The Democratic Narrative: Economic and Social Justice; Now Add "Keep Us Safe"

Last week I posted "Dem Branding: Keeping Us Safe", where I repeated my argument that Dems stand to gain the most electorally by improving their branding in the area of national security. Later, I added to my argument by referencing the exit polls from the last election in my diary "2004 Presiential Election: It was Working Class Women". There I argued that the Dem erosion with women was largely due to the "keep us safe" question - yep, security moms, et al.

Chris Bowers criticized me, claiming that I ignore the need for overarching narrative - in essence, for missing the forest from the trees.

I want to use Chris' critique as a starting point because I disagree with his argument that I forget the narrative. In fact, my whole argument is premised on the existing narrative of the Democratic Party. The existing political conditions and polarization and the current Dem branding is precisely why I advocate for a Lincoln 1860 Strategy. Now, after you have finished all the assigned reading (heh) join me on the flip for my view of the existing Dem narrative and what we need to with it, and what we should NOT do to it.

Update [2005-2-13 22:22:1 by Armando]: Stirling Newberry has a great post on a concept I try to articulate, but never properly explain - the need to convey regional takes on national messages dissminated by the Dem Party. Highly recommended.

In the links above, I explain in detail my view that the Democratic Party is viewed as the party of economic and social justice. The 20th Century cemented this image. As most things for us, it starts with FDR, who is the pillar of the Dem image of economic justice. Witness the current fight over his legacy regarding Social Security. I believe the polling bears me out on this issue. That said, I can't deny that some slippage has occurred, but it is still a centerpiece of the image of the Democratic Party. And while mainly positive, it also has some negative attached to it in some quarters. "Soak the rich" and "class warfare" are trotted out against us often. However, it is a strong net positive, and certainly no one can advocate abandoning the values which cement this image.

Dems are also the party of civil rights. Again it starts with a Roosevelt, this time Eleanor. Consistently, in the second half of the 20th Century, it has been the Democratic Party that has been the political champion for civil rights. Of course the image of the Dems on this was cemented in the 60s - the Civil Rights Acts. LBJ told the truth - "We lost the South for a generation."

One other defining issue was cemented in the Dem Branding in the last 30 years - weak on national security. It is important to realize that prior to that time, that was NOT the Democratic Party image. On this one point, Peter Beinart is correct. It does not have to be this way, because it wasn't before.

The last defining issue is really, to me at least, so intertwined with civil rights, that I am loathe to treat it separately, but feel that for this discussion, I must. "Values." Dems as libertines. This issue starts with Abortion, continues to prayer in school and culminates with creationism and gay marriage. It too is a part of the existing Dem narrative.

So let's consider these 4 defining pillars of the Democratic image. Are they complete fabrications? I say no, and it is accepting this that has led me to advocate a strategy of defining contrasts as outlined in my Lincoln 1860 piece. The Democratic Party is the Party of economic justice. And it should be. And it is a good thing politically. Thanks to Bill Clinton, the charge of tax and spend liberal really is pretty toothless these days. On this we contrast with the GOP. But that is our current strategy. No need to change there. Indeed, we can push on that door even more. We need to.

So civil rights? How's that issue affecting us? It's a positive with most. As the exit polls indicate, it is a very strong net postive for the Dem image. Even affirmative action is a toothless tiger these days. We embrace and remind that the GOP is anti-civil rights.

So, here it comes. It's values rights? Wrong, wrong, wrong. "Values" means hate, at least for me. It means giving up everything we stand for. Sure, it hurts us with some voters, but it helps us as well. For every "values" voter we get, how much would we hurt ourselves with our folks, who become less enthusiastic, less committed, less willing to fight. We pay a price, but we get a benefit too. There is no where to go on this. We will not give up gay rights, pro-choice, pro-science and enlightenment, pro freedom of expression. There is nothing to be gained here and everything to lose - our soul.

So, you guessed it, it's national security. Why? Because we can only help ourselves and be true to ourselves by articulating a clear, coherent, strong and fearless vision of what Dems will do to keep the country safe. Does this mean aping the GOP? The opposite - it means strongly and fearlessly criticizing the GOP for its incompetence on national security. We have good fortune. Strong credible voices have emerged  on our side. We must use these voices, equipped with the credibility to strongly and fearlessly express the Dem vision for national security.  They are there and they are willing. And we must use them. The political upside is high.  On this issue Dems have only negatives, the GOP only positives. All of the other issues are a mixed bag between the GOP and Dems. Not this one.  This is pure GOP plus.

What about the rest?  I say it in detail in my "Lincoln 1860" piece, but clearly laying out the contrasts between Dems and Republicans on ALL the issues is essential. Make the GOP the anti-gay, anti-science, anti-choice, anti-civil rights, anti-working class party that it is. For too long,the GOP has been all of these things but paid little price for this. They keep the Religious Right and the Social Moderate.  They keep big business and make inroads with the working class (on national security and values for the most part with this group, but we can peel some). Make the GOP pay a price for its extremism. Let the country know it is time to choose sides. Some in the middle were able to ignore GOP extremism and vote only on "keep us safe." We must deny that as an option for that voter.

This is long, but I want to wrap up by saying that Chris Bowers mistook my concentration on the "keep us safe" issue as ignoring the overall narrative. I hope I make clear here that the reverse is true. Understanding the narrative, and analyzing what I think can work with that narrative is how I reached my conclusion that the "keep us safe" issue is where we can make our biggest gains.

•  Lincoln 1860, or...

  ...FDR 1932?

  What you are asking for us to do is recreate FDR's Four Freedoms approach. These were laid out in his 1941 State of the Union address, and although they were basically a statement of his war aims, they also are a consistent theme of his presidency, even long before he encapsulated them in the Four Freedoms concept.

  For those who don't remember, the Four Freedoms:

  Freedom of Speech
  Freedom of Religion
  Freedom from Want
  Freedom from Fear

  Let's go down the list.

  The first can be broadly held to include civil rights and liberties. It insists that the US stands for the equal right of every person to participate in the life of this country, a right that the Civil Rights Movement emphasized to great effect in the '40s, '50s, and '60s.

  The second is related to the first, and also recaptures the positive aspects of a discussion of 'values'. In concert with liberal Christians, we must reemphasize that we value life, safety, security, freedom, care for each other - the values of Jesus Christ, not of Moses or Deuteronomy.

  The third is of course all about economics - providing access to the middle-class and its benefits to as many Americans as possible, reducing the power of wealth, etc. You have correctly argued that Dems must reclaim this to win again.

  And the last, of course, is about war and national security. In fact, the term "Freedom from Fear" is exactly the correct approach to take in fighting terrorism, because of course, terrorism is all about fear.

  So I'm not disagreeing with your focus on Lincoln 1860 - that can be a useful guide - but I instead believe we have neglected to our peril the lessons of FDR 1932. Roosevelt built the Democratic Party of the modern era. For us to rebuild it in our own time we need to go back and find out what made his message resonate, and how we can construct something similarly useful in the 21st century.

  And we should come up with an easy way to remember it. Four Freedoms was brilliant, but we need something new. I don't know what that is. But it is the direction we need to go.

  by eugene on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:28:16 PM PST

  •  Lincoln and FDR

    I'll take both thank you.

    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:31:21 PM PST

  •  Lincoln 1860

    Actually, if you listen to Dean on contrasting the parties, I would argue he is advocating a Lincoln 1860 approach as well.

    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:32:41 PM PST

    •  I dont think so

      He is talking about GOING INTO the south, not attacking it.

      He talked about getting the white guy driving the pickup truck with the confederate flag on it to vote dem because his kids dont have healthcare either.

      Dean isnt someone you can rely upon to support your 1860 strategy at all.

      the only analagy is his willingness to attack the GOP and it's hypocracy head on, but he certainly doesnt adviocate attacking the south, far from it.

      by Pounder on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:37:42 PM PST

      •  Miss my point

        You focus too much on the South part, not the contrast part. Reas Lincoln's Copper Union speech and bring it forward in time - replace the word South with Republican, and make the issues those of today. It was a slash and burn campaign that Lincoln ran in 1860. With us or with the extremists. My reasons for thinking we can't win in the South are independent of this.  The South is not conducive to the Democratic message, in my opinion.   but that has nothing to do with my reference here. If it were, then Lincoln 1860 still works.

        by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:42:20 PM PST

        •  This I very much agree with

          And FDR, at his own Cooper Union speech - his 1936 address to a Madison Square Garden campaign rally - did exactly what you suggested. He defined the economic 'royalists' as the extremists and those who threatened American values, American people.

          As to the South, I think we need to run a half-assed campaign there. Enough to make people think we're seriously trying to win it back, but not enough to actually commit resources that are needed elsewhere. Pay them lip service but little else. For the current moment, I am convinced that the South is completely irrelevant to our problems and our plans - instead it is the Midwest and the Southwest (defined as far north as Utah and Colorado) where the war will be won or lost.

          by eugene on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:49:24 PM PST

          •  Agreed 100%

            by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:50:52 PM PST

          •  I understand what you're saying, but

            I know there's always the issue of "resources," and I too have felt in the past that we might as well give up a "real" campaign in South--and I live in NC.

            But this past election work taught me a lot of important things, not the least of which was that you CAN get to rural southern voters, and you can win their votes.  We did.

            We started canvassing a couple of years out, and it's not easy here.  We didn't focus on our towns at all.  We went to the most remote areas of the county and knocked on doors in very poor and/or lower middle class areas.  These folks were typically republican because of the so-called values issues, or they were republican because they are easily swayed by the lies of the republicans--"Democrats tax and spend," "Democrats are wimps," etc.  AND, it's important to note, almost all of them either had a child or grandchild in the war or was related to someone who was in Iraq.

            You'd really be surprized.  These votes were a lot easier to get than we ever thought possible.  MAIN REASON?  Cause we showed up at their door to ask for their vote in the pouring down rain.  Because we offered to read the fine print on a prescription.  Because we helped them with some personal problem.  Or simply because we listed.

            So my attitude has changed.  I will admit that the numbers may not look good in Ol' Dixie, but I submit that we don't know if we can get these votes or not UNTIL WE ASK FOR THEM.

            by irmaly on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:13:50 PM PST

            •  You couldn't be more right

              The great failing in 2004 was not doing more of this.  Phone calls and canvassing were not used to connect with voters so much as they were used as opportunities to rally the base.  There was very little human connection effort being made, so we weren't perceived by those we wanted to sway as likable people.  Just taking an interest in people's personal lives is most important.

              by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:31:02 PM PST

              •  Yes

                And I am not naive.  I realize that the Party has to put its financial resources where it can get the most bang for the buck.  That's why I am really hoping Dean will be able to work out a ground strategy for rural red areas.  It doesn't have to mean money at all.  All our costs were coffee and donuts.  It will, however, require an impressive organization to make this happen nationwide, but I remain convinced that the strategy works--it's just figuring how to get the organization set up and off the ground.

                by irmaly on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:37:01 PM PST

            •  Until we ask for them

              Damn that's good.

              by outside observer on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:50:07 PM PST

          •  The Democratic slide is because of the South...

            So pay lip service at your peril.  If you can find some magical constituency in the Midwest and Southwest that I don't know of that has left the Democratic Party in the last two elections for reasons different then Southerners who have left the party then maybe my little red state self is missing something.  

            We meed a national message like the Republicans do and a message that will sell in the North, South, Midwest, Southwest.  If we do not do this we will continue at a structural deficit at the start of each election that is unsustainable in for long-term fundraising and activism enthusiasm.

            Dean understands this and that is why he is going to be spending a lot of time in the South (his words, not mine).  I just don't buy the argument that if we  squeeze the Midwest/Southwest sponge just little more and we'll have our 15 -20 electoral points to drop into the bucket.

            The longer we stay on the defensive in the South and Midwest the longer we will stay a minority party.  Republicans salivate at our current strategy of ignoring the South and killing ourselves with fatigue in the Midwest they continue to wittle a way in other "blue areas" and they continue to drive home their national message.
            

            (-6.75, -3.85)

            by mapKY on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:12:21 PM PST

    •  Lincoln 1860 Polling

      Note that Lincoln won with 39 percent of the vote. "Eisenhower 1952," "Johnson 1964," "Nixon 1972," and "Harding 1920" were more popular designer labels.

      Frankly I don't understand all this Democratic angst about national security. For the "Democrats 2006" brand -- the only one that counts now -- I think it's simple: be who we already are and say so, crisply. And here it is:

      We believe in a strong working class, the backbone of our country -- and its great warriors.
      We treat soldiers and veterans generously and with respect.
      We will buy only the best weapons and armor -- and never waste a dime on junk.
      We won't send troops into war without a damn good reason.
      When we do go to war, we will utterly destroy those who would do harm to this great country.
      We will expect all Americans to sacrifice in the defense of liberty.
      We will work with our friends and allies because we are stronger, but only in harmony with our national principles.

      That's it.

      by sipples on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:01:37 PM PST

      •  Angst

        You don't understand it? wow.  Ok.

        by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:14:14 PM PST

        •  Yeah

          But you gotta admit, he's got a powerful narrative list there.  And it's got a strong national security message.  Eh?

          by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:33:48 PM PST

          •  Couldn't get past that line

            by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:41:04 PM PST

            •  Yep

              I disagree with everything else he said, but that list in bold I think offers some great starting points for building a narrative.

              by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:54:05 PM PST

        •  Nope

          The Democratic Party has a wonderful national security record and set of policies. The Republican Party's policies have undermined America's national security in recent years.

          Now, it may be that (some) voters don't see it that way, but Democrats are the ones with self-confidence issues? I don't get it.

          Every one of the core principles I articulated above is what (most) Democrats already believe and practice. They are also different in major ways from Republican practices. So let's talk about them -- plainly and simply.

          By the way, I'd add one more:

          We will build a stronger society at home: better educated, more prosperous. A weak society cannot defend itself.

          by sipples on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:10:12 PM PST

      •  Which was why I said FDR 1932

        Along with its more immediate relevance.

        FDR won four elections with nice margins of victory - and a majority of the vote every time. Granted, these margins shrank in '40 and '44, but not enough to hurt the overall cause. And in '48, Truman saw his left and his right wings defect and he still won, FDR's coalition was that strong.

        by eugene on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:47:22 PM PST

      •  When we do go to war

        "When we do go to war, we will utterly destroy those who would do harm to this great country."

        This is exactly what I believe.  War should be a last resort, but if we choose war, it should be to utterly destroy our enemies.  Our most successful peace in the last 200 years was WWII.  Why?  Because both Germany and Japan had no doubt that they had utterly lost.  Their people knew and understood that they had lost.

        Since then, we have the Korean stalemate, the Vietnam disaster, Gulf War and the Iraq war.  None have truly met their objectives because we refused to fight a total war.  In the Middle East, peace did not occur (a cold peace) between Israel and Egypt until Israel completely destroyeed the Egyptian army in 1973.  Meanwhile, the Israeli-Palestinian problem rages on because the Palestinians falsely believe they can win.  IMHO, a real peace con only happen when the population of the losing party suffers and understands that there is a loss.

        The problem with total war means targeting population centers and killing millions.  However, when a total war concludes, a real peace can ensue.
        

        by Democratic Hawk on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:14:33 PM PST

        •  "Peace" does not result

          from "war". Peace is not the opposite of war. Total war? Thank goodness you're not at the helm.

          by crone on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 07:09:49 AM PST

  •  Franklin D. Roosevelt

    The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
    --Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Citizen in a Republic", April 23, 1910

    "A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward."
    -- Franklin D. Roosevelt, radio speech, October 26, 1939.

    
    

    by Eloy on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:36:30 PM PST

    •  Perfect.

      by rba on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:47:38 PM PST

    •  Theodore Roosevelt

      First speech was by Theodore Roosevelt, not Franklin.  

      by johnny rotten on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:50:40 PM PST

    •  Wrong Roosevelt TR vs. FDR

      The first quote is actually FDR's distant cousin, Theodore "TR" Roosevelt.  Still appropriate though.

      by WussGawd on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:50:42 PM PST

      •  Thank you

        My fault, I always thought that was FDR quote.  I look it up and I was wrong.  It is still one of my favorites quotes.  Let me leave you with an other FDR quote.  

        The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

        First of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

        by Eloy on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:08:04 PM PST

        •  Pro noblem.

          The TR quote just happens to be one of my favorites.  Though like FDR he was a brilliant orator.  Probably one of the smartest men ever to be President.  Certainly one of the most literate.

          Frankly, I'd prefer either one of the Roosevelts over the clown in the WH at the moment.  Sadly, I think we're out of Roosevelts.

          by WussGawd on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 03:30:33 PM PST

  •  I think this is good work but misses the practical

    Just take a look at Chris Hume's Red State Road Trip.

    http://www.truthout.org/multimedia.htm

    The poverty, devastation in small town rural America should be an eye opener, as should the growing poverty in urban America. It should be but it isn't because both Democrats and Republican supported the policies that have laid the foundation for this devastation.

    Freedom from want has to be presented in a way that addresses people loss of jobs, job security and health care in today's economy.

    But what did Kerry say about the loss of jobs and entire industries in the US.

    "I am not going to pander to you. There is not much we can do about it."

    Well he is right about that as long as BOTH national parties are in the grip of people who benefit from this devastation, it will continue.

    We can change course but that would not be in the self interest of elected national office holders in Washington, of both parties.

    The problems in our party go way beyond framing the issues. We need to take a long cold hard look at the polices this Democratic party has signed onto, not just come up with a new rhetorical foundation.

    I want to return to these points and elaborate as the discussion continues. I am going to use a little sarcasm, which I feel I need to do, so don't think I am posting off topic.

    The rhetoric, the policies, the practical real word effects all must be exposed.
    

    by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:46:38 PM PST

    •  Well

      the polling doesn't support your view that Dems are not viewed more favorably on issues of economic justice. They are.

      by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:50:09 PM PST

      •  Your wonrg. Take a look at C Hume's roadtrip

        The average person doesn't even know that the GOP favors job and industry exports, they think the Democrats do.

        You are not going to prove your point quoting phantom polling data.

        by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:03:33 PM PST

        •  Phantom?

          Check the links in my post. Look, if you just want to be convinced you are right, then don't, but the data is not phantom.  Have a nice day.

          by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:13:28 PM PST

          •  Sadly your wrong about that

            Despite the effort the Democratic Party has made to identify itself as the party favoring social justice that frame has lost its magic.

            Again, take a look at the Red State Road Trip, you will probably be astonished to see what real people actually believe about social justice, how they define personal liberty and who is on their their side of the economic debate: Bush.

            And I will believe your polls when you show me one that can prove a double negative as you have stated it.

            by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:15:43 PM PST

          •  Since NAFTA the practical view has been reframed

            
            Since NAFTA the practical view has been reframed and the weight we should assign to that distinction has been greatly diminished.

            I think its important to also add that since the Democratic Parties support of NAFTA and job exports the real meaning and impact of what you say some polling data shows that people believe democrats have more traction on social justice issues, this former advantage has largely been lost because the most important issue in people economic lives is their job, its their only practical way of obtaining social justice for themselves without asking for a handout.

            And on the jobs issue, surprisingly, but perhaps not with the Democratic party support of NAFTA, people commonly believe that the GOP is just as much fighting for their jobs as are the democrats, that is: not much at all.

            Its pretty astonishing to see that is the case but it is true, again take a look at the Red State Road Trip.

            by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:27:00 PM PST

  •  sloganeering time

    I think we could sum of the Democratic Party with one word or phrase.

    "Democrats: Justice"

    Or my old favorite

    "A better life for all"

    I realize this is more a policy discussion. But I feel somewhat that it is a moot point about trying to be "stronger on national security". I believe that in every area of government we are the better party, including national defense. So to me it's a matter beating into people's brains what we are instead of letting the GOP do it (i.e. by getting Democrats to use the word 'liberal' in a pejoritive sense).

    We are the party of social and economic justice and are goal is an egalitarian society. So I think the two phrases above do nicely at projecting that in a very succinct way.

    by weatherunderground on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:26:34 PM PST

    •  "Democrats: Justice"

      I would add the coda...

      Justice at home and Justice abroad.  We will fight for the economic and social justice at home and abroad.

      by Democratic Hawk on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:17:50 PM PST

  •  Well said eugene

    We have neglected this Democratic hero for too long.  He needs to held up as an icon of Democratic values before the voters.  I think he's every bit the guiding light that Lincoln was.

    by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:59:26 PM PST

•  Cripes. There is a lot to say ...

  ...about this and I am being told to comment but "be quick about it" and put on my coat or we'll be late, again. OK.

   Although I seven-eighths-of-the-way agree with A Gilas Girl that "branding" is far from our biggest problem, I have no problem with this "national security branding" approach, indeed, it is an issue. I just think we have to transform the debate to point out the obvious - national security is about far more than having a strong, principled foreign policy; a flexible, tough, well-trained, well-equipped armed forces; and a good intelligence apparatus. Our long-term security depends on wise and wisely funded policies in education, jobs, health care, et cetera.

  by Meteor Blades on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:32:16 PM PST

  •  Of course

    But we need to sell our approach, not run away from the issue.

    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:33:33 PM PST

    •  Agreed. n/t

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:36:36 PM PST

  •  BTW

    agg is completely wrong the national security issue, branding is precisely our problem.

    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:34:15 PM PST

    •  Yep

      it's been our problem for nearing four decades.

      by Cathy on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:40:57 PM PST

      •  Four decades ago

        the far right began killing off the leading lights of the Democratic party.  JFK, RFK, MLK.  That resulted in the disastrous 1968 election, and left us in disarray.  I would argue that we haven't fully emerged from that devastation.

        by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:04:16 PM PST

        •  Very good point, please take a look at a $10 DVD

          buy it at;

          http://www.jfkii.com/order2.php

          It will be an eye opener for you about Kennedy and the Bush family connection and what they have been up to these past decades and it will set the present historical frame for you as well.

          by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:32:43 PM PST

          •  Thanks

            I think I've got a handle on the historical perspective though.  I've watched it first hand.

            by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:55:32 PM PST

            •  So did I, this guy has done a lot of research

              and proven a lot of points I (for one) would not have come across unless I decided to do that research extensively.

              Not meant as a put down at all. And respectfully if you have not seen this, based on your comment I think you will find it informative, its not about way back then it is about now.

              by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 09:03:11 PM PST

  •  Are you and gilas girl married?

    Have you two ever met? I know being incognito is important to you, but I wonder.

    by NealB on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:00:18 PM PST

•  Well

  As someone who sees it from the other side, let me point out a few things that will hurt you from the start.

  We don't say, "soak the rich," we say "soak the successful."  We don't consider it "social justice," we consider it "social freeloading."

  It is good that you recognize some of the downfalls of your party over the last thirty years, and you seem to have a VERY strong understand of who Democrats are, and what will appeal to them.

  Your problem, in my view, and that of many people on DKos is what lies at the heart of Michael Barone's analysis of the blogosphere as it regards the Left: you are looking at the problem as something internal, between Democrats.  You think you need to redefine yourselves, for yourselves.  And to some extent, that might be true, but what you need to focus on more, I think, is how to win back the people who have strayed.

  Your plan, which I think you falsely dub the 1860 Lincoln plan, will result in the opposite.  You seem to forget that Bush won this last election without once moving towards the center—he is the first President to do that since, by my count, FDR.

  Your plan will be extremely effective at drawing the people who post at places like DailyKos together, and so it seems like it would be logically effective to all of you.  The problem is, to those who are not as dedicated to your cause as you are, it seems like sniping.  Constantly criticizing comes across as obstructionism.  The way to retake power has never been criticizing the people who have it—it is always about creating your own, entirely new center of power.

  In short, you can't just criticize what the GOP is doing with its power, or even propose what you would do in its place—you need to show what you are doing to make a difference despite being out of power.  You need to explain to the people why you can get things done just the same, leading movements outside the traditional confines of seats in Congress and the White House.

  I wish I could be more specific, but I don't see a way to to it—not yet.  But you'll come up with something eventually.  Unfortunately, I think the first step is admitting that you aren't going to take back Congress in '06, '08, or even 2010.  It's time for the long-term "strategery."

  by RFTR on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:33:42 PM PST

  •  Bush ran on

    Keep us safe - and under the radar on hate  . . .  I mean "values."  On Lincoln 1860, if you read the Cooper Union speech, you will have a better understanding of what I mean.  Maybe you have, but from your comment I can't tell.

    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:36:14 PM PST

    •  I have read it

      And you're right, my comment did not make that clear.

      I think one of the biggest differences, though is that Republicans in 1860 had the "Dems" (I think we can all agree that they in no way resemble the current party) greatly outnumbered.  Lincoln's strategy worked precisely because he did not have to win back the South, he just had to convince the North that he had a plan for doing so.

      Bush's win without moving to the center, I think, shows that the Dems of today are not in the same circumstances as Lincoln was in 1860.  Is that a little more clear?

      by RFTR on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:40:24 PM PST

      •  Yes

        and I disagree with you on the numbers. Kerry almost won without the South and there is fertile ground in the West, in Ohio, Florida et al.

        by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:43:39 PM PST

        •  MoE

          I think we have had this discussion before, but you have a serious Margin or error issue with this plan, not to mention the potential of absolutely killing dems down ticket in the south and kissing the seante goodbye for a generation or more, along most likely with the house.

          A Dem president isnt going ot get much done with a wingnut congress.

          by Pounder on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:51:44 PM PST

          •  See

            It comes down to whether you think we can win in the South. In the short term, my answer is a decided no. So I am trying to forward a plan that CAN work, not one that may sound good but which won't work.

            by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:54:08 PM PST

            •  We DO win in the south

              We have southern governers, senators and congressmen. That's just at the federal level. the picture gets better at the local level.

              by Pounder on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:32:20 PM PST

              •  I know

                You remember my differentiation between the national party and the Southern Party?

                by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:40:04 PM PST

      •  Actually, Repubs were far outnumbered in 1860.

        Lincoln won the election with just over 40% of the vote.  But his strategy succeeded because he split the antebellum Democratic party in two, between pro-slavery & anti-slavery forces.

        by WussGawd on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:54:07 PM PST

      •  Compare and contrast

        I've reading and re-reading some of the classics on pre-Civil War politics over the past week.  One of the striking similarities between that time and now is the ruthlessness of the Southern politicians in securing their aims.  They effectively controlled the Federal government from 1828 to 1860.  Sound familiar?  Another thing that sounds familiar is the collusion between the Supreme Court justices (5 of them southern pro-slavery justices plus Taney), who decided to extend the peculiar institution throughout the Union by declaring the Northwest Ordinance unconstitutional.  Buchanan had been tipped off about the forthcoming Dred Scott decision, and effectively o.k.'d it in his inaugural address.

        The point is that when you plunge back into that history you see much the same division that we are seeing today, though because of slavery it was more sectional.  Race-baiting was the contemporary substitute for gay-baiting.  Of course we all know what happened.  The South pushed to far, producing moral revulsion in much the North that eventually led to Lincoln's victory.

        Differences.  National security was not an issue then.  The Press was more local and thus more diverse, though  hardly less partisan.  People read.  But when you look at the social pressures placed on people in the South to conform -- including real, and not just self-censorship -- there is a lot of similarity.

        I think Armando is right.  Change the branding.  But also be prepared to take the hit for at least one more election cycle.  We will pick up some of the old responsible Republican constituency, not just in the Northeast, where it doesn't matter, but perhaps in the upper Midwest, where it does.

        National security and economic security go together.  The politician who effectively links these themes in a sound bite will carry the day.

        by Knut Wicksell on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:01:26 PM PST

        •  Have to call you on one thing

          You say that things were different back then, and one of the things you cite is "People read."

          This chart shows otherwise.  The earliest sample of illiteracy rates was taken in 1870, when 20% of the population was illiterate—it was likely to be even higher 10 years earlier—versus only 0.6% as of 1979.

          by RFTR on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:08:20 PM PST

          •  He said "people read", not

            "people could read". It's true that literacy rates are higher today, although I think they're somewhat narrowly defined in the study you cite. But in the absence of TV, computers, and talk radio, I think many more people did actually read- the Bible of course, but also newspapers and those books that were available. It's one reason why all of Lincoln's great speeches resonated so wonderfully with their Biblical references.

            by JillR on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:05:18 PM PST

      •  1860 Election

        The Republicans did not outnumber the Democrats.  What happened was that the Southern Democrats walked out of the convention when it became apparent that Stephen Douglas was going to win the nomination.  The Southern Democrats nominated their own candidate, John Breckenridge.  A fourth candidate, John Bell of the Constitutional Union party, also joined the race.  

        Lincoln won the electoral vote with only 40% of the popular vote, the lowest of any presidential election.  

        by johnny rotten on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:05:24 PM PST

        •  Losing every state in the South

          and winning almost every non-South state.

          by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:11:31 PM PST

          •  Yep

            Lincoln would still have won the electoral vote even if every non-Lincoln vote went to the same candidate:

            http://www.etymonline.com/cw/1860.htm

            The Republicans' electoral success was nothing short of amazing.  I doubt anything that extreme will ever be seen again.  

            by johnny rotten on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:20:07 PM PST

            •  Really?

              how about the last 2 elections?

              by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:22:03 PM PST

              •  Clarification

                What I mean is that I doubt we will ever see a situation where the country is so divided that 40% of the popular vote can beat 60% of the popular vote.  

                by johnny rotten on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:29:17 PM PST

              •  Lincoln

                Lincoln got 0% of the votes in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.  

                I think even John Kerry did better in the South than Lincoln.  

                by johnny rotten on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:33:49 PM PST

                •  Breckenridge

                  Breckenridge got less than 1% of the vote in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.  

                  http://www.multied.com/elections/1860Pop.html

                  GW did a little better in the North.  

                  by johnny rotten on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:36:15 PM PST

                •  Oh

                  I thought you were talking states, not votes in a state.

                  by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:39:07 PM PST

  •  I think you are right

    in a lot of respects, see my comments further below, where I advocate adopting the language of responsibility along with rights to try and achieve this.

    by Pounder on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:40:08 PM PST

  •  Yes and no

    First, what I dislike about your post:

    It bothers the hell out of me when people define Democrats and liberals as outside the American mainstream. It is what has given Republicans their success, and yeah, Democratic politicians have generally failed to counter it.

    But that does not at all mean it is true. Our values ARE American values whether you like it or not.

    Your post is also contradictory in several places. The most significant is this:

    but what you need to focus on more, I think, is how to win back the people who have strayed.

    Compared against:

    Your plan will be extremely effective at drawing the people who post at places like DailyKos together, and so it seems like it would be logically effective to all of you.  The problem is, to those who are not as dedicated to your cause as you are, it seems like sniping.

    If you weren't wearing such thick "liberals aren't mainstream" blinders, you'd realize that in fact the entire goal is to reclaim those who have strayed. From 1930 to 1994 Democrats dominated American politics. From 1968 to 1994 that dominance was quite weak and in '94 it collapsed entirely. But that is only 11 years ago. Our goal is in fact reclaiming the millions of voters who over the last 37 years (since the disastrous 1968 election) have left the party or have voted against it often.

    Then, you also suggest that:

    The way to retake power has never been criticizing the people who have it--it is always about creating your own, entirely new center of power.

    In fact, the Republican experience from 1964 to 2000 suggests that this is half true and half false. What is needed is both a critique of those in power AND the construction of a new center of power. You need them both. The former drives people to the latter. If you build a new housing development but don't advertise it, you've got a problem.

    So there I leave it. You have a few decent ideas, but your overall approach is so horrifically flawed as to render your advice tainted.

    We can, in fact, find our own way out of this.

    by eugene on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:46:16 PM PST

    •  I agree and I don't

      I know that many of you realize that it's about winning back those who have strayed.

      What I was saying is that Armando's plan seems to neglect that.  Or, rather, he's trying that through means that I don't think will accomplish it—of course you're free to disagree on that point.

      And as for the center of power dispute, again, I think that you're right that it needs to be both.  What I was saying, however, is that Armando's plan again seems to neglect creating a new center of power.  He focuses an awful lot on criticizing and challenging the GOP without even touching the idea of creating a new framework.

      by RFTR on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:49:49 PM PST

      •  that's true

        Much of what I advocate is, in essence, the negative framing of the GOP.  But it requires postive framing of the Dems. And requires hard hard work on the national security issue, cuz if  we don't get better there, I don't have high confidence in our ability to win.

        by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:52:40 PM PST

        •  But again.

          Think about if you went to a townhall meeting, a few weeks before an election.  The meeting was conducted by a challenger to a long-time incumbent.

          All you hear the entire meeting is "the incumbent is doing everything wrong.  Look! He does this, this, this, this, this, this, this and THIS all wrong!  I, because I would do things differently, am inherently better and more deserving of your vote."

          You might agree with everything he said.  He certainly painted his opponent in a damaging light, and made himself look better by way of contrast.

          But has he given you any real reason to vote for him?  For me, at least, I'd feel more like staying home on election day than anything else.

          Your plan is good, don't get me wrong.  It is a great way to chip away at Republican power.  It's just missing that last, extra push to take the reigns.  It needs a little something extra to intrinsically appeal to people, instead of just condemning the current system.

          by RFTR on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:56:46 PM PST

          •  Hmmm

            Did you see Bush's town meetings - "My opponent blah blah . . . " - don't see where the facts support you here.

            by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:10:40 PM PST

            •  BUT

              and this is a big but, Bush had already shown what he stood for.  He didn't have to rehash it, because when you're already in power it's sufficient to just tear down a challenger.  The challenger does not have that luxury.

              by RFTR on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:12:15 PM PST

              •  Well

                the issue is moot now as there will be no incumbents the next time around.

                by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:38:18 PM PST

                •  Yes and no

                  There's still an incumbent party, which is what this is all about, is it not?

                  I'm also curious to ask how you think this strategy would work against an Ahnuld or Guiliani type Republican?

                  by RFTR on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:56:54 PM PST

                  •  Never gonna happen

                    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:10:19 PM PST

                    •  True

                      but that's not what I asked.  I'm curious what you think about a hypothetical world where one of them somehow miraculously got the Republican nomination.

                      by RFTR on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:43:34 PM PST

                      •  I'll go you one better

                        McCain.  He wins easy. Never gonna happen.

                        by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:56:35 PM PST

          •  Something extra

            A "chicken in every pot," perhaps?  I just started reading "What's The Matter With Kansas" today, and the task seems overwhelming.  

            by elveta on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:11:25 PM PST

      •  When you put it in those terms...

        ...then it makes more sense. The terms of your initial comment I vehemently disagree with, and I hope others will understand why it is so terribly wrong to see things in such a light.

        My feeling is that Armando is doing the sales work, the marketing strategy, that is essential. He is not alone in rebuilding new centers of power - of which dKos is one, and your neglecting of this point is odd - and I don't see why it's up to any one person to come up with the strategy for overthrowing the Republicans and retaking power all on their own.

        by eugene on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:53:25 PM PST

  •  Disagree with most of your post

    but this is certainly correct:

    "Constantly criticizing comes across as obstructionism.  The way to retake power has never been criticizing the people who have it--it is always about creating your own, entirely new center of power."

    I lack the positive messages, the grand themes, a future orientation, our "Contract With America".

    by Joe B on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:52:43 PM PST

  •  If you read my sig you'll understand why

    I can't trust you.  I apologize if I'm wrong, but I don't know you.

    I think the Democrats have lost because they have played nice for way too long.

    by reform dem on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:18:15 PM PST

    •  Well

      You don't know me, but let me give it a shot.

      I am a Christian, and I am conservative.

      My conservatism, however, does not spring from my faith (FOR THE MOST PART--I am pro-life, but not sure about how to deal with that on policy grounds).  I'm more from the school of thought that sees the irony in the sentence "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

      I don't watch Fox News, and I don't vote straight Party-lines when elections come around.

      That put you at ease any?

      by RFTR on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 04:41:08 AM PST

      •  What a relief!

        OK, we're not that different.

        I can't stand people who spend more than they have.  And that goes for countries as well.  And I am a Christian, although not a very good one.

        On the other hand, I do believe that people sometimes have back luck through no fault of their own, or that sometimes, no matter how hard they try, they can't get ahead.  I don't mind paying some tax dollars for them, knowing that, if the same happens to me, I will get some help as well.  Not everyone is lucky enough to have relatives or friends to bail them out.

        I used not to vote on Party-lines, but I've recently changed my mind.  I am tired of propaganda and dirty tricks.

        Oh and, this is old, but the term "Welfare Queen" gets me really mad.  Anyone who from the comfort of their home uses that term scathingly, ought to go live on the Welfare Queen's income for a few years.
        

        by reform dem on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 05:07:19 PM PST

•  These discussions are important

  At least as a starting point.

  I think a few things are missing. The dems need an enemy, a direct one, and it shouldnt be the GOP DIRECTLY.

  I believe when we talk about the "rich" we are aming a mistake. What we should be doing is highlighting a real target, Corporate FAT CATS, who get millions even when they are fired, at rhe same time as laying off workers and cutting benefits. These people are GREAT targets, hard ot defend, and LOTS of anecdotes which work oh so well. THEN we paint the GOP as being in bed with these fat cats and against working people. That's how we frame the economic message I believe.

  Now, to the more contentious. VALUES. Armando, i think you are wrong in your assesment of this for a couple of reasons.

  First you look at values from your perspective, naturally, but to many Americans it isnt their perspective, and THAT has ot be addressed.

  There is a perceived, and perhaps REAL decline in civic life, teen pregnancy, violence, abortion, drugs etc. The right want to deal with these problems theocratically, we need to offer a different more positive clear message to deal with these problems, and I think we can.

  We talk of rights, CONSTANTLY. We also need to talk of RESPONSIBILITIES too.

  Every child has the right to a good education, but the parents have the responsibility of making sure that kid takes the best opportunity from it and becomes a good citizen. When that child or parents dont do that, there ought ot be consequences.

  As one example.

  If we frame the values argument in the rights and responsibilities way, i think not only will we have success, we will also make good policy and produce good results.

  and we can take it one step further, by talking about the responsibilities of government, and it's right to enforce responsibility.

  finally, the toughest nut ot crack. Security. There is NOTHING short of another terror attack, we can do to improve our image on this issue i believe. Inspecting shipping containers doesnt trump having a war, not in terms of rhetoric.

  EVen the Iraq war, if you were to put all the US casualties in a football stadium, it wouldnt even be 1/4 full. Given we havent suffered a serious attack since 9/11 too many americans are prepared to make that trade still I think.

  that said, I think we if address the economic issue, and frame the values debate on our terms (see harry reids piece of legislation as a great example, I think we have a large enough coalition to win.

  It is then, from a position of power that we must DEMONSTRATE our ability to secure the nation, thats the road ot security credibility.

  by Pounder on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:34:45 PM PST

  •  "Values"

    No, I consider whether a "values" voter will be a persuadable voter in a way that Dems actually can reach.  My conclusion is he is not.  In essence, I argue for a political strategy of full polarization of the electorate.

    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:38:29 PM PST

    •  Then i think you make the mistake

      of thinking of values voters the way the exit polls did, and assuming its one huge voting block of like minded people.

      For a lot of values voters, they arent signle issue, but simply want to "stop the rot" and right now the only people putting forward ANY plan for doing that are the christian right.

      We need to serve up an alternate solution. Once we have a credible alternate we can attack the religious rights message aggresively for its failings and division (ie those values voters who are single issue fundies)

      by Pounder on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:43:14 PM PST

      •  Well

        that's not a "values" voter then - that's a different animal. now how many of those are they? See, I don't think there are as many as you think. Moderates is where we can gain.

        by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:44:58 PM PST

      •  Wow.

        See my comments below.  You and I seem to be on VERY similar pages here.

        by RFTR on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:46:20 PM PST

    •  Wow.

      Some big assumptions in there, that I'm not sure are spot on.

      I'll grant you that the stereotyped "values voter" is unpersuadable, but that doesn't mean there aren't a LOT of people who vote based on their values system that aren't persuadable.  Take me, for example. If asked in an exit poll, my primary reason for voting the way I did would probably have been moral values—it at least would have been in my top three.

      Now, I oppose activist judges who are trying to institute gay marriage.  I also oppose a constitutional amendment to eliminate its possibility.  You could easily—EASILY—win a voter like me, simply by saying that you support the advocacy of sexual equality through legislative means.

      My point is, there are a lot of so-called "values voters" out there who are not strictly hate-mongers as you'd like to stereotype them, but simply have a different idea of the way things should be.  All you do by isolating and ignoring them is add to their power.

      by RFTR on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:45:07 PM PST

      •  "values" not values

        for example, if  gay marriage is your top issue, you will NEVER EVER vote Democrat.

        by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:48:57 PM PST

        •  And I think

          you are making the same faulty assumption that the exit polls did -- that there are large swathes of people out there who hold gay marriage as their top issue.

          It's a confluence of issues, and dismissing these people off-hand is a mistake.  In effect, you're setting for what will get you an election victory—what will get you over 50% of the vote.  In the short term, sure, you'll win the white house, as long as you don't have a third-party challenger who soaks up part of that 51% of the vote, but in the long run it's not going to be enough to sustain power.

          Why settle for enough to win, why not shoot for what you need to dominate?

          (Why am I handing out so much free advice to the opposition?  It must be the hallucinigenic effects of this flu...)

          by RFTR on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:53:09 PM PST

          •  Because I want to win

            not fantasize about landslides.

            by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:56:28 PM PST

        •  Again not true

          Dean demonstrated that in Vermont, though i do agree that gay marriage isnt yet at a point where it can be advocated in a lot of places, an idea before it's time sadly.

          I think this issue is where the Dems have been weakest in supporting rights, and framing the issue, I think they were blindsided to some extent by the speed of the debate.

          by Pounder on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:55:36 PM PST

          •  what did Dean demonstrate in Vermont?

            by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:57:03 PM PST

    •  That's Karl Rove's strategy.

      Divisiveness is not a Democratic value.  I agree that there are people on the far right we will never convince, but we can solidify our base and pull moderates into the party by articulating Democratic values.

      Everyone votes their values.

      by bktzoo on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:57:26 PM PST

      •  Rove's Strategy

        just won.  But Dems will divide with the "Truth, not with lies.

        by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:09:19 PM PST

        •  The point is that Rove's strategy

          is not in keeping with Democratic values.  What do we have if we give up our core values to "win"?  We don't need to take out our opponents knee-caps.  We need to start doing a better job of articulating Democratic values.

          Fuck Karl Rove and the jack-ass he rode in on.

          by bktzoo on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 12:35:59 AM PST

•  Branding the Dems

  We need a quick, punchy mantra that will define the way people think about the Dems. The Repugs are the "party of Small Government" (not really true but they claim it anyway because it is something most people won't argue with. They are really "the party of Big Money"). The Dems need to hammer home that we are "the party of Fair Play". It is true and inarguable.It sums up where we stand on so many issues. "The party of Economic Justice" is true but sounds preachy. America has always aspired more or less to being a fair place and the Dems have been there (minus the Dixiecrats) since the 1930's.

  The national security bit will have to play out. I think by next election people will have national security fatigue. As job losses mount and people worry less about being attacked than about being fired with ever increasing prices all around them, we'll be in a better position.

  by solaroh on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:35:11 PM PST

•  ATTACK AD OF THE DAY -What Kerry Blew

  He should have been running this:
  

  
  Closeup of pile of military records scattered on top of a desk.

  Voiceover: "When the time came for George W. Bush to serve his country in time of war he was missing in action. "Why does this matter?"

  Scene fades into footage of tense soldiers piling out of a chopper.

  Voiceover: "Because now he wants to send your sons and daughters into harm's way. "Scene melds into picture of Bush on left.

  Voiceover: "He didn't learn from his experiences. ""Vote for someone who did."Bush fades out and Kerry fades in.

  by jsmckay on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:35:38 PM PST

  •  ATTACK AD OF THE DAY - Then Run This

    
    
    
    IRAQ ATTACK AD

    Junior High boys playing organized baseball on a field. Let's dress them in Cubs uniforms.

    VOICEOVER: "In 2003 President George W. Bush made a choice to send our sons and daughters into a war in a foreign land thousands of miles away, unleashing the hatred of generations of extremists who now feel justified and heroic blowing themselves up just to kill us."

    Backdrop blends into horrific scenes from Iraq.

    VOICEOVER: "In 2008, these boys will turn 18."

    by jsmckay on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:39:51 PM PST

    •  ATTACK AD OF THE DAY - Then This

      
      
      Black screen, the following words appear:  "Compassionate Conservatism?"

      Scenes of explosions in Iraqi streets.  People running everywhere.  US soldiers flee towards the camera.

      Fade to Rumsfeld:  "As you know, you go to war with the army you have..."

      Scenes of hummers with refrigerator doors and other "hillbilly armor" bolted to them. Soldiers cursing as they scavenge a smokey trash dump for more of the same.

      Fade to Bush:  "I believe he's doing a really fine job."

      Closeup of dirty tired soldier kneeling and panting, out of breath as he glances sideways into the camera.

      Cut to black, the following words appear:  "Commander in Chief?"
      
      

      by jsmckay on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:41:28 PM PST

      •  ATTACK AD OF THE DAY - Then This

        
        
        
        Black screen, fading to American flag flapping in the breeze.

        Voiceover:  There are times when America has been called upon to help the world.

        Voiceover:  In World War I, we came to the aid of Europe.

        Fade to black and white footage of troops in World War I, slogging through Europe with cassons in tow.

        Voiceover:  In World War II, we did it again.

        Fade to scratchy color footage of US soldiers being wildly cheered while riding down the Champs d'Elise  during the liberation of Paris in World War II.

        Voiceover: Today, the world needs us again.

        Fade to newspaper of headline of "21,000 die in Asian earthquake, epidemics feared", superimposed over footage of massive destruction shots from Asian quake.

        Voiceover: Where are we?

        Hard cut to footage of insurgents burning American flags and chanting in Iraq.

        Voiceover:  Have we made the right choices?

        Fade to black with title and voiceover saying: "If you think our country's on the wrong track, vote Democratic in 2006."  

        by jsmckay on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:42:48 PM PST

        •  ATTACK AD OF THE DAY -Then This

          Shot looking into the open doorway of a well-appointed office.  Lots of leather chairs and so forth.  

          Second shot is closer, it looks in over the shoulder of a man sitting at a large desk with a stack of letters before him.  You never see his face.

          Every few moments the man drops his pen and shakes his hand around.  "Damn" he says,then picks up the pen again and resumes signing the letters.

          Fade to black with the words:  "1500 and Counting."

          by jsmckay on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:45:07 PM PST

          •  ATTACK AD OF THE DAY - "Perfect?"

            Film clip of Bush at debate when he's asked whether he's made any mistakes.

            Voiceover: "When asked if he'd made any mistakes, President Bush told us 'No'"

            Black and White Close-up of dirty faced solumn soldier looking into the camera.

            "Well how about this..."

            Footage of Chanting insurgents in Iraq.

            Caption"We'll be welcomed as liberators."

            Footage of buildings being blown up.

            Caption: "Freedom is on the March."

            Return to same Black and White photo of solumn soldier.

            Caption: "I warned him to prepare the American public for casualties and he told me, 'There won't be any casualties...'" The Reverend Billy Graham, date XX/XX/XX

            Photo of soldier fades to black.

            
            

            by jsmckay on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:50:44 PM PST

            •  was that billy graham

              or pat robertson?

              by yankeedoodler on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:24:19 PM PST

•  Great Topic

  but no open thread, so I am going to sneak on over here and post this link:

  "Bush nominated head of DNC"

  http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i7459

  It pretty much hits everybody, but it is funny.

  by Zach in Phoenix on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:35:43 PM PST

•  My thoughts

  I think you have hit some important points here.  The "weak on the military" issue is one where we definitely agree.  Unfortunately, though, this is not just an image problem--it is rooted in reality in the Democratic base.  

  My mother and her friends are kind of the ne plus ultra of a strong segment of that base, and so I get to observe them up close on a regular basis.  They are sincerely anti-military.  Not just anti-Bush as commander in chief; they'd like to cut probably 90% or more of the Pentagon budget, in line with the "wouldn't it be a great day when schools have all the money they need, and the military has to hold bake sales to buy bombers" type mentality.  They'd wish us to become another Canada, essentially, and go for projects like Dennis Kucinich's "Department of Peace".  They were against not only the Iraq war but also the war against the Taliban, and Clinton's (and Clark's) Kosovo campaign.

  Certainly sincere, impassioned arguments can be made for this sort of pacifism.  But it's not one I share, and I highly doubt it will ever be shared by even close to a majority of the American electorate.   As long, though, as these are the Democrats most likely to vote in primaries, go to caucuses, give money, and become delegates to DFL conventions and the like...I'm not sure how our party can effectively shed the "soft on defense" image.  If they really got rid of it, I'm afraid my mom and millions like her would bolt for the Greens--so it's kind of a rock vs. hard place dilemma.

  I mentioned Kucinich earlier.  He was, until just before running for president, a principled progressive prolifer.  I don't believe it's fair to dismiss all those who have trouble with abortion, especially late term abortion, as akin to racists or homophobes.  On those other so-called "values" issues, I agree: let's remain post-Enlightenment.  But the Democrats have to soften their image on abortion in a country that, in the era of ultrasounds, is getting more uneasy with abortion on demand.

  Alan
  Maverick Leftist

  by SlackerInc on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:40:24 PM PST

  •  I don't as a moral question

    I just think that they are not persuadable in terms of voting Dem.

    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:46:08 PM PST

    •  Depends on who "they" is

      There are quite a few genuinely progressive prolifers out there, and many others who are moderately progressive.  I disagree with you: if someone is against the death penalty, for universal health care, for living wage and other antipoverty legislation, etc., but against abortion, I don't think they are "lost" to us at all.  All it may take is a little less pandering to NARAL, a little less visible pro-choice militancy, and a little more of what Harry Reid appears to be doing with the Prevention bill.

      Alan
      Maverick Leftist

      by SlackerInc on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:24:50 PM PST

      •  One issue voters

        i'm speaking of one issue voters - you are speaking of values voters, not "values" voters.

        by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:36:39 PM PST

      •  You better be darned sure you have those votes

        You don't think it's fair to dismiss all those who have trouble with abortion?  You think it's good policy to soften the message on abortion?  This tact is dangerous. If it persists you better make damned good and sure you have those treasured votes of the pro-lifers you're going after because you will lose a significant part of the female base you have grown accustomed to having, the base that supports and works tirelessly for the candidates, especially male presidential candidates, that never concern themselves with addressing the issues that affect women. The very candidates we work for because they have been pro-choice, our one and only prerequisite a candidate must have.  It looks more and more like we've sold ourselves fairly cheap.  

        Take away or soften the party's stance on abortion and we will start to think about being ignored, being taken for granted and/or exploited every time it benefits the party to do so.  

        Less pandering to NARAL, less pro-choice militancy, and a little more Harry Reid who is quickly becoming our nemesis when it comes to abortion rights.  In his Putting Prevention First bill he speaks of "relief to Medicaid by decreasing the financial burden of pregnancy-related and newborn care."  How about funding for the poor to terminate their pregnancies?  Not coached enough in a softer message?  Welcome to the reality-based world of a girl or a woman.

        When we start hearing words like, oh I don't know, rare, abortion on demand, abortion for any reason, tragic, near zero I get a little edgy but then why wouldn't it make my skin crawl, I know what it's like to lose my high school girlfriend to a backdoor alley 'doctor'.  I went to school with girls that drank cleaning fluid, had their boyfriends beat them, used knitting needles to get rid of the babies they couldn't support or take care of.

        So before you start telling women we need to go along with a softer message why don't you try walking in our shoes for only a few steps, it doesn't take many more to feel the terror of an unwanted pregnancy.

        by caliberal on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 09:27:54 PM PST

        •  Straw man

          I talk about being a little less militant about abortion (and you are a prime example of said militancy), and you pull out the spectre of "back-alley" coathangers (oh, sorry, knitting needles).  I believe the right to early term abortion should always be guaranteed, but not late term abortion.  You know what notorious "right wing" country already bans abortion after the first trimester?  France.

          One-issue voters generally make me kind of ill.  Whether someone votes for Republicans solely because they hate abortion, or for Democrats only so long as they cowtow unequivocally to your demands, that is pretty indefensible.  

          Most of us have issues that we consider more important than others.  But if we were all to become binary voting robots who chose whatever candidate was "right" on that one issue, what sort of democracy is that?  First of all, it's an unthinking one.  Secondly, it's incredibly selfish and short-sighted.  You hold candidates hostage to your own narrow interest group: "sign on to our agenda 100%, or we bail."  

          And what kind of candidates would it create?  We could speculate: if we started just within the Democratic base, and every candidate was similarly held hostage to the full extent of the agenda of every liberal interest group, we'd have someone who made Kucinich or Jesse Jackson Jr. look conservative by comparison.  But rather than a left-wing firebrand, we'd have a blatantly craven weakling, openly displaying his or her passivity and captivity to the world.  Such a candidate would, in most states and localities, get trounced in a landslide that would make McGovern or Mondale look like world-beaters.  Even if you can't see the moral objection to your stance, you should see the impracticality of it.

          Or, I suppose, what a country full of one issue voters could really mean is the end of such ideological grouping.  After all, if no one pays attention to anything but their one issue, there's no need to have any kind of coherence or consistency, right?  A successful candidate, then, would have to analyse the electorate and build instant "virtual coalitions", parliamentary style.  "Let's see...package pro-choice with tax cuts, white power, and subsidies for goat herders and wind farms, and we can get to 51%."  Is that what you want?

          Ugh.

          Alan
          Maverick Leftist

          by SlackerInc on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 11:03:16 PM PST

  •  Ultimately I think it might be

    better to have those radicals bolt to the Greens in the long term. As the 2000 election showed, even without the support of the hardcore leftists, who amount to roughly 2.74% of the electorate (Nader's 2000 performance), the Democrats can still win the popular vote. Given that Nader and the radical Green Party candid David Cobb could not even match their 2000 number, this number of fringe leftists is a very small thin slice of the electorate.

    Based on my past postings most people would assume that I wouldn't support the idea of the Department of Peace. Along with a strong military and strong homeland security program I think having that department might serve a good purpose. If the department actually focused on conflict resolution and developing mechanisms to develop effective PR to weaken the appeal of terrorism it could work. However, if it were to have the "hippie" fringe left approach, it would be a joke. Perhaps the department could offer technical advice in conflict resolution, grants to improve civil society, and perhaps aid to help developing countries.

    You write:

    My mother and her friends are kind of the ne plus ultra of a strong segment of that base, and so I get to observe them up close on a regular basis.  They are sincerely anti-military.  Not just anti-Bush as commander in chief; they'd like to cut probably 90% or more of the Pentagon budget, in line with the "wouldn't it be a great day when schools have all the money they need, and the military has to hold bake sales to buy bombers" type mentality.

    -------------------------------------------------

    It is these people who are an embarassment to the party. They should be marginalized, for most Americans will NEVER support this level of pacifism. Also this type of approach is weak and doesn't realistically address our security policies/needs.

    You write:

    " If they really got rid of it, I'm afraid my mom and millions like her would bolt for the Greens--so it's kind of a rock vs. hard place dilemma."

    Well, given that Nader polled only 2.74% of the vote, and that Cobb polled even less in 2004, they aren't the big swing group that they think they are. They are a very small minority.

    by jiacinto on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:44:15 PM PST

    •  I don't think it's that small

      You have to remember that a good percentage of even this ultra-pacifist group votes pragmatically, or they wouldn't even dabble with Democratic politics, much less become DFL delegates and so on.  A lot of them held their noses and voted for Gore even in 2000, but they still agitate for "better" candidates when voting in the primaries.  

      No, I think my mom and her crowd make up easily three times the number you cited, meaning for every one who voted Nader in 2000, two others reluctantly voted for Gore.  So if you pissed them off enough, you might lose a sixth of the total Democratic general election vote (plus lots of fundraising), which could be lethal unless you really cleaned up on the other side.  And of course they make up a lot more than a sixth of the primary season voters.

      The only way to work it, I think, would be to somehow strike a deal where if they agree to stop trying to cut the military, the party will put single payer health insurance and living wage legislation on the front burner, something like that.  And I'd be okay with that: a fairly hard left domestic program paired with a muscular foreign policy could be a winner, I think.

      But the more I think about it, the less I can imagine them ever giving up on the "bake sale" stuff.  And when you couple it with the militant attitude many women in the base have toward abortion, it honestly starts to make me despair of ever moving forward to that elusive "Emerging Democratic Majority" Judis and Texeira had me salivating over not so long ago (though it seems like another lifetime now).

      sigh

      Alan
      Maverick Leftist

      by SlackerInc on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 12:04:08 AM PST

      •  I see your point

        But I could also see this as being somewhat beneficial to the Democrats. What Gore could have said in 2000 was "I'm not a liberal" because Nader "is opposed to me".

        I don't think these left-wing fanatics are 1/6th of the Democratic Party. At most I'd peg them at 1/10th of the party. They are probably the ones in major college towns and in major cities.

        However, their views on the military and national security simply don't address the country's needs. They are well-intentioned, but not just in tune with the real world.

        Your idea of compromise is probably the best solution.

        by jiacinto on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 03:57:02 PM PST

  •  I disagree on this image...

    ...being rooted in reality. You are confusing anti-war with strong defence. They aren't necessaarily opposing views unless you are rabidly idealogical on either side of the issue. Also, if you look at the "political" Democratic voting record on defense, you will see it has been quite strong. The problem is that Democrats have simply allowed Republicans to paint them as weak on defense.

    I think Democrats would be wise to embrace an "Anti-War-Strong on Defnse" posture. The perfect spokesman and also consultant for Democrats on this issue would be Wesley Clark.

    I would also point out, that giving defense contractors a blank check is not being strong on defense. We were very strong under Bill Clinton, although there were problems with funds for readiness which we will need to keep in mind in the future.

    The simple fact is, "Democrats are smart on defense and defense related issues and Republicans are blind idealogues who never learn on defense related issues." Part of this, I think, stems from the fact that Democrats are willing to listen to the military professionals, like the JCOS, whereas Republicans, like Rumsfeld, think they know more and we have seen how well that's worked out for the U.S. Military.

    by Alumbrados on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:37:48 PM PST

    •  Clark, and my mom's cohort

      They instantly dismissed him as anyone they'd ever support.  Reason?  "He's from the military."  That's it, end of story.

      BTW, if you are curious, they entertained thoughts of going with Dean but mostly coalesced around Kucinich.  Once the fall campaign started, though, they strongly campaigned for Kerry (well, against Bush); and though many of them voted Nader in 2000 (and '96), they went back to the DFL in '04, though they said they had to "hold their noses" to some degree.

      This group may be relatively small on a national scale, but in terms of liberal Democratic activism, they are just large enough to have influence and sustain the peacenik image, I'm afraid.

      Alan
      Maverick Leftist

      by SlackerInc on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 11:11:07 PM PST

      •  I understand what you are saying...

        ...but I think we have to refuse to play to ignorance, regardless if it's from the left or the right. I've encountered these same people and, unfortunately, I find it easy to dismantle their positions on issues since they tend to be just as misinformed as many of the wingers out there.

        by Alumbrados on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 07:53:06 AM PST

  •  Abortion on demand is a rightwing frame

    This is my problem with your assumptions on abortion.  Many of the women that make up the base of this party are one issue voters when it comes to a woman's right to choose.  We are angry that our party is pandering to the rightwing of the Republican Party, putting leadership as in Senator Reid, in a position to make prevention the narrative when our right to terminate our pregnancy is under attack.  

    While it is certainly true that we have lost many of our reproductive rights in the past four years and Reid came out with a comprehensive bill that addresses this issue, our right to choose is not being addressed.  Instead we hear our party talk about abortion on demand and abortion for any reason which are the right wing's talking points that have been adopted by our own party.  It is frankly disrespectful and loathsome to insinuate that many Democratic women view abortion as either of those.  

    Doesn't it register that the rightwing is prepared to attack any word, any narrative, any message that is put forth by the Democratic Party?  Unwanted pregnancy?  Then don't get pregnant, but guess what, the rightwing wants to make birth control unavailable.  It's already not covered by insurance or Medicaid but they want it to be nonexistent.  The over the counter morning after pill has been rescinded.  Unintended pregnancy?  Practive abstinence or bring back unwed mother's homes and then place the babies up for adoption.

    The Democrats must soften their message on abortion?  Quite frankly many women feel like we have compromised enough, we have lost enough, we have given to this party enough, we want the energy that is being spent capturing votes and ill-perceived loyalty from Republicans  to be spent on fighting for the rights of choice we have left.  

    I'm encouraged by a post upthread that speaks of two narratives, one for the states that are the Democratic Majority Party and the states that are in the Democratic Minority Party .  Since abortion is going to be challenged in the Supreme Court and also state to state this could be somewhat of a light at the end of the tunnel.  

    We need to stop reacting to what 'they' (the rightwing) say and do.  'They' have nothing to do with the message or narrative the Democrats should go forward with.  We need to find our proactive voice and stop being so reactionary.  The party we become now will be the party we want to take into the future instead of creating a new model every election cycle because of what 'they' are saying and doing.

    I don't give a rat's ass what the rightwing is doing or saying because it has nothing to do with this Democrat.  I am not a Democrat in reaction to who the Republicans are, I am a Democrat because my values are in alignment with the beliefs and convictions, the soul, of my party.  

    by caliberal on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:43:16 PM PST

    •  Antiabortion is not nec. "right wing"

      As I noted before, Dennis Kucinich is against abortion (though he officially changed his stance before running for president, he has acknowledged that he still finds it very troubling morally), and on pretty much every issue, he is as left as they come.  

      Similarly, look at Jim Oberstar, from my mom's district in northern MN (though I don't know if she realises it, or she'd probably freak).  He goes way out on a limb on some issues, even voting courageously against "Amber Alerts" on final passage because an "anti-rave" bill had been inserted in conference.  And he consistently supports higher minimum wages, universal health care, civil rights laws, on down the line.

      The fact that you say abortion is a "single issue" for you and a lot of women, ought to clue you into the fact that it's not really a left/right issue at all.  If it were, you'd weigh it in the totality of someone's views and record.  But no, I think you are serious: if your ballot had on it a prolife progressive like Oberstar, and a libertarian who wanted to slash taxes and social programs, but believed the government should not regulate abortion, you'd go for the libertarian, wouldn't you?

      And I haven't even advocated that Democrats actually go so far as to be anti- abortion.  Only that they not embrace those, like you, who come across as so militantly pro- abortion.  

      As Sarah Wildman wrote in her excellent TAP editorial, "abortion is a choice made in sorrow, not celebration. It's not like women's suffrage or the equal access to public accommodations, rights whose outcome is emotionally unambiguous."  She is turned off by the "defiant, sometimes even celebratory" tone of the liberal message on abortion.  She points out that "55 percent told a Time/CNN poll in January 2003 that they favored the Supreme Court ruling 'that women have the right to have an abortion during the first three months of pregnancy.'"  That's already a little shaky for your much more militant position; I'm one of those 55 percent, but I believe abortion should be illegal after that first three months, just as it is in France.  

      But it gets worse for your camp: "And yet, as our most recent election made clear, some percentage of those poll respondents obviously support anti-abortion candidates. Put more precisely, fully one-third of pro-choice Americans voted for George W. Bush, according to NARAL Pro-Choice America."  What she doesn't go on to say, but is obvious from inference, is that this means about one-third of John Kerry's support came from people who were not pro-choice, and it still wasn't quite enough!  But you want to tell that one-third to fuck off?  What, you think you can get all those pro-choice Bush voters to come over to the Dems?  Good luck!  What are you going to do, veer to the right on other issues to grab them?  

      Again: ugh.

      Alan
      Maverick Leftist

      by SlackerInc on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 11:38:17 PM PST

    •  Absolutely Right

      and very similar to what I said in my post upthread.

      It can't all be about challenging what the right says and does.  There has to be an element of building a new center of power for the Dems, independant of what happens across the aisle.

      by RFTR on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 04:45:38 AM PST

      •  Being proactive and not reactive

        I completely understand the impulse of wanting to win the midterm elections and again in 2008 but if we don't build on the principles we already have with sound base issues that are who we are as Democrats we are not creating a party that belongs to us, the Democrats.

        I really don't care what 'they' are doing or saying.  It really has nothing to do with me.  I don't believe what 'they're saying', I don't condone what 'they're' doing so it is a waste of energy and time to even listen or pay attention.  How do we progress as a party if we are reacting all the time to ideals and values we despise and resent?  It makes absolutely no sense to me.  

        Ironic I say that when being reactionary is exactly what I did in response to this poster but it's late and my emotions got the better of me.   It's just so disheartening we have to have this fight within our own party and not just with the rightwingnuts.  

        I believe the new center of issues that are ours to own are around National Security.  "It is the smart thing to do.  It is the right thing to do."

        by caliberal on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 08:44:18 AM PST

        •  You're not really "listening"

          I'm not saying "oh, crap, the Republicans are antiabortion, so maybe we should be too".  I'm telling you that I have a problem with later term abortion, and so do a lot of other progressive Democrats (or potential Democratic voters).  I know that's hard for you to absorb, because it's so far from your own viewpoint, but it's a reality--as I pointed out, around a third of Kerry's vote had to have come from people opposed to abortion.

          I find it interesting that you raise "national security".  Did you read my posts about my mom and her cohort?  They are fundamentally anti-military and would love to slash the Pentagon budget.  They're pretty intransigent about this.  Mull that for a bit, and think: does that frustrate you?  Do you think they are blowing the party's chances by being too extreme?  Hmmm...maybe that's exactly how I perceive you!  And maybe that means everyone has to compromise some, because a collection of stubborn, unyielding interest groups is not a party.

          Alan
          Maverick Leftist

          by SlackerInc on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 11:56:26 AM PST

•  How about FDR in 1944

  and the "Second Bill of Rights" about which Cass Sunstein has written a great new book

   (go here to read about it on Amazon)

  For those who don't know the speech, here's the relevant text from that SOTO, delivered January 11, 1944:

  It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people--whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth--is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

  This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights--among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

  As our nation has grown in size and stature, however--as our industrial economy expanded--these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

  We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

  In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all--regardless of station, race, or creed.

  Among these are:

  The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

  The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

  The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

  The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

  The right of every family to a decent home;

  The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

  The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

  The right to a good education.

  All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

  America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

  by teacherken on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:44:09 PM PST

  •  Nice job

    As I said above, we all need to study and brush up on our FDR. His Second Bill of Rights is another framing of Democratic beliefs that, like the Four Freedoms, we need to reclaim and rearticulate.

    by eugene on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:51:13 PM PST

  •  national security

    An aspect of national security that the Democrats should address is the deteriorating relationship with our traditional allies since the ShrubCo administration took power.  Strategic/political alliances and international goodwill are extremely valuable commodities, in both military and economic terms.  It took generations of hard work and sacrifice by our soldiers, politicians, and diplomats to earn the international prestige and trust that America enjoyed.  Bush has squandered most of it in just 4 years.

    by peter jung on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:52:36 PM PST

  •  The Truman Years

    Also "The Buck Stops Here" ;)

    by S from Van on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:07:16 PM PST

•  Most important: culture, not issues

  It's a liability that we are seen as a party of patrician north eastern liberals.

  We need to take back the white working class male voters. We're not losing them because of our stands on issues, we are losing them because of our nominees.

  Where is that working class, straight talking, ultra populist Southern candidate when we need him/her? We need to talk the language of those who we represent. Exposing the GOP as elitists.

  by Joe B on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:45:15 PM PST

  •  We didn't lose ground there

    We lost white women, we gained a bit with white men. Keep us safe was the deciding issue of the election.

    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:47:22 PM PST

•  On the defense issue

  I think you are right. The real worry for me, is that our military spending is out of control and does need to be reigned back in. we spend almost 50% of the worlds spending on military.

  But in todays climate its almost untouchable.

  by Pounder on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:46:39 PM PST

•  National security

  has a whole different meaning, than what the people in the United States think it does.

  At this point in history in the United States, it means not loosing our whole economy to china while we're mesmirized by shock and awe.

  It means getting alternative energy sources so that other countries and foreign concerns aren't getting the money we should be using to upgrade our infrastructure, and factories, and taking care of our own people.

  And on and on.

  But that would be a radical idea.  The meaning of national security needs to be defined in a radically different way, and nobody but the Democrats are going to do that.  That is what will save our country.

  But if we do that, we will only be loosing votes
  instead of gaining them.  A whole lot of the people in this country aren't capable of understanding a new definition, or are way too comfortable with the old one.

  National security will forever be seen as saving the mainland from being hit with bombs.  Star Wars for instance is more exciting than reality.

  by hopscotch1997 on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:54:11 PM PST

•  President Abraham Lincoln

  President Abraham Lincoln on Truth

  He who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.

  Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.

  President Abraham Lincoln on Character

  Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.

  It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues.

  President Abraham Lincoln at Illinois Republican State Convention June 1858

  We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting and end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

  by Eloy on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:57:55 PM PST

•  why this 1860 strategy would be a terrible mistake

  It would be a tremendous mistake because in your zeal to open up a solid gap between 'us' and 'them', you inadvertently solidify the Republican base for them.  What I mean by this is that conservatives who have major problems with the Bush agenda will see no alternative but to vote for Bush, because they will take your attacks on conservative ideology personally.

  As I've said many times, we would be much more sucessful if we concentrated on pinning the current Republican leadership as fake or 'neocon-artists' as one conservative recently called them.  If we could help the conservative base to understand that passing health insurance is a more important element to being pro-life than overtuning Roe, we could literally take the legs out from under the Republicans.

  Falling into this 'with us or against us' mode of thinking is over-reactive and will complicate the problems we face...

  by Dont Tread on Me on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:59:27 PM PST

  •  Hmm

    Since the GOP base is as solid as any you could find, I think you make my point instead of argue against it.  We aren't going to win Republicans. We win with OUR base energized and with Moderates and Independents rejecting GOP extremism.  Just what you predict.

    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:07:55 PM PST

    •  it is not solid at all

      first, read the following link to the American conservative's mission statement: http://www.amconmag.com/63words.html

      second, look at the 2004 election, where you had people like Lincoln Chaffee publicly saying they would vote for H.W. Bush instead of W.

      third, look at the conservatives' reaction to Bush on imigration, Medicare drug benefit, deficit spending, the growth of the size and power of government and the overall reception of Rummy and our defense policies.

      Grassroots, liberatarian-leaning conservatives are not happy about any of these developments.  They voted for Bush in the last election, however, because they saw Kerry as representing the same things, or thanks to Rush and the politicos of the other side, even worse things.  

      Our problem is that we have allowed the Republicans to define issues--gay marriage, tax policies, abortion, national defense--in ways that make Democrats look inherently anti-populist, i.e. as elitists and idealists who want to force our opinions on everyone else.  In this way, we look like the radicals, while they steal the populist name for their inherently anti-populist programs.

      The answer to these problems is not to 'move to the center'--which is a load of crap (Republican policos will paint any democrat in these terms).  Instead, we have to frame the issues in such a way as to retake the populist energy.  One of the ways we can do this is to frame the debates in way that opens up ground for conservatives and liberals to come together.  The war in Iraq is a perfect example.  conservatives hate nation-building.  liberals hate wars for oil.  so we both agree that national defense cannot be based on the Wilsonian-Bush notion of installing democracy at gun point.

      But by hardening these ideological labels, you make conservatives think that their interests are inherently opposed to yours, and that they naturally have to stick with Bush, whether they agree with him or not.  A second point is that you also free the Republican media spin doctors from dealing with internal disputes, enabling them to attack democrats.  Think for a moment about the current battle over social security.  Why isn't it moving forward?  because conservatives are not untied on it.  Too many are worried about the spending.  Now imagine if they were fighting on the same level about gay marriage, Iraq, etc.

      by Dont Tread on Me on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:46:05 PM PST

      •  Lincoln Chafee?

        Well, actually that is the type of voter who would most likely swing our way - think Jeffords.  My approach would be more successful than yours. Contrast is the key. I'm not sure what you are advocating actually.

        by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:52:14 PM PST

        •  what I'm advocating

          could be better expained if I had more time (sorry about that).  maybe one day I'll be able to put out a well thought out argument like your 1860 piece.  Since I don't have much time, though, I'll just sum it up this way: right now politics is played as a battle between two relatively even political parties.  the so-called swing vote is very small, and it can be really hard to predict, since so many voters vote on quirks like which candidate they think seems nicer, or who they'd rather have dinner with etc.  There are very few informed voters that can be persuaded in terms of how they think about issues themselves.

          What we are left with, then, is a competition to mobilize various interest groups by framing issues.  Part of this, as you certainly point out, is motivating our base (i.e. the voters who tend to agree with us on social and economic issues) to turn out.  But a second part of this, demonstrated by Clinton's two victories (and one could argue Bush's in 2000), is to destabilize the other guys base.  Perot did it in '92 & '96, Nader in '00.  Put simply, you exploit divisions in the other guys frame to either get his voters to come over to your side, or at the very least to not vote for the Republican.  Divide and conquer, win elections.

          Now to go along with this second part, you have to recognize that the current Republican base-labeled 'conservative' by the media and the politicos- is really a combnation of several different elements (just as the democrats are), the most important being the liberatarians, the traditionalists, the religious fundamentalists, and the moneymen/business interests.  When you boil it down, I'm saying that there is a natural tension between the liberatarians (who don't like government) and the religious-traditionalist wing (who want to use government to socially engineer a religious society).  And a great deal of those rural red counties are liberatarian conservatives, not the more vocal religious-types.

          What I'm saying then, is that we can be very successful if we exploit this gap.  In order to do that, however, you have to make the lib. wing, which is more like us, feel as if its interests are truly different from those of the religious one.  You can't do that if you divide the parties into liberal vs. conservative, demonizing conservativism in general.  That will alienate those voters, and they will feel compelled to support the Republicans, who will praise being conservative, even if they don't practice it.  You can divide them, however, if you find and push points of common ground, such as resistance to the expansion of government police powers (patriot act), nation-building (Iraq), corporate welfare and 'free-trade.'  There are obviously others.  But this is, in essence, what Dean is trying to do when he redifines issues like abortion to include health care and other democratic-friendly issues.

          by Dont Tread on Me on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:30:01 PM PST

•  I agree

  We are weak on national security. In fact, we are weak generally. We have spent the past 25 years trying to win elections by appeasement.

  Appeasement never works. Not against the GOP, not against anyone else.

  Howard Dean as DNC chair and Reid as Senate Minority leader are good steps in the right direction.

  by naveenmallik on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:59:47 PM PST

•  Get first things first

  The problem goes a lot deeper than the rhetorical foundation.

  The Democrats are losing elections because they are losing their constituencies.

  The constituencies are still there but they have redefined themselves around the currently more appealing GOP issues.

  Democrats as a party turned their backs on major constituencies under Clinton when they decided to support NAFTA and the mass export of jobs and industries during the Clinton administration.

  The GOP won congress when the Democrats decided to support NAFTA. Labor and many working class Americans who used to support the Democrats on work place and job security issues decided that if the Democrats were going to abandon them, then they could at least get a tax break from the GOP and as the GOP so often said it supported their moral values.

  Since then the Democrats have been in decline, aiming for the policy and issues exact center as if there was some mix of these policies that would yield electoral gold.

  by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:00:34 PM PST

  •  Agreed.

    The reason Perot made a legitimate bid for presidency was his anti-Nafta stance that split the republicans and gave Clinton his first term. Those people are still out there, and will vote for us. Democrats need to be Anti-Communist China, Anti-NAFTA, and Anti-Multinational Corporations.

    by Petruk on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:04:44 PM PST

  •  Well

    The numbers ONLY bsack you up IF you start at 1994, before NAFTA, and in an election where the health care plan was the central issue not NAFTA. Otherwise,  the evidence contradicts you.

    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:05:33 PM PST

    •  No, take a look at C Hume's Roadtrip for a start

      Its astonishing what the average person believes.

      And to some extent they are exactly right.

      We need real policies that improve ordinary people's every day lives on our side that will win back these constituencies not a new rhetorical foundation.

      We are not going to get to those sorts of policies until we admit that our polices have done the exact sort of devastation they have done.

      And at present its not in the Democratic Party incumbencies interest to make that confession.
      

      by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:17:55 PM PST

      •  Well

        Ok. I don't know what more to add to my response downthread.  

        by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:50:35 PM PST

        •  Armondo I support your contribution in this thread

          I am just trying to add my comments that our problems go a lot deeper than our rhetorical foundation and re-framing the issues. I totally agree we have to do that as well.

          But we also have to look at the real devastation the policies the democratic party have supported have done on its ever declining contituencies and CHANGE our policy stands as well as our rhetoric in ways that will change and improve people's every day lives.

          People like to express their own opinion. My unwanted advice to everyone who thinks they have the magic rhetorical bullet, take a look at some present day reality thru the Chris Hume's Red State Field trips and try to understand that your self inspired rhetorical solutions no matter how self inspiring to you are not going to get the job done.
          

          by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:20:44 PM PST

  •  Everyone

    supported NAFTA at that time.  Meaning all the politicians and a whole lot of the people.  I still remember all of the former presidents and Clinton being on stage somewhere at that time endorsing it. It was a bipartisen issue with a lot of support from both parties.

    NAFTA was untried and looked good in theory.  True some democrats were against it, especially some union workers, because already we were loosing jobs to Mexico.

    But NAFTA can't be touted as a Democratic issue , because it wasn't.  Now, when people are waking up to what has happened because of it, it is too late and we have to deal with it the best way we can, by chipping away with unfair trade at every chance.  

    I don't know what part of the country it has hurt the most, but some of the big northern populated areas lost a lot.  Some of those states are democratic.  

    by hopscotch1997 on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:11:57 PM PST

    •  Your mistaken

      Perot got the highest vote total of any third party candidate in modern history, even after he was made out to be a complete buffoon by the mass media.

      He got those votes because people widely disagreed with Clinton's and bush stand on NAFTA and on job exports.

      by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:20:35 PM PST

      •  Perot

        was a breath of fresh air, but his main issue was reduction of the budget deficit.  So, it is hard to assign his popularity to one particular issue.

        As far as the press making a buffoon out of him, he helped them along.  By the time he withdrew in '92, people were starting to become a little disallusioned with him.  He seemed a little too excitable, picked a vice-president who was really inappropriate, and to top it off, he claimed that the Republicans were plotting to disrupt his daughter's wedding.  Now, I can't put that past them, but it still appeared a little tin foil hatted.

        by hopscotch1997 on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:20:21 PM PST

        •  Absolutely he did help them along

          the point is millions of people agreed with his stand on NAFTA and about the harm the exporting of jobs and industries would create in the US.

          Like it our not the budget deficit as he explained would be made worse with the introduction of NAFTA and like policies.

          And he was right, and its just gotten worse and worse.

          And millions, tens of millions of people voted for him on that basis, inspite of the baffoonery.

          by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:25:57 PM PST

  •  I disagree

    NAFTA wasn't the reason why the Democrats lost the House in 1994. The failure of the Clinton plan, Waco, and Somalia also played a significant role. Another factor involved the residual anger from the House banking scandal and other cases of corruption that had lingered.

    Secondly the Democrats lost the House in 1994 for two other key reasons. First of all the 1992 redistricting had created many "minority-majority" seats in the South and the West that looked like parasites and amoebas.

    For example Cynthia McKinney's first district extended from Atlanta's suburbs all the way to Savannah. In some places her district amounted to only being a creekbed. In many places Mel Watt's district amounted to only being one lane on I-85. These districts snaked around and picked up heavily minority neigbhorhoods. In the process the surrounding districts became heavily white--and Republican. In the 1992 elections some of these white Democrats barely held on. In 1994 the remaining ones drowned in the Republican tidal wave that swept the nation.

    Another factor was that many southern Democrats first elected in the 1940s and the 1950s finally died, retired, or lost. Incumbents like Charles Bennett, Sonny Montgomery, William Natcher, Jamie Whitten, Butler Derrick, Don Bevil, Claude Pepper, and Jack Brooks finally died, left office, or lost. What had kept their seats Democratic was their personal popularity. Their seats had been supporting Republicans for president, statewide offices, and at the local level for decades. In effect these seats should have been Republican at least since the 1960s! They had been postponing the inevitable for years. It was only a matter of time.

    So to say that NAFTA was the reason why the Democrats lost the House is not taking the whole picture into account.  

    by jiacinto on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:16:23 PM PST

    •  No, look at the constiuencies who have abaonded

      the democratic party.

      This election 2004, was lost in the rust belt and you can accurately track the decline of the Democratic party to '94 NAFTA.

      The prosperity of the later Clinton era hid the magnitude of the problem, but now with an inept economic policy in place the Bush administration has made everything much worse than it other wise would have been. The Clinton prosperity was not uniform and in the rust belt the declines continued.

      This is the key issue, the most important issue the Democratic Party has to address.

      the democratic party must realize the devastation it has brought to this country, and that Kerry's  "Well we just can't do anything about it" and Lieberman's "Is this a great country or What" isn't going to cut the electoral mustard.

      I don't care which incumbents died we ran replacements and lost and I am telling you the reason why they lost.

      by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:34:55 PM PST

      •  Again your explanation is too simplistic

        NAFTA wasn't the only reason why the Democrats lost the House. That you won't even consider those other factors above is unreasonable. You can't totally address the party's loss of House seat without taking those variables into effect.

        by jiacinto on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:11:36 PM PST

        •  No its not simplistic just because you use that

          word does not make it so.

          Its a historical fact. And it is the central truth why the Democratic Party continues in its decline and will continue to do so.

          None of the rhetorical exercises on this thread are going to do squat to turn these basic facts around.

          Its obvious that you are unwilling to admit the truth about the economic and personal devastation that has been brought to the United States by these trade policies. I don't care what names you call my argument, simplistic, etc. the facts about our economic decline are there ready to be seen and understood by anyone willing to take their ideological blinders off.

          And you are not going to get some persepctive on it until you are willing to take an honest look at what these policies have done to people, and what they have done to the US economy and budget.

          I'll say again, take a look at the Red State Road Trip by Chris Hume for a starting point.

          by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 09:15:56 PM PST

•  National Security: The Republicans are Clueless

  This is essential to framing the debate. Everyone MUST see the BBC Documentary "The Power of Nightmares". One of its premises is that the threat of Bin Ladin's network - sleeper cells under every bed - is a myth and always was. Bin Laden and the Islamist movement failed in Algeria, failed in Egypt, got a foot hold in Afganistan and was wiped out in 2 months after 9/11. Bin Laden gave his best shot on 9/11 and is now history - unless if WE choose to elevate him to prophet status - which apparently is what the Bushies are intent on doing - after all, Americans will only vote them in power if Americans feel a threat is real.

  I don't think, frankly, that Bush WANTS to capture Bin Laden. As a matter of fact, he was being honest when he said "I'm not worried about him..." Bush isn't worried about him because A. He never was a threat to the USA B. As long as he is out there, Bush has a pretext to continue his Oil wars.

  by Petruk on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:02:20 PM PST

  •  Well, I'm not ready to take a chance on

    letting Bin Laden go free.  I don't know where you live, but I live in the N.Y. suburbs and a lot of people in my community died on 9/11.

    You're correct when you say a free Bin Laden helps Bush.  He's not in a hurry to find him.

    by reform dem on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:46:16 PM PST

•  Differentiating from genocide

  My diary this morning was about how we feel we're not able to fully engage in this discussion about national security, because we find the twin horrors of WMD and genocide to be unspeakable.

  This forfeits the debate to the neocons, who are quite comfortable talking in and around these topics. Bush skillfully used his ability to discuss WMD to wedge us into Iraq, and we felt we couldn't respond.

  In order to present my basic argument about security policy: that avoidance of incitement is not appeasement, and that our current path of incitement leads inexorably toward genocide, we have to find the courage to venture into the unspeakable.

  We don't need moral arguments. Yes, they are effective with some people. But even more effective is basic nuts-and-bolts strategic arguments: genocide will not make us safe.

  Well, no shit, right? No, lots of people look at genocide as a Hitleresque "final solution." We have a cascade of terror where every time we kill a terrorist we cause the recruitment of ten others. Still, I'm sure every other wingnut will say, "Well, if they keep doing that, they'll get what's coming to them, and God will sort the dead."

  And we have to walk these people through that dyslogic, as bitterly awful to think about as it is, and help them see that the current policy threatens us all, no matter how "successful" it is.

  Branding ourselves as the people who have "done the math" and can demonstrate we're not just fuzzy idealists: that is a branding we can mkae inroads with.

  by peeder on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:05:27 PM PST

•  Well

  I think the Democrats need to court firemen, police, EMS workers, and other first responders aggressively. They need to focus on how our factories, nuclear plants, transportation systems, ports, office buildings, and airports are still not protected. They need to talk about the funding gaps between what has been proposed and what has actually been delivered.

  Democrats have yet to develop their own plan on national security, the military, and defense. And until they do they are going to be at a disadvantage on these issues.

  Even if it means offending the far left of the party I do think they have to develop a plan on national security, homeland security, and the military that appeals to the vast majority of Americans in this country.

  by jiacinto on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:07:46 PM PST

•  It's not values. It's ethics!

  One values an item or concept more or less than another.  Ethics is how one views right and wrong.  If the liberals would force the discussion of values to turn to ethics, then Enron, healthcare, social security, and not killing Iraqis/Iranians would naturally be a part of the discussion.

  Also, regarding the 1st FDR comment, it's not just "freedom of religion."  It's also "freedom FROM religion."
  

  by MyPOV on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:12:15 PM PST

•  Howto Undermine Repubs on National Security

  The democrats should attack the Republicans as foreign policy elitists, who are big on fancy theories, but don't understand how to defend real Americans. The republians think national security is just about grand stategies and playing bureacracratic games, which upset our allies. Democrats understand how to deal with real problems faced by the hard working police, military, etc.

  by cronian on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:16:11 PM PST

•  no, no

  You're not getting what Chris is saying.  Let me try to clarify it.  Chris is saying:

  1. Our policies are strong.
     
  2. However, we come across as wimps in other areas.
     

     - we whine "we're not obstructionists! really!" as if it were bad to stand up for something.
     - we say "we must defer to the prez on Condi" as if it were bad to assert yourself.
     - we whine "Dean didn't scream! Really!" as if it were bad to get excited.
  

  3. In short, our actions telegraph that we believe that it's wrong to stand for something, wrong to assert yourself, wrong to get excited.
     
  3. Because of this, everybody thinks our strong national defense policies are just words.
     
  4. Therefore, improving our policies won't help.
     
  5. The solution is to start acting like we have balls.

  by joshyelon on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:25:04 PM PST

  •  Excuse me

    My point was not to evaluate Chris's theories, but to answer his mischaracterization of my theories.  I don't speak to Chris' theories, only to his critique of my post. So, since I didn't "read" Chris' post here, it is impossible for me to have misread him.  

    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:34:56 PM PST

•  A Massachusetts Liberal Yankee in Rural South

    After observation, I think that I know how all my neighbors, down here in Rural NC,  feel about their voting republican.
   It's like the Nascar ads on cars and clothes...it's their brand. They will take that branding to their graves, and pass it on to their children.
    Armando is absolutely correct. These "value" voters cannot be changed, at least not over the next couple of decades. And trust me...IT IS based on pure RACISM...not money, not security, not health insurance. In their New South, the Racism is kept wayyyy under the radar, but in their homes, and backyards, it's quite overt.
    If I understand Armando's concept, it is the security issue felt by women. I believe it was the women living in the Gated communities, or their ilk.
    Women want security, it is their essence. Their men are Republicans, but they never really cared to enter the political realm, you know, but they see the poverty around them, and will do ANYTHING to protect that from happening in their own little worlds.
    I don't have the answer to changing their minds. Armando's theories, may or may not be fully applicable, but they have merit. In a way they are very similar, I think, to Dean's full court press....just my thoughts.
   

  by meagert on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:28:24 PM PST

  •  Re-Branding the DEMs to build a new constituency

    Building your own bone-head constituency, part 1

    The DLC want a new mass constituency and have been trying to get themselves one now for about four years.

    How do they want to build this new constituency?

    Well its sort of like Ajax and Comet, some people choose one, some choose the other even though there is no real big difference.

    But what about issues that are important to traditional democratic party constituencies?

    The DLC and the Washington DC leadership don't care about those constituencies  any more, its too inconvenient and it interferes with their supply of money from big donor sources and their eventual move into big buck corporate lobbyist jobs after their public office tenure (see Tom Daschel and family, etc.)

    If Democrats did care about those old hapless constituencies how could they possibly support the GOP/Bush agenda in 85% of their congressional and senate votes?

    They see the electoral success the GOP and GW Bush have had and they say to themselves,

    "Why can't we, why shouldn't we have a constituency like that, one that will vote for you no matter how much you carry out legislation against their better interests, so long as you can speak to their closely held moral and social values and get the rhetorical foundation just right."

    So, what the DLC and WDC Dem leadership have been doing is to vote for the GOP/Bush agenda, and reflect the values they think people want to hear about in an attempt to build up their own dumb-fuck constituency in the sort of way that some people choose Ajax and other people choose Comet.

    by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:33:50 PM PST

    •  I'm not talking about re-branding anyone!

        I'm talking about never being able to change the southern voter's view of themselves, and their world.
        I don't stick labels on anybody....matter of fact, I tear them off everything I buy.
        Your diatribe against certain factions of the Democratic party has absolutely no benefit to the discussion of whether or not the Security issue should be a prime plank in the pursuit of more Democratic votes in the upcoming election.....Just staying on topic, thank you.

      by meagert on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:40:34 PM PST

      •  Wrong, my post hits the topic dead on

        The reality is the Democratic party has supported policies that have devastated its constituencies.

        And yet some people actually think the problem and the solution is purely rhetorical.

        I'm saying you need to think this thru again and come up with the real world answer.

        by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:44:09 PM PST

        •  I don't need to think...lol

            Your premise is incorrect, I believe.
            First, we have not lost our constituency, if the total votes in this past election are to be believed. It was a tiny win by Bush, and a huge vote surge by Kerry.
            Armando, who can speak for himself, better than I, is saying that the Security issue, is the weak link in the chain. towards gaining votes from those other than any kind of Southern Factor.

          by meagert on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:51:46 PM PST

          •  You not paying attention

            You want to save face, fine.

            But think hard about the points I am making and rethink them again.

            All you need to do is to take a look at the electoral map every four years, starting from a decade ago and remember than this election came down to the rust belt.

            Also, I said nothing about the way the national defense issue is being played, my points are far more fundimental than that specific issue and people attempted to vote their pocket books but their votes just were not counted.

            If you believe that the national defense issue is what pulled Bush to victory you need to ween yourself from TV and other forms of corporate propaganda.

            And further, you would be foolish to believe the reported vote totals in states like Ohio and Florida as prrof of anything but vote tampering and voter supression.

            by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:00:36 PM PST

            •  First of all...

                You haven't made any points...
              Secondly you are arguing for arguing sake. Rather than add a constructive option to the discourse, you appear denigrative, and aggressive.
                I believe that the Election did not come down to the "Rust Belt". If anything, it was Urban versus Rural.
               As far as National Defense...if it wasn't the main theme of the election, I don't know what else would be....certainly not the economy, or health.
                Lastly, I believe, wholeheartedly, that vote tampering was ongoing, and pervasive. But until, that is proved, there is only the upcoming election to concentrate on.

              by meagert on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:15:19 PM PST

              •  I have made several crucial important points

                and you other comments deserve no further reply

                by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:37:59 PM PST

•  fear

  prompts some voters to seek "toughness".  I guess that many people are glad that we have a man in the White House who can order to torture "those people".

  I am afraid that "security moms" are in this category.  I am not sure how clearly people verbalize their preferences.  One thing is that you cannot outbid Republicans on toughness.  You agree with death penalty, they demand prompt death penalty, and to extend death penalty for this, and for that etc.  You agree with increase defence spending -- they go for insanely large increase.

  Attacking incompetence is good.  With torture, one would have to stress stupidity of that policy, but that takes some explaining.

  By the way, were there any opinion polls about attitudes to torture and degrading treatment?

  by Piotr on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:37:51 PM PST

  •  You are right

    The Republicans are very good at moving the line, once you agree with them on anything.

    by meagert on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:56:06 PM PST

•  Why Does It Take Pat Buchanan...

  ...to point out what should be so obvious ?

  The election of 1860 is totally irrelevant.  And
  If you want to go back to FDR's time, then look at what America was REALLY like at that time and still is to some extent today.

  America is basically a xenophobic country.  Most Americans don't hold passports.  Most Americans cannot identify the majority of nations in the world on a globe.  If you want an analogy to 1930s, look at how Hitler occupied Western Europe, Japan occupied most of the Far East, the British Empire was on the verge of defeat, yet MAJORITY of Americans were absolutely against entry into WW2.  There has long been an isolationist wing of the Republicans party that is opposed to imperialism.

  Pat Buchanan summed it up quite nicely today when he said you have terrorism when one gret power occupies the nations of those iconducting the terror.
  How did terrorism end for France in Algeria ?  The French got out.  How did terrorism end for the British in Palestine ?  They got out ! How did Russians stop terrorism from Afghanistan?  They got out !

  Looking back to Lincoln, Franklin's 4 Freedoms, Wilson, whomever is an exercise in intellectualism but means absolutely nothing in framing the issue for voters to understand today. ZILCH outside a blog discussion

  If the Democrats want to frame national security in a way that the common man can understand and appeal to voters who are not on their side, Pat Buchanan summed it up quite succinctly...They way to stop terrorism is to get out of the terrorists' lands.  You create a clear distinction between the currrent interventionist foreign policy and your own in a way that everyone can understand.

  by Grand Poobah on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:42:21 PM PST

  •  Remember...

    Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It.

    by meagert on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:57:33 PM PST

•  As I see it

  It is a matter of defining, not attacking.  We have been defined by the opposition and the media and we have allowed the opposition to define itself.

  That needs vociferous correction.  And that means a steady, discipline in stating clearly what a vote them means, and what a vote for us means.

  Our losses are about negative branding.  When you here voters just vaguely saying "Well, I'm afraid of what Bush will do, but..."  But, means I've been conditioned to believe certain things about the Democrats so I'm going to vote again for the guy that I know I don't like and whose policies I do not support.

  by Cathy on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:48:06 PM PST

•  Focus on security

  by focusing on the "grunts".

  We need to make it clear that the right is all about the big buildings, the big weapons systems, the big independent contractors.

  We need to fight for and support the REAL base of security.

  • Soldiers need rifles, body armor, educational opportunities and health care they can count on. Their families shouldn't be in substandard housing and living on food stamps.

  • Firemen & police/law enforcement need up-to-date equipment and training, with adequate funding, not unfunded mandates like the Republicans provide.

  • Public health is an essential part of a secure homeland. We need to fully fund public hospitals and clinics, with adequate support and training, for everything from flu pandemics to WMD attacks.

  • Immigration is overwhelmed, underfunded and has outdated computers.

  Job training programs can be tied to shoring up all of these aspects of national security. Most of the non-military agencies have outdated computer systems. Someone will need to build, design and install them.

  The Republicans treat security as a matter of pretty uniforms and big shows with banners on aging aircraft carriers. They are doing little or nothing to actually improve security. They demand nothing of the owners of chemical plants, nuclear plants, airlines or freight rail operators.

  by Madman in the marketplace on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:53:18 PM PST

•  I still don't see National Security as a winner

  Why?  Because I still feel it is an absolute joke.  It's a joke when the Republicans use it, and it would be when we try to use it.  It's just based on propaganda and outright lies.  

  Also, I think someone's stature on national security is based a lot on perceptions about their character.  Had Dean won the nomination I think it would have been harder to make him out as weak on national security, even though his credentials were weaker, because he had a tough, no-nonsense personality.  

  I hate to break it to people here but credentials mean shit.  It's all about personality.  That's why Kerry lost and why he had an uphill battle from the beginning.  It doesn't matter whether your candidate has the best credentials, it matters what sort of personality he has.  Case in point the piece of shit we have for a President.  A completely incompetent moron, yet he got elected.  

  by Asak on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:55:22 PM PST

•  I want more!

  This kind of diary always frustrates me because it stops just where I think it should start.

  Yes, we need a Democratic foriegn policy/defense strategy, but what are the elements of it? Who are the "strong credible voices" who have emerged on our side?

  As I recall, most of the Democratic foreign policy establishment was pro-Iraq War. So Kerry ended up sounding like Bush-lite in the campaign. Bush could always say of Kerry's criticisms: "we're already doing that" or "we're going to do that."

  So, I would just ask: (1) what are the elements of this new Democratic national security vision. What is the grand strategic vision, and what are the policies that will implement it? (2) Who are the people that are articulating this vision now?

  by TGeraghty on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:57:56 PM PST

  •  Precisely

    I think this diary & thread are about exploring your questions.  I think there is a list up above in this post that offers an excellent starting point.

    by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:17:10 PM PST

    •  OK, but . . .

      what about specifics, such as:

      How do we define our overall strategic vision in a sentence or two?

      Basically, the Republican strategy is something like  "we will do whatever it takes to maintain American military superiority over the rest of the world, any we will not allow any other country to catch up."

      What's our strategy? How do issues like
      

      • Democracy promotion
        
      • Winning the struggle against terrorism
        
      • Combating global enviromental problems
        
      • Combating global poverty
        
      • Human rights
        
      • Maintaining military supremacy
        
      • Arms control

      fit into a credible Democratic foreign policy? What emphasis do we put on each of these (or others you can think of)? How do we prioritize among them? What happens when they conflict with each other?

      In terms of implementing the strategy:
      

      • To what extent should we emphasize our political, diplomatic, and economic strengths in addition to military power?
        
      • What is our doctrine with respect to the use of miltary force?
        
      • How much do we need to spend on defense? Where do we need to increase spending and capacity? Where can we make cuts?
        
      • How should we propose to reform international institutions like the UN, NATO, etc. to realize our foreign policy objectives and bring them more closely into line with 21st century realities?

      These are the kinds of questions we need answers to. Does anybody have specifics?

      by TGeraghty on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:26:37 PM PST

      •  Excellent questions all

        And glad you raised them.  How would you propose we address the questions you ask?  Hopefully, in the ensuing discussions, we can unearth things that will prove useful.

        by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:35:08 PM PST

•  You stress security too much now-a-days!

  There are 3 simple emotionally-based tenants that determine which parties win elections in America when there are no real wars going on, IMO!:

  1.  A nice presentation by the candidate(s) physically and/or linguistically!

  2.  Appealing to latent resentments against helping the poor with one's taxes, and this also can be tied into latent or overt racism in many cases!

  3.  An implied church-going, Christian religious motive behind ones actions.

  It is really that simple in America.  Please note there was no national security factor in the last election because Iraq did not meet the significance test as exemplified by the lack of demand for any sacrifice on most people's part!

  by truthbetold on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:12:07 PM PST

  •  Fineman, CBS Confirms: Gore considering 2008 Bid.

    What do you guys think? does he still have it? Who could be his running mate? As for myself, im all for it! Heres the link. http://www.algore-08.com/

    by brandon30721 on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:17:02 PM PST

  •  Now a days?

    in the words of Bugs Bunny - "I think he doesn't know me very well."

    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:25:38 PM PST

    •  I say its dam good news

      We need people like Gore to speak with conviction and not hurl the pc - rhetoric of the day at us.

      He is a dam site better than these DLC and WDC current leadership types who think they can offer GOP-lite and win anything but our scorn.

      Gore has a lot to answer for in my opinion. I want to see just how much he is willing to admit his mistakes and those of the C/G era like NAFTA and what new course he would take the country on.

      I have had it with two faced losers like Kerry who was all over 10 sides of every issue like hair on an ape.

      And Senators like Feinstein and Lieberman with whom you can't really tell if they are about to jump ship to the GOP, since they vote 85% plus for its agenda and nominees anyway.

      by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:01:09 PM PST

  •  I couldn't disagree more

    No. 1 is a given truth, but No. 2 is pure bunk in my view.  And No. 3 is insignificant in the bigger picture.  Only the zealots will make it a litmus test.

    by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:34:01 PM PST

    •  Personal observations

      I sometimes feel like I am a mole in the conservative apparatus developing in America.  I live, work, and play in a very conservative area of PA, although I am very liberal and always have been.  I am orignally from Boston.  

      I deal with conservative religiously oriented folks daily.  What I wrote is not what I wish for or what I believe, but what I have observed for the better part of 20 years.  Take it or leave it, as it is just my observations of life in conservative America.

      by truthbetold on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:47:39 PM PST

      •  Well

        I feel for you for being immersed in a place brimming with ultra-conservatives.  It's a hard row to hoe.  I believe that what you report in your post is accurate for your locale.  But I don't think it's necessarily the case nationwide - just among the radical right.

        As for No. 2:  To draw a group together into a movement you need two things.  1) a theme they believe in to unite them together, and 2) an external foe to unite them against.  Racism can answer both needs among some groups.  But it is pretty thin gruel with which to keep a group active and flourishing.  It can only really serve as a subordinate issue.  A much larger theme is needed to keep a large group united.

        And I think No. 3 falls into the same sort of category.  Good for feeding some, but not all, members of Republican side.  Also not sufficient on its' own to keep together a group large enough to be a viable political force.

        by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:14:21 PM PST

        •  I think you are too literal

          It is the wink and nod behind these actions that closes the deal.  It is the good-ole-boy and girl network,  as in they are one of us and see things our way.

          You got to be there I guess!

          by truthbetold on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:22:58 PM PST

          •  That exists in all subgroups

            It isn't unique to the wackos and racists.  You can see it in any group united around a cause.  Been to any NFL games lately?

            by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:26:22 PM PST

          •  My friend

            You need to move - if I may say so.  Just for your own peace of mind, and to be among more like-minded people.  My hat's off to you.  I couldn't do what you're doing.

            by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:12:55 PM PST

•  Problem: "National Security" is code

  for military expansionism and subjugation of occupied countries -- including human rights violations and torture.

  Democrats have a "branding" problem because many voters support these policies and believe that Democrats are insufficiently enthusiastic in carrying them out.

  The diarist sees an opportunity to articulate

  a clear, coherent, strong, and fearless vision of what Dems will do to keep the country safe.

  Does that vision include an honest and thorough critique of American expansionism and war crimes from the Alamo to Fallujah?

  • If it does, we'll end up trying to "package" that critique and sell it to GOP-leaning voters. That's a fool's errand.

  • If it doesn't, then we're being dishonest -- Why should voters go for shamefaced militarism when they can have the real thing?

  I agree with the diarist that the Democratic Party needs to clearly lay out the contrasts.

  But the idea that Dems can lay out a distinctive national security vision that doesn't criticize military expansionism head-on?

  Won't work, IMO. "Moderate" democrats have been trying to do just that ever since McGovern. They haven't come close yet.

  by YellowDogBlue on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:18:50 PM PST

  •  FDR is the model

    We need to get his face in front of voters, and tie his voice to today's party.  I think it can be done without pandering to expansionism.  And I think that the "expansionists" aren't as big a percentage of the populace as you are saying.

    by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:29:40 PM PST

    •  Yeah, but where are Stalin and Churchill? n/t

      by YellowDogBlue on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:49:30 PM PST

      •  Not sure

        what you're trying to say with this.

        by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:18:40 PM PST

        •  FDR's foreign policy was a response

          to the threat of fascism.

          As the Nazi power approached defeat, he negotiated with Stalin and Churchill (at Yalta) over which parts of the world would be dominated by each of the major allied powers, setting the stage for the ensuing cold war.

          Now, what does this "model" have to do with Democratic politics today?

          by YellowDogBlue on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:31:57 PM PST

          •  War on Terror

            and alliances. The analogy is obvious.

            by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:35:34 PM PST

            •  Ah yes, the "Axis of Evil"

              Bush's War on Terror is analagous to the fight against fascism?

              In the first place, that's absurd.

              In the second place, the GOP already owns it.

              I think we have to come up with something better than "neocon-lite".

              by YellowDogBlue on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:09:37 PM PST

              •  Don't be absurd

                Contrasting Bush's WoT to the fight against fascism is a perfect way to point out how full of shit he is.  FDR is the one we contrast him to.

                by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:20:46 PM PST

                •  The fight against fascism was real.

                  The WoT is fake.

                  That's the contrast.

                  by YellowDogBlue on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:35:17 PM PST

                  •  Yes

                    So we agree.

                    What a perfect way to roast Bush.

                    by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:39:39 PM PST

                    •  I disagree

                      The threat of terrorism is very real and effects our old allies as well.

                      by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:42:35 PM PST

                      •  Not my point

                        I agree, the terror threat is real and effects our alliances.  My point is that contrasting Bush's handling of the WoT with FDRs handling of WWII alliances is an excellent way to point out Bush's failings.  (It's also an excellent way to advertise Democratic national security values.)  YellowDogBlue agrees, but he seems to want to argue anyway.

                        by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:49:04 PM PST

                      •  Overblown.

                        Where's the evidence that the "threat of terrorism is very real" -- once you discount acts that nationals carry out in response to occupation by foreign troops?

                        by YellowDogBlue on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:06:54 PM PST

                    •  but where is the fascism we are fighting?

                      or would fight under this line of thinking?  Other than North Korea and Zimbabwe (Mugabe), fascism isn't that big right now

                      by Dont Tread on Me on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:04:16 PM PST

                      •  It isn't about fascism

                        We're contrasting FDR to Bush, by looking at how they behaved over issues of national security and foriegn policy.  

                        by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:10:03 PM PST

              •  Absurd?

                If you say so. Did you read the part about alliances?

                by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:21:37 PM PST

                •  You need allies to have alliances.

                  And it's hard to imagine allies -- particularly European allies -- who would go along with your (and Bush's) dubious and offensive historical analogy.

                  The WoT is a crock -- a dishonest excuse to project U.S. military dominance. Saying "we'll do it with alliances" doesn't make it smell any better.

                  by YellowDogBlue on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:32:44 PM PST

                  •  Pffft

                    I guess you forget the alliances that existed for THAT very purpose prior to the Iraq Debacle.  You are talking nonsense. Pure and unadulterated at that.

                    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:41:51 PM PST

                    •  That's the point.

                      The allies got burned because the WoT was, and is, a phony justification for militarist adventures throughout the region.

                      I think by now most of the world has figured out what the WoT and "Axis of Evil" rhetoric was really all about.

                      Too bad some are still pushing it here.

                      by YellowDogBlue on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:57:37 PM PST

          •  Armando's right

            The allied effort in WWII is a shining example of diplomacy and militarism being used to do the right thing.  The Democratic thing I might add.  I.E.: Promoting the peace and prosperity of the people, over the strength and nationalism of a state.

            And FDR, Churchill ans Stalin didn't meet to divide up the world.  They met to negotiate how to promote the peace.  Stalin came in intent on siezing power and territory.  In response, we initiated the Cold War to keep that in check.  Guess who won?  And we did it without warfare.

            by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:41:43 PM PST

            •  Without warfare.

              The alliance against fascism was a unique response to a unique threat. And it was a shining example.

              As to the cold war: the Soviet "threat", if it ever existed, is long gone, but the U.S. continues to project military power around the globe, most notably in Iraq. That throws doubt on the claim that the "cold war" was about containment.  

              Oh, and a small correction: I don't think that "we did it without warfare" is really accurate, unless you discount Korea, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Angola, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and quite a few other incursions.
              

              by YellowDogBlue on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:27:00 PM PST

              •  Yes, without warfare.

                We defeated the Soviet threat without warfare.  That's what I said, and it's true.  The other things you mention are separate from that.

                by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:43:46 PM PST

                •  But ....

                  We aren't entirely responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union, although we like to flatter ourselves that we are.

                  The USSR (and Russia) are fairly sick societies, and there are some who say it's a dying country --- but not from our doing.

                  I'd look around for the stuff I've read but I'm falling asleep --- however, AIDS, for one, is supposedly (from what I've read) wreaking havoc in Russia --- entire towns dying.

                  Major problems like that are crushing them and were significant factors in their fall.

                  by cookiebear on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:54:25 PM PST

                  •  The Cold War

                    That's what pulled down the Soviets.  The economic grind of it took its' toll on the whole nation.  It was the Cold War that did that, not just us.  That war was fought by the west, though we were the most rabid.

                    by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:58:55 PM PST

•  Okay so ...

  I'm in a very, very, very red state, one which is so red that Bush was called well vefore the polls even closed.

  And I simply cannot tell you the number of people here who HATE Bush but refused to vote for Kerry.

  IOW, the contention that smears don't work is simply untrue. The Swift Boat fiasco sunk any chance Kerry could ever have had here. People who absolutely despise Bush refused to vote Dem because of that smear. For the most part, they ended up simply not voting.

  National Security is also an issue, as well --- but people here are also scared because of the economy. There's a lot of people sinking here.

  Race is another ball of wax around here because it's predominantly Indian. Although there is certainly some of that Little Dixie stuff around. But you simply aren't ever going to convince people like that.

  One point nobody has mentioned is that many of the most hardcore so-called "values" Republican are getting to be pretty old. It's my impression (and it's only an impression based on my experience) that these oldster Repubs tend to be the most noxious and intractable of the Repubs - absolutely anti-gay, pro-military, etc. I've met very few young people here who hold those views.

  Not to be cruel or anything, but these intractable virulently anti-gay, pro-Pat Robertson oldster Repubs aren't exactly going to be living forever, if you catch my drift.

  The young people, however --- here the ones I know who voted Republican did so because they simply lack the education to understand why the Dems are better for them.

  The message needs to get out. And yes, it needs to include security.

  And smear campaigns DO work, no matter how much Republicans may deny they do. ;=)

  BTW, the Republican on this thread is actually a pretty nice one - but still, he needs to acknowledge how effective the Republican smear machine is.

  by cookiebear on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:29:59 PM PST

•  the secret ingredient

  would be an actual plan.

  you don't think praktike has something going at liberals against terrorism..?

  if not, what do we have going with respect to this.

  as far as I can see the established Dems have no Big Plan™ which is what we need, we can't just harp... we need to have a plan ready for when we gain the Presedency... if it sells well will be important but more important will be that it's a good plan.

  That is we need a good plan, and a way to frame it credibly.

  by pyrrho on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:40:02 PM PST

  •  Wait up

    Until we have a political consensus that we NEED a plan, i'd rather not have a plan at all.  We got folks who can whip one out I'm sure. Though in Iraq we're fucked so i don't think the actual plan much matters.  This is about politics now. 4 years to go for plans.

    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:42:37 PM PST

    •  not sure I follow

      to get the right message we have to have a real plan, otherwise the follow through will screw up and undermine the 30 year plan.  Besides, it's just like Lakoffs point that when you think you have the wrong words you actually have the wrong ideas...

      obviously I'm long since past realizing we need such a message and plan.

      Personally, I see a Policing Model for National Security re "terrorism":

      • more special forces to perform a more police model "war on terror"
        
      • more sunshine and publicity, again, a police model
        
      • "police" mean higher quality precision... you don't get to blow up neighborhoods to get one guy that isn't there
        
      • public infrastructure projects to give opportunity
        
      • we public policy toward non-democratic regimes... create tight standards that even the US will need to clean up to meet.
        
      • other whipped up things.

      Most other National Security is Diplomacy:

      • public infrastructure programs for developing national infrastructures and creating opportunity
        
      • equitable labor practices
        
      • rules for American companies in terms of exploiting foriegn labor
        
      • engagement whenever possible

      Traditional Military:

      • traditional military is still needed for traditional protection, especially national defense and defense for shipping and transportation
        
      • Ground troops to deploy in key locations for peace keeping such as South Korea, etc
        
      • A strong Air Military able to retaliate as a deterant to international conflict against the US or allies.

      These are not all ideas I innately prefer, but I think they are good for our current situation.

      It's a three level approach, high quality precision policing for international terrorism, ground troops for securing the global economy from beligerant or piracy based disruption, and then an Air Strike military as a deterrant against actions such as the former Iraq invasion of Kuwait, I am hesitant to give current examples because I'm hesitant to prefer use of this force, but I think we need to have it ready.

      The language to sell National Security credibility must come from a credible plan, if mine is then great, if not, then some other credible plan we can get around.

      by pyrrho on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 10:17:55 PM PST

    •  concensus on needing a plan

      we need one... no need to wait on having one because first, we do need one, and two, a decent plan might be what makes democrats able to support having a plan, without that some have the same reaction you have about trying to own "values"...  granted, my points above are too beligerant oriented for many progressives, but it includes a practical perspective... e.g. we need traditional military to protect the international economic byways.

      by pyrrho on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 10:22:22 PM PST

•  Real World

  When I had a job...hememm...I was surrounded by 4 Republican Rednecks, and man oh man, what discussions we had....
  After a year or so, they began to actually listen to this Yankee redneck (a conundrum, I know).
    When using fact, after fact in discussion, they could not rebut with their Limaugher cheese, they began to wear down. Before the election, I had actually turned two of them into voting their pocketbooks, instead of their "brand".
   It's not an impossible task, it just takes hammerin' for a veryyy long time.

  by meagert on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:53:12 PM PST

•  i'm not sure keep us safe will do it for dems.

  but i agree that it represents an important weakness in the democratic party's image. i remember taking a course at a school somewhat famous for its case study method. the issue was a new principal at a school where faculty and students were demoralized. the school was "open access" though situated in a somewhat rough neighborhood. the vice president in charge of security opposed closing the gates and was popular with the faculty: removing him would not be well received. ultimately those working on this case decided that you had to start with the security issue, including closing the gates of the school and removing the vp. people had to feel safe or you wouldn't get much else done.

  if you accept that premise, then you have to ask, what needs to be done to convey the message that democrats will keep america safe? is there a magical policy formulation? seems doubtful. or is armando going to tell us once again why wes clark has to be the nominee in 2008? fine, but that doesn't solve the problem in time for 2006.

  seems to me you have to show in the meantime that what bush and the repubs are doing is creating greater insecurity for the u.s. and the way to do that may, in fact, not be through actual military/defense issues, but through the debt and corruption (halliburton) issue. bush is putting us in a position where the u.s. will no longer be able to pay for national security. he said so himself during the debates when - in response to kerry's suggestions that military recruitment depended on better pay and benefits and that training of iraqis could be done quicker and better by training them outside of iraq - he said he didn't see how the u.s. could pay for that. the u.s. is unable, under w, to pay for its national security needs.

  dems have to say clearly and without flinching that w put the security of the u.s. at risk by giving in to the greed of the financial elites. he tolerates corporate corruption and supports tax privileges for financial elites. it's time to bite the bullet and talk about the funds that are not available because of the bush corporate giveaway. the fact is, if the polls are to be believed, americans are already willing to look at restoring taxes on the financial elites to some previous level when faced with the loss of social security as we know it. i don't think taking the next step and talking about recovering lost revenue is impossible if handled correctly. get out those charts and graphs and show the correlation between lost revenue and rising debt and how little is available for america's national security. (please note, by the way, i am deliberately saying financial elites. everybody knows the elite are not everyday folk, that's why the repubs use the term liberal elites.)

  bottom line, these may not be good ideas, but we do need some ideas other than just saying democrats are for a strong defense and in favor of national security. otherwise we will simply be trapped into voting yes on any bush military budget proposal whatsoever.

  by yankeedoodler on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:25:51 PM PST

  •  Keeping us safe was nothing but a ploy

    The 2004 election was stolen.

    The corporate mass media needed a believable frame to present to people as to why Bush won or was going to win. They used the "better at keeping us safe frame".

    Its pure BS and you ought to wean your self from TV so you can see straight again.

    by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:45:28 PM PST

    •  Most people have already seen thru the bogus

      GOP morality frame that was also put forward.

      The many posts on the national defense frame is proof though that people are still being deceived by that bogus frame.

      The point is, with the biased corporate mass media on the GOP side they will NEVER let you win that argument.

      The DEM leadership has tried and failed repeatedly at it, as did Kerry, since it is being held as a trump card by our opponents.

       

      by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:53:43 PM PST

    •  do you have any evidence to support

      your claim? some of us would love to see it - and i say that without sarcasm, as i am one of the members here who contributed to common cause in ohio and felt more should have been done at this site to support conyers' efforts.

      more than the mass media reps made the point that historically it's been difficult to defeat an incumbent president in the midst of a war. i think kerry himself is reported to have said that he believed the osama bin laden tape helped beat him (which is actually what i myself thought had most likely happened).

      fact is, whether the election was stolen or not, i still think national security is a weak spot in the democratic party's message. and if the election wasn't stolen and the weakness hasn't been addressed, we reinforce the chances of continuing to lose.

      oh, and btw, i don't watch much tv. it's kind of immature to accuse people of doing something you obviously disdain just because you disagree with what they have to say.  

      by yankeedoodler on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:03:03 PM PST

      •  By all means strenghten the parties message

        on every defense issue, that is not my point.

        My point is forget that bit of rhetorical argument cinching the case for democrats with the public, in a way that will mean more votes and more democratic party election victories. It isn't going to happen. As I said its being held as a trump card and they are not going to let the democrats win on that issue, ever, until someday that bit of rhetorical territory is less important than some thing else they can defeat us with.

        In fact with the coporate mass media as the middle man in every public discussion if we depend on them, to the extent that we do, we are certain to lose.

        Glad to hear you not watching TV anymore, your points were similar to those that do and have been side tracked into believing that the "security" rhetoric debate is going to get us some where.

        by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 09:30:57 PM PST

        •  so let's hear your proposals.

          criticism is fine, up to a point. but ultimately not as helpful as ideas that can be acted upon. you're here either to do some real work or just to be a blowhard. which is it?

          and i didn't say i don't watch tv anymore. just not much. i prefer to keep it factual, thanks.

          by yankeedoodler on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 09:45:00 PM PST

          •  Look in the mirror

            You complain about the way I make my points and then call me names repeatedly.

            Anyone can decend to that level of discourse but I will not yeild to the urge to tell you to go fuck yourself, this time.

            I'll make some points that I have made on other dKOS threads that have proven to be controversial. But I will not debate them with you since they are off topic.

            As a minority party we have to;
            

            1. advance a consistent vision for the future that every Democratic party office holder has signed onto
               
            2. We have to steer our own course in the legislature, advancing our own proposals when we can and consistently opposing their proposals in evey possible instance where we can refer to our vision and challange theirs
               
            3. We have to enforce parlimentary discipline on all members and on all votes

            Unfortuantely the democratic party has done just the opposite and has in fact been an reliable enabler of the entire Bush agenda, at the great expense of its increasingly former constituencies.

            I have written a lot more on those points, but they are getting us way off topic, just responding to your challange, since I have been offering real actionable plans.

            I'll add another set of controversial points, we need to weed out the two faced hypocrites in this party or again the trip is going to be all downhill until we crash. I'll name names and reasons why at some other point, again its off topic.

            by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 10:32:50 PM PST

            •  haven't called you any names.

              have tried politely to get you to do more than repeat the same thing you have said in post after post, without ever getting to a positive suggestion that could bring about change. even if it's seen as not viable, which is liable to be the case with any suggestion made here, at least you would have tried to make a real contribution, and people here would appreciate that. think about it. i doubt many people who really care will pay much attention to what you have to say otherwise.  

              by yankeedoodler on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 12:02:55 AM PST

•  Hey, maybe you ought to try...

  actually being in favor of national security as a priority?

  Like Joe Lieberman is?  

  Why isn't he your new image instead of Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, etc. etc. etc.????

  Maybe some Americans who care about national security would actually vote for you then.

  by MyDogHasFleas on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:30:54 PM PST

  •  Bush and Joe

    The Republican idea of bipartisanship.  How about you get your head out of your ass and realize that Bush and Joe are the two most incompetent buffoons to ever discuss national security.  

    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:34:07 PM PST

    •  Ratings

      You know, I haven't got any lately...probably,  because I've been too nice in my commenting, instead of being my usual combative self...
      So a good old "in your face biatch" deserves a good rating....

      by meagert on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:38:58 PM PST

      •  I wasn't ...

        whoring for ratings, just backing Armando up....not that he needs it...but being a whore...well it's not so bad....
        I still think everyone has wandered from the premise of the story..
         In my simplistic phrasing...If Security  is the missing piece, and the Democrats did not present it properly to the country, in this last election, then HOW do we.
        

        by meagert on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:02:42 PM PST

        •  But ....

          You introduced me to a simply fabulous new word: biatch.

          For that alone, you get another 4. :=D

          by cookiebear on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:15:39 PM PST

        •  Politically speaking

          let's get our side to agree it should be a feature issue before we trot out our proposals. I don't mean us specifically, the Party.

          by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:23:38 PM PST

          •  I'm old enough to know

            That it has only been a problem for a few decades...
            Truman, Kennedy, LBJ,Carter didn't have this problem.
              The sixties was the problem though... It is still a CULTURAL issue. The Mondale/Massachusetts era cemented the Republican talking points for all this time.

            by meagert on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:33:24 PM PST

        •  As for your post ...

          Security is a  missing piece, but isn't enough to fully flesh out the solution.

          Smears are crucial, at least in ths neck of the woods. The smears worked around here, and they worked around here because there simply was nothing to counteract them. Nothing. People who despised Bush ended up simply not voting because they believed the Swift Boat smear.

          It's important to remember that many rural areas are composed of the very first people called up in a draft. Many of the people here are Vietnam Vets, and it would have been very effective to hammer on Bush's lack of service.

          Unfortunately, those attempts were derailed.

          Furthermore, the economy is huge around here --- a major ongoing problem.

          Dems will have a better chance here in the next election simply because so many programs for rural poverty have been and are being cut.

          But they have GOT to hammer that message home in the rural areas. They have to.

          I think a pro-military and pro-security stance is entirely compatible with Democratic ideals. For example, I'm anti-Iraq war, but I am NOT anti-war. I absolutely believe there is a time to go to war, and there are good reasons for going to war. I liken it to a Mother Tiger deal --- mess with my loved ones and there will be hell to pay.

          Bush has played off that natural instinct we all have, but as we all know, he's done so through lies and manipulation and falsehoods and propaganda.

          We need to clarify our own stance and do so in such a way that it casts lights on the Bushinistas' gross incompetence and plundering of our youth (not to mention, the Iraqis)m while highlighting our own abilities to kick ass when ass rightfully needs kicking.

          by cookiebear on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:29:58 PM PST

  •  Yow

    Where'd you come from?  You're out of tune, dude.

    by baba durag on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:49:17 PM PST

  •  Dude

    did you even READ Armando's post?

    Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

    by bronte17 on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:15:35 PM PST

•  but wait...

  ...lets step back again to the very first comment posted here. I think we are WAY off subject.  What we need is to articulate in 'new' narrative a la FDR and the Four Freedoms.  Something true to our values, clear and defensible.  I like the idea of using the Four Freedoms as the foundation for that narrative.

  Lets focus on that simple (ha!) goal for a bit.

  by environmentalist on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:31:37 PM PST

•  homeland security as metaphor

  I'm big on meta-issues (global heating) and expanding current concepts to metaphors for meta-issues.  That's why I promoted the idea---which I first proposed as the theme for Kerry's convention acceptance speech--of using HOMELAND SECURITY: by re-imagining what it means: what will make us safe and secure?  That means an approach to national security that has sensible defense preparation and policy plus protective diplomacy and partnerships in the world; it means doing all the things the Bushies aren't to protect the homeland from terrorism, but it also means making the homeland secure by insuring the health of its citizens, protecting the environment (the literal home land), etc.

  In short, the theme of homeland security can link the national security agenda to economic and social justice, because they all contribute to making us secure.  

  by dashbro on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:35:36 PM PST

  •  And of course...

    Homeland Security WAS a Democrat proposal, until Bush Flip-flopped, and the Republicans stole the issue

    by meagert on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:12:06 PM PST

•  The Union Coalition

  Begins by saying It's the budget, stupid.

  by Stirling Newberry on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:57:14 PM PST

  •  Do you agree?

    I guess I should read the post first to see huh?

    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:12:01 PM PST

  •  Just read it

    Fantastic post.  Did you cross post it here? I would like to promote it. You get at something I can never say right - the need for regional takes on national messages.  

    by Armando on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:14:14 PM PST

  •  This is inspired

    I feel lighter on my feet just reading this.  One of the best solutions I've read in a long time. I don't say this often enough but damned, Bless You. :)

    by caliberal on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:52:46 PM PST

•  "Dems as libertines" Change is needed

  I'm a social moderate and an economic liberal.  This constituency is often alienated, and far more so than my opposite, those small l libertarians and "social liberal/fiscal conservative" types.  I'm not saying Democrats should sell out to Republican positions on social issues, on the contrary I think Democrats should approach issues they have remained silent on from a Democratic perspective.

  Social conservatism is the glue that keeps the Republican coalition together, if they are deprived of a coherent rationale they won't have a leg to stand on.  Its true that some aspects of the "values" voter is driven by prejudice, but "values" are not even monolithic.  I am fervent supporter of gay marriage, but I don't agree with abortion and euthanasia.  

  Somebody should suggest that maybe deregulation of corporate media and the almighty profit motive are responsible for increase in sex and violence in the media.  Maybe anti-poor, anti-middle class economic policies are responsible for the increases in the abortion rate.  Maybe ill attention to and cuts in social programs promote increases in drug use when people are left desolate.  Perhaps the erosion of worker's rights and stagnant wages have destablized families and made divorce more common place.  Perhaps a lack of focus on consumer rights and instead an emphasis on greed makes materialism take priority over more important things.  Republicans offer a combination of conspiracy theories and hate to explain weakened morals and then go on to do nothing about it except appease corporations that contribute greatly to the problem.

  But thats not what the Democrats are saying, and they give up issues to Republicans where everything is framed in black and white, good and evil terms.  And its very hard for "evil" to win against "good" when the Republican rationale is the only one offered.          

  by Eugene V Debs on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:16:27 PM PST

  •  I agree with this

    I agree but in a different way.

    The Dems have been, and are being, derailed by "special interests' of a sort. Splintering and fracturing. But each of these special interests could easily fall beneath a more generalized category which doesn't kowtow to a single group, yet encompasses all of them. It's doable, and desirable for that matter.

    Human rights, our right to govern our own life, our opposition to The Company Store (not the one that sells comforters, but The Tennessee Ernie Ford I Owe My Soul to the Company Store company store). ?. Etc.

    By the same token, each and every point you bring up is a critical ethical issue --- a coopted corporate media to policies which crush the average Joe (and Joe-ess).

    In addition, the simple numbers point out the error in the Right's approach --- abortion rates have gone up, teen sex is only getting worse, care for the elderly has reached the point of sheer inhuman treatment, people who most desperately need care are no longer going to doctors because they can't afford it, bankruptcies are driven by medical costs, etc. etc. etc,

    All issues of our human rights, our right to dignity, etc.
    

    by cookiebear on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:43:36 PM PST

    •  They are...

        Crooks, liars, and thieves. They have corrupted every good thing about American values, and twisted it, to their perverted, selfish, and narcissistic view.
        They only understand, and work from the point of view of POWER.
        They have used the Christian philosophy to gain votes for their own Corporate benefits.
        They are NOT right on National Security. They are NOT right on the National economy. They are NOT right on Constitutional Law.
        We bring this country back to it's true intent by calling them on every single point, Never relinquishing a single issue,  precinct, or philosopy.
        They don't OWN States, Regions, or this country.
        I have complete faith in the peoples of this country.  They may swing one way or the other according to the times, but they never stray too far from the goals of our Founding Fathers.
        My ancestors founded this damn country, and I'll be damned, if I let anyone Tread on those efforts.....
        You want Security as an issue, Armando?....I'll give this country my life.  I'll fight these bastards with my voice, with my vote, or with my guns...

      ..errr...I guess that was a rant....cover blown...I'll be good now

      by meagert on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:10:03 PM PST

      •  I agree with every thing in your rant

        but we have an "opposition" democratic party that has made the Bush agenda and his nominees seem legitimate in the minds of the average person.

        Democrats have been the enablers of the bush agenada.

        As I stated Democrats have voted at the rate of 85% in support of his policies.

        I am going to comment more on this in a moment.

        by wildhair on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 09:36:08 PM PST

  •  Ted Turner against media consolidation

    and had a piece in the Washington Monthly, How government protects big media

    Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

    by bronte17 on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:32:02 PM PST

  •  I've had some luck

    responding to charges about the "liberal media".

    When someone complains about it, I ask them "What makes you think the media is liberal?"

    ALWAYS, they say sex (in shows and commercials) and sometimes violence.

    I casually reply, "Oh, you mean the permissive corporate media. That's different than liberal, and driven by greed. People LIKE it, after all, and it sells more SUVs."

    It usually makes them think.

    by Madman in the marketplace on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:54:13 PM PST

    •  Pick any article

      NEWS article, that is, in the New York Times that you think shows a conservative bias, and I'll show you how you're wrong.

      If the only thing they can come up with is sex, then you're only dealing with brainless limbaugh listeners.  Verbally spar with a real conservative who got there by having people play constant devil's advocate for him (why do you think I visit DailyKos in the first place?) and you'll get some very different responses.

      And don't throw the Fox News thing at me either--we all know Fox News isn't news, it's news analysis for the most part, and it is absolutely conservative.  I'm talking about established media, not junior upstarts.

      by RFTR on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 04:59:28 AM PST

•  70% of the poor people

  in this country are white.

  Do they have to find a scapegoat for their angst /  they have a need to feel superior to someone?

  The white flight people had the use of capital to subsidize their worldview and choices.  To keep what they have, they are concerned with security.  Also, state taxes/property taxes are a big issue for this group.  State and local taxes keep going up exponentially, while federal taxes have been falling --for over a decade or longer.  We need to articulate this correlation -- though it will lead back to the privitization of choice for those who can afford it --they don't want to subsidize the common good.

  Wesley Clark can bridge both groups.

  Stirling's idea on the regional takes on a national message is great.

  Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

  by bronte17 on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:12:17 PM PST

•  We don't even have part one down.

  How can we say Economic and Social Justice are
  part of the Democratic narrative? See recent CAFA
  vote.

  "Together we will stand, every boy, girl, woman and a man."

  by hoplite9 on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 12:00:13 AM PST