Many Democrats did not seriously believe that our nominee would lose the Presidential election in 2004; in the aftermath of this unexpected defeat, it will be necessary to rethink our ideas, approach and tactics at a very fundamental level. I do not think, however, that many liberals are seriously considering abandoning our core principles. Rightly so. I believe that the most serious retooling must take place regarding the methods and effectiveness of communicating our message.
One of the most serious problems we face is that the opposition has developed a concise, easily-stated platform, and that this platform is unfailingly articulated by every Republican representative when he or she speaks through the American media. The message and the rhetorical tactics of broadcasting it have been honed over decades through the work of right-wing think tanks, and the discipline of the Republican Party in "staying on message" is legendary.
The Democratic Party is a much more heterogeneous body than that of the Republicans, and the breadth of our concerns tends to defy easy summation. However, I believe that the three points listed below encompass nearly every Democratic argument and that if we can continually reference them in any and all public appearances by Democratic representatives in the next two years, we will find that we are in much better shape for the 2006 elections than we are currently. I believe, I certainly hope not naively, that the majority of Americans are at heart Democrats; they just need to be reminded clearly and frequently of the values that we hold in common. I think that the cornerstones of every Democratic argument for the foreseeable future should be the following:
- Every American has a right to live in security. This assertion encompasses many of the issues we hold to be crucial: security from terrorism and other kinds of violence, security from poverty, security from illness, injury and unemployment, and security from exploitation, among others. A great number of issues can be framed in the rhetorical category of security, and we can insist that the right wing argue these points from our definition. Any resistance to ensuring the subcategories of security can and should be portrayed as an attack on this basic American right.
- Every American has a responsibility to his or her community and nation. The social contract is not a quaint ideal or an abstract; it is the foundation that has made our country great, and it is being eroded by the Republican belief in primacy of self-interest. The American dream, of course, is to attain wealth and happiness as the fruits of one's labor, and we would never deny any American the opportunity to reach for that dream. Such prosperity, however, must be contained within the framework of patriotic responsibility. Just as it is immoral, even criminal, to walk past an injured person lying bleeding in the street without attempting to give assistance, so is it immoral to enrich oneself solely at the expense of others, paying no heed to the vast and unjustifiable economic inequities that are becoming more evident every day. This does not mean that you must give of your labor so that other Americans can lazily prosper; it means that you, like every other citizen, give of your time and money to ensure that everyone--without exception--has the opportunity to reach for the same dream. We Democrats get no thrill from paying taxes--no one does--but we understand that it is our duty to do so, and that the schemes of the Republican-allied corporations, to exploit loopholes and to avoid paying taxes by setting up offshore accounts, are patently and fundamentally un-American.
- Every American has the right to be protected by the U.S. Constitution, and it is our duty to defend the integrity of that document. There are a number of Democratic platforms that can be framed under this assertion, but none are more important than the separation of church and state. While faith is an important and uninfringeable element in the private life of every citizen, such personal beliefs cannot be mixed with his or her official duties any more than is already called for in the letter of the law. The tenets of the Democratic Party and the laws of this country do already coincide with the beliefs of the Christian majority. While it is comforting to have political leaders that hold the same beliefs as we do, we must guard against the trespassing of the church into the state, or of the state into the church. We must keep in mind that it is our responsibility to provide for the security and welfare of ourselves and our posterity. We do not know what the future holds, but there may come a day when a political leader does not hold the same personal faith as we do. It need not interfere with that person's ability to make sound civic decisions, but we almost certainly will not want to have his or her beliefs imposed upon us. The Democratic Party defends this separation not to squelch the rights of any religious group but to ensure that the people's freedom to worship as they please never be impinged.
It's as simple as this--the Democratic Party is the party of Security, Responsibility and of the Constitution. This message must be repeated until every American who watches television, listens to the radio, reads the newspaper, or even reads billboards has heard it. We hold these ideas to be fundamental to patriotism, and arguments against these ideals must be exposed as erosive to the principles of our nation.
One of the reasons the Democratic platform seemed so intangible during the election season was that it was, often by necessity, reactionary. It was correct to react; this party, indeed this country, was founded on indignation. Of late the grievances have been so many, however, that reacting to all of them diluted the party's message. This is not to say that we should not react to the actions of the current administration. We should continue to call them out on each and every action that undermines the security and well-being of this country. But we should relate every criticism to one of the three principles listed above. Our words and actions, then, will be clearly grounded for all to see not in a simple reactionary stance but in the ideals we hold dear. Most people hold these ideals as well. This kind of framing is the key, as George Lakoff has asserted, to establishing a concrete and inclusive identity. The Right has done a tremendous job of framing issues so that people identify with their ideas. Until more people begin to better identify with the Democratic Party, we will continue to lose elections at all levels.
In addition to sending a clear message to the American electorate, we must focus more attention on widening our base by driving a wedge in the Republican Party and drawing moderates to us. We can do this by usurping many of the traditional Republican platforms that they have abandoned in their pursuit of re-election. In repeatedly calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, the Right has given up their claim on state's rights as a platform. There is nothing un-Democratic in championing this cause; after all, someone has to do it. The Republicans have, in action if not in words, abandoned their platforms of fiscal responsibility and smaller government. We can take these issues, and this alone will be enough to draw some moderate Republicans to our cause. Gun control should also fall within our defense of state's rights, just as Howard Dean handles the issue; there are simply too many would-be-Democrat gun owners to ignore. This does not mean that we have to abandon the fight to get guns off the streets, but we must reorganize and concentrate our efforts into a state-by-state strategy. This will allow us to make federal gun control a non-issue, and this alone will draw more moderates to us.
We can further usurp traditional Republican platforms while still maintaining our ideals by emphasizing the positive effects that our proposals would have on American businesses. Health care costs are often considered by small business owners to be their primary obstacle to success. By instituting a national health care plan, we can remove a very heavy burden from this important segment of the population, and the boost to the economy would be tremendous. This is how it should be consistently framed--not as a way to control people's lives through managed health care (a typical, and nonsensical, Republican argument), but as a way to free the people from this constant threat of loss of coverage and of being held hostage to ever-rising rates. Private insurance companies can still operate; they will just have to become competitive with the national plan. Freedom should be the catchword of this platform--freedom of choice, yes, but also freedom from the extortionist practices of private health care companies run amok.
Additionally, we can drive a wedge into the Republican Party by laying bare the influence of radical rightists in supporting and funding the party. Many Republicans are already distressed that their party caters to these groups, and a growth in the public perception of a strong link between extremists and Republicans can cause further defections from the Right. We do this in much the same way that the Right has vilified the term Liberal; we define who the extremists are, and we constantly use the term when speaking through the press. We never say that all conservatives are extremists, but we never utter a sentence regarding the one that does not mention the other. We explore the ideas of those who have murdered abortionists and constantly repeat that they hold many common beliefs with radical religious right, who also support the Republican Party.
Regarding the abortion issue, we can make the alliance with radical anti-abortionists a liability for the Republicans without alienating moderate Christians. We should state clearly that a woman's right to choose is an issue that we will never give up, but we can urge people to consider all of their religious beliefs in comparison with our platforms. They will find many points of agreement. If abortion is the only issue people consider when choosing a political affiliation, they are in deep trouble, as they may be aligning themselves with any number of extremists. Radical Muslims, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda, also have an unyielding anti-abortion stance. Note that we draw no direct comparison between the Republican Party and Muslim extremists; we just mention them in proximity to one another. This type of guilt-by-association has been practiced successfully by the Right for many years now, and it's time to fight back.
Newt Gingrich, some years ago, outlined the negative terms by which Republicans needed to constantly refer to the Democrats, and Republicans have been using them ever since. This is in part how the term Liberal came to be so despised, and why many on the Left are ashamed to identify themselves as Liberals--they know that none of it is true, but they know that the public perception is otherwise. We must adopt the same tactic of getting the public to think of Conservatives as Extremists. The only difference will be the terms that we use: extremist, corrupt, immoral, racist, hateful, and un-American. We are adopting the tactics of the right--discipline in message, fierce attacks--but we are telling the truth. We are reminding the electorate that we are here to serve the people, and that the Republicans are here to serve themselves.
So how do we go about coordinating our message? First, we must take advantage of the network of resources we already have in place (such as MoveOn.org and ACT), and we must try to better fund progressive think-tanks through individual and organizational donations. There was a huge amount of money raised in private donations in the weeks leading up to the election. Most of those who donated are still energized, and I believe that with proper fund raising we can compete with the corporate funding for right-wing think-tanks. These institutions can help us to coordinate the local and state-level efforts that will determine the success of delivering our message and of reclaiming this country.