This can be like 1964 or it can be like 1972.

[bluestateguy]

In 1964 Barry Goldwater led a movement of grassroots conservatives to capture the Republican nomination. He was soundly defeated by LBJ, but laid the groundwork for a long-term movement of social and economic conservatives which elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 and built a Republican majority in Congress in 1994. The Goldwater conservatives saw their defeat in 1964 as the first step towards a national movement that increasingly became a part of mainstream political universe.

1972 liberal activists led a movement to capture the Democratic nomination for George McGovern. He lost 49 states. Instead of building a movement, however, the American Left began to cannibalize itself, splintering into ever more tribal factions. The Democratic Party began to distance itself from grassroots activism, just as the Republican Party began to embrace it.

We can make this election our Goldwater defeat or our McGovern defeat. McGovern is a nice man, but Goldwater is the ideological descendant of today's movement conservatism. Have they strayed from the philosophy of Goldwater? Yes, but that is another debate.

[sandersadu]

1. Totally Agree

In 1964, they decided to do several things which we live with today:

(1) Control the message: Bought up all the media co's (consolidation), and now what you have is Corporate media pushing the RW message;

(2) Change the language: Made "liberal" a bad word. Also introduced a whole series of "good words" to describe Repubs (faith, family values, law and order, etc). and "bad words" to describe Democrats ("bleeding heart", "politically correct" "soft on crime" "weak on defense"). This language eventually evolved into "Talking Points" that relentlessly enforce Rule #1 above.

(3) Think Tanks/Faux Academia: They do the heavy intellectual lifting and frame the ideas and message. See Welfare Reform, PNAC, NAFTA, et. al.

(4) Recruiting a Bench from State Gov't: This is one of the underrated things. They started taking over state legislatures, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Attorney General, Governor. Governors make the best presidential candidates, and having key people in State Gov't means you can REDISTRICT, as well as have people in important places, (see Ken Blackwell, Ohio, and the infamous Katherine Harris).

Unless we do all 4 of these things, we're toast. It's going to take 10 - 20 years, so be patient.

[LoZoccolo]

2. We each need to find a place and do steady work there.

I think a lot of us got overwhelmed by the sudden swell of liberal organizations and what-not that sprung up in the last year-and-a-half and spread ourselves too thin over too much. I think we should all think about where we each can best fit and do a consistent job of activism week after week. Nothing overburdening, maybe just like 2-3 hours a week or something, and we'll have a strong and steady machine. Could be MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, ACLU, or something similar.

[Sean Reynolds]

3. Problem is, Kerry didn't lead a band of progressive gassroots....

So it's probably more like 1972.

[Euphen]

4. Kerry also didn't lose 49 states. n/t

[WilliamPitt]

7. Dead wrong

The grassroots caried this campaign. The entire Democratic National Convention was a big building full of hardcore progressive Dems. I know, I was there. The GOTV work was done by the grassroots. The fundraising came from the grassroots.

After 9/11, after a three year indoctrination of fear, this election should not have been close. I'm awed that it was as close as it was. It was close because Kerry led a band of grassroots operators, and they almost battered through three years of government subsidized mental terrorism.

[Marthe48]

5. maybe go back further?

Big Business was controlling the government from the 1870's forward. It took the really horrible excesses of terrible working conditions, living conditions and so on to generate changes. Of course we had a real free press back then, not the corporate pet of today. I read that the Socialist movement was born around then and all of the great names of social change signed on to the movement. They felt that by the late 20's (or late 30's--already can't remember) that the goals of the Social movement had been met so the movement stopped actively pushing for change. From what I've been reading, and listening to, corporate America used the press of time to influence public thought against unions, against other progressive goals. Just as today, they are using the press to turn the public against lawsuits, illegal invasions and things like that. When I say Socialist, I'm not thinking of a economic/political entity, more like a movement to make changes that will benefit society. It might be a good idea to travel back in time and see how these early progressives fought the corporations. Maybe some of the strategies they used then would work now. One thing we really have to do is make ignorant Republicans who vote for these frauds understand that their best interests are not being served. (which from certain personal experiences, is much like talking to rocks)

[BlueScreen]

6. This is the best analysis I have seen yet

David Brock describes in fascinating detail exactly how the ex-Goldwaterites (including a young unknown writer named George Will, a Congressional staffer named Trent Lott, and a campaign worker named Paul Weyrich decided to form a "Conservative Lunch Club" after Goldwater's defeat. They did more than eat lunch-- they laid the groundwork for turning the country into red states. Paul Weyrich was personally responsible for creating the religious right out of what was then a bunch of rag-tag Southern preachers.

The question is: how do we regroup with the DLC running the Democratic Party? And do we even work from within the party, or do we work outside of it?