My slogan for the Democrats.

Doing canvassing a while ago, I was struck again by how many people complain that the Democrats have no positive message, no ideas. This annoys me, because most of the things that actually work about our government are Democratic ideas -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. -- and we need people in government who will keep those things from being destroyed by the hooligans currently in charge. And I know that apart from any list of specific things the Democrats might promise that they'll do once in power, they will put grown-up, competent, qualified people in charge, as they always have, and make government work again. That should be enough, I thought -- more than enough -- to win a sensible person's vote.

But then I thought of what seems to me to be a zippy one-line way of getting this across that cuts through the clutter. Here's my slogan, and my pitch, beyond the flip.

See if anyone finds it appealing. At the very least, I think it beats the heck out of "Together, we can do better."  You might think of it as a one-line version of the positive message called for by thereisnospoon, or the second part of a one-two punch, where the first part is negative (pointing out the failed conservative ideology of the Repubs as emphasized by bmaples and Kos), and the second part is the positive Democratic message. Here goes.

===================

What will we get if we return Democrats to power?

Answer: Good government -- period.

No keeping track of all your phone calls.

No snooping through your emails.

No extremist ideologies.

No hectoring about our religious views.

No finger-wagging about how to lead your sex life.

No meddling in your most private decisions.

No politicizing of your medical decisions.

Just good government -- period.

We will balance the federal budget -- as we have in the past.

We will keep job growth strong -- as we have in the past.

We will make FEMA work -- as we have in the past.

We will use diplomacy together with our military to provide effective national defense and earn the respect of the world again -- as we have in the past.

The Democrats: Good government -- period.

(In the unlikely event that anyone wants a bumper sticker of this sort, I put the image onto CafePress, priced at cost.)

•  My humble 2 cents.

  I often yell at the TV for Dems to become more punchy and assertive. Here's an example of what I have in mind. I hope it's a constructive contribution.

  by jem6x on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:10:03 AM PDT

  •  My belief has been that it was more

    advantegous for Dems to stay quiet and allow the Republicans to destroy themselves to the maximum extent possible before giving the Republicans a target.  Now that the mid-term elections are starting to heat up, it is time for Dems to take the lead and begin to explain how they can lead our country out of this mess.  I saw Howard Dean the other night on the Daily Show and he had a door knob hanger that has the list of Democratic Party programs and answers.  I think you are both right and I also think that we are just getting to the time to begin to state Democratic positions on what should be done.  

    Earlier, I believed that if Democrats stated what should be done, it would give the Republicans a way to change the subject.  I was afraid it would allow the Repubs to go from "twisting in the wind" to debating the Democrats.  I believed that if the debate started too early, it would evolve into the appearance of partisan politics all over again.  And I believe that is what the Repubs wanted and they is why they kept harping on, "The Democrats do not have a plan."  I think they wanted to argue about the plan instead of being shown as the crooks and criminals that they are.

    Great idea for a diary and a timely one, too.  Thank you.

    by macmcd on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:21:51 AM PDT

    •  Comedy is timing,

      real estate is location.... maybe politics is timing, too.

      I saw Dean doing that, and got a shove out of it -- 'cause I had just been out hanging those same door hangers on people's doors.

      Thanks for the comment.

      by jem6x on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:34:08 AM PDT

      •  Thank you for your good idea.

        by macmcd on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:53:33 AM PDT

  •  Agree on Need to be Assertive

    My suggestion: a radio ad to push the current Democratic advantage in the polls.

    Announcer: "What were the top two priorities for the GOP Congress after the last election? Changing a rule to allow an indicted member of the House to retain his leadership position, and cutting the Pell grants so many of our most disdvantaged students have relied on to pay for their college educations."

    Or something along those lines. [My thanks to C-SPAN3's "History of the Democratic Party" programming over the weekend, with a special debt to remarks by "Campaign for America's Future" co-director Robert Borosage.]

    by Grindstone on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:32:24 AM PDT

    •  You can also add Terri Schiavo

      Remember they held fast tracked hearings and Bush flew back from Texas to sign the bill. The Janet Jackson's breasts vs. Coal Miner safety is also another example we can use.

      by Cali Techie on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:36:47 AM PDT

•  I like it

  It's certainly better than "There's a better way." from the Dem. response to the State of the Union.

  by maxgray7 on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:17:38 AM PDT

  •  I like "Good Government"

    I also like the fact that it steals (knowingly or not) from GOP prez contender Sen. George Allen (the name for his PAC). In fact, I think congressional Democrats should steal as much as possible from Sen. Allen for the midterm elections this fall. Requiring greater parental accountability from fathers of kids on welfare? Great idea!

    by Grindstone on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:41:04 AM PDT

•  Me too. And it dovetails nicely with the Marcos

  comment a few days ago about how Dems should not be anti Bush, but anti the conservative agenda, and how the neocons construct governments that don't give a damn about the average person and their issues...

  by CalDoc on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:24:22 AM PDT

•  demo slogan

  Yes, I like it. Not "better than the other guys" or simply "better", which sort of implies a "lesser of two evils" mentality. Just "good" vs. "bad". It's unsophisticated, but so is the electorate.

  by mimuspolyglottis on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:25:37 AM PDT

•  hmm

  The problem is that the Democrats can never articulate what makes them different from Republicans in a way that can't be co-opted by Republicans. "Good Government" is a slogan that any party will want to take, as the Republicans have by playing politics with lobbying reform.

  The Democrats don't have an answer to the Republicans' core statement, which is something like:

  Smaller government, strong defense, lower taxes and family values.

  Sure, this is a big crock of shit, but it is immediately taking a stand on almost all of the major issues of the day. The Democrats always end up with frames like "strong communities" or something similarly nondescript. The problem has always been that Democratic issue stands sound inherently worse when contrasted to the Republican talking points. It's the eternal challenge (of the last 12 years) for Democrats: to get people to look past the wonderful-sounding talking points and see what's really at stake.

  by cubicalization on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:36:07 AM PDT

  •  Sure they do

    "The Republicans promised you smaller government, strong defense, lower taxes, and family values. The only thing they've delivered is lower taxes for the wealthiest among us. Government has grown under the Republicans, the Iraq war has demoralized our military with record numbers of troops seeking to exit, and the examples they've show our children through corruption, bribery, and lying are not family values."

    by Cali Techie on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:40:42 AM PDT

    •  ok

      But this is just saying the the Republicans have betrayed their talking points. I would hate Republican government that gave everything they had promised. So what we need is a way to frame our values, not just be critical.

      Oh, and this isn't necessarily important for this election, because people will just be voting on the current regime.

      by cubicalization on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:43:32 AM PDT

      •  It's called false advertising

        The Republicans ran on those principles and haven't delivered instead they've done pretty much the opposite of what they've promised and engaged in the worst and most transparent of orwellian doublespeak.

        The message is The Republicans don't deliver what they promise and they never intend to.

        If you want to live like a Republican vote like a Democrat - Leo Hindley Jr.

        by Cali Techie on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:00:21 AM PDT

        •  Hindley's comment rocks!

          Can we use that?

          by sidnora on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:20:45 AM PDT

      •  Need to Rebrand "Lower Taxes"

        How about this: "Lower Taxes. Affordable Healthcare. Energy Independence"? This was a John Kerry formulation, in a campaign e-mail, sometime in the summer of '04 as I recall. (Again, who says Dems don't have any ideas?)

        Democrats can properly lay claim to "lower taxes" because we want to lower the taxes most people pay, and would do so by not extending the tax cuts to the very wealthy. Just to get a hearing from the public, don't Democrats have to take the "lower taxes" line from the GOP and make it their own?

        by Grindstone on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:04:19 AM PDT

        •  good question

          About the lower taxes line. I'm not really sure, but I would be inclined to say that in the current environment, you are right that you can't win on higher taxes. Promising lower taxes seems to beat fear-mongering about the deficit every time.

          by cubicalization on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:15:42 AM PDT

          •  I'm partial to pointing out

            that the Repub deficits are a tax on our children, myself.

            by jem6x on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:36:31 AM PDT

            •  Very true

              My biggest worry is that my niece even though she will be well taken care of will have to sacrifice her future wealth to pay for today's excesses.

              by Cali Techie on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:03:54 PM PDT

•  The Democratic Party. For the Common Good.

  Here is a better one:

  The Democratic Party. For the Common Good.

  "The aim of every political Constitution is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers, men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous, whilst they continue to hold their public trust."
  -- James Madison, Federalist #57

  "[A]ll will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good."
  -- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

  Note that the pursuit of the common good is the foundation of the deliberative democracy that was envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Why foundation? Because the "common good" is the antithesis of what Madison called "factions" (tyranny of the majority, powerplays by special interests) in Federalist #10.

  For every key provision in a legislative bill, every earmark and line item in the federal budget, and every proposed regulatory rule the utility of the "common good" is that it is a "smell test" to determine whether some private interest or the public interest is being pursued.

  by INTP on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:40:18 AM PDT

  •  Ay yi yi.

    I like it, but the Randroids and the Libertarians gonna pass razor blades. Damn commie pinko socialist moonbats .
    OTOH, they'll say that anyway.........
    The Foundings meant what they said, and the attributions are nice. Problematic: they don't distill well into sound bites. Sad to say, but that's the hassle. The average American appears, at least to me, to have the attention span of a gnat. That's why they're not outraged. They're not paying attention.
    The best lack all convictions, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

    by kestrel9000 on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:50:33 AM PDT

    •  Unfortunately must agree.

      The electorate has been heavily conditioned to respond negatively to any word that has "common" as its root, even "community". Sounds too much like the Red Menace.

      by sidnora on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:19:23 AM PDT

      •  Poll Numbers on the 'Common Good'

        Actually, the "common good" had off-the-charts poll numbers:

        "The common good is not only a concise and clear organizing principle for progressives but also a potentially potent political theme for appealing to voters across the partisan and ideological spectrum. March 2006 research by the Center for American Progress reveals that 68 percent of Americans strongly agree that the 'government should be committed to the common good and put the public's interest above the privileges of the few' (85 percent total agree). Seventy-three percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Independents, and 67 percent of Republicans strongly agree with a common-good focus. A common good progressive theme scored well above typical conservative values themes: for example only 54 percent of Americans strongly agree that 'Americans have gotten too far away from God and family,' and just 41 percent strongly agree that 'religion is on the decline in America.' Importantly, the study reveals that liberals/progressives hold a 22-point advantage over conservatives on which ideological approach most represents 'the common good.'"

        What is really neat about identifying the Democratic  Party with the Founding Fathers is that we would be using the rhetorical firepower of GOP strategist Frank Luntz's Republican Playbook 2006 (March 2005) to attract swing voters such as disgruntled moderate Republicans and Independents.

        In sum, what I am suggesting is that the Democrats should call for the restoration of the deliberative democracy that was envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Specifically, I think that the primary mission of the Democratic Party for the 2006 elections should be to fix our broken U.S. political system.

        by INTP on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:33:37 AM PDT

        •  PURE GOLD.

          GREAT post. Time to strap on the nail bags and start framing. You said:

          In sum, what I am suggesting is that the Democrats should call for the restoration of the deliberative democracy that was envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Specifically, I think that the primary mission of the Democratic Party for the 2006 elections should be to fix our broken U.S. political system.

          If people accept that premise, that the US political system is indeed broken, they're gonna wanna know how it got that way. If the Democrats own the answer to THAT question as a point in our favor: "The gops done bustid it" - then something ELSE that they've begun to scream about works against them the more they scream about it.
          That's this one:

          Dean's Republican counterpart, Ken Mehlman, the chair of the Republican National Committee emailed supporters saying, "The Democrats' plan for 2006? Take the House and Senate, impeach the President. With our nation at war, is this the kind of Congress you want?"

          Yet in May of 1974, when impeachment proceedings began against Nixon, we were at war then. Why acceptable then and not now?

          ASK A REPUBLICAN.

          They broked it, after all. And we be gonna fix it.
          I guess what I'm trying to say is you just issued a Swiss Army knife.

          Use that to counter that argument by saying, "If there's no reason to impeach him, why are the Republicans so worried about it?"

          In sum, what I am suggesting is that the Democrats should call for the restoration of the deliberative democracy that was envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

          And if that doesn't fall under the heading of the common good, what does?
          Yepyepyep. Some kind of wonderful.
          Put a star on your forehead.

          

          by kestrel9000 on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:03:50 AM PDT

          •  Towards A 'Common Ground' Strategy

            Every progressive should read Paul Waldman's book, "Being Right Is Not Enough" published by Wiley. You can read chapter summaries at his website: http://www.beingrightisnotenough.com/ There are a lot of ideas that we can learn from the neocon's playbook.
            But the bottom line is that we need to come up with simple, understandable themes that every Democrat can speak to and explain whether they are a candidate, activist or citizen. Waldman has several themes that he articulates on what the "common good" and Democrats should stand for. "Progressives believe in respecting other people's beliefs and choices in life.  Conservatives want to forece you to live according to their beliefs."  Less than 27 words, 9 seconds and 3 points.  That is what we  need to be able to say every time when asked by a stranger or the media. We need to redefine what it means to be progressive and a Democrat.  We need to destroy the adage that "I don't belong to any political party, I am a Democrat."  We need to take a stand and stick to it and keep explaining what it means for the "common good" of all of our fellow citizens not just the rich elite.

            by Trainer 12 on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:28:32 AM PDT

            •  Wallet-card strategy.

              How about every Kossack prints that onto a wallet card, laminates the sucker, and pulls it out once a day to stay on-message.

              Progressives believe in respecting other people's beliefs and choices in life.  Conservatives want to force you to live according to their beliefs.

              Bingo.

              by jem6x on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:40:04 AM PDT

              •  Arm up for this argument:

                "But 'their' choices affect me." "Their" meaning anybody whose implementation of their individuality causes them to react in a way makes their socialconservative values gland start kicking out that fucking hormone that makes them the fucked-up people that they are.
                I've never been able, not one time, to get a rational explanation of how gay marriage affects their own life  out of any of them. Not once. And I have tried assiduously. This reminds me of my own line that I use with conservatives when the issue of "values" comes up.  
                When a liberal talks about "moral values", they tend to be talking about what THEY THEMSELVES should or shouldn't do. With a conservative, it's about gay marriage, abortion, flag burning, or any of those things that OTHER people do that they don't like.

                Interesting.

                Liberals talk about US. Conservatives talk about THEM.
                (bows)  

                by kestrel9000 on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:44:07 PM PDT

                •  I don't doubt that

                  you can't get a coherent answer to the question of how they are affected, but even so, how to counter that assertion?

                  by sidnora on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:10:41 PM PDT

        •  I couldn't be happier

          to be wrong - especially when it turns out I've underestimated my fellow citizens. Sorry it's no longer possible to give your comment a rec, so please accept my thanks.

          by sidnora on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:13:30 PM PDT

    •  I'm sure this can be distilled

      into soundbites.

      The Republican Congress slashed funding for New Orleans levees [flood image], but allocated hundreds of millions of dollars for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska [image of uninhabited island].

      The Republican admistration let mining safety lapse [image from Sago], but worked hard to meddle in one family's private medical decisions [image from Schiavo case].

      Time and again, the Republican party has shown itself to be the party of special interests. Time and again, they have abandoned the common good.

      by jem6x on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:00:07 AM PDT

  •  Nice ad.

    I'd like to see the word "Republican" before each of those infamous names, as a reminder.

    I guess that this is an effective spot for showing what a bunch of criminals the goopers have become, without showing exactly that the Dems themselves are the party of the common good.

    But building a campaign around that "common good" concept is appealing to me.

    by jem6x on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:02:49 AM PDT

•  I like it.

  by NeuvoLiberal on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:45:28 AM PDT

•  I Like It, But It Won't Work

  The Canadian equivalent to our "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" is "Peace, Order and Good Government."

  I happen to like good government (in reality, and as a slogan), but it would be too easy for the Repiglicans to say, "Look, the Democrats are trying to turn 'Murica into Soviet Canuckistan!  Canadians pull babies off incubators because they can't afford it with their Socialist Medicine!  They only have 2 incubators for the whole country anyway. They still worship the Queen!  Did you know that their national dish, Poutine, is made out of mashed Chrisitian baby brains?" Etc.

  by HarveyMilk on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:56:46 AM PDT

  •  The Elephant in the Room

    Surely, the elephant in the room this campaign season is universal healthcare. This is the idea the GOP wants the Dems to have when they claim Dems don't have any. This is what they want to use against the Dems in the very ways that you suggest. This is how they hope to change the subject, regain their familiar footing, and put the Democrats on the defensive. So far, Dems have not obliged, although Howard Dean has at times come awfully close. Does anyone doubt the GOP hopes to use this elephant against Hillary?

    by Grindstone on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:20:19 AM PDT

  •  Actually,

    poutine is a good thing to take a firm stand against...

    But part of my idea is that this will actually appeal to liberatarian-leaning folks, because of that word "Period." It's clear that the Repubs are into a whole lot of meddling into people's lives, a tendency that is hard to argue is part of "good government." My thinking was that this slogan could appeal to the many people gradually being creeped out by that.

    It is true, I believe, that at this moment in our history the most natural place for a libertarian to reside is the Democratic party. That's the party that is most likely to leave you the heck alone.

    by jem6x on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:52:42 AM PDT

    •  I agree

      I don't know from parties and slogans but your slogan works for me. Hits right at the basic issue. Government. Republicans have not kept their eye on the ball. By implication they've had other fish to fry. Your slogan sums it all up quite nicely. Whether any party can actually deliver on such a promise, well, heh... But at least it gives a good sign of intent. Nothing sappy. Nothing grandiose. Just what we supposedly pay our officials for in the first place.

      by ailanthus on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:59:28 AM PDT

•  Horrible

  People disagree about what Good Government is.
  See diary post on Kos' take that we aint running against Bush anymore.

  We need new, progressive ideas and policies.  Not technocratic blah with no vision.

  by philgoblue on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:13:50 AM PDT

•  Good Government

  works for me. So does 'Had Enough?'.

  by eastvan on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:36:07 PM PDT

  •  I forget who suggested that,

    but "Had Enough?" is a great slogan, in my book.

    Pugnacious. The Dems need to be more pugnacious.

    by jem6x on Sun May 21, 2006 at 01:23:39 PM PDT