It's the VALUES, stupid!

[IrateCitizen]

The Clinton campaign theme of 1992, "It's the economy, stupid!" was effective at the time, but it wasn't correct. I think that, given the results of the 2004 election, that a more accurate statement would be, "It's the VALUES, stupid!"

What do I mean by this? I am not talking about some need for the Democratic Party to adopt the "values" promoted by the Republicans. I, for one, would bolt the party in a second if they did that. What I am talking about is the need for the Democratic Party to become a party of values again, because the average American votes on values, not on detailed policy positions.

Most people are able to talk about the Republican Party in simple terms based on value judgements and themes. When they talk about the Democratic Party, are they able to do the same thing? Not in the least! I would argue that we have made ourselves even less effective through the strategy of courting the "swing voters". We have become so engrossed in chasing after this narrow demographic that we have forgotten what we stood for in the first place, which then made it impossible for us to sum up what we stand for.

In my mind, the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for some pretty easily-definable values. Those would include cooperation, charity over selfishness, rewarding hard work, and encouraging civic involvement. The question is, are these themes that are really central to our message, or are they somehow lost in the din of policy details and single-issues cobbled together?

Furthermore, it is necessary to accept that we live in a country in which religion is a significant part of many people's lives. I know that this is uncomfortable to a lot of people, but it is a reality. This does not mean that those of us on the left and center-left who are people of religious/spiritual faith have any interest of weakening the walls between church and state. However, it DOES mean that if you want to connect with many of these people on values, you need to be willing to talk about them in a religious context, because that is the easiest way to reach them. I was raised mainstream Protestant, and I have to say that the foundation of most of my political beliefs is based in the spiritual values I learned in this context -- compassion, forgiveness, selflessness and charity. If you refuse to talk to people in these terms, you will be refusing to acknowledge basic realities and will consign yourself to perennial loser status. If you want an example of how effective this approach can be, look no further than the Senator-elect from Illinois, Barack Obama.

The one central lynchpin to our entire strategy is values. Without values at the center of our strategy, we will continue to lose. Without values, we will not reach any of the reachables in "red" America.

Thoughts on this?

[BayStateBoy]

1. Bush "won" on values, voter turnout, smear & fraud n/t

[sister moon]

2. With a heavy emphasis on FRAUD.

Stop trying to figure out where WE went wrong and get to the bottom of where the VOTE went wrong.

[dpt223]

13. No, Bush won on ignorance n/t

d

[liberal N proud]

3. I would believe it was the values if the people who are making

that claim actually live them.
Most of the right wing christian fundamentalist that I know are hypocrites, including the preachers that stand behind the pulpits on Sunday.
I have called myself a Christian and still feel that I am, but those people making the Values claim are the ones who will be the first one to violate their values.

BTW, I think it appropriate that Red is used for the idiots that voted for bush, that is the color of the blood they are responsible for.

[IrateCitizen]

6. It's not just the fundies who are about "values"...

Forget about the fundies for a minute. We do still have the capacity of reaching a lot of evangelicals (remember, Jimmy Carter is an evangelical Christian), but the fundies are a lost cause.

What I'm speaking to here, though, is the "masses" among the voters. The average person doesn't spend time researching politics. They don't read policy statements. They don't do much beyond watching the news on TV or listening on the radio. Therefore, if you're going to inspire them to vote FOR your candidate, then you need to reach them on a basic, emotional level they can easily identify with. This is where "values" come into play.

It's much like George Lakoff describes when he talks about the stern father figure vs. the nurturing parent. Most people have aspects of both of these outlooks. The key is playing up to the aspects that benefit your side. That's where values being central to your campaign comes into play.

If we want to win, we have to realize this, and SOON.

[liberal N proud]

8. You hit it on the spot in paragraph 2 - Average vote doesn't spend

time reasearching politics.
What that has enable rove and the funies to do is play on those people and the church has been the perfect outlet for the sheep.
I really went balistic on the Sunday before the election (last time I have darkened the steps of a church) when the preacher stood for 30 minutes preaching the evils of greed, then paused for a minute and gave a subverted endorsement of one of the greediest people on earth, bush. The sheep in the pews all sat there and when amen. Then on Tuesday voted what their preacher told them was good and right.

That is the problem we are facing. The 700 club must be stopped.

[VaYallaDawg]

14. The preachers have convinced them that God

now lives in the WH.

[IrateCitizen]

17. Not true at all

Your statement represents an attitude that absolutely KILLS us among the spiritually-minded (and I place myself FIRMLY in that group).

The largest religious organization in the United States -- the National Council of Churches, a mainstream Protestant organization -- was completely against the Iraq War. It publicly criticized many of Bush's policy decisions. Most mainline religions weren't too crazy about Bush. You seem to be confusing religion with Fundamentalist Christianity. That's like saying that all white people are from Germany, or something along those lines. Most native Germans are white, but hardly all white people are from Germany.

[liberal N proud]

47. But did they come out and chastize bush?

Or better yet did they endorse any one else?

[IrateCitizen]

51. You're not going to get an endorsement from them

People on the religious left have tremendous respect for the separation of church and state from both a religious AND political perspective. We realize that this separation is a primary reason for the spiritual diversity we have here.

The NCC did attack Bush's positions on a lot of things. I saw several full-page advertisements in newspapers and magazines throughout the last couple of years. It needs to be more, but that's also where a lot of the MEMBERSHIP of these religious organizations comes into play.

[Sterling]

55. Well thats too bad considering their religion has been hijacked.

Seriously it's hard to justify spending time and resources reaching out to them if they don't realize everything they hold dear has been perverted by people with very anti christian ideals.

If there really is a large section of religious people in this country that understand that Bush is not in line with there ideals then they eed to get VERY active NOW. Actually the needed to back in the 70's but it's do or die time.

These church groups need to get vocal and and start raising money for their political activities.

[IrateCitizen]

58. Did you even read anything I said, Sterling???

Look, I'm a member of the religious left. Therefore, I understand it -- probably a lot better than people here on DU who express opinions toward religion ranging from disinterest to outright disdain.

The Religious Left will NOT directly enter politics because we believe so fervently in the separation of church and state. Just how many political liberals and progressives believe that we should not shrink away from our core values, religious liberals feel the same way. If we compromised on the separation of church and state, one of the things that we most believe in, then what would be next?

However, the RL can play a meaningful role in all of this by providing the political left with an anchor of values. By the political left championing the values of the RL (hell, it's where most of the political left's values have traditionally been based anyway!), this helps provide an excellent counter to the religious right and the political right. It helps to show that the right wing does not own the "values" mantle, and that the left has some pretty strong values as well.

[liberal N proud]

60. They are hypocrites all the way

While they will stand there and tell you their belief in separtation, they will sublimally endorse the right wing agenda by damning the other candidates stand on abortion or faith based initiatives or gays.
The fact that they participate in faith based bushit should be enough right there to kill any belief that of respect for separation of church and state.

[IrateCitizen]

62. That's funny, considering that my Unitarian church...

... fully supports a woman's right to choose and the right of gay marriage.

When I was a Presbyterian, my church had no official stance on these issues, and encouraged people to investigate the issues on their own and make up their own mind. Most of the congregants I knew were quite out of step with the RW on these issues.

I think before you point your finger at others and accuse them of being hypocrites, you'd do well to note the other three fingers pointing right back at you. Your post is indicative of the kind of knee-jerk condemnation of others that is found among the groups that you supposedly reject.

It's good to see that intolerance can be in as full bloom on the left as it is on the right.

[VaYallaDawg]

48. Don't get me wrong - I'm spiritually minded as well.

I look forward to mass every Sunday and I respect every person's right to worship as they please. And I do believe it's the part of the role of spiritual advisors to deliver messages about the goals humans need to aspire to. Where I have problems is when clerics tell their congregations how to vote.

[IrateCitizen]

50. I have a big problem with that too

Where I have problems is when clerics tell their congregations how to vote.

RW churches have been unabashed about getting involved in politics. But it's not like the Democratic Party, on a national level, has done a damned thing to rein this in. These churches should ALL be subject to losing their tax-exempt status. But it's all you can do to get a Democratic politician to raise a halfhearted objection to this.

On the Religious Left, we have a much harder time with this, simply because we respect the wall between church and state both politically AND spiritually. However, this doesn't mean that we cannot play a part. The best part we can play is by loudly championing our core values as liberal religious/spiritual people -- while at the same time forcing the Democratic Party to loudly champion these values as well. People WILL make the connection, many without realizing it, because when you're dealing in values, you're dealing on a much more emotional level

[VaYallaDawg]

52. Agreed.

It's obvious we're both talking about the same thing.

[IrateCitizen]

53. Imagine if the Dems went after the RW churches the way the Repubs...

... have gone after the NAACP after Julian Bond made a speech stridently denouncing the Bush Administration's policies?

The thing that galls me, that makes me realize that my party is full of a bunch of fucking lily-livered pussies (sorry, but I can't think of a better word for it) is the way in which the most that they will do in an instance such as this is "raise objections". Furthermore, they NEVER do the same thing in return, like in regards to the RW churches.

[VaYallaDawg]

57. Perfect example of choosing a weak target.

When the GOP went after the NAACP they were obviously attacking from a standpoint of strong organization and deep pockets. The NAACP is nowhere near as wealthy nor as organized as are the RW churches, especially the teevee ones who rake in money from people all over the US. True, "RW churches" is an amorphous body which has no single spokesperson or organization, but you can bet if you launched a serious attack (as you suggested, going after tax-exempt status, which I hope somebody will do, and quickly) on one of them, they'd all land on you with everything they've got, and that's plenty.

I agree with your position, though - just because they have so much strength doesn't mean we should cower from them.

[IrateCitizen]

59. No, we shouldn't cower from them...

As powerful as the religious right is, they by no means speak for the majority of Americans. Furthermore, standing up to them is a good thing, because it helps to eventually dispel the well-earned criticism that the Democratic Party is weak, and that it doesn't stand for anything.

There are ways to project strength outside of voting to fund every new weapons system that comes around and advocate further increasing our bloated military machine. A lot of people like the person who stands up to the bully.

[daa]

4. It sure wasn't the economy

And yet these idiots voterd for the smirking chimp.


Texans feel economy slowing, poll finds
More say they're worse off; fewer expect turnaround

Thirty-six percent of Texans told pollsters in October that they were worse off financially, compared with 33 percent in August who reported harder times, according to the poll.

And 57 percent of Texans said last month that they expect to be better off financially next year, down from the 62 percent who were bullish in August.

On the question of their own or their family's job prospects, 57 percent are pessimistic, compared with 50 percent during the winter.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2889346

[BlueEyedSon]

5. Wrong. It's the STUPIDITY, stupid!

I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.

From todays NYT OpEd page http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=83726&mesg_id=83726&page=

In other words:
15%: Concerned with progress in Iraq
19%: Want toughness on terrorism
20%: Worried about the economy
22%: Support Legislating Moral Issues
70%: Dumb as a fucking post

[Midlodemocrat]

7. Right on! They need to get their news from somewhere other than Fox.

[IrateCitizen]

9. THEY need to do this, THEY need to do that...

All this talk about THEY may make us feel better, but it won't do a damned thing to help us win elections or, more importantly, develop the momentum to make America a progressive country again.

How about instead of bitching and moaning about how dumb people are, or how misinformed they are, try and identify ways that we can reach them THROUGH all the chatter?

[Midlodemocrat]

15. I'm listening. What do you have in mind?

[IrateCitizen]

16. Start small, work bigger...

Abandon the top-down strategy as the prime model. Get involved in groups like Dean's "Democracy for America" that are built around just getting people to talk about issues.

Organize similar events in your community. Maybe start a community potluck to bring people together. This is one of the first steps, because COMMUNITY is (or should be) a core value for the Democratic Party. Furthermore, events like this will help you to establish a core group of committed people to get the message out.

To take a page out of the conservative playbook, I'd look at direct mail. They used this very successfully when they were in the wilderness following the Goldwater defeat. It helps get our message out to people who we can sway, and it bypasses the noise machine.

These are a few ideas I have for starters, but it's obviously very basic.

[Midlodemocrat]

18. I agree with you there

...but in my community, people honestly didn't think Roe v Wade was an issue. These are educated, working, professional women I am talking about here. They were shocked the other night when I started to tell them about the RW agenda and what they have planned for us. So, I agree that we need to start working, but people are ignorant. A woman at my bus stop was discussing the debates and she just couldn't understand why the mainstream media wasn't declaring Bush the obvious winner. Another woman told her to watch Fox News, they always have the right information. How do you compete with that?

[IrateCitizen]

19. By hammering home YOUR talking points

The Republican ascendancy didn't happen in a day. It took them 40 years to get to the point they are today. They succeeded by becoming extremely well-organized, disciplined, and most of all, RELENTLESS.

Think about how many times you hear conservatives talk about the "liberal media". The idea has even taken hold in mainstream society, not because it's true, but simply because they have said it over and over again. It's like a form of conditioning.

You bring up a singular issue -- Roe v. Wade. Personally, I think this is a major cause of the problem Democrats have had. We bring up ISSUES instead of basing these issues in the terms of VALUES. The abortion argument is a good case -- just look at how its framed. On one side, you have those who "favor abortion", and the other side is called "pro-life". I don't think that there is anyone who actually favors abortion, rather we believe that the woman should have the right to make that CHOICE. But that's how the issue is framed. Furthermore, those opposing abortion are said to be "pro-life", I mean, who in their right mind wouldn't want to be "pro-life"? What's the alternative, pro-death?

This framing takes place in the language of values, because that's the easiest way for people to make a decision on that issue. If we want to reclaim the issues, and the language, we need to start with values and work from there.

[Midlodemocrat]

20. Believe me, I do.

But, here in the good old red state of VA, people just ignore it. Can you truly argue against ignorance? Remember what Alexander Hamilton said? People are too stupid to govern themselves, or words to that effect.

[IrateCitizen]

22. Alexander Hamilton was an elitist bastard, IMHO

It's funny I used the term "bastard" to describe him as well, since he really was the definition of the word! But Hamilton's line of thought would mesh well with that of the Republicans -- that the role of the leaders is to rule over the governed.

You may think that your protestations are ignored, but if you keep saying it over and over again, it DOES have an effect. It also helps if we get organized on this, because we need to be effective. We need to make certain that people are hearing our talking points as much as they are hearing the other side's. Granted, this is a daunting task -- but it's one we cannot shy away from if we want to win.

[Midlodemocrat]

39. I think so as well,

...but at times I think he was right about this aspect of self-government.

[Midlodemocrat]

21. I brought up R v W, because of the audience I was addressing.

Women who had enjoyed their right to choose 20 years ago, but now voted to deny it to others. There are many, many others issues which are nearer and dearer to my heart than the abortion issue, simply because I never had one and don't expect to need one. I am however, extremely concerned about the situation in IRaq because I have teenagers. When I bright up the issue of the backdoor draft, they again dismiss with a wave of the hand, even when I have proof. The liberal media has done it again, they say. It really is very frustrating...like beating your head against a wall.

[starroute]

10. Expressing liberal values in religious terms

I've been thinking about this the last few days and posting on it here and there.

What I've been realizing is that comtemporary liberal values are strongly based in 19th century liberal Christianity and can still be expressed in those terms.

Liberal Christianity is very different from fundie Christianity. The main difference is that fundies believe that some are destined to be saved and some are destined to be damned, and this makes it very easy for them to reject anyone they don't approve of. Many of them also believe that worldly success is a sign of divine favor and poverty a sign of moral failure, which makes it even easier for them to turn their backs on the poor.

Liberal Christianity is universalist. It sees every soul as worthy and as ultimately capable of salvation. It is also intensely spiritual -- that is, attuned to inner beauty of spirit. Compared with this spirit-based attitude, the fundie obsession with sex and money can only seem bizarrely materialistic.

From a spirit-based perspective, marriage is the union of two souls, each of them made in the image of God. Human bodies -- which can hardly be said to be in the image of God, unless you believe in a God who is both anthropomorphic and hermaphroditic -- have very little to do with true marriage.

From a spirit-based perspective, every soul matters and no one is disposable. We all see God in one another's eyes and we all need to love God in one another. If we don't love God in one another, how can we claim to love God at all?

From a spirit-based perspective, the goal of every human life is to rise above material limitations and realize ourselves as part of a larger spiritual whole. This creates an imperative to provide the basic necessities to everyone so that our fellow spiritual beings don't get dragged down by hunger and want and fear and suffering.

I may be saying these things clumsily -- I'm hardly an expert on liberal Christian doctrine. But I do know enough history to be aware that these attitudes are the bedrock on which contemporary liberalism is based. And I hope that those who feel comfortable with this sort of vocabulary will find a way to speak out loudly enough to be heard.

[IrateCitizen]

12. Every major progressive movement in our history was spiritually-based

Abolition? The abolitionists were people who could be best described as Evangelicals today.

Civil Rights? Martin Luther King, Jr. was a REVEREND, for crying out loud. EVERYTHING that he stood for was based in religious values.

Much of the women's suffrage movement was couched in spiritual terms. Many of the earliest activists in the Vietnam anti-war movement were clergy or deeply religious people.

All you have to do is read the Sermon on the Mount to realize that there is tremendous capacity for promoting progressive values through religious/spiritual values. Why so many on the left have such a visceral reaction toward this reality is just completely beyond me. After all, religious liberals have often been the most vigorous defenders of the separation between church and state.

[starroute]

28. Are most religious people in the US more New Age than fundie?

My son once worked at a bookstore for a few months, and the books that really flew off the shelf were the New Age things. The people buying them weren't what you'd think of as New Age types either -- they were mostly ordinary housewives and high school kids.

And the popular tv shows with "religious" themes are hardly fundie. As nearly as I can tell (given that I tend to avoid them like the plague), they're mostly about feel-good themes and loving everybody and angels being there to help you over the rough spots.

The real religion of the US is a kind of pop monotheism -- and that's worlds apart from fundamentalism.

When the Moral Majority was formed twenty-some years ago, the right-wing was exulting that that'd found a vast untapped resource in the evangelicals. Well, we have a vast untapped resource in all the people who think of themselves as conventionally religious, go to the church down the street on Sundays, but have beliefs that are far more tolerant and inclusionist than any fundie.

We need to speak in language that will tap into that -- but we need to do it without compromising our own values.

Speaking for myself, I'm a sort of mystical agnostic. I believe that there is some sort of ultimate truth out there, but that this truth is permanently unknowable except in intimations and metaphors, and that the metaphors of any religion are as valid as those of any other. I also believe in the Sufi dictum, "Speak to each in accordance with his understanding." If speaking in the metaphors of pop Christianity will get the message across, I'm all for it.

[IrateCitizen]

54. Yes and no...

I'm a Unitarian now, so my spiritual journey has drifted somewhat outside the boundaries of "mainstream" Protestantism. However, I still believe in many of the traditions and morals that I learned in the Presbyterian Church growing up.

Our minister went on a retreat at a Jesuit monastery a while back. She said that several of the Jesuits she talked to told her, "You know, you Unitarians always talk about the things we WANT to talk about, but aren't allowed to yet!" So, I think that there are pretty sizable elements in most "mainline" denominations that question some of the basic tenets of their faith. For instance, there is open discussion starting in some mainline Protestant churches about whether Christ was really divine or not. Personally, I crossed that bridge a long time ago, but it's good to see that some entire denominations are approaching the controversial subject.

A lot of people in these organizations are tending toward "New Age" beliefs, but still need many of the traditions as well. Organized religion is a very hierarchal structure -- shifts like this take time, even when a majority of the congregants are already moving in that direction. Just look at the Catholic church's resistance to women's equality and birth control.

[farmbo]

11. Its the Hatred, stupid.

Bush won by motivating his base on sheer hatred and contempt:

Hatred of the HomoSexuals!

Hatred of the Traitor Kerry!

Hatred of Liberals!

Hatred of the Mongrol races!


Please change your tag line to reflect what really won the election for Bush.

[m berst]

23. The Democratic party and values

I talked to a Republican today about the stolen election and Bush coup d-etat, and he said that we need to be very sober and serious with people as though we were calling about the death of a loved one (which he said we sort of are) and steer clear of partisanship. When I said that people think "oh yeah you just want Kerry to win" he suggested we say "no, let's disqualify both candidates and call for a new election."

That led to a discusssion of values, and why the Republican voters think that the Democrats don't stand for moral values.

We talked about the biggest mystery of all time - why aren't the Democrats fighting the elction fraud? He said that the Repulbicans sure as Hell would be if it had happened to them. Then he asked me if I thought the reason that the Dems weren't calling for a full investigation was because an investigation would reveal things they had done that they wanted to keep hidden?

But here was his biggest point - many, many Republicans want the election investigated as a matter of patriotism, and are against the war, and want the Patriot act repealed. Why on earth did the Democrats not take strong stands on these? He said that this wimpiness just proves to them that Democrats are weak, unprincipled and hypocritical. They are Republicans, but many if them hate Bush, and how can we expect them to break with their party and criticize the war, the election fraud and the Patriot act when Democrats won't even do that?

Dissidents in the Republican party can't very well be expected to buck their own party if the Dems are going to slink away whimpering.

The things happening now sure make the Greens and Nader look right about everything.

Is it any wonder that the Republicans see the Dems as weak and anti-American when the Dems won't fight to protect democracy?

Here is a question all Democrats should be asking themselves - would you save democracy if it meant the end of the Democratic party? Or would you stick with the party at the expense of the death of democracy?

If the Democrats don't fight this election fraud, I don't think they will ever recover in the eyes of the American people. A few die-hards will hang with them for a few more years, but the vast majority of people are shocked by the Kerry campaign's failure to oppose the war, the Patriot act, NAFTA and WTO and to challenge the elections.

The party's partisan agenda and corporate backers are more important than anything apparently, including the country.

If the integrity of elections, if freedom, if the end to the war aren't worth taking a stand on, then what claim do we have to representing moral values?

on edit -spelling

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. Yes, I've written this till I'm blue in the fingers, but

the Dems need to STAND FOR SOMETHING. If they're too willing to go along with whatever the Republicans put out, or if they simply react to what the Republicans put out, they look both weak and unoriginal.

I'd love to see the Dems work out their own agenda without any reference at all to the Republican, i.e. if there were no Republican Party and no Republican agenda on the table, what would their ideal society look like? One reason I supported Dennis Kucinich was that he had such a vision.

[Beam Me Up]

25. "let's disqualify both candidates and call for a new election."

I do wish you would start a new threat with precisely this idea in mind. CAN ELECTIONS BE NULLIFIED? I voted for Kerry in this past election but I would be hard pressed to do it again given what has happened since 11.2--and I suspect I'm not alone in that feeling.

[m berst]

27. "CAN ELECTIONS BE NULLIFIED"

That is the prime difference between Republicans and Democrats. Dems always say "can we do that? Is that allowed?" and the like.

A Republican would say, when freedom is at stake, and the people's rights are in danger, it is not a matter of can we do it, but rather where do I sign up?

[Beam Me Up]

43. Well, Republicans are just BETTER than Democrats, obviously!

Sheesh :eyes:

[m berst]

44. nothing to do with that

Silly to turn everything into a loyalty test. The stakes are too high for that.

[Beam Me Up]

46. Well excuse me but you are the one who put it in PARTISAN terms, not I

I just asked a question--can elections be nullified?--and you made a generalized point about the difference between the way Democrats and Republicans deal with things. I made no mention of either. I agree, this is an issue far greater than whether one is a Democrat or a Republican--SO WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP???!!!

DO NOT MESS WITH ME!! I'M NOT IN THE MOOD!!!

edit: typo and: :mad:

[IrateCitizen]

26. Good points all, m berst

I don't think I've seen you around DU before, but I certainly look forward to reading more of your posts if they are on this level.

You absolutely hit the nail on the head with the inability of the Democratic Party to stick up for what should be its core values. The fact that so many people were still ambivalent going into the election (and they were out there, I know several personally, even in the northeast) was partially due to the brilliant campaign strategies of the Republicans, but also largely due to the inability of the Democrats to portray the image that they were a party that is willing to stand up for its core values.

Did you happen to see this week's NOW with Bill Moyers? Moyers interviewed a Berkeley PolySci professor who worked on and off in the Clinton administration. The entire discussion was about values, and the inability of the Democrats to stand for or articulate their own. He said that this constant chasing of the "swing voters" had completely undermined us, and that if we're truly interested in winning, we'd better start being unabashed about what we stand for and believe in.

[m berst]

32. have read many of your posts

I am a big fan of yours IC, and I appreciate the nice words from you.

If the party does not take a stand on the war; does not take a stand on NAFTA, WTO, outsourcing; does not take a stand on a stolen election - what does the party stand for?

A Republican told me over the weekend that the failure of the Dems to take a stand on these moral issues of war and peace, and the threat that multi-national corporations are to our nation, that this forced people to vote Republican. Ironically, they took a stand on marriage - as a gesture, as a wake up call - to get people's attention and not out of any desire to impose an agenda on anyone or restrict anyone's rights or freedom BECAUSE the Dems didn't take a stand on the war.

Republicans I have talked to believe instantly that the election was stolen, because they know how little enthusiasm there was for Bush. One told me, "c'mon Mike use your head! He avoided the public, spoke in front of hand-picked audiences and had to play the religious right card as much as he could. He may be the worst president in history. He used 9-11, he used fear, he lost the deabtes... do you really think that Bush ran a winning campaign??" Read that people! That is from an active and connected Republican.

People voted AGAINST Kerry, not for Bush, and Bush would still not have won without tampering with the vote.

[Paxdora]

30. I'm with you!

Read my message # 29.

[Paxdora]

29. Yeah, I got some thoughts...

The Bau-Wau Party Needs to Be Purged or Die

The Democratic Party has clearly been demonstrating for a long time
that it's not the political party of The People anymore. Have liberals
and progressives become so deaf and blind that they must hang on to
anything that is remotely familiar just to maintain a semblance of
security?

The damned Dems will neither satisfy nor represent the majority of its
taken-for-granted base as long as the leadership of entrenched high
priests and gurus continue to worship at the altar of their
ideological deity, Bau-Wau (business-as-usual, war-as-usual). If you
are a Bau-Wau follower, you are in the proper temple.

If you're not into BAU-WAUism, it's time to pack up your deepest
ideals and hit the higher road - step out and away from that hallowed
'pragmatic' road that inevitably steers all traffic to the Big C's of
Corruption: Capitulation, Collusion, Collaboration, Cronyism, Crass
Comfort and Cretinous Conformity. Find and join a congregation that
matches your conscience and political goals.

OR, you can start planning for a counter-usurpation - the high priests
and gurus of Bau-Wau, the original usurpers that seized control of The
People's Democratic Party, must be deposed from their lofty thrones,
by every means necessary, immediately if not sooner. IF successful,
the gates of The People's temple (working for a true Democratic
Republic that scorns Bau-Wau) can finally be flung open to embrace all
Greens, Independents, Progressives, small "L" libertarians, and any
other compatible political persuasion that despises the Duopolist
parties' Corporatist suppression of We The People.

Internal Catharsis and Exorcism (purging) of Bau-Wau worship is the
only thing that would restore The People's party to its former aims.
Splintering or dividing up into smaller and smaller congregations
would sound the death-knell of a strong democracy within this nation.
Diversity needs a large arena, a grand forum, in which to cohabit and
interact symbiotically, with reasonably mutual goals for everyone to
live in peace and harmony. Big money is NOT a proper political goal;
We The UNITED People, was, and still ought to be, the greatest goal of
our rebel republic. We must, if we're true democrats, stop scraping
and bowing to the elitist Ladies and Lords of the Bau-Wau Party.

I want to see ALL the leaders of all the different and disparate
progressive movements come together and sit under one roof, to finally
come back to a "Democratic" Party, and begin working together
earnestly to depose the reactionary plutocratic dividers of our
country, to dismantle the inhuman systems of Corporatism and restore
our nation to Direct Democracy via IRV and the abolition of the
Electoral College. Anything less will doom our own country as well as
the world to a revived feudalism and perpetual global warfare - and
possibly destroy human civilization along with planetary ecosystems.

The People can either exorcise the Bau-Wau Party, and restore it to a
healthy vitality, or let it slink off to die its deservedly slow
death. The phony Dems may as well die for all they've done for
democracy lately. A more difficult alternative is to construct another
party for The People in a strong coalition of existing but splintered
progressive political groups to "Save Our Republic".

But as long as the phony Dems remain devoted to Bau-Wau, I will NEVER
go that way again.

Paxdora

The Earth is sacred,
The Universe is divine

http://www.paxdoraunlimited.com/PantheistAge

[IrateCitizen]

33. Don't hold back, Paxdora. Tell us how you REALLY feel....

;-)

Actually, I agree with much of what you say. And I specifically like the "Bau-Wau" term -- I think I'll start using it quite "liberally", if you don't object.

I am very much for taking over the party from the ground up, much along the lines of what I think Dean was (and still is) trying to encourage. The people calling the shots on the national level have not only sold out core democratic values, they are completely and utterly inept as well. Purging them is more of a matter of survival than anything else.

One thing I've noticed in talking to people all over the political spectrum is how much they dislike corporate power, how they seem to all think it has grown out of control, and that they agree it needs to be curbed. It seems to me that there would be room for a massive movement if just one party would come out and propose meaningful reforms to seriously curb corporate power. But when both parties are wed to corporate power, people see such an endeavor as hopeless, and they go back to their respective partisan camps. Obviously, the first goal would be to seize the Democratic Party and turn it into such an apparatus for change, because the work of building such a party from the ground-up would be incredibly daunting.

My point in all of this is that when we are talking about these issues, we need to couch all of our discussions in terms of basic values that anyone can trace back to, and that most people will agree with in some way.

[Paxdora]

35. Hear, hear, IC!

That is EXACTLY what is needed.

I can't wait until I rack up enough posts so that I can begin starting some threads of my own!

[Paxdora]

36. re: Bau-Wau...

please do use it! We need better memes in our political discourse...

[m berst]

42. part of the red-blue divide

Democrats think "oh the party will get around eventually to going after the corporations and protecting workers." We have faith in the party. We believe, and when we are told that we have to appear moderate to get elected, and then once in power we will do the right thing, we fall for it. If we continue to express skepticism, the standard fall back answer is "well at least we are better than the Republicans."

If you never were a Democrat though, you might respond with raised eyebrows - "Oh they will take on the corporations? And when will the Democratic party be doing this? Should I hold my breath?"

How much of our loyalty is because we identify with the team and like the uniform, and hate the opposition so much? How much of the opposition is wearing "our" uniform now? How many people on the other side would join us in a heartbeat if we offered a true alternative?

[Cocoa]

31. first, you have to figure out if it's true

sure, obviously everyone is saying it was about values.

But I have some doubts.

First, this conclusion supposedly was based on exit polls. But exit polls also say Kerry beat Bush. So how come they're so flawed as to be useless in saying who won, but they're good enough to make a sweeping conclusion about "values."

Second, how come the anti-prostitution measure was soundly defeated in Nevada?

Finally, why would so many people that care about "values" ignore all of the ways Bush is a very bad person, and ignore all the bad things he's done?

[Paxdora]

34. It's not the values so much as

the Corporatist mindset that is running this country into the ground.
Read message # 29

[IrateCitizen]

38. No, the corporatist mindset is a betrayal of basic democratic values

I know it sounds like a chicken vs. egg scenario -- and might be to a degree. But the corporatist mindset adopted by the Democratic Party is a direct result of the betrayal of what were traditionally core democratic values.

That is why I use the "Big-D" and "little-d" terms separately -- they have come to the point where they no longer mean the same thing. We have to get back to the point at which they do.

[Paxdora]

40. hmmm...

I really don't see that we have any disagreement here. I, too, use big D and little d distinctions. Corporatism is indeed a betrayal of small d democracy, and a new vehicle for the beg D Democratic Party. We democrats and old-time Democrats have been betrayed by the leadership who now worship Bau-Wau before The People..

[Paxdora]

41. Freudian slip...

or just a typo? "beg D Democrat" LOL!!

[IrateCitizen]

37. Cocoa, ALL politics is about values

Even when informed people like all of us here go to the polls, we are voting for VALUES. We are voting for a worldview that is closer to the one we have. The primary difference between us and the average person off the street is that we all go nuts for this shit, and we've dedicated time to seriously investigating the issues.

The average person off the street has NOT done this. Therefore, if they are going to be inspired to vote FOR someone, that candidate has to be able to speak clearly in terms of a few basic VALUES.

You said, "Finally, why would so many people that care about 'values' ignore all of the ways Bush is a very bad person, and ignore all the bad things he's done?" You're operating under the assumption that they're really AWARE of all of the bad things he's done. I would say they are not. Instead, what they hear is Bush speaking to basic values that they might have. Now, I'm not saying at all that we need to adopt these RW values, because I find many of them (i.e. homophobia) to be utterly abhorrent. Rather, we need to put out our own framework of competing values (i.e. community, charity, cooperation, etc.) to counter those pushed by the GOP.

I'm not talking about "values" in strictly the same sense as the talking heads. I'm talking about "values" in terms of the basic belief systems that people connect to, the fact that most people have aspects of both the "strict father figure" and "nurturing parent" belief systems (as coined by George Lakoff), and that electoral success is often determined by which side is able to make a more effective case based on their values.

When Democrats don't even mention their basic values, let alone stand true to them, they can't counter the values put forth by the GOP. The argument becomes one of reason vs. emotion. For people that are identifying with politics on a purely emotional level, an argument based on reason will have absolutely zero effect.

[wadestock]

45. We are WAY past this point....

And people better start getting the picture real quick.

The Republican attack machine started against Clinton and now has refined itself into a blossoming giant of how to manipulate the people and get them to eat schitt.

There is ONLY 2 things that will work from now on.....

1. NO negativism on our part whatsoever.....we take the high ground on each issue, with no negative feedback.

2. Be the party of true information. Information is the only way to combat dittoheadism and lies.

Here are the "information issues" that must be attacked.

LIE #1 - That tax breaks to the rich result in more revenues. Yes they produce an incremental increase in revenues COMPARED TO THE IDENTICAL SITUATION PRIOR TO THE TAX BREAKS....BUT WHILE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR THE LOSS OF THE TAX BREAKS THEMSELVES.

Pure and simple arithmetic the country has got to be made to understand.

LIE #2 - TRICKLE DOWN WORKS. It is absolutely incomprehensible to believe that the public can be so stupid to allow another round of Reaganomics. History now documents clearly who benefited from the Reagan tax cuts and how distribution of wealth resulted in the middle class actually losing assets on average since 1975 with the exception of some key years in the Clinton years.

LIE #3 - The deficit doesn't matter. Ronald Reagan's theory...you can grow your way out of debt is BACK. We must put in charts, forms, whatever the truth about this...showing that interest payments on the debt after Ronald Reagan resulted in ANNUAL INTEREST PAYMENTS APPROACHING 250B PER YEAR. We will...under the Bush next 4 years, each pay extremely high interest payments in our taxes every year....effectively NEGATING any tax breaks Bush gives us.

There are more but this is a short list. You can't fight on personality or morals....they have the country tuned now to get pumped up on negativism. You either win through sheer information and knowledge or else you won't have a chance in 2008.

It is exactly what Perot did when he won over the country and got over 50% of the public polled to say they would rather bring down the debt than get a personal tax break. That type of charts and information in front of the people has to become the centerpiece of future democratic policy.

[IrateCitizen]

49. You are COMPLETELY missing the point here!

As evidenced by this statement:
Be the party of true information. Information is the only way to combat dittoheadism and lies.

It is? We've been trying it for the past several years now, and it hasn't exactly gotten us anywhere. My point in this thread, which you seem to have missed, is that you can't reach people with information when they're reacting on primarily an emotional level. Simply getting "information" out to "combat dittoheadism and lies" will only shore up your base and maybe get you a few converts here and there. This might win you an election every once in a while, but those "victories" will end up being little more than strategic retreats.

I'm not saying that we need to eschew information. I'm saying that we need to consciously pay attention to how we present it. This election should have shown us that simply pointing out lies from the other side, just striving to be the "anti-Republicans", is NOT a winning strategy. We need to show that we're FOR something, and do it in a way that will inspire people because it speaks to basic VALUES that they have.

WRT information, we need to craft succinct talking points to describe our position and simultaneously demonize the other side's. We need to use these talking points over and over and over again. That's what the Republicans did, and they understood the importance of HOW information is disseminated much better than we did.

Second, these talking points, these positions that we take, must be easily related back to 4 or 5 core values. This is how you reach people that are approaching politics from a more emotional level. Republicans do not hold a monopoly on values. Core constituencies within the Democratic coalition also hold values that a vast majority of the population can identify with. The problem is, many of the issues are never discussed in ways that they can easily be traced back to these values. Therefore, they fail to resonate with people.

If you still think that people vote based on "information", you're deluded, IMHO. Of course, you can continue along with this strategy, hopefully waking up to its futility after a few more defeats....

ON EDIT: Addressing your first point...
NO negativism on our part whatsoever.....we take the high ground on each issue, with no negative feedback.

Republicans correctly realize that politics is a gutter war. You can't win campaigns by ignoring this reality. It's just like when a young Lyndon Johnson told his campaign manager, "I want you to put out that my opponent is having familial relations with a pig." LBJ's manager said, "But you know that's not true!" LBJ replied, "Yeah, I know. I just want to see the sonofabitch deny it!"

Politics is a rough-and-tumble game. The Swift-Boat ads against Kerry were full of distortions and lies, but they ended up being the most effective 527 campaign of this year. Democrats used to understand how this works. They don't anymore.

If you want to remain above the fray, stay in the Sierra Club or Oxfam or somewhere else. Politics is a dirty game, full of dirty tricks, and you can't win unless you learn how to be more effective at it than the other side.

[Sterling]

56. What do you think our values are or should be?

Which ones are you refering to?

[IrateCitizen]

61. Why exactly do we define ourselves as "Democrats", "progressives", etc?

For me, a big value is community, as opposed to selfish individualism. It's a positive value for a lot of people across the US as well.

Charity is also a core value. I believe that if I have more than I need, I have the responsibility to try and help those that don't have enough.

Responsibility is a core value. I have a responsibility to try and give our future generations a better world than the one I entered.

Cooperation is a core value. We can accomplish much more by working collectively toward common goals than we can by being selfish and only looking out for ourselves.

Fair play is a core value. While I should certainly strive to be the best I can, it is immoral for me to try and propel my success by stepping on others in the process.

There's five I can think of off the top of my head. Of course, they need refining. What can you think of as the core values -- ideas that can be summed up in a short sentence that are at the heart of your political beliefs? Not facts, but values.

[VaYallaDawg]

63. Creativity is one of mine.

For me that means trying to find a different way of looking at life and its problems/opportunities, expecially trying to accept people on their own terms, not necessarily just mine.

[wadestock]

64. Let me try and clarify.....

We have all the values in the world...we know that.
I was particularly motivated by Clark...because he was truly believable in terms of conveying the notion that we should be proud to be democrats....we LIVE our religion, faith, values, etc.

This is where I'm coming from. We're in a serious game now....down because of lies, tricks, and deception. I don't seriously believe we can win at the game of trying to out "moral value" them.

The reason I believe this is quite disturbing...but I think correct and supported by how we've morally declined in this country.

You see...our moral value system has...in essence...become warped. We have come to believe for instance these generally convoluted set of values...

1. Peace is NOT a virtue. We are in fact better than others and might was well impose our will...especially when tipped over the edge emotionally by terrorism.

2. As we find our personal lives losing meaning and America crumbling around us, there is a propensity to think "every man for himself". Thus, the morality of "take the money and run" has become an American institution, regardless of how many brainy thesis on organizational science and Total Quality Management show otherwise.

3. As we find less and less true meaning in life, it becomes that much easier to become tricked by false sets of values...such as gun ownership, abortion, gay rights, etc.

Thus, it's difficult to win on TRUE VALUES anymore...such as lasting peace, true middle class wealth, the environment, etc...because people are NOT BUYING INTO GOOD VALUES.

BUT....suppose you point out the following information to these people....

1. They have been tricked. Tax breaks to the rich DO NOT provide over increased REVENUE. It is in fact a net loss.

2. Explain the meaning of the national debt. No one has a clue. No one I've talked to even knows they pay yearly interest payments on the debt out of their taxes.

3. Show them in Perot style a whole host of things...put it in their face....don't let up...act like the REAL BUSINESS men of the world. That's what people respect now....SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS.

The republican party has to be exposed as a BAD BUSINESS.

[IrateCitizen]

65. Sorry, your clarification still does nothing to persuade me...

I thought that this last election was supposed to be about showing people how they were betrayed, how they were lied to, and the facts behind those statements. It doesn't seem to me that this really worked. You're advocating more of the same.

By mentioning Clark, you're actually endorsing more of what I'm saying than you realize. In order for these arguments to take hold, there have to be VALUES behind them, not just information. This is because it's VALUES that will get people to react to it on an emotional level.

You're talking about the "every man for himself" scenario. I don't think that has taken hold as much as you do. If it had, then how do you explain things like the Meetups, the house parties, and all the rest. I actually think that Americans LONG for a sense of community once again. It has largely disappeared only due to our own consumerism, our TV culture, and the increased time we spend working. But it is STILL there, and it should be engaged.

The key isn't in barraging them with facts. You do that, and they'll all look at you like you have lobsters growing out of your ears. The key is breaking every argument down in terms of values that they can understand, and more importantly, empathize with. Then you're dealing with them on a more emotional level, where they're more likely to be swayed. Try to simply engage them on a reason level, and they'll shut you out, because people instinctively don't want to hear bad news that goes against what they've been predisposed to believe.

None of this is short-term. It's all about being in this for the long haul and building the momentum needed for a rebirth of the progressive movement. But if we truly want to win, it's the work we have to do.

[wadestock]

67. I do believe in values....I'm just wondering if America is ready....

The other side has warped the discussion, made the moral environment so convoluted. Limbaugh has to be given actually more credit than Rove in terms of the fundamental demonization of liberals.

I've been wrestling with the issue...I see your points....
It led me to the new post..."THE PEROT FACTOR"...check that out...

[CWebster]

66. The Democrats are so pathetic

they can't even compete with the Right's manipulation of terminology. Fundamentally the neo-cons are ambitious to gain and maintain power towards their own selfish ends. Greed is ultimately their god, Jesus would be a terrorist in their estimation. They have twisted values into a mythology of ignorance and hate. Goebbels would be pleased. What do values have to do with any of it--other than the barbarians have co-opted the moral mantle