider audience to say you believe in "protecting the same freedoms for ALL Americans" when discussion civil unions than because you believe in "GAY rights." Similarly, I think putting a pro-choice position in the context of protecting freedoms in general instead of getting into abortions, women's rights, etc. is more effective.

4. Policy

I don't have a lot of knowledge here, so I won't add much. In general, policy should be put in context of the core principles and flow naturally from our framing and positioning of the main issue areas. We should promote policy initiatives based on our principles and/or based on public concerns in the current political climate. Here is an example of several policy areas/issue memes we might pursue following from each core principle and each major framing/positioning area:

Atrios commented on this recently (can't find the link), on how the party needs to be more strategic in policy proposals. Sometimes a policy should be advanced to appeal to a certain voter segment - the Republicans are masters at this. I think we can do it without compromising our values or shilling for the corrupt like them, but policy is sometimes a strategic tool, not only an end in itself. Similarly, policy initiatives even if they are unsuccessful, are part of the communication process.

As a final note, consider that Core Principles are likely to be pretty consistent over time, which Policy focus is likely to change relatively quickly (with Framing & Positioning in between).

5. Messaging and Communication

Another area beyond my expertise and that has been analyzed extensively, so I'm not going to say much. Content-wise, if core principles, framing, and policies are aligned, the messaging is fairly straightforward. Then it's just a matter of making sure you communicate effectively to the right groups.

Regarding getting the message out, I know people are busy building the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy and a nascent real "liberal media" in being developed, but I don't see it as the panacea many others do. If you don't have an aligned message, it's just a bunch of people making noise, and if you have a good message (like Clinton did), it's easy to overcome structural barriers. Nevertheless, part of the DNC's role is to understand what information voters get, how they form opinions, and to make sure we are fully represented in that process.

6. Tactical planning & execution

Finally, the DNC needs a better calendar of activity, including focus issues, policy proposals, talking points, communication plans, etc. planned well in advance of election cycles. Except for GOTV processes, this is another area I think the DNC is in the dark ages relative to the GOP. Below is an example of what I would like to see the party do over the next two years. I just pulled this out of my ass again as an example, but if the framework makes sense, we should hold our party leaders accountable for developing something similar. It should include projections of what is expected from the other side and how we plan to counter/preempt them (which I skipped but should be easy for those in the know).

Assuming it takes about 3-6 months for whomever the new DNC chair is to get his act together and take stock of the situation from January or so, I would position a tactical calendar something like this:

MID-LATE 2005: REINTRODUCE THE "NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY" TO AMERICA

This is not only communicating to independent voters, but rallying our base around our core principles. Something like what Apple computer did a few years ago when Steve Jobs came back as their CEO - this commercial, the start of the "Think Different" campaign, was as much an internal rallying cry as an external communiqué.

Our situation is bleak and morale low, so I think we need to make a similar big splash. For example, we could run a major commercial during the baseball all star game or first game of the World Series (Super Bowl unfortunately at the wrong time). Fuck the CW on advertising in an off year - it's easiest to break through the clutter than when there is none. It would be an opportunity to communicate simply and clearly what the "New" Democratic Party stands for to each other and to the general public. For example, there could be three short monologues/vignettes build around each core principle. I'm sure some ad geniuses could come up with something good.

LATE 2005 TO EARLY 2006

The first reaction to such an advertising campaign would probably be dismissive and/or ridiculing. Hah! Look at what these silly Democrats are trying to do! Which is why it needs to be followed up with action. This will be tough as the minority party, but I believe it is achievable if our leadership coordinates around "Policy Clusters" - a series of issues/policies that can be promoted around a theme that communicate our principles and (hopefully) emphasize our opponents' disadvantages. As I mentioned above, the important thing at this point is not to get anything passed, but to make ourselves visible standing for something.

Policy isn't my area, but just pulling some random ideas together, below are three policy clusters around which our leadership can propose legislation, echo talking points, set the agenda, and raise the specter of conservative bogeymen (Specter, ha ha). Some might blanch at using those kinds of tactics like the GOP uses, but they actually have real bogeymen (corrupt corporate and political cronies, Saudi ties, and religious nuts), whereas ours (liberal elitism, I-hate-America, and welfare queens) are largely fabricated.

1. Responsible and independent energy policy cluster:
Specific proposals:

• Increase tax incentives for alternative energy resource infrastructure development
  
• Economic sanctions against Saudi Arabia by the end of the year, unless they meet certain free press criteria
  
• Country of origin labeling for gasoline at the pump so people know if they're buying gas from terror-supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia (how come no one has ever tried this!?!?)
  
• Offers a compromise on ANWR drilling (for example, drilling ok in only certain areas and if company takes massive insurance policy to restore environment in case of any damages)
  

Talking points:

• Stand tough against dictators/ Criticize Bush and GOP ties to Saudis, Middle East Oil (Protect Freedom)
  
• Stand for freedom of populations so they don't become terrorists (double Protect Freedom)
  
• Yesterday's friends of convenience are today's worst enemies (compare support of Saudis now to support of Hussein, bin Laden in 80's - GOP not responsible to next generation, make them go nu-cu-lar by smacking Reagan policy)
  
• Promote new energy resources (Economic Progress)
  
• Show we're willing to compromise on the short-term, Republicans should be willing to compromise on the long-term solution (responsibility)

2. Economic Vitality Policy Cluster initiative:
Specific proposals:

• Stem cell and evolutionary biology/genetics research legalization, funding (Progress)
  
• Cut the outsourcing tax break (Responsibility)
  
• Forgive some % of student loans for those earning degrees in engineering and sciences (Progress)
  
• Deficit reduction (Responsibility - maybe target some of that red state welfare - it will never pass but will make the point)
  

Talking points:

• Support science and new technologies for economic growth, quality of life (Progressive Economy)
  
• Tie equal opportunity to societal progress (scholarships to low-income groups à progress for all)
  
• Force the GOP to stand against progress (because they have to placate their base with "creation science" and things like that)

3. Restore America to "Beacon of Freedom for the World" Cluster
Specific proposals:

• National voting and election standards improvement like paper trail, auditing (Responsibility, Freedom)
  
• Require labor freedom standards to be included in any free trade agreement (Freedom for all)
  
• Further limits on money in political campaigns (Responsibility)
  
• Expand political refugee status to women escaping abuse from Saudi Arabia, maybe other countries (Freedom)
  

Talking points:

• Can't promote democracy abroad if it isn't respected at home (Freedom)
  
• Clean up the corrupt political system (Responsibility, the "Anti-Washington" card)

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. These are just examples form someone who doesn't know squat, but that's the idea. It should be easy to see how parts of these could be targeted to/promoted by those representing certain parts of our base - for example, representatives of low-income areas would probably be interested in promoting more student aid, and I bet we could even get Joe Lieberman to start giving morality lectures on how damaging Bush's cozy relationship with the Saudis is.

As the minority party, we can't drive the agenda, but between congress and Bush's vacations, there will be enough beltway quiet time for us to grab some headlines and dominate a few news cycles with our proposals and their promotion to start to make a name for ourselves. In the short term, not much will pass, but the point is that the public will see the party as unified, standing for things they agree with, and promoting a positive agenda based on core principles. It will give candidates something to refer back to in mid and late 2006 as the election nears. It will also help us play up the anti-Washington card, since these ideas probably would not be heard out by the Republicans in power.

In mid/late 2006 things will transition into the campaign. This is where most of the party efforts are currently focused, and may be the one area where they say we are at parity to the GOP, so I'm not going to add much. The point is that we lay the groundwork to exploit the openings at election time.

______________

Looks good? Ready to act? Want to know what to do next? Ready to pay me 6 - nah - 7 figure consulting fees to help the party get back on its feet? Here's what I recommend:

First, if you think this material is valuable for party leaders to see, please go ahead and steal, copy, adapt, modify, whatever you need to do and get something similar into their hands and heads. If I could do so credibly I would, but I'm about as "outsider" as you can get. If you have connections to the DNC members, you might present something similar to them and suggest they incorporate it into their review process for choosing the next DNC Chair. (They might even do some of the background work themselves so they can ask good questions to the candidates about their visions for the party)

Second, use it to demand accountability. In your interactions with those in the power structure, make sure they are acting strategically. If you see them asked "What are your plans for 2005?" and their only answer is "We need to fight the Bush agenda," you say "BZZT! Wrong answer!" and raise hell about it.

Third, over time, figure out our/your role. Many of these activities things have to be done behind the scenes, from the inside, but many also include a role for grassroots activists, policy types, loudmouths at the corner pub, or whichever category you put yourself in.

And one last note on how this related to fielding candidates for office. Like danthrax, I am so tired of arguments on who we should nominate in `08. That is the last thing to worry about. If we have a compelling message, good communication, and the right target, then we only have to choose the candidate who's communicating it the best.

Look at the Republicans - they nominated a draft-dodging, drunk-driving, English-mangling, trust-fund son of a failed president (with the same name) and parlayed him into a winner - or at the very least, a narrow loser within stealing distance - because he communicated their message to their constituency clearly. We need to stop looking for a candidate with the best message and start looking for a candidate who will best deliver our message, or something close to it. Similarly, I don't really care who our behind the scene operatives and party hacks are, and if we have "insiders" or "outsiders" in charge - the point is that they start to do the right things.

•  Commentary welcome

  That's all I got. I re-emphasize that nothing here is terribly new or original (if I used your ideas without attribution my apologies), but hopefully putting it all in one place contributes to how the Democratic Party moves forward. I welcome any discussion what's right, wrong, missing, useful, useless, and/or blasphemous.

  by daunte on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:03:26 AM PDT

  •  This is the best diary...

    I've ever read here. Seriously.

    by winodj on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:19:26 AM PDT

    •  First time visitor?

      I disagree but that's kind of you to say, thanks.

      by daunte on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:22:00 AM PDT

    •  dKos community convention

      In the Navy I learned "navy" stands for "never again volunteer yourself", but somehow I got on the steering committee for the dKos community convention.

      I've created a diary to discuss what people want out of the 2005 Daily Kos Convention in Chicago.

      You are invited to make suggestions.

      by Carl Nyberg on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:58:43 AM PDT

      •  Kos Convention Platform

        I think daunte's work above would be a great start to shaping a convention platform.

        by Grand Poobah on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:06:54 AM PDT

        •  enter the suggestion

          Have you used the dkosopedia?

          This is the section for suggesting workshops at the dKos convention.

          by Carl Nyberg on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:10:51 AM PDT

  •  Excellent stuff

    Top-notch.   I only got about halfway through before my boss started hovering, but that was enough to know that this is one of those "ooh, I really need to read this mor carefully, links and all." pieces.   Very nice stuff.   You've got my vote for Sr. Asst for Feet To The Fire to the new DNC chair(s?)!!  
    The other side rejects the role of science in forming public policy in favor of mysticism.   It seems like more often we reject science in forming strategy in favor of mysticism.  Great antidote.
    

    by Austin in PA on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:46:40 AM PDT

  •  bad idea - DO NOT CONCEDE TERMS

    First off, what makes you think we CAN'T "out-strong defense" the Republicans? George Bush didn't run on a record of strong defense; he ran on a weakened, overstretched military bogged down in war half of America thinks was a bad idea. George Bush APPEARED strong on defense, however, because Republicans have spent thirty years equating knee-jerk hawkism with strength.

    "Strength" is what will win on defense and foreign policy. What we need to do is convince Americans that the things you list represent strength, that, to quote Clinton's convention speech, "Strength and wisdom are not opposing virtues." We need to argue that George Bush is WEAK on defense BECAUSE he is INCOMPETENT, that Republicans have WEAKENED our standing in the world, WEAKENED our military, WEAKENED us in the fight against terror, WEAKENED us as an economic superpower. Strength and weakness are the terms of the day - we can't concede them, we must reclaim them.

    Same with family values. This empty little buzzword has been claimed in the name of bigotry, intolerance and censorship; we need to take it back for real family values. Argue for gay marriage because it promotes new families; argue that THEY want to tear families apart by banning marriage. Argue for social welfare and progressive taxation because poverty breaks up families more than any other cause.

    Most important: paint a narrative of the other side, because they've sure painted one of us. The Republicans are the wrong party because they're the party of rampant greed and radical government authoritarianism, beholden to corporate criminals and special interests. They will strip you of your most basic freedoms - your right of free speech and expression, the right to have your own family, the right to not be tortured. They will tax you harder and ship the savings onto the rich. They'll create trillion-dollar deficits laden with corporate welfare that your children and grandchildren will have to pay back. And they'll send your children off to die in some desert - for no reason - because they're too busy raking in money back home to bother to learn how to protect our country.

    Concede no terms. Dems are the party of strength, family values, freedom, and responsibility. We should spend less time coming up with new core principles - core principles that won't sell as well as the GOP's market-tested fare - than we should appropriating theirs.

    by munster truck on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:26:36 AM PDT

    •  you're stuck on their turf

      Why all this talk about fighting for (or "conceding") their terms? You're stuck fighting on their turf, for ideas that they proposed, for terms that they've defined, for values and philosophies that they think are important.

      Gosh, that darn spider has been spinning webs all over the place! We should take the fight to him! Let's fight the spider in his own web! No thanks.

      Instead, we need terms of our own. Screw the "war on terror." That's as much of a trap as the "war on drugs." There's no actual enemy in an abstraction like "terror" -- just as there's no actual enemy in inanimate substances like "drugs." Their terms immediately hide the truth: that the war "on drugs" is a war on primarily poor addicts and the poor red-headed stepchild states south of the border; that the war "on terror" is a war on primarily poor, oil-rich, dark-skinned foreigners. Once you start crowing about your determination to fight a "war on terror," no matter how much "smarter," or more "effective," or more "determined," you're still enlisting yourself for the GOP's war.

      Similarly for "family values." Everybody knows that "family values" is shorthand for Puritan laws. No sex, no fun, hard work, baby-makin', obedience to daddy. Keep crowing about the importance of "family values," nevermind the details, and you're backing up the GOP vision of the authoritarian family. No thanks.

      I'm not gonna fight on the GOP's turf. That's as stupid as, say, invading a middle eastern country and trying to keep its population pacified by force. We ignore their home-field advantage at our peril.

      Instead, let's make our own turf, a better place to live, and invite Americans to move in. Let them have their "war on terror." Let's start promoting ideas of our own, like, say, a "war on oppression." Create a new image that evokes America as the heroic rescuer of those caught beneath dictators, or beneath sweatshop runners. Let's fight our own abstraction that masks greedy dictators or trans-national CEO's.

      Wrestle with a pig, and win or lose, you're covered in pigshit. I'd rather build my own house, and make the pig came to me. If he ignores me, great! If he fights me, he's on my turf, where I control the terms of the battle.

      by bobsquatch on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:03:14 AM PDT

      •  you completely misunderstand

        I'm not talking about appropriating their ideas. I'm talking about appropriating their LANGUAGE to sell OUR ideas. PLEASE go back and re-read my post.

        Pro-gay marriage SHOULD BE pro-family. A smart foreign policy SHOULD BE a strong foreign policy. These are popular terms, these are well-tested terms. We don't have to move right; we SHOULD NOT move right. We need to drag the middle to the left by appropriating popular language - and we should start with the the Right's language in order to undermine it. What's so difficult to understand about this?

        by munster truck on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:18:35 AM PDT

        •  i understand exactly.

          By appropriating their "LANGUAGE," you are appropriating their "IDEAS."

          People do not think in terms of ideas. We think in images. We think in known, reinforced, reference concepts. By repeating their language, we repeat their ideas.

          Please go back and re-read my post.

          by bobsquatch on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:29:04 AM PDT

          •  gaaaaaaaaaah!

            No, we're not!

            THEIR ideas are bigotry and intolerance. They want to ban gay marriage. I am saying we should come out of the goddamn closet and argue FOR gay marriage because GAY MARRIAGE IS A FAMILY VALUE! Say it, have the GODDAMN NERVE TO SAY IT, over and over again!

            THEIR ideas on foreign policy involve invading random countries in the hopes that this will reduce terror. WE want to hunt down and kill the terrorists themselves through a combination of intelligence, police, and military action. Go on and say: DEMOCRATS ARE STRONGER ON TERROR! Have the COURAGE to say it, instead of trying to field-test and focus-group words about "defending liberty"! We will be better at killing terrorists because we will be smarter about killing terrorists and that makes us stronger on defense!

            The agenda has been set, and it's an agenda we can win. Ye gods! What is wrong with you!

            by munster truck on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:37:13 AM PDT

            •  gosh

              Gosh, you sure do talk a lot about "family values."

              So glad you've finally come around to seeing the importance of "family values." Why, Republicans have been the party of "family values" from day one!

              Maybe y'all will finally come around on the "war on terror" and "hard work."

              And when you do, the Republican Party will welcome you with open arms. Welcome home, son.

              (Whaddaya mean, he wants gay rights? That's not what I heard...)

              by bobsquatch on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:40:32 AM PDT

              •  you're a moron

                And you honestly have no clue what the hell I'm talking about.

                by munster truck on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:53:18 AM PDT

                •  I see what you're saying,

                  but respectfully disagree. I think bobsquatch is entirely right. You're saying they don't live up to their own values. He's saying that it's not about "values," it's about the words we use to talk about them. If you can get as far as your longwinded explanation about no, no, this is the smart way to fight the war on terror, you'd be in great shape. The problem is that these words don't mean the same thing for you that they do for most of the nation, because Republicans won the definitional debate already. "Moral values" = their values. You don't get to change the definition. That's a much longer and harder task than what you're talking about, and it doesn't start with "you don't live up to moral values," it starts with "We think moral values are such-and-such." In other words, it begins with a constructive project that sets up a viable definitional alternative.

                  by spiderspider on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 09:28:21 PM PDT

        •  to elaborate:

          You say, "Everybody knows that 'family values' is shorthand for Puritan laws. No sex, no fun, hard work, baby-makin', obedience to daddy."

          No, everybody doesn't know. I don't know, because I call bullshit on Repulicans every time they say that breaking up a gay family is a family value. And if Democrats would just fight back to take back this piece of language, we wouldn't lose on "moral values" and "moral issues," because it wouldn't be code for Puritanical bigotry. "Moral values" might mean providing for the working poor, not giving kickbacks to corrupt oil buddies, not poisoning our water and air to please corporate criminals, not torturing people, for god's sake.

          But instead, Democrats have rolled over on this one. They've conceded turf to Jerry Falwell and James Dobson and the party that brought us Abu Ghraib. And we want now to concede "strong defense" - ground we've barely begun to fight for - to a party that slashes combat pay to troops sent to fight harebrained proxy wars while terrorists and nuclear proliferators run free?

          God damn, this should be an easy fight. It would be, except no one on our side seems to want to fight it.

          by munster truck on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:31:30 AM PDT

          •  good for you.

            "No, everybody doesn't know [family values=puritan]. I don't know..."

            Congratulations. You are in the 48% of the population that we've already convinced. Good for you.

            If we start blathering on about how dedicated we are to "family values," regardless of the tricky redefinition we're attempting, the voters in the 51% will not hear it. They will hear "Ah, the Democrats are jumping on the 'family values' bandwagon. Good for them; they're finally seeing the light. I'm still voting for the party that invented 'family values,' not for these johnny-come-latelies."

            by bobsquatch on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:35:58 AM PDT

            •  god damn

              I have no clue how to respond to a statement as airheaded as:

              "I'm still voting for the party that invented 'family values,' not for these johnny-come-latelies." "

              A guy's watching a commercial for Pepsi. The Pepsi commercial says, "Pepsi is delicious - more delicious than Coke!" The guy isn't a confirmed Pepsi or Coke drinker; he buys a little of both now and then. But the commercial makes him think, "Gee, Coke claims to be delicious, too. I'm still drinking the soda that invented 'deliciousness,' not these johnny-come-latelies.'"

              ...except to note that once again, I  am not advocating that Democrats change their ideas. In fact, very specifically, I belive Democrats should come out IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE, and sell it not simply as a civil rights issue, but as a family values issue, because more married couples promotes more stability.

              You, however, seem to mistake marketing for reality. I'll leave you to your Coke.

              by munster truck on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:49:57 AM PDT

              •  I like Coke.

                Please, send me more Coke.

                Anyway, back to the subject. "Delicious" is not a code phrase for anything besides "tastes good." "Family Values" is a code phrase -- it means "Fuck you unless you're Ward Cleaver."

                We can keep repeating "family values" until we're blue in the face -- it'll just mean that we're Republican lite.

                Don't believe me?

                John Kerry, just last month, repeated over and over and over and over again: "I will hunt down and kill the terrorists whereever they are. I will hunt down and kill them, I will kill the terrorists whereever they are. America will hunt down and kill the terrorists, whereever they are. I will kill the terrorists."

                Who got the bounce from Osama's Last Tape? Hint: not us. We're weak on terror, don'cha know.

                We can "reclaim" all the Republican rap -- that makes us sound like Republicans.

                Still don't believe me? Want to object to that example, saying that Kerry wasn't specifically reclaiming a word, but trying to reclaim an idea? Well, whatever, let's try this one.

                Throughout the Clinton era, gay rights activists tried damn hard to "reclaim" words like queer, faggot, and gay. They figured, hey, if we can get these hate words accepted as common speech, even positive speech -- well, that just kills their power for the haters. Wouldn't it be great if people could go around positively calling each other "gay?" We can't let haters take control of our language! Time to reclaim "gay!"

                Well, that theory is soooooo gay.

                by bobsquatch on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:03:06 AM PDT

        •  Both wrong

          From my read, the original post isn't about either of these things.  It's not about WHICH language or WHICH issues or even HOW we frame the discussion.   The point here is to say that the process by which we've gotten to the issues or the language is horribly broken, and has to be fixed.   We have to start with a basic consideration for the ideals of the party, and reform from that point outward.  The point is to start from general principles and work our way to the issues, then the language, etc... As dems, our more typical method is to bring together coalitions of issue advocates, building from the most specific up.   That's untenable, and has brought us to where we are today.  

          by Austin in PA on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:16:56 AM PDT

          •  y'know, you're right.

            It's not about "framing," specifically. It's not even for "speaking simply and clearly," which is what I'm really for.

            It's about having something solid to speak clearly about. It's about saying:

            • We need to be compassionate and forgiving. We must support our needy, those who made mistakes and are trying to get back on their feet.
            • We need to reward our people. We must work for the folk who build our products, invent new things, support our cities, and work for us.
            • We need to be a tide. A rising tide lifts all boats, they say. Well, that "tide" isn't low taxes. That "tide" is breaking monopolies, educating children, rewarding work, and eliminating leeches.
            • And so on.

            With a solid idea to work from, issues of "which words to use" are a secondary concern. While I'm steadfastly opposed to working within the enemy's vocabulary, preferring to construct our own vocabulary for our own advantage, I think that will come later.

            Right now, most of all, we need to clearly, unashamedly, loudly proclaim why we are here and what we stand for.

            by bobsquatch on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:58:13 AM PDT

    •  I wouldn't say

      I'm conceding it so much as redefining the argument - e.g., "Of course you need a strong defense, but it means nothing if you are making bad decisions. We'll make good decisions based on what's good in the long term using facts, reality..."

      by daunte on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:23:21 PM PDT

  •  One minor correction

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident.."

    Declaration of Independence, not Constitution.

    I would love it if "all (wo)men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was actually built into the legal framework of the country, but it's not.

    I think we should mine the Do'I and the Const. for good summaries of our core principles-

    Inalienable Rights
    General Welfare
    Domestic Tranquility
    Securing the Blessings of Liberty
    Common Defence
    Our Posterity

    We could make the Schoolhouse Rock song into the Democratic Party Anthem.

    by scott on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:59:37 AM PDT

    •  Absolutely

      Democrats have to learn to turn "ideals" (rational guiding principles) into "values" (guiding principles that gain their power through gut emotion rather than reason). The GOP has done this through the exploitation of religion to validate their position (pro-life stance, attacking gay rights, attempts to tie religion to state organizations like schools, etc). It is NOT republican ideals (lower taxes, military spending, fewer regulations on business, etc) that make people perceive them as moral. Democrats need to find a way to tie some ideals (social security, balancing the budget, helping the environment, medical care, whatever) to a powerful emotional framework in order to make them "values." This framework needs to be simple and easy-to-understand, yet so close to the hearts of Americans that it can compete with the emotional force of religion.  I agree with the strategy of evoking memory of the early days of the nation, and tying Democrat ideals to those of the Founding Fathers, implying we are the party that holds most true to those ideals.

      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as a mission statement behind medical care or social programs, "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free" would fit too. Similarly, it shouldn't be hard to turn protecting the environment into a value issue, saying it shows our pride in America's beauty or appreciating God's creation (exploiting religion can work both ways). Tying rational policies to such an emotionally strong framework that serves as justification makes for "values" easily digestible to Joe Sixpack.  Dems could also characterize Republicans as "attacking the Constitution" with the gay marraige ammendment and portray Dems underdog attempts to wrest the government from Republican hands as similar to the struggle in the American Revolution.  That's what I think at least.

      by ebor on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:32:30 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for referencing me!

    Considering this is one of the best threads I've seen on the topic -- comprehensive, and unified.

    Too many people think small, look at an individual policy, or an individual candidate, or a shift down a one-dimensional political scale.

    I'm proud to be even remotely associated with a thread of this calibur.

    (Not to be a whore, but in case people are curious, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/10/181337/18 ... Let's move passed the microtopics of our candidate and think big.)

    by danthrax on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:00:05 AM PDT

•  Lot of Meat on the Bone Here

  Very thoughtful post. Recommended.

  by privatewl on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:19:38 AM PDT

  •  Top Notch Analysis

    Especially since we seem to have a LOT of input on level 4, without having the foundation provided by level 1.

    We reach out to African Americans.
    We reach out to Homosexuals.
    We reach out to Hispanics.
    We reach out to Environmentalists.
    We reach out to Unionized Labor.
    We reach out to Academics.
    We reach out to the Working Class.
    We reach out to the Middle Class.
    We reach out to Farmers.
    Not to mention our policies on health care, education, taxes, and National Security.

    And yet no clearly articulated principal that ties it all together. We have principals, yes, but not the way the conservatives have articulated it and turned it into a bite-sized slogan like "fiscal conservatism", or "ownership society".

    This thread is definitely on the right track. I hope the ideas spread.

    by danthrax on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:52:42 AM PDT

•  Top Shelf

  This is an outstanding analysis. About the most level-headed piece I've seen written after the debacle of November 2nd.

  Highly recommended.

  by savvyspy on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:04:39 AM PDT

•  Act locally

  The nice thing about your framework -- which I like to think of as a good start on a project plan -- is that it can be applied at the state and even the local level as well. Here in colorful but divided Colorado, near as I can tell, the Colo. Dem. Party is at best ineffective, and at worst, invisible, except when there's campaign money to spend on "sure thing" candidates. I believe the Democrats took the state House and Senate despite them, not because of them.

  I also think the "candidates in 2008" discussion is silly for now, unitl we know what we stand for, who stands with us, and how to act as a team to get what we want in a hostile environment.

  I would like to push your timetable up a little, so that we start with ads/messages in mid-2005, with the goal of communicating the message, cheering up the disenheartened and disenfranchised Dems., and encouraging potential Dem. candidates for vulnerable Repub. House seats that are up for election in 2006.

  + + + That crazy neighbor, you know, the one with all those cats.

  by cvannatta on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:27:19 AM PDT

  •  Local races are of utmost importance

    now that I see what damage local republicans can do with elections, I think anywhere we can have representation, we need to fight for it.  Similarly governorships are incredibly important.

    by unterhausen on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:59:23 AM PDT

•  Fantastic.

  This is exactly what Democrats must do, if you ask me, and this is an excellent start.

  In the spirt of constructive criticism:

  I think the weakest of your trio is easily "Generational Responsibility." Quite a mouthful.

  As for defense, how about a "Comprehensive War on Terror." "Strong and Smart" is not terrible, I don't think, though smart alone won't do. "Protecting Freedom" sounds a little too defensive to me.

  I'll post my thoughts on social and economic issues in a moment.

  by jimrice on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:29:50 AM PDT

  •  Agreed. So let's put it in plain English

    Some associations off the top of my head:

    sound legacy

    wise policy

    caretaker

    pro-children

    foresight

    I'm thinking in terms of a government that does not foul its own nest and acts as a decent parent would, though this smacks of paternalism.  But paternalism runs the GOP, too . . .

    by rhubarb on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:04:14 AM PDT

    •  sound legacy - that's good

      this weekend i spent a lot of time on websites for board of elections / county clerks in counties all over Missouri, verifying the vote totals from across the state.

      one thing i noticed that was very interesting: in a lot of the smaller/more rural counties, there was a heavy emphasis on historical records, geneology, etc.  (other, interesting facts, to toot my own horn, are here.)

      now maybe i'm picking up on something obvious, or maybe i'm picking up on something that's not even there, but my hunch is that once you get past city and suburban limits, you run into a lot of people for whom the heritage they inherit is very, very important.

      i wonder if speaking with them about the legacy they leave to their children won't resonate on some level.

      by kosaddict on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:49:41 PM PDT

  •  The Generational Responsibility one

    is sort of awkward.  How about something along the lines of 'bearing the torch'?  Still kind of awkward, but ties into the JFK speech.
    

    Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans

    
     It simply and metaphorically lays out the mystic continuity from one generation to the next, closing the loop, reaffirming the quest of those who came before and doing our part for those who come after, just as those who came before sacrificed for us.

     Since we are the "mommy" party after all, if we can get people to associate their parental defensive instincts with the democratic party, we could defuse a lot of the repugs advantage on the "Strong Defense" BS.  After all, nothing fights harder than a mom for her pups.

    by Ugluks Flea on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:08:17 AM PDT

    •  how about...

      leave the world a better place. I like generational resonponsibility, however, and i just submit this for those of you that think it has too many syllables.

      by redvolution on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:32:38 AM PDT

      •  Responsibility

        alone is a great frame for us. It isn't just about generational responsibility. For instance, busting a budget does harm in the here and now, and puts our entire economy in peril. Irresponsible businesses are destroying the environment and cheating American employees with outsourcing.

        It's also important to co-opt the Republican idea of "personal responsibility." We believe in that too, you know--more than they do.

        by Smallbottle on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:36:57 PM PDT

        •  I disagree slightly

          "Responsibility" doesn't seem like a powerful enough word, and is one that (for me) evokes the image of my mom scolding me.  I think better (and catchier) words would be "accountablity" and "capability" (both synonyms for responsibility, but with different connotations).  We demand accountability for all the mistakes the politicians in D.C. have made, for the ways in which corporate culture has damaged American culture, and for the military and foreign policy failures that have tarnished our image as a nation.  We demand capability in our elected officials, in making sure our tax money gets spent efficiently, in balancing the budget while ensuring the welfare of the many, and in implementing policy that successfully achieves its goals (like making America safer).

          by ebor on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:17:28 PM PDT

  •  Please, not "War on Terror"

    As has been mentioned before, War on Terror is a Republican frame.  It's what allowed them to justify Iraq as another "front on the Global War on Terror."  Iraq fit the frame.

    I agree that "Protecting Freedom" isn't right.  The Republicans lean on Freedom and Liberty like a crutch.  I think that we have to be clear that Democrats stand for Freedom and Justice.  

    I think a foreign policy that's about Protecting Freedom and Justice would be good, but that might be too many words.
    

    by brooklynben on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:24:51 AM PDT

    •  no, no, no

      We can't afford to drop "War on Terror," or the language of "going on the offensive" (as opposed to the "protection" language). We have to recognize that these are the terms of the debate - accepted by a zombie media - and we have to reclaim these terms.

      This has the advantage of being right. The Dems ARE stronger on defense than the Republicans, and Democratic foreign policy, as typified by John Kerry's, was a stronger, direct stance. Democrats want to fight and kill actual terrorists. Republicans want to tool around in Iraq, overthrowing countries that have nothing to do with terror, in the hopes that some domino effect will go off and bring liberal democracy to the Mideast. Which of these is the more direct strategy? Which of these is the stronger strategy?

      Once we've won on their terms, we can start defining our own. But until then we need to sell our ideas as the ones that better accomplish what the Republicans claim they're trying to do.

      by munster truck on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:39:24 AM PDT

      •  Respectfully Disagree

        Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with you on this point.

        Republicans fight the War on Terror.  They go on the offensive, (or are offensive and offend other countries).

        Democrats can bring terrorists to justice.  

        Democrats can fight societies of hate and ignorance that foster terrorists.  

        Democrats can hunt and kill terrorists.  

        But those are our terms, and we must debate on our terms.

        We must have a strong foreign policy, but I will maintain, as others, that the "War on Terror" frame has to go.

        See this George Lakoff interview.

        
        You've said that progressives should never use the phrase "war on terror" -- why?

        There are two reasons for that. Let's start with "terror." Terror is a general state, and it's internal to a person. Terror is not the person we're fighting, the "terrorist." The word terror activates your fear, and fear activates the strict father model, which is what conservatives want. The "war on terror" is not about stopping you from being afraid, it's about making you afraid.

        Next, "war." How many terrorists are there -- hundreds? Sure. Thousands? Maybe. Tens of thousands? Probably not. The point is, terrorists are actual people, and relatively small numbers of individuals, considering the size of our country and other countries. It's not a nation-state problem. War is a nation-state problem.

        What about the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty"?

        Those are metaphorical. Real wars are wars against countries, and in the "war on terror," we are attacking countries. But those countries are not the same as the terrorists. We're acting at the wrong level. Meanwhile, by using this frame, we get a commander in chief, as the Republicans keep referring to Bush -- a "war president" with "war powers," which imply that ordinary protections don't have to be observed. A "war president" has extraordinary powers. And the "war on terror," of course, never ends. There's no peace treaty with terror. It's a prescription for keeping conservatives in power indefinitely. In three words -- "war on terror" -- they've enacted vast political changes.
        

        by brooklynben on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:56:51 AM PDT

        •  War on Terror

          I believe the general framing of the "War on Terror" is our number one problem.  Iraq is put under the same umbrella as Afghanistan and various targeted attempts to capture individual terrorists.

          In pre-election polling, whether or not a person supported or opposed the Iraq war was basically contingent on whether they viewed it as part of the "war on terror."  If they recognized the difference between the two, they almost always opposed the war.  

          "The War on Terror" has become George W. Bush's excuse to do whatever he pleases and make it seem acceptable.  He needs to frame it this way, because if we're at "war" then we have a wartime president.  And wartime presidents get more support because it then makes it seem as though whoever opposes him is unpatriotic.  

          We need to begin NOW to disable this troublesome metaphor.  To get picky with language, it is very interesting to look up "terror" in a thesaurus.  You find words like "fear, horror, fright, dread, shock, panic, alarm." What we're basically doing is fighting a war against the fears of Americans.  W. will kill as many people as he wants to make sure Americans aren't afraid.  

          If you look up "terrorist" you find radical, fanatic, activist, revolutionary, rebel.  Are we going to declare a war on fanatics?  They live in every place.  They are running our country, for God's sake.

          What about "terrorism."  There, you find, violence, intimidation, or bombing.  It is so intangible.  Are we going to declare a war on violence?  A war on bombing?  The "War on Drugs" or "The War on Crime" are make more sense as metaphors than the War on Terror.

          It also inherently targets Middle Eastern people.  They have been framed as our enemies, no matter how much Bush talks about "the peaceful Islamic people," etc.  This has been framed as a regional conflict, a conflict of race, and religion.  It is an us vs. them mentality, that totally disregards the majority of the Islamic world, who isn't running around blowing people up.

          We need to abolish the War on Terror if we want to get anywhere.

          by bkyoung on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:47:55 AM PDT

        •  those words need to be our words

          "War on terror" has become the accepted parlance - not just by Republicans, not just by Fox News, but by the vast majority of Americans. Americans like it precisely because it's aggressive, even overly-aggressive rhetoric. This is a term we can't afford to discard - it's a term we need to associate with Democrats instead of Republicans. And we can do that by making the argument that Democrats will win that war and that Republicans will lose it.

          Again, this should be a no-brainer, because it is, in fact, true - and Iraq is prrof of it. The language you suggest is good language - hunting terrorists and bringing them to justice, etc. - but we can't run away from the language that the rest of the country is using, either. We need to use both. We need to say that we'll win the war because we'll hunt down, etc., not deny that there's a war. We can't use our own terms exclusively until we've beaten them using theirs.

          This should be easy because we ARE the party that's stronger on defense because we ARE going to hunt down the terrorists themselves instead of sinking the military into some lost proxy war. Who's looking to stop nuclear proliferation? Who's paying attention to North Korea and Iran? it sure as hell isn't the White House.

          WE CAN BEAT THEM ON THIS. We can win on their terms. We only lose when we run away from the fight, like we've done for the last twenty-plus years. And when we've beaten them, then we can start dictating the terms of the debate. But for now, it is unrealistic to think that we'll get much traction by completely departing from terms the rest of the country is using.

          by munster truck on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:13:20 AM PDT

          •  Sorry, I don't think this is right

            Republicans will have an advantage for as long as the war on terror continues; i.e., forever.

            We can use a phrase that's just as aggressive, but it must be a different phrase. By your argument Republicans couldn't frame the estate tax as a death tax because everybody always called it an estate tax.

            by Smallbottle on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:40:18 PM PDT

            •  Estate tax is different

              It hadn't come into mainstream use, it wasn't even much of an issue until the republicans started calling it "the death tax". The war is still being faught over this one, since it still isn't a totally mainstream concept... but if you had it repeated every night on the evening news for three years, I would concede that battle.

              The same way that terrorism had been faught before September 11th. The republicans gave it a name and now that's the mainstream accepted version. In fact, when you say "fighting terrorism isn't a war", you become a laughing stock, you're considered weak on terror, and all those other things the GOP love to push. No matter how much you're right, no matter how much idealism you have, you will never overcome this.

              What you CAN do is accept the usage of "war on terror" and come up with words for our strategy. The republicans haven't named their strategy for winning the war on terror, only that "we will not waver" and "we will fight the terrorists abroad so we do not need to fight them at home".

              But "the Bush doctrine" is buzzing in some circles. If we had our own doctrine, we could win this marketing war before they even have the change to try.

              by danthrax on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:24:22 PM PDT

            •  One principle of frames

              that Lakoff discusses is that facts bounce off already established frames. Replacing an established frame with a new frame is not as simple as proposing a preferable or even superior frame.

              There will be resistance to adopting a new frame from individuals as well as the media. That also begs the question of how we even disseminate a new frame without a media outlet. Replacing an old frame with a new one is more problematic than just brainstorming about a new and improved frame.

              How do we get the message out? That's why establishing the frame from the outset is so critical. He who frames first frames best, even if the initial frame is inferior.

              The world doesn't beat a path to the doorway of the person who invents a better mousetrap anymore, unless they have shelving rights at Target or Walmart.

              by JollyBuddah on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:12:49 PM PDT

              •  Consistency and Catchiness

                Will get the frame used.  I don't think it's about having our own media outlet, its about hammering the message again and again and again.

                As DailyHowler has pointed out, the DNC is AWFUL about getting good, clear talking points to the talking heads.

                We need a DNC chair who can manage that.
                

                by brooklynben on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:28:53 PM PDT

  •  Still a mouthful, but...

    I came up with:
    "Responsibilities to our Children and our Elders"

    A lot more words but also a bit more plain english.

    by thesill on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:28:00 AM PDT

    •  much simpler line than this

      "Family values." Family values means not robbing your children to pay for an oil tycoon's tax cut. The phrase is tested, the GOP has made it work. Make it work for us instead.

      by munster truck on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:41:15 AM PDT

      •  I don't think that means what you think it means..

        "Family values means not robbing your children to pay for an oil tycoon's tax cut."

        Nonsense.

        Family values means being heterosexual, or living in silent shame. Family values means sex only for procreation, only with your spouse, or suffering as much as possible with the unwanted pregnancy and STD that you deserve. Family values means passing on your wealth to your children, without any "death tax" getting in the way of your dynasty. Family values means obeying daddy, especially Daddy W.

        There are plenty of other phrases we can use to mean "not robbing your children to pay for an oil tycoon's tax cut." How about, "act with integrity." How about, "keep your promises." How about, "invest in our future." How about, "compassion."

        Let them keep "family values." After all, it means "Fuck you, unless you're Ward and June Cleaver." We can do better.

        by bobsquatch on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:22:57 AM PDT

        •  sorry...

          ...but can I get someone who isn't an apparently bigoted moron to reply to my suggestion that liberals and gay Americans can have families too?

          by munster truck on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:51:46 AM PDT

          •  one here!

            I'm a liberal and gay American, and I have a family.

            From your vitriolic ad hominem blathering, I can see you have run out of reasonable argument. I'll leave you to your impotent rage.

            by bobsquatch on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:11:43 AM PDT

  •  Generational Resposibility

    Great idea, but an awkward phrase.

    Forward Thinking

    Future Responsibility

    Future Prosperity

    Something that emphasizes the "future".

    My motivation as a progressive is thinking of the future- looking past whatever might be the immediate need and identifying the long term greater good.

    The republicans have mastered the art of politically motivating their base through greed, and promises of power.  What do we offer? The Future.  A decent world in fify, one hundred years.  Decent jobs.  Clean air.  A chance to change careers if your particular industry fails or slumps. Growth, tempered and shaped for long-term sucess, not the quick boom-and-bust, grab-it-now menatlity fostered by the Republicans.

    Us= Fairness, Future-oriented
    Them= Greedy, short-sighted

    It enraged me that the Repubs hammered Kerry on the $87 billion "no" vote when all he had to say was he supported the original because it had a plan for the future of how to pay for it.

    by scott on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:48:07 AM PDT

    •  How about...

      "Governing for the good of our children"?  If the message is properly constructed, future generations will attach by implication and we'll be able to incorporate the vast array of issues that daunte and scott have enumerated.  

      by Res Ipsa Loquitor on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:26:01 AM PDT

      •  "Protect Our Children's Future"

        Couldn't sound economic, environmental, and even foreign policy all fall under the rubric of "protecting our children's future"?

        by Irfo on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:01:18 AM PDT

        •  I like...

          It reaches a very broad range of ideas and has a very strong verb.  It flows through time nicely.  This has tracked down, I think.   See if you cant get the phrase out in another post.  

          by Res Ipsa Loquitor on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:34:13 PM PDT

    •  Responsible Legacy

      i think "Generational Responsibility" should change to "Responsible Legacy".  it means the same thing but is a little shorter.

      See my upstream post about the importance of using words like "legacy," "heritage," etc.  i believe these words resonate powerfully in small-town America.

      these are great words because they embody truly important values and mean lots of things to lots of different people.  JFK used them masterfully in his inaugural address to appeal to noble instincts.  they were used to vicious ends by segregationists forty years ago.  but i believe we can retake them, and speak to middle-aged parents, senior citizens, rural folks, Southern folks, all in one blow.  the trick is also to define a "responsible legacy" as one in which our environment is cleaner, our budgets balanced, our world safer, our "cherished heritage" of constitutional protections and checks and balances maintained... etc., etc.

      by kosaddict on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:03:41 PM PDT

•  Calling all former PG employees!

  This was fantastic.

  The diagrams help to visualize the work that needs to be done.

  Your discussion helped me understand better the difficulty of getting past old hobby horses.

  Overall, it seems that a new Democratic party needs to think about  brand identity more than most would care to admit.  This type of structure, moving from core principles to implementation, seems inspired by that logic.

  Thanks for the great work.

  by Jeffrey Feldman on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:30:30 AM PDT

  •  LOL- not that far off

    Thanks

    by daunte on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:01:37 PM PDT

•  Some Excellent Stuff

  I would quibble with a few things, but overall this could be an excellent starting point for a blue print for a new Democratic Party.

  The problem is, who will take it from here? Tom Vilsack as DNC chair? I don't think so ... I like the man, and he's a good spokesman for the party in the Midwest (his wife's every bit as effective, by the way). But I just can't see him stepping out and leading the way.

  Ditto on Reid as Senate minority leader. He's been a first-rate whip, but I don't see him as a leader.

  Except for the Clinton aberration, Democrats for the last few decades have been slipping, sliding into oblivion.

  Every election year, Democrats start out promising to be brave and innovative thinkers and leaders. And every damned election year they end up moving toward the center and trying to be "just like the Republican moderates, but in Blue." And Democratic candidates don't get heard (particularly these days when the prayers of the Republican theo-cons block out all other speech), so they don't grab away and centrist Republicans (are there really many left). Worst of all, the Democrat faithful aren't inspired to work hard for someone who tries to be "Republican lite" -- and the Democrats low again.

  by S1NC on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:31:00 AM PDT

  •  asdf

    Who will take it from here, you ask? How about Howard Dean? He's certainly not afraid of new direction.

    That crazy neighbor, you know, the one with all those cats.

    by cvannatta on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:41:28 AM PDT

•  This

  This is what the Democratic Party needs.

  This is the kind of thinking that will restore us as being the majority party, and America as having a moral center.

  This proves you can do good with Microsoft Paint.

  This needs to be recommended, if not promoted to the front page.

  by Glenn Rehn on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:31:35 AM PDT

•  Great work

  With all sorts of ideas flying around, I've been feeling that we need structure and a framework for working before anything else. Yours is excellent.

  As your graphic makes clear, core principles come first. I'd suggest we focus on those, and do some more brainstorming about what those should be--and doing it in a structured way.

  For instance, I'd like to see more people offer their top-of-the-head suggestions about these principles, with the caveat that no principle can be longer than a phrase. Something interesting may turn up.

  It's also an interesting to start with opposition to Republican principles, and see whether that leads us anywhere. Attack their strengths rather than their weaknesses. For example, the party of "moral values" is the party that wants Washington to tell you what to believe.

  Anyway, great work and good suggestions.

  by Smallbottle on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:33:06 AM PDT

•  Free Market

  Democrats are and should be for free markets, but with appropriate protections for workers.  We want to encourage free trade. We also want to make sure the playing field is level, not by bringing third-world conditions here, but by bringing human rights and worker rights to the rest of the world.

  by nightsweat on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:39:10 AM PDT

  •  frame

    and there's already a keyword for this:  fair trade

    by delphis on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:46:37 AM PDT

    •  Fair Markets = Better than Free

      Yes.  Fair is better than Free, and Fair Markets are what Democrats should push.  And it's not enough to only push that Fair Markets protect workers, small nations, and the environment (as posted below), but it must be made clear that Fair Markets are better for investors than Free Markets.

      A lot of people on dKos have professed undying devotion to Elliot Spitzer because he has been the only public figure to go after unfair market practices that hurt investors.  (See Mutual Fund scandal).

      The SCLM and the market media have almost taken it as a given that Wall Street loves Republicans, but we need to dispel that myth.  It needs to be made clear that Republican pro-business policies actually hurt individual investors, 401k holders, and pension recipients.

      One of my favorite quotes from this diary:
      

      We also need an economic positioning that is more than "Corporations are Evil." Nobody likes Haliburton or Enron, but if that's all we got, it won't be compelling to pocketbook voters.

      We need to make it clear that Haliburton and Enron fiascos happen when Fair Market principles are violated.  Corporations are neither good nor bad.  They just try to make profits while following the law.  It's up to government to enforce just and fair laws.

      by brooklynben on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:12:37 AM PDT

      •  But watch the language

        If we get framed as being against "Free" Markets we lose.  Free markets are liek Apple Pie and Motherhood.  Maybe you don't like apples and don't want children but for Pete's sake don't make either a plank of the platform.

        by nightsweat on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:40:30 PM PDT

        •  Good point

          Well, then it needs to be free and fair.

          The 2004 Democratic Platform was pretty good about this:

          Free markets and honest competition. Economic growth and job creation depend on free markets and competition, but competition and free markets depend on trust, transparency, and integrity.
          

          I guess I would edit that to

          Free and fair markets (for honest competition). Economic growth and job creation depend on free markets and competition, but competition and free markets depend on trust, integrity, and fairness.
          

          by brooklynben on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:19:24 PM PDT

      •  Fair Markets

        I really like "Fair Markets", not "Free and Fair Markets".  You can always follow up a reference to "Fair Markets" with how free they are - no need to include both of them in the slogan.  Plus, "Free and Fair Markets" sounds like you're boasting like a salesman: our markets aren't just free, they're fair, too!

        Every time you say "fair markets", tie it in to <pick your corporate scandal here> that has occurred on the Republican's watch, and about how it's hurt not only the workers, but also all the pension funds.

        Maybe even reframe the Republican platform as "free-for-all markets"?

        by shipyardian on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:23:16 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    Free fair trade which encourages economic copetition, but protects workers, small nations, and the environment.  Of course this is antithetical to many free marketers.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/5/131518/3819

    by Luam on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:58:05 AM PDT

•  Freedom and Opportunity.

  Again, excellent work.

  My own take on using core principles to frame social and economic issues effectively and in opposition to the GOP is here:

  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/8/151752/632

  The idea is, Democrats believe in (social) Freedom and (economic) Opportunity. (I didn't tackle foreign policy.)

  The idea is to get government out of our lives, and let people make their own decisions, with the equal opportunity to do so. So while the GOP wants government out of the economy and into our lives (censorship, NCLB, abortion laws, marriage restrictions), Democrats want government out of our lives and into the economy.

  Marriage rights, free speech, legal abortion and de-centralized education are thus under the rubric of "freedom," which suggests less government involvement rather than more. Churches, too, are better off without government interference (why else would the US be so much more religious than Europe, which has a long history of government involvement in religion?).

  Freedom is a more appealing value than tolerance, I think, though in practice it can mean the same thing. Tolerance focuses on difference. Freedom focuses on what we have in common.

  And "opportunity," I think, provides a better way of talking about government assistance than, for instance, "helping the poor."

  by jimrice on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:45:27 AM PDT

•  Excellent analysis

  I agree that we shouldn't be debating tactics (how much advertising, which candidate, etc), until we can clearly articulate what we stand for as Democrats.

  Despite GWB's inability to form a complex sentence, he was able to convey what he/repubs stand for.  Phrases like "best defense is a strong offense" come to mind.

  We should put our core principles into a credo - one short paragraph that defines our goals broadly. And, yes, the DNC needs to do plenty of research before writing it.

  We also need to address terrorism more directly. I think its much bigger than a policy issue. I watched last night's 60 Minutes interview with the former CIA agent in charge of the bin Laden unit. He said that this "movement" has grown much larger than bin Laden.  Yes we need to capture him, but we also need a plan to defeat the movement. The repubs say their plan is to spread democracy in the Arab world. What's ours?

  by SKB on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:45:52 AM PDT

•  Outstanding Job !

  Best diary I've seen around here in a long time.  How refreshing !

  by Grand Poobah on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:52:17 AM PDT

•  Core Values

  Great work on presenting a framework for how basic principles translate into an election strategy and how we need to to the basics and work our way up to form a coalition and a message that will win elections.

  I think that you have not gone quite deep enough in your definition of core values.  What you present as core values are arching positions but still on specific issues.

  So far as I can tell, our guiding pricinples are even more basic.

  Progressives believe in a society and goverment which looks after and defends each and every one of us.  We believe in civil rights to defend minorities from the tyranny of the majority, and economically in protecting the individual from the tyrranny of the rich.  Internationally in protecting the weaker countries from dominion by those with large militaries.

  From these and similar statements of the same principle most of our political positions can be derived.  Why do we have trouble with large corperations?  They can and often do abuse their monopoly (or monopsony) powers to hurt smaller businesses and to oppress their workers.  Why do we support gay rights?  Because they are a minority (as we all are in some way) which the majority may disapprove of but neverless minnorities should be protected in a free society.  Why do we favor welfare and education, because the least among us deserve to have bread to eat and a chance to get on their feet (and who know when we might need that help).  Why do many of us oppose the war?  Because it has caused the death of far too many Americans and Iraqis who deserve the right to life as much as we do (and there was little or no gain in American safety).

  There are other basic values, but they must be very basic so that we can derive our policy positions from them.  I would aruge that the value of looking after others life, liberty and pursuit of happiness combine with the principle of reflevity (will it work if everyone does) can create most of the values that we at the Kos share.

  by Luam on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:54:11 AM PDT

•  Healthcare!

  You have to mention Health Care. Other economic issues will somewhat follow business cycles that repubs can take credit for but the healthcare crisis is a ....... crisis and it is destined to only get worse in the next 4 years.

  It must be central to Democratic plans. Healthcare cuts across incomes lines and appeals to both worker and employer.

  Republicans have their fear issue that they exploited with terrorism. Healthcare is a very real fear issue that Dems can use.

  For the small business owner who lies awake at night not knowing if his small children will have health care from year to year. No matter how much money he makes - he must know that if his child gets a chronic illness that with the independent insurance pushed by Bush's bogus ownership society he is very vunerable.

  With independent insurance and a child's chronic illness, the insurance company is free to raise his rates to astronomical heights or to drop him all together. At that point, his child has a pre-existing condition.

  Healthcare although complicated should be a core Democratic value and has massive potential appeal.

  Republicans must not be allowed to co-opt it with deceptive marketing that their ideas are part of an ownership society.

  by HairOnFire on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:59:05 AM PDT

  •  health care fits...

    Health care fits under "supporting the workers of America". That's the beauty of this framework - we can set everything up through it.

    by redvolution on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:35:25 AM PDT

  •  the Rockridge Institute suggests...

    Using the phrase "Earned Care" -- healthcare is not necessarily a right (at least not yet) but those who are working hard should be able to earn their own healthcare in one way or another.

    By earning healthcare, it becomes clear this is not a giveaway nor the now-maligned word "welfare."

    http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/

    by thesill on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:40:53 AM PDT

    •  Unemployed people have no right to healthcare?

      So unemployed people have no right to decent healthcare? What about kids? They don't have jobs. Do they have a right to decent healthcare? I'm sorry but this formulation stinks. What does it take for people to realize that healthcare isn't like any other need, because delaying medical attention results in MORE EXPENSIVE medical attention later?

      If you don't have good transportation for a year, or good housing for a year, you don't need even more expensive transportation or housing later, but that's exactly what happens with medical care.

      If you don't have good transportation or housing for  a year, you're not going to "spread" poor transportation or housing to other people, but that's exactly what happens when people get poor medical care. Public health is not a myth, folks!

      If you can't get regular preventative medical care, you end up in the ER to treat a chronic condition, along with people who are having honest-to-god emergencies.

      Healthcare is a primary need just like education. What if we said only kids of people who work hard are allowed to go to school? That would stink too.

      A word after a word after a word is power. -- Margaret Atwood

      by tmo on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:08:05 AM PDT

•  Good ideas here!

  I especially liked the term "Generational Responsibility" because it emphasizes a very weak point on the RNC side: robbing our  grandchildren of a decent future because of our profligate ways.

  One thing I would like to see developed is a concerted effort to regain control of the language that frames our discourse today.  Unfortunately, the Repugs have done a masterful job of using misleading language to define the debate and the Dems have by and large acquiesed to this.

  To wit:  the use of "pro-life" to stake out their position on abortion.  Who, pray tell, is against "life?"  We have allowed this term to go unchallenged even as it  masks the real intent which is to send doctors and women to jail.  Imagine if every democrat on every TV show refused to use the term and replaced it with, say, "pro-criminalization."  That would put the Repugs squarely on the defensive which is where they belong!  

  Another example of their turning language against us is the clever fabrication of the term "partial birth abortion."  Now it is used by the press and by all the Democrats.  If everyone who used this term had been corrected and forced to use the proper medical term (I even forget what it is now!), we wouldn't have the image of viable babies being killed just for the fun of it.

  I would like to see the DNC hire some top-notch linguists and marketers to find the language that strikes a deep, emotional chord.  Then I would I insist that they get everyone on board, just like the Republicans have done for years.  Every elected official who goes on the tube must be kept up to date on these "talking points."  Someone from the DNC needs to be responsible for spreading the language and reinforcing its importance.

  And, finally, I don't want to hear a single Democrat remain silent when someone on the opposition refers to us as 'the Democrat Party!"   How can we command respect when we sit quietly while others disrespect us?!

  by Radiowalla on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:59:21 AM PDT

•  On new language

  One thing I believe we need to move a program like this forward is to think of ourselves as generating new keyphrases that are entirely new.

  In otherwords, I don't believe that the phrases used by the current Democratic party are capable of achieving new goals.

  These new phrases must come from the discussion about core principles.

  A new conception of core principles not expressed in new language will not work.  

  I'm curious to know how many readers share this same general sense?   How many of us could see ourselves committing to the discipline of generating a new way of speaking about our core principles, rather than just renewing committment to old langauge?

  by Jeffrey Feldman on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:09:55 AM PDT

•