I generally don't like making war analogies for social situations; as a US Army veteran and a guy who saw a year in Iraq I find it to be tasteless and pointless pecker-wagging when someone tries to turn a sports event or a business plan into a "strategy" to "destroy" competition. CEOs who never even so much as wore a Cub Scout uniform look silly, talking about "outmaneuvering and outflanking" a business rival, and referring to salespeople as "boots on the ground".
I expect them to hoist up a flag at the front of the boardroom, and strut about in a medal-bedecked Armani suit, trying to imitate George C. Scott's coarse growl at the beginning of the movie Patton: "We're gonna hold 'em by the nose, and outsell 'em in the ass! When you look at your portfolio, and see you're down 5%, by God, you'll know what to do!"
That said, I do make a cautious exception for politics. Because war is, after all, an extension of politics by other means; and it would seem to me that politics is just an extension of war by other means; stage-managing and scene-setting for the next conflict.
In this lens comes the "culture war", and I do believe that the Right/Conservatives/GOP certainly intends to "bury us" (think of someone like Limbaugh doing a faux-Khrushchev shoe-banging maneuver and screaming "we will bury you!" to a DCCC meeting. Easy to visualize, huh?).
And so we need to consider some tactics, operations and strategies as we begin the long, slow spiral down to the conflict zone that the 2012 election will be.
Okay, it comes as no surprise that the GOP Republidrones are better at mass-managing messages and coordinating grand strategy. Many other bloggers/diarists here have addressed that. I'd like to also bring to the table another blogger and writer, Richard Greene, who wrote the books "Seduction" and "War" as well as "The 49 Rules of Power".
His (now largely defunct) blog, "Power, Seduction and War" has an entry in it from 2006, called "2008 and Beyond". Remember that it was written in 2006, on November 7th, so some of it will seem dated by now, whereas some of it may seem prescient, perhaps even prophetic.
http://powerseductionandwar.com/...
The important part is in this quote, where he dishes on the Democrats' biggest weakness-- our tendency to address issues by running through a "Laundry List":
QUOTE: The danger in politics is to passively follow this trend and become a party that is a slave to the laundry list syndrome: taxes, education, energy, defense, national security, this special interest or that one, on and on. Not only does this fail to inspire or heat anyone up, it creates a strange void. What connects the list, what is the idea behind them, what does this party stand for in the end?
This is a moment in which the Democratic Party must transcend this deadly pattern. It must find a way to create a kind of common mythology that unites voters, makes them feel they belong to a greater cause.
I think Greene is onto something here, although I have to admit that, ironically enough, it means the Democratic Party's greatest weakness is that we're too democratic. A little tighter unity & coordination wouldn't hurt!
His next observation is where we try to counter our weakness with some ideas to help mold together some strength. Another entry he made, "How to Crush Karl Rove and the Republicans in 5 Easy Steps" (http://powerseductionandwar.com/...) he gives some advice for us to consider:
Begin with a Grand Strategy: Pick a goal and keep it in mind. A goal beyond just "winning".
Control the dynamic: When the Republicans say something that tries to frame the debate, or creatively interpret something, take it back.
Deny them targets: Don't do or say things that play into the popular stereotype of the silly liberal.
Set ambushes: By all means, let the Republicans walk into traps. They are their own worst enemy; when they blather, take their own words against them.
Stop preaching to the converted: Don't just stay in your comfortable circle, where everyone agrees. Arm yourself with knowledge and wit and go out and confront!
Let's look at each of them:
Grand Strategy: Sooner or later, every issue is just a couple degrees of separation from every other issue. The Immigration issue can very quickly be tied to the Agriculture Industry. For example, taking illegal immigrants and making them citizens (ie, "Amnesty") doesn't address the underlying issue: companies want non-citizens to exploit for cheap labor. And no consumer wants to spend $1.00 per apple. An immigration policy that looks at options such as a guest-worker program, or using AmeriCorps to supplement agricultural work, can easily enter the picture. Immigration policy can end up drifting into areas such as border security and agricultural policy. Find out how your pet interest intermeshes with another's interest, and find mutual ways to support one another. Our goals should be a tightly-wrapped bundle of interconnecting interests that mutually compliment one another.
In Greene's blog, he uses the Environment as a solidly unifying goal. It is hard to deny that a sound environmental policy is not only good for the country from a standpoint of clean air and water, but also because it removes us from vulnerable foreign sources of oil. It ties together many of our goals, without looking "soft" on anything.
Control the Dynamic: This is the most important point of all, once a Grand Strategy is settled on. In fact, all of these that follow will, in some way, reflect back on "controlling the dynamic". When a Republican/Conservative/Teabagger/etc tries to frame the parameters of a debate for us, we need to make sure we keep control and not let them get away with the heart of the argument. One thing they seem to enjoy is going along with an extreme version of an argument and drawing us out on a limb, then forcing us to defend our positions from precarious (even ridiculous) positions. They do that well with abortion, for example, typically painting the Left as not only "supporting" abortion, but making it look like the Left prefers abortion over anything else-- as if abortion is a goal that we want to hustle women towards.
For example, when a Republican says that Democrats are soft on terrorism because we want to pull out of this or that war, don't shrug and say that the wars are "expensive" and "wasteful" even if they are. That accepts their accusation that we are soft on terrorism and switches the dynamic to why the wars are a waste of time. Even if you win that part of the argument, when they walk away, they remember that you never addressed their point that we're soft on terrorism. Maybe ask them why they think that the military option is the only available option, for example.
Deny them targets: This is part of "controlling the dynamic"-- it also means not letting yourself (or your argument) be turned into a caricature. The Right loves to exploit an opportunity to denigrate the Left as a bunch of washed-out old hippies, or arrogant know-it-alls, or socialists, or whatever. Especially if they can make it look like we want to kowtow to other countries. A sound Environmental policy seems like a great set-up for Right wing undermining, but don't give them the target. You can even outdo them, if you phrase it right:
-A clean environment means keeping our America beautiful. Remind them that it is the Creator's world, and we're just borrowing it. Make them defend the idea that they are trashy tenants, ruining the place. You're trying to be the responsible tenant. Even if you're not particularly religious, the focus of the argument is being responsible stewards of the Earth, it's tenants.
-A clean energy policy means "telling the Arabs to stick it". Make them defend their position that shoveling billions of dollars a year to folks like Hugo Chavez and the Saudi royal family is good for America. By looking for clean and renewable energy, you're being patriotic. Ask them why they hate America, if you want to twist the knife.
-Seeking clean, renewable, domestic energy means getting "good old American innovation" to work for the good of all of us. They love talk of "innovation". Ask them why they're "defending the buggy-whip manufacturers of the 21st century" and engaging in "protectionism" of outdated industry.
Set ambushes: It is well-known that the GOP loves to set up a list of pre-packaged talking points and sound bites to distribute so that everyone is on the same page. It creates "unity of message" and internal consistency, which appears powerful-- like they truly are part of a mass movement. But this is also a fantastic vulnerability that we have been poor to exploit.
If the Republicans have a scripted response, then start them on an argument that will lead them to their goal, their scripted response, and then have some facts ready to demolish it! You can set ambushes easily when your adversary broadcasts his tactics ahead of time! When you know a debate about health care is going to turn into a sound-bite blitz on "Obama-care", ask them if it is because they think government spending is bad. Of course they'll say "yes, government spending is bad". You've got them! If government spending is bad, then why do they attack health care but don't protest subsidies to big oil or big agribusiness? How come they attack subsidies to Amtrack, but not the subsidies to the Interstate Highway system? (Obviously, a hard-core Libertarian won't be easy to out-maneuver on this one, because, yes, he really is willing to end all these).
Health care is a great one, in fact. Remind them that a healthy citizenry is a healthy work force, and a healthy work force is more productive. An un-healthy work force either drags on the economy, or in the case of employer-subsidized insurance policies, adds costs to the employer. One way foreign companies can compete with us is because they have public health care, which means the employees are kept healthy at no cost to employers. They show up for work ready to compete with us.
Stop preaching to the converted: For the most part, don't grumble in the dark coffeehouses or just talk to those who already feel as you do. Organize. Get a message and coordinate with your fellows and agree who will handle what. Have your left-wing veterans ready to address security, defense, and similar issues. Have your left-wing friends who are good with the numbers ready to support business statistics that show that public health care, in the long run, saves us money. Be ready to hand off the issue to a partner and back them up on it. But most of all, don't just sit in a comfortable area and let the Conservatives gape at us from afar and speculate about "them thar lib'ruls over thar".
These are but a handful of thoughts, and I hope we can expand on them. Remember your targets, at all time: you would not use silver bullets on a Vampire, because silver bullets are for Werewolves, right? So if you're arguing the environment, don't waste your time getting bogged down in talk about Spotted Owls. I guarantee you, your audience doesn't give two shakes about Spotted Owls and it lets them paint you up as a shrill who puts owls before jobs ("Don't Give Them A Target! Control the Dynamic!").
Instead, put it in terms they will care about: "How would you like it if we could send a representative to an OPEC meeting just to tell them that we don't need them anymore? How would it affect the bottom line of American business if you didn't have to pay a power bill? If you had free power from solar panels, and could bring customers in by offering free charge-ups for their electric cars while they shopped, would that be good for business?" Now you're talking their language. You're not just a damn dirty lefty, but someone who's obviously concerned about the same things they are; a potential --and unexpected-- ally.
So to reiterate, I think we should agree that "Laundry List" politics is not a good long-term strategy. It does nothing to tie us together and make us a unified front. And we need unity, because right now the Left is beginning to pick up momentum, which means everyone's going to come gunning for us. We need to be ready, not rest on our laurels. Show some unity and some strength and we will also have more influence on where the Democratic Party goes-- no more shifting to the right in the wake of the GOP as they go even further rightward to appease their lunatic fringe.
I agree with Greene's assessment that a good, sound Environmental policy is something we can find a way to all hang our hats on. Let's see what else is out there and how it can be tied together. Take "Environmental policy" out of the ghetto of "silly hippie tree-hugger nonsense" (that what they'll call it) and turn it into a matter of strategic national security and self-sufficiency that will revolutionize business-- something they can't pooh-pooh without looking like a bunch of total losers. Losers that hate America, I'll say, just to twist the knife. It may be hard to see how we can tie in "saving education" to this, as well as Immigration policy, Agriculture, and things like "prison reform", but that's why we're here-- to brainstorm.
And so, the floor is yours--