Per an e-mail discussion with Armando, I will be stepping in at Swords Crossed, for Armando, to help keep it going. Unfortunately, I don't know any more than any of you about what Armando's long term plans are. Sorry. But in the meantime I want to resurrect Armando's 1860 strategy and how I think it is the main thing missing from the dialogue on message and taking back control of congress this fall.
Armando bases his discussion of the 1860 strategy on the Cooper Union Speech given by Abraham Lincoln while he was campaigning for President. In the speech Lincoln takes the claims of his opponents and turns them back against said opponents in a masterful example of political ju-jit-su. By so doing he manages to define himself in a favorable light and turn the table on his opponents. Here is Armando's take from back in April 2006 (link):
Since November 2004, I have argued that a politics of contrast, what I label Lincoln 1860, a Fighting Dems approach - where Dems aim to label the GOP as extremist, corrupt and incompetent and Dems as fighters for their ideals.
I connect Armando's 1860 Strategy with the politics of definition outlined by John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira (link), who have shown that a majority of Americans do not believe progressives or Democrats stand for anything, which gives them no reason to vote for progressives (link):
...the totality of the advice simply misses the mark and obscures the underlying problem driving progressives' on-going woes nationally: a majority of Americans do not believe progressives or Democrats stand for anything. 1 Despite difficult times for the GOP in early 2006, Republicans continue to hold double-digit advantages over Democrats on the key attribute of "know what they stand for" and fewer than four in 10 voters believe the Democratic Party has "a clear set of policies for the country". 2
This trend, one we call the "identity gap," has been written about and discussed by others in years past. What is not understood is the extent to which this gap continues to drag down progressives and Democrats and depress their support in myriad ways. "No identity" translates into no character. No personal integrity. No vision worth fighting for. No domestic agenda. No national-security agenda. No basic understanding of the problems facing everyday citizens. No contrast with the other side. No reason to vote for progressive candidates.
There are two related issues here. First, we have let the enemy define us. Second, we don't know who we really are. This is the same theme addressed in Georgia10's frontpage musing over the volumes of advice given to Dems, which she, rightly, sums up as "Be authentic." (
link) Notice that instead of pointing to a common identity we share that she suggests each subgroup just be itself. She can't think of anything we have in common. But how can we be authentic when we, as a group, don't know who we are? We can't. That's why we need to define ourselves, to figure out who we are.
Let's start with the labels that are attached to us by others. Republicans want to paint us as godless and spineless. First, let's talk about the godless part. Usually anytime God is brought up, Democrats get into an argument over whether religion and politics should overlap. So how can we flip the godless label onto Republicans, a la Lincoln, and claim that we are the godly ones?
First we start with their inherent claim of "godliness." The whole YOYO (You're on your own) economy suggests that they are not interested in helping those who need help but are interested in enriching the rich even more. The Bible calls that "greed." The Bible also has a lot to say about protecting the poor and needy. Among other things, it has statutes to prevent usury, laws to make land rescind to the family it was originally given to every 50 years, and a big emphasis on justice and mercy. That's mostly Old Testament stuff, but Jesus seems to have spent a lot of time helping poor or helpless people with their problems.
In short, Democrats, whether Christians or not, are mostly people who are selfless. They are interested in seeing to it that the poor and needy are taken care of and that the system is inherently fair. They do not believe that any group should be allowed to horde land or money by stepping on the needs of the people. In that respect, Democrats are godlike, moreso than selfish Republicans. Godless? Maybe we don't all agree on whether there is a god, but we do agree on taking care of others, which is, according to the Bible, godly. And I think that part of our identity is something we agree on. We've been that way at least since FDR.
Now let's talk about the spineless part. It's not that we're spineless. Republicans confuse brazenness and with courage. They tell boldfaced lies and look us in the eyes while doing it. They also confuse brazen selfishness with courage. They think everyone should be pushing competitors out of the way with ruthlessness. It's not that we're spineless. It's just that we don't think like they do. We fight when we see something worth fighting for, like Civil Rights or worker's rights. In Lincoln's time we would have been the ones to stand up against slavery. If there are enough resources to go around, we aren't interested in getting more than our fair share. But we do stand up when others are not getting their fair share. And we've been that way since at least MLK Jr.'s time.
Although it might not be part of the "godless and spineless" label, there is another issue that defines us: Democrats like to work as a community to resolve problems. Republicans like to divide us (link). Working together is not weakness. And this reveals one of the biggest strengths that Democrats have, our interest in finding genuine solutions to problems. While Republicans are out looking for personal gain, we are busy fixing things. I'm not sure how long we have been that way. But that's definitely who we are.
It is our side that is offering most of the solutions to the problems that are out there, like the deficit and health care. Republicans are busy denying the problems exist and, if they do acknowledge a problem, it is because they have thought of a way to enrich themselves while pretending to solve it. That's who they are.
In closing, I think we have done some of the things suggested in April by Armando. We have thrown the corruption label at the Republicans. But we haven't managed to frame ourselves as fighters for our ideals. Francine Busby is a prime example. She talked about the culture of corruption and let Bilbray talk about some of his ideals that, like conservation, in a way that put him to her left. But she didn't talk much about what her core values are and what she would do. I think that's because we don't really know what our ideals are. This discussion will hopefully start a broader dialogue that will help us identify those ideals and learn to articulate them. Undecided voters want to know what we stand for. Let's figure it out and tell them.