The progressive movement arguably hit mainstream with the FDR administration. Near the end of his extended tour of duty in the oval office, Roosevelt gave his
Four Freedoms speech, singling out "four essential human freedoms":
1. Freedom of speech and expression
2. Freedom of every person to worship God in his own way
3. Freedom from want
4. Freedom from fear
Each of these four freedoms go to the heart of the most repugnant elements of the Bush admnistration. This might be an excellent message to frame the response to the Republican attack on our freedoms from a holisitic perspective that includes our core values.
If we try to imagine what a history book will be writing about the Bush admistration, it will be an ugly chapter in our history. I think historians will single out a few really disturbing things:
1) Supression and misuse of free speech (flagrant lying to the media, seeking arrest of the few reporters doing investigative work, the failure of Bush to stage open press conferences and public events....)
2) Religious fundamentalism as a foundation for domestic and foreign policy
3) An active effort to eliminate the middle class
4) Fear-mongering to build support for atrocities committed by the federal government
Those are the direct antagonists to the four freedoms. And they have traction with the American people, who have finally tired 'terrorists are attacking any moment now!' mantra five years after the attacks in 2001.
The four freedoms and domestic policy
The American people are not exactly introspective, and if anything we collectively lack of an interest in learning the lessons of history. But I still think this is a good hueristic for creating a cogent values message that sells with the American people.
The success (and fall) of the Republicans hinged on the fact that their policies were rooted in their values. I personally am enamored of the reputedly Republican values (the importance of family, fiscal responsibility, limiting government intrusion). They just went evil when these values hit the pavement, interpreting family as "hate gays" and fiscal responsiblity as "mortgage everything to the hilt" and so on. It's a miracle of branding, to take everyday normal people and get them to support an agenda that's just insane on its face. Democrats STILL haven't found the values message. We've had it for sixty five years, we just need to dust it off.
Our policy platform doesn't just have planks that can fit well within the four freedoms framework. It's that our platform is derived from the values espoused by the four freedoms. We hate Bush's warmongering and terrorist-baiting because we all should live with freedom from fear. There should be minimum wage above the poverty level because we all should have freedom from want. We shouldn't say shit like "islamist fascists" because we all have a freedom to worship however we want.
This four freedoms approach is an easy way to reframe the guns-gods-gays issues. These issues don't just bring out the republican fundamentalist base, they also claim the opinion of some middle-ground folks who are searching for a values-based political system.
The majority of americans, when asked about their standing on an issue like abortion, will reply that they think that it's wrong. But a very strong majority of Americans will also say that people should be free to do so. If republicans are winning a debate about abortion rights, it's only because they've framed it in terms prescribed values rather than the universal human value of freedom. In other words, it's not about the right to have an abortion. It's about the freedom from having other people tell you that you can't have one.
The four freedoms and foreign policy
The four freedoms speeech is viewed in history as the crystallized message behind the New Deal reforms. But, if you look at what he said, the four fredoms speech was not just a pretty values statement, but the strategic basis behind the agendas for global issues of economic policy, national security, foreign relations.
In the Four Freedoms speech were the seeds of the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe as a safe and secure democracy. This is a beautiful contrast to Bush's goals in Iraq. It's clear to the public that Bush doesn't want Iraq to be free. Painfully obvious to all but the blind. Now, the Europeans are the ones teaching us about democracy and they are reasonably afraid of the fascist elements in our own government. Particularly in the Presidential Signing Statements purporting that the Executive Branch is above the laws.
While there's nothing to be gained by calling Bush out as the fascist he is, a return to our core American values will bring independently-minded voters to see that Republicans simply aren't good Americans.
Marketing strategy
Marketing freedom as the core democratic value is obvious, but it won't take a party, it will take a person, a single person. Politicians are valued because they bring in original ideas and are innovators. That's not to say these are the characteristics that make a successful and effective politicans. But, there it is. A candidate can't make a speech with the line, "Ask not what you can do..." or with a rewarmed version of the four freedoms. (Nonetheless, a visit to the FDR memorial along the tidal basin can be just as moving as the Lincoln memorial.)
It will be up to the charasmatic leader of the Democratic party, who is yet to emerge, to frame these values in a way that connects with the American people. It should include the word FREEDOM, or FREE or LIBERTY. Maybe current or future campaign staffers might be browsing Kos and this might light some creativity.
John Edwards is so politically gifted with a tongue of pearl, that if he manages to come off as not too slick then he could pull this off really well. We'll see how Clark has polished up this next round. I haven't seen Warner speak yet. Any seasoned senator who tries to make generalized statements about freedom and liberty will inevitably have his voting record spit back him, starting a debate off topic. So the question has to be, not just how the message is framed, but who will be the leader to do so. The conservatives had Reagan, but fortunately Bush is so horrific any vestige of his charming message is history.
I think we need to find this person, with this message, very quickly. My hopes are pinned on Al Gore, even though he's let us down once. If he talks from his heart, I think it would a cinch for him.