Defining the Middle.

[Solon]

Who I am referring to can actually be up to debate, for they can be from any background or social class. Generally their politics is conservative in that they do not like change, either social, economical or political. This has little to do with their positions on issues, though I will say that the majority of them are moderates and conservatives, very few would be liberal politically. "Establishment supporters" is perhaps the proper term for these people. The one trait that many of these people have that is common, is opposition to major change. They have tolerances for smaller changes, ones that coincide with their worldview, however, anything that they consider drastic, such as gay marriage, or universal health care, they oppose on principle. Generally, they consider people on both ends of the political spectrum, both conservative and liberal, as radical.

They value Order over practically anything else, hence many of them are upset at protests opposing government policy. Whether they agree with the protesters or not is not the point, the protesters are "upsetting the balance". They place little value on individual rights, and more value on economic rights. As long as they are not threatened directly by the government they will not oppose its policies. Professions that attract these types of people include, white-collar workers, mid to upper management, police, administrators, etc. Not all people in these professions are like this obviously, however, the personality type of these people attracts them to these careers. Most of them do not bother to stay informed about current events beyond those that affect them directly.

Many of them are attracted to the Republican Party for its "Law and Order" image, and its "tough" foreign policy. They lashed out against the Democrats during the "Reagan Revolution" because of the perception that Democrats were "Soft on Crime" and are "Weak" on foreign policy. Until the DLC came into its own with Clinton did the partisan lines blur slightly. Now the "Establishment" and its enablers have crossed party lines slightly, however this is not to say that both parties are the same, only sections that overlap each other. Many issues are sources of contention and differences are being sharply drawn, particularly with *'s partisan stances. Unfortunately, the perceptions of the past are hard to give up, many of these people wish to remain partisan to the GOP for, if nothing else, their commitment to tradition.

One trait of these types of people is their myopic view of the world. They rarely take a long term affect of an action on the rest of the world. They rarely think beyond the borders of their house, much less the nation or world. They lack the ability to walk in another's shoes for a day, a common argument they use is that they could achieve success therefore anyone can, regardless of the conditions those people are born in. Their biggest complaint is usually about taxes, and they will still complain even if taxes are lowered to .01%. The only argument to use to convince such people about the damaging policies of the Pubs and * is to tell them EXACTLY how it will affect them personally.

[BR_Parkway]

1. This would be my mother

who wanted me to quit with the political conversations - she claimed to be in her declining years and didn't need to worry about it anymore. We're making progress, but slowly. If anything, the whole gay marriage issue, because it affects me and she wants to "protect her chicks"

[markus]

2. One part of your analysis is flawed, for sure

The middle do value individual rights, especially the right to privacy. This incorporates not just commercial privacy, but also the right to choose. They're probably not terribly comfortable with the Patriot Act, for that matter.

And at the end of the day, they have to feel secure domestically (crime, to some extent now terror as well) and abroad, and then they will vote both for their rather libertarian views (don't care about Clinton's affairs, pro-choice with reasonable limits) and their (pro-Democratic) pocketbooks.

There is a good book called the Emerging Democratic Majority which you might enjoy.

I disagree with some of their conclusions, but it makes for a very interesting read.

I would agree that the center is never going to come out and protest against the war, and this would be the same bloc that trounced McGovern, giving Nixon the benefit of the doubt.

However, this is also the bloc that elected Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

[Solon]

3. Actually I think you made a point for me.

These people have to feel secure at the end of the day, and they would be willing to trade civil liberties for it, within limits. As far as to how much they would tolerate is up to debate. I don't hear them complaining about the PATRIOT Act, or of any of the past and current abuses of law enforcement. I would say they are ambivilent towards abotion, and Clinton's affair, however that has little to do with civil rights and more to do with it not affecting them directly.

[markus]

6. There are two blocs in the middle

There are college education, white collar professionals. And then there are the typical blue collar "Reagan Democrats". (Think of the broad Joe Sixpack analogy).

The first group is trending Democratic as long as the party is perceived as being tough on crime (Clinton). Then they will vote their largely tolerant (Choice, Clinton's problems) views and their economic interest.

This is the growing group, not the later. Even this group, however, is troubled by Bush on the economy. And they disproportionately are reprented in the armed forces (including the reserves and guard) and are becoming uncomfortable with Bush's leadership there.

The real swing issue, and the one the GOP has burned into the brains of these centrist voters, is the Democratic will raise your taxes. We have to counter this.

The real issue is, how many times have the Democrats raised *your* taxes? For most of this group, the answer is rarely if ever.

These groups also have to be looked at sectionally. I'm sorry, but race still works in the South, and both of these groups in the South are still susceptible to racial appeals (said not as a North Dakotan, but as a son of the South from N'wawlins).

[ACK]

4. Claiming the middle

Some examples:

1. Welfare state to Workfare state or Work Programs FDR style. Anyone getting paid for work hates the idea of someone else getting a check for doing "nothing". Even if it is totally untrue. Reframe the debate completely. Dukakis had the right idea about this. Workfare along with retraining programs paid for by businesss in the local areas and more than a bit of childcare support would take care of this. Make the infrastructure stronger, help retrain workers for jobs in their areas, and NOT tick off the common man working for a living. Welfare "reform" is a baby-with-the-bathwater sham but the debate has to be reframed completely.

2. Americans unfortunately like their guns. Talk about gun safety to bait the extremists Repubs and the NRA into a fight but never, ever, ever, ever talk about gun bans on the national stage. Just because it plays in the city does not mean that is winnable national issue.

3. Take a pro-capitalism but anti corporate corruption/anti corporate welfare stance. Talk about the corrupt execs. Talk about working with businesses and environmental groups on green issues. Talk about the lack of competition in terms of media consolidation. Back the real bastards into a corner. If the businesses work with the EPA for a change, praise them. If they don't, you have all the ammo to call them out. We live in a capitalist society and the vast majority of the working class like it this way. They dream of making it big no matter no small that chance is. Talk about giving everyone the chance to make it in America again. Talk about ending corporate giveaways and loopholes while working for small businesses and competition in order to give everyone a shot at the American dream instead of just the gilded few.

4. Talk about conservation and environmentalism in the same breath. Talk about keeping the rivers clean so you can actually eat the fish you take from the streams again. Talk about preserving our wild heritage so you can take your children hiking in the same woods that you once hiked in. Talk about dreaming of a day when you will not have to check the smog alerts and clean air indexes anymore in order to know if its ok to breath outside. This is the dream of a time when our wild heritage is preserved for sportsmen, wildlife fans, hikers and for the future of our children. This is the kind of talk that would appeal to hunters and hikers but calls for the kinds of real clean air and water programs that are real and not just orwellian fiction.

5. Paint the school voucher program as being bad for both public and private schools because it is. Anytime a private institution remains on the tit of public funding it is open to regulation eventually. For the public schools, it is bad because they do not get the money that instead goes to private institutions that the government by the people for the people have no control over.

6. Healthcare reform has to be painted with the brush of giving small businesses the opportunity of providing healthcare to its employess while reducing overall healthcare costs which is a benefits to all businesses small and big. Any system that places a major burden on small businesses or does NOT decrease overall healthcare costs will go down in screaming flames in a capitalist society like we live in. It is sad and wrong and true. Talk about bringing healthcare to all Americans and emphasize that would be a boon to the entire economy.

7. Talk about the people's money in terms they can grasp in a soundbite. Talk about fiscal responsibility and paying the bills and not charging our way into oblivion with reckless tax cuts. Talk about how the balanced budget in the '90s help fuel economic growth.

8. Never, ever, ever talk about raising taxes or let a rollback of some nonsense tax break for the rich get painted as raising taxes. We have to be absolutely fanatical about this. If we closed every corporate loophole and loophole for the rich man, we would never want for money in this country for any social program.

9. Wrap ourselves in the Bill of Rights the way the right wraps themselves in the flag. Let the Constitution and our founding fathers be a mantra to appeal to the patriotic majority fighting for the rights we deserve in a free society.

10. Never, ever, ever, talk about our military ever being anything less than #1. Is it bullshit? Yes, but the wimp tag kills for the common man. Talk about helping military families and improving benefits for the soldiers on the ground while cutting worthless weapons programs off at the knees.

11. Destroy any talks of privatization/deregulation for the giveaway to the rich that it usually is. Talk about how privatizing social security is just a scheme to line the pockets of the rich stock brokers. Talk about how energy deregulation just made speculators rich while California suffered. Keep the straight line and rip into them with populist tones and speeches every single time. Do not wring our hands and debate this nonsense.

12. Reforge the language of the discussion in patriotic terms and a populist voice while pushing a left of center agenda aimed squarely at the people for the people. Reclaim the language of the debate. It is about making the American dream a fair proposal for all Americans not just the fortunate sons of the few.

We have to come up with the vision. Remember the contract on America that the Repubs used during the Republican Revolution? We need our own manifesto for the future.

Kuicinch may feel too much like Dukakis for my tastes. However, he has something right when he states that some libertarians, reform party, greens and other outside forces in American politics can be wooed to a Dem candidate with a unified vision of America and its future.

We have much of the roadmap already laid out in front of us people.

Wellstone showed us the power of grassroot movements in modern politics.

Dean showed us the power of new media and the essential need of small contributors to stop the influence of big money and the DLC on Democratic politics.

Clinton showed us how to communicate and talk to the population of this country and he also illustrated how to paint our rivals as the dangerous radicals they really are. He did this to Dole but no one else has had the guts to pull this move again?

Mark Warner in conservative Virginia showed the Democrats how to run in the districts they are actually trying to win. He did not change positions or whatever he understood the image is the thing. He instead just shows up in front of guns and nascar vehicles and got pictures taken to show he knew who his own damn constituents are.

This is the way you win seats and influence people. There is no rocket science to this.

[Solon]

5. Best to frame all of those so that you can

illistrate how it affects them personally. Remember they believe in the almighty "ME". Great Suggestions!

[ACK]

7. Thanks been working on that for awhile

It is amazing to me that this thread has gotten so few responses.

Sometimes I wonder if the hard left even care about winning back the middle class to the cause of progressive politics.

I guess its more fun to talk about Chomsky.

:-(

[Solon]

8. One thing we lack, that the conservatives have...

is a cohesive vision. Also I wouldn't blame the "Hard-Left" for not reaching out to the Middle. We are so fragmented that it is hard to come out with a message that can resonate with most Americans. We need an all encompassing message, that can appeal to them, and at the same time, to stay true to our beliefs. Compromise when necessary, however, we must keep a steady course. WE and our ideological ancestors have been the bedrock of all human progress for 500 years, we should not stop now. We must appeal to the center, while at the same time shifting it to the left, we can do that, barring some catastrophe by Bush, only slowly. The pendulum will swing back, if we continue to act on our beliefs.

[Zorra]

9. Bravo!

That, from my point of view, is the most accurate and concise description of the "middle" that I have ever heard.
:toast:
"The only argument to use to convince such people about the damaging policies of the Pubs and * is to tell them EXACTLY how it will affect them personally."

Emma Rosenthal:

"Why did you say they were good Germans?"

Good Germans, the ones who knew but said they didn't, 1942 but said nothing, did not participate in the holocaust, did not profit from slave labor did not serve in the army, just silent. Good Germans did not attract the attention of the authorities, pretended not to know, saw Jewish girls, outside the camp, walking to the factory singing.

See, they are happy.

Good Germans, not worried about the smoke, the stench. "We didn't know." Good Germans.

http://www.nimn.org/jewishper/er1.html