What do you think of this Democratic Party message?

As I recently posted in HadIt's diary, up until now I haven't paid attention to all the discussions involving "crafting of the Democrats' message," but I thought I'd try this on for size:

"The Democrats are the party of jobs, education, and health care. We are the party of civil rights and human rights. We are the party of national security and building of a harmonious world."

Three sentences. 34 words. Is this really so wordy? So highbrow? So hard to understand? Is it not what mainstream America wants? Is it not TRUE?

What do you think?

•  I think it is a bit wordy, actually.

  You only get a few seconds to grab people's attention.

  by A Citizen on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:00:10 PM PDT

  •  You could be right,, but

    personally, I think it only takes a few seconds to say.

    by leenie in va on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:05:25 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    It's not just about being easy to understand, but about being easy to remember. It needs to be easy to reiterate so that it's stuck on the tip of your toungue (e.g. compassionate conservatism.)

    As someone suggested yesterday, I like:

    Democrats are for progress.

    This has many benefits, including a forward-thinking, positive message.

    by rogun on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:28:06 PM PDT

    •  People for Progress

      Building on that, how about:

      We are the People for Progress?

      by rogun on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:31:06 PM PDT

      •  Party for Progress

        or Party for Progress?

        by rogun on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:31:46 PM PDT

      •  Short, succinct..

        ...but not clear and compelling. "Small government, low taxes, and strong defense" is pretty much what the Republicans have as a brand image -- false though all three things are -- we need something similarly concise, and clear. And hopefully more compelling and accurate.

        by cdicely on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:54:12 PM PDT

        •  Yes

          well I was thinking more of a slogan or meme than a list of values, but you're right in that we also need to simply these too.

          by rogun on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 06:50:07 PM PDT

•  Not bad

  You might want to check a front page diary Kos had up a couple of days ago on this subject.  There was a lot of good discussion on it, and some similar ideas.

  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/26/12465/7926

  I think the idea of regular folks, working folks, ordinary folks and their families just trying to get by....

  by brighton on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:03:53 PM PDT

  •  Actually, I did.

    Markos's suggestion, while accurate, was a bit vague-sounding to my ears. Then again, Republicans say they're "pro-family values," and that's vague AND patently false.

    by leenie in va on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:11:37 PM PDT

•  think 1or2 sentences with a hook

  its morning in america.  r.r. the great communicator.etc.etc.etc......peace

  by cognitive dissonance on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:19:02 PM PDT

•  the Democratic Party

  is not really on my thoughts today. What is on my thoughts? Three stories will help you understand: the latest James Guckert diaries here on dkos, Wlshman's diary about the illegality of the Iraq war, and then go to www.911truth.org to read about how the government is hijacking the Sibel Edmonds trial.

  Here's what I have to say: mainstream liberals are a waste of time. Why? Because they don't get it. They don't understand the depths of evil we are up against: within the Bush administration is a merciless crew that rigs elections, launders drug money, plants fake memos in the press, leaks CIA agent identities, pockets billions in war profiteering, and allows 3000 people to be murdered in order to create a new Cold War.

  This is not an evil that one calls on the Democratic Party to real and eradicate. That's like calling an unarmed cafeteria security guard to catch the mafia.  

  by gnat on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:20:32 PM PDT

  •  You've got a point

    I've been repeating: "They are as bad as they seem."

    I don't buy into the 9/11 conspiracy, but I do believe they were more than happy enough to hijack the tragedy for their own gain. It's a power-madness that bodes poorly for the future.

    I think it's hard for people accustomed to a particular set of rules of conduct to really believe that, when the other team breaks the rules, they not only intended to break them, but further intend to crush them into dust, sweep them up and throw them out the window.  

    But the dawn seems to be breaking for many. Let's hope the morning arrives early enough to beat the storm, and that this dawn breaks on a day of light, not cloaked by the ominous clouds of totalitarianism.

    by mataliandy on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:44:03 PM PDT

    •  well I buy the POSSIBILITY

      that there is more to 9/11 than the official explanation, because:

      a) there's a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest it
      b) precisely as you say "the other team breaks the rules"

      Perhaps, just perhaps, you're still underestimating the nature of this beast.

      by gnat on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:15:52 PM PDT

•  Democrats believe in people

  by mataliandy on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:30:48 PM PDT

  •  I like this alot!

    It is simple, but the simple statement really leads you lots of places.  It makes me think that Democrats are the party that believes if you make it just a little bit easier for average people (ala West Wing season 4 premier) that they will succeed.

    This leads me to education, health care, and jobs, but it does it without saying as much, which is really powerful.  It tells people that we support social programs not because we like big government, but because we see education spending, Medicare, SS, etc, as a way to help average folks succeed on their own.  The word "believe" is crucial.

    I think this is a very powerful statement that can be worked with.  

    Major props.

    by valphoosier on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:36:39 PM PDT

    •  Thanks!

      Have fun with it. ;-)

      by mataliandy on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:33:22 PM PDT

•  I like your formulation.

  Somewhere between it, my shorter one (The party of basic human rights and constitutional principles), and Kos' truly succinct "The party of the working people" we should be able to find the right soundbite.

  by nuttymango on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:31:06 PM PDT

•  Good message, too wordy

  I think this is a great discussion.  I commend Kos and people such as yourself for starting it.  We need an identity as a party.

  I do have a few comments on the specific wording you laid out.  First, it's too wordy.  I know we all believe in lots of things and want to fit them all into a message, but our core brand (if you will) needs to fit onto a bumper sticker.  This one, while a good start, has too many concepts in it.  (and, while I agree on the "harmonious world" part, we can't word our inclinations towards peace like that -- the public will think it's hippy-esque)

  Also, I think that we need to be for more than just general concepts like "jobs" or "education".  OF COURSE we're for education and jobs.  Except for Americans who think we're corrupt (the group we won't win regardless), they would agree that we're for jobs... it's like saying that we're pro-people.

  Instead of being for jobs, we need to be the party for working people.  Instead of being for education, we need to be the party that wants to build schools instead of increasing class size.  Instead of being for health care, we need to be the party that believes health insurance is a right.  

  I know that I contradict my own anti-wordiness critique, but these are the type of ideas that we need to slim down and work with.  

  I think it's critical that our "brand" be slightly more speficic than just "we're for jobs."

  That being said, your suggestion is a great start.  This is a conversation that we must have (and the web is an ideal place for it) and your ideas are a good start.

  by valphoosier on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:32:40 PM PDT

•  hey if lennie wantsto do this more power to him

  its not like the dem. machine is doing such a great job at it.lennie get books by the greats on this subject. learn from the masters. pay attention to style..................................................and yes the country is in deep shit.

  by cognitive dissonance on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:32:43 PM PDT

  •  sorry ment to post that below post 9 .c.d..

    by cognitive dissonance on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:41:43 PM PDT

•  Yes...

  ...its really wordy. If it doesn't fit in one sentence, it has been distilled to a basic enough level.

  by cdicely on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:49:58 PM PDT

•  Don't like it

  Read Lakoff. "Don't think of an Elephant" is a good one.

  These statements do nothing to activate my frames. You do this with proper use of metaphors.

  Jobs, education, healthcare. Why? Because they are the right thing to do, they are moral values. There are metaphors that can stand for these things to invoke the right moral framework.

  I'll just run through a few linkages, to give you some ideas which might help. They set the context you should work in.

  National Security evokes conservative framings. You need to make a liberal frame based on some of the following, which uses Lakoff's metaphor of the nation as a family.

  Democrats build communities that nurture people. Nurturing implies parenting. Parenting is a hard job. It takes strength, patience, preparation, and hard work. Good nurturing is Good parenting. Parents, among other things, protect their children. Therefore, protection of the community is a liberal moral value.

  Good parenting is raising your kids in a nurturing environment, to enable them to become good nurturing parents in their own right. Parenting requires a lot of knowlege, which makes education of yourself and your children a top priority moral value. This education doesn't stop at 12th grade, but continues through life. The more you know, the better you can raise your kids, and the more prepared they will be to become full adults who are able to nurture others and contribute for the good of the community. Everyone benefits when our kids are educated. Education is a liberal moral value.

  A community that supports good parenting is a nurturing community. That means that the community should be structured so that everyone is supported, and nobody is repressed. Nurturing implies fairness, and the highest expression of fairness is in civil rights and human rights. Civil rights and human rights are a liberal moral value.

  And so on. These are some of the concepts that all of us have inside us, and we can invoke them in others by using the right metaphors. As Lakoff says, the fact that even conservatives can watch and understand the Cosby show indicates that they have these metaphoric frames, and that with the right language they can be invoked.

  To change your original phrase just a bit:

  "The Democrats are the party of Opportunity. The opportunity to do a job you love, Opportunity to improve and educate yourself, Opportunity to live, and the Opportunity to be protected by and contribute to the community of all Americans."

  It's a lot of words, but you don't use them all at once, usually. When you're talking about jobs, you say "Opportunity to do a job you love." When you're talking about health care, you say "Opportunity to live." And so on.

  Opportunity to contribute to a community.
  Opportunity to marry the one you love.
  Opportunity equal to everyone else.
  Opportunity to improve your mind.
  Opportunity to be the person you were always meant to be.

  Opportunity is one of our watchwords.
  

  by pdrap on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:37:22 PM PDT