This is the third part in a three part series discussing the optimistic side of the Democratic picture, and what the party is generally kicking ass on (or perhaps kicking elephant is a better phrase). The
first part delt largely with our on-hand and in development assests. The
second part delt with the GOP and why they don't merit god-like status and we shouldn't grant it to them.
This part I purposefully saved for last, as it will inevitably be the most controversial and cause the most disagreement, as it has to do with message, or at least with the notion that our national party has none and that nobody is listening to your brilliant idea that will save the Democratic party. But you don't declare a glass half-full without looking at all of its contents, so here goes...
I'm going to divide this up into two main sections. The first will deal with messages that are out there that we've been too busy complaining about not having a message to pay attention to, etc. The second part will highlight movements that are growing, coalitions that are forming, etc, that I think you should look out for, because they're on the cutting edge of party politics and are the winners our party should look to. And like everything I write, it'll ramble a bit, and I'll thank you to forgive me for it.
Note, I have to get this out before one for work-related reasons, so I'll probably slip the links in for these various organizations I talk about later.
The Message: If you repeat something in an echo chamber, and nobody's in it, have you gotten your message across?
- Thank you, Newt, that was a wonderful idea: The party of "No" is the way to go. No, seriously. When people talk about a lack of a unifying Democratic message that can speak to the people, they inevitably bring it back to the Contract with America. Because we're trying to pull a 1994, right? And that's what they did, right? So where's our freaking Contract with America? Well, despite the obvious problem with this premise, namely, that it is not 1994, the stakes and politics are utterly different and that if one would be put out today there would be fifteen diaries complaining that it didn't condemn CAFTA strongly enough, etc., this is the retort I generally make: Republicans were smart enough to know that you don't put out a definitive plan, or Contract, this far out from the actual election. You know why? Its not that difficult. Because with this many months to go all the details can be dissected and shoved back in the opposing party's face. The plan can be debated into nothingness. By the time the actual election comes, the "plan" is a non-issue. And the debate is not the do-nothing Republicans, but rather the Democrats controversial new plan. It's simple politics. Why do you think Bush tried to sell Social Security without telling us what he wanted to do to it? So, to take that Contract with America example, which did not come out until August of 1994, and even then lacked detail or clarity, let's look back at what happened during 1993. Oh yes. That was the year Clinton's health care plan was defeated by Republicans who refused to offer a plan of their own and just said no, no, no, over and over again, realizing that the badness of Clinton's plan was more effective than the horror that would've been any plan of their own. So thank you, Newt Gingrich. I will borrow that idea. Frankly, we've been kicking ass being the party of no. So why stop a good thing just because you're impatient?
- Suggestion to the base: Yeah, that's you. We're the base. We're the echo chamber. Get used to that fact, because when we talk about Democrats being unified and not eating their own, we're referring to you as well. Be supportive as a base. Be the team cheerleaders. Instead of ripping Biden to shreds, point out how John Kerry has kept his campaign base in remarkable shape, and has been trying to get health care on the agenda. In fact, I challenge kossacks to have at least five diaries every day on the absence of health care on the agenda. That's what an echo chamber does. Use it. Don't just regurgitate GOP talking points about how off-message we are. I'm not saying this to be super-critical, or to say that Biden is some great guy. I'm just saying, welcome to legitimacy. It comes with strings attached. Sucks, don't it?
- Social Security is Super Awesome: We have destroyed what the President has said is the focal point of his second term agenda. I know, you think he's going to sneak it through in the Fall. Well, we'll be waiting, and it hasn't gotten anymore popular. This is a success. Talk about it constantly. Remember that the more you talk about social security, the more people remember that Democrats are better on social security, and they're better on health care, and that's what really matters in your day to day life. Don't let our victories sink into the background. Point out how incompetant they are. Not only will it make you feel better, but I think it's about time the GOP found out how it feels to be accused of being in disarray every day of the week.
- Jesse Lee and Her House of Scandle: The overreaching message of abuse of power, and the built in message of a disconnect from reality has been an incredibly effective message, and one that I believe has been responsible for the public turnaround on the war and the president's plunging approval ratings. Moreover, this is a perfectly integrated message that relates the President to Tom DeLay to Bill Frist, to your congressperson in your district. They've done it to themselves, but we've been pretty awesome at deeming almost every Republican member a "rubberstamp". Well, no matter how yellow dog someone is, nobody likes the idea of a rubber stamp. Ask people in Paul Hackett's district, where that was one of the most effective messge being brought door-to-door in Republican neighborhoods. Yes, I know, the president's five week vacation was a gift from god, and Cindy Sheehan did her part, too. But the slide started before he went to Texas. And it was our guys and our message machine, Harry Reid's war room, that got it there. Stand proud, fellow Dems.
- Good artists borrow. Great artists steal. YOINK! If you're asking yourself, when did Democrats become the party of the balanced budget who fought for states' rights, you're not the only one. States rights has traditionally been a minority party issue. Makes sense, after all, when you're out of power at the federal level, look to the states to retain it. But Republicans have based so much of their philosophy on being out of power for so long, the second they gained power and ditched that philosophy, they look rather hollow, IMHO. Democrats have always viewed the world in terms of grays and individually deciding each issue on its merits as opposed to a strict set of rules and theory. So we don't have a high standard from which it would be wrong to steal their states rights views. We also have stolen small government, or at least the idea that you can't run a business in the red, and you shouldn't be allowed to run a government in the red. Common sense, right? Well, it was Clinton who balanced the budget, and all those Republicans who try to claim it for Congress, well, they can't. Look at the current deficit. The sneakiest thing about the balanced budget? It says nothing about what the size of the budget should be, just that it should be balanced. In other words, you don't have to cut medicare and benefits to have a balanced budget. You just have to live within your means. Republicans don't know what to do with that, because Americans like a balanced budget more than they mind not getting irresponsible tax cuts. It's taken awhile for this one to ferment, but given the outrage over the cost in both dollars and human lives, in Iraq, expect the inner-turmoil to boil over. Mark Warner is my governor, and he's always had some great things to say on this. One of the reasons he convinced half of the Republicans in the Virginia General Assembly to split from their wingnut brethren and vote the business-savvy way and raise taxes. This is low-lying fruit, and potentially catastrophic to the right tilt of this country.
Movements you Might Want to Look Out For:
- The Environmental Gun Owner's Coalition: This is an awesome movement that I can best exemplify by the Sportsmen for Warner group. I'm not trying to make this all about Mark Warner, but this was an awesome coalition, and one that stands to be highly successful in the future. The idea is that you can't fish in polluted streams. You can't hunt when there are no forests. And you can't breathe the fresh air when it is filled with noxious gases. The only thing hunters and typical environmentalists really differ on is the killing of small fuzzy animals. And not much else. The rural vote loves the land. They love the country they grew up in, and they want to perserve it. They don't want developers making their open fields into sub-divisions for rich people who commute to the city in Hummers.
- Hybrids aren't just for granola-crunchin', hemp-wearing, smelly flower children wearing birkenstocks anymore: Energy efficiency is the hip, new thing. Gas prices are up, and a lot of people aren't liking the idea of heating their homes this weekend. The idea that greenhouse gases don't exist, etc. etc. is ridiculous in the face of yet another hurricane. So, who do people trust more to be green? Yep. We took a lot of heat for it before, but slowly, what was hippie heresay before is now just accepted fact. And an accepted fact that will become increasingly important as fuel becomes more expensive.
- What the Ivory Tower and Appalachia Have in Common: Democrats in red states have had a lot of success with coalition building between the highly educated portions of the middle to upper-middle class and the working poor, particularly in regions suffering from quickly departing jobs in rural regions on the basis of education policy, where you mix the liberal elites desire for scholarships for their children and good k-12 public education with the poor's need for vocational training and something to get them ahead once the local textile plant has closed down. The vocational training aspect is critical. One of my top ten favorite Senator Byrd moments is when he was talking about how he was sure John Kerry could win West Virginia if he would just get a little coal dust on his hands. Well, vocational training is that dust. And you have to mean it. You have to go down to those communities, look them in the eye, and say, your job is not coming back, but I am going to make sure you can go to school to get another job. In combination with suburbia soccer mom voting habits, this is highly effective.
- Everyone loves a Populist: How can I describe the Western Populist movement better than kos already has? Seriously, though, these guys kick ass. I have a friend who is the son of a Republican Appalachian lawmaker for my state. And we have a saying that it doesn't matter what party you are, provided you don't take any bullshit. They vote Republican out of habit, but their support is paper-thin. Put a Paul Hackett, or another candidate whose not afraid to say, yeah, I fucking disagree with you there, and they'll come on board for the ride. Consider this the other side of the "South Park Republican" coin. They care about the people. They've noticed the crap that goes on. They like non-traditional politicians. Kerry is their nightmare. We've got guys like that. And more of them will creep out of the woodwork as more and more independents rejoin the party, like the second wave after the late-night beer run. I could call this return of independents back to the party fold as the return of the Reagan Democrat--Welcome Back, We missed you.
- The Christian Left: These guys have their act together, know what's up, and totally rock. My favorite people from the Kerry Campaign are the Catholics for Kerry rockstars I met. Seriously, intense religious discussion aside, these guys are preaching the right message. If you listen to where they are coming from and what they are saying, it'll inspire you to be a better Democrat. My best example is abortion. Before the pro-choicers flay me alive, listen to what they say. Now, a lot of the Christian Left is uncomfortable with abortion. But they also have the sense to realize that abortion rates decline during Democratic presidencys, mostly because of improvements made to social programs and the creation of a public safety net to care for at-risk mothers. Nobody wants to have an abortion. And if you truly care about reducing the number of abortions, you'll vote for a Democrat who might say it should be legal, but will ensure that it is rare, as oppsoed to a Republican who talks the pro-life talk, but then is horrible on social issues and taking care of children once they are born and at-risk mothers. If you don't treat the social problems that cause abortion, then you are not truly pro-life. Isn't that just the sorta thing you need to hear now and again? Well, I encourage you to listen to these guys and use their message to reach swing constituencies that our party had previously given up on.
- Kudos to the Gubernator...or at least his opponents: If you want a lesson in giant-slaying, see the state of California and the lovely job by a unified coalition of nurses, teachers, and labor. Now the one thing that unites us all is health care. You can also pick up small business with the promise of pooling resources and easier availability of cheap poilicies for their employees. Health care has lost the post-Clinton stigma in many respects. The crisis that it is is making Republicans ignoring the issue look even more out of touch (see above). I think this sort of coalition could work well in other, non-Ahhnold contexts. Use the state as a laboratory, as they were meant to be used.
This is all well and good, but what about THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: Iraq and National Security
Of course, it all comes back to Iraq in the end. I'm not stupid enough to think I've covered this topic unless I've mentioned it, and it's not an easy topic. First of all, who knows what things will look like there in 2006, let alone 2008. Secondly, there's a lot of division in our party. I would proffer that a division in our party is better than a unified front around the exact wrong policy on their side, but take it as you will. First of all, using my first point on the Contract with America, I really think it would be better for us to come out with a unified public solution to Iraq next year and not a second before except for constant bitching and the occasional red-meat toss to the base a la Feingold. But, in the meantime for your consumption:
- If Walter Cronkite can Change His Mind, So Can Hillary Clinton: Alright, Hillary probably isn't going to say that she thinks the war was a bad idea. She's not going to say she's sorry. But why can't we be flexible. The majority of Americans have changed their mind on the war. Is it possible that someone who voted for the war might now think that it probably wasn't such a good idea, but we're probably also stuck with it, now? I don't think this is a hypocritical position to have. And I don't think demanding consistency from our politicians is appropriate or fair.
- When that Drum Beat Begins (Next year and ONLY Next Year): I think we should start demanding milestones or goalposts in Iraq. Not timetables, which set meaningless dates regardless of actual progress, and not stupid political milestones that aren't grounded in reality. I'm saying we should start to say, when X number of Iraqi battilions are trained, we should start cutting down our troops by a percentage. This allows the Iraqis a sense of purpose. If they get their shit together, they can get rid of us. And we should do what John Kerry suggested all those months ago and start doing some initial training of Iraqi forces outside of Iraq. This will increase the rate that they can be trained at, and increase a sense of loyalty among units, so they are less likely to desert when it is time to fight.
- If I learned one thing from George W. Bush, it is that quick and easy solutions are just that: quick, easy, gratifying, unrealistic, and irresponsible. Stop asking for one, and stop waiting for one. That should be our talking point. That we're dealing with a complex situation involving factors only partially in our control, and with a grim "split the baby" situation. That's our talking point. They're sitting here, waiting for everything to magically work out, and there's only one side of the debate truly engaging the people in frank discussion. Yes, our side has disagreements, but we're willing to consider a multiplicity of options, and include the American people in the debate. Some of think stay, some think go, but all of us think we should approach this from a realistic stand-point, think outside the box, and that having multiple points of view is a good thing. Group think and rubberstamping led to this mess. Critical thinking and having disagreements and a lack of certainty are how we're going to get out. Stop looking for soda in the water fountain. That's the talking point. Engage the public. Have a real debate. Be frank. That's where the message ties itself together. And if we are frank, if we avoid the crap, National Security won't be a problem either. People don't think we're weak on National Security because we are on the wrong side of inspecting cargo entering the country (we're not). People are looking for someone with balls who doesn't dodge issues. That's the stellar contrast. So stop looking for a unified stance. Instead, celebrate the fact that we have some fucking diversity.