Arguing centrist v. leftist is missing the point, in my opinion.

[Skinner]

The political spectrum is not a straight line running from far-left to middle to far-right. The political spectrum is actually a multi-dimensional graph that includes as many points of view as there are people. But for the purposes of this post, I am going to separate our broad liberal coalition into three very general ideological groups.

The names I have chosen for these groups are names I made up myself, and should not be taken to describe anything other than what I say they do. I am using the term "they" to describe each of these groups, although I will admit that I may belong to one or more of them.

Please note that by putting people into broad groups, I run the risk of appearing to stereotype everyone in any particular group. My intent is to provide some framework to describe people, but I am not trying to pigeon-hole any particular person.

But getting back to my original point: Arguing straight centrist v. leftist is missing the point. I believe there are three broad ideological groups in our coalition, and we need to figure out how to appeal to all of them.

Left-liberals - It's pretty obvious that this group is the dominant one on Democratic Underground. It may even be the dominant group among party activists and elites, although I am doubtful that this group is a majority of our voters. This group tends to be liberal across-the-board on all issues, whether they are cultural, social, economic, or foreign policy. They dislike most war, they support abortion, gay rights, gun control, the environment, and they support workers rights, organized labor, progressive and relatively high taxes, and universal health care.

Center-left libertarians - These are the folks who are generally liberal on social issues, support abortion, gay rights, gun control, education, and the environment, but tend to be more fiscally conservative in their economic outlook. They are urban or suburban, they support free trade, they are distrustful labor unions and government regulation. They like balanced budgets. They might have even voted Republican back before the Republican party took a hard-right cultural turn. (To be clear, when I use the term "libertarian" I'm not referring to the generally right-leaning people who might be tempted to support the Libertarian Party.)

Center-left populists - These are the people that support liberal economic policies, but are generally conservative in their social, cultural, or foreign policy views. They may be working class or middle class, working in manufacturing or service industries. They may be in a union, or they know people in a union. They oppose free trade, they support universal health care and workers' rights. But they are conservative culturally, or they are deeply ambivalent about cultural issues. They support things like gun rights, regulation of abortion, a strong military, and protecting the flag, and are skeptical of gay rights and affirmative action. When the country goes to war, it might not even cross their minds to oppose it. To do such a thing strikes them as unpatriotic.

I think most observers would agree that the Democratic party is getting killed among the third group: Center-left populists. The Republican party is making great inroads into this group on an overtly cultural appeal. Party elites in Washington, DC, New York, and California, scratch their heads and wonder why working-class people would possibly vote against their own economic interests.

I think that the simplest answer is this: Their interests are not entirely economic. Like most voters, they vote on a broad range of issues, including cultural issues. But I think there is something else going on here. Maybe the Democratic Party isn't doing such a great job at defending their economic interests.

For as long as I have been a Democrat, we have taken for granted the obvious truth that we are better at protecting the economic interests of the vast majority of Americans. But I think the gradual erosion of support among Center-left populists suggests that they do not have the same opinion of the Democratic Party. Democrats need to figure out how to position ourselves once again as the staunch defender of the economic interests of the middle class.

Here's another problem: I believe that party elites are disproportionately drawn from the first two groups: Left-liberals and center-left libertarians. I know lots of Democrats here in Washington, DC, and they are almost all relatively affluent professional types from the Northeast or West Coast who don't have any life experience at all interacting with regular people from middle America. In fact, their opinion of them could almost be described as contemptuous. At a minimum, I think it could be called condescending. We think that we are doing "those people" a favor by supporting policies which will help them, and quite frankly we feel a little offended that they aren't thanking us for looking out for them.

Quite understandably, the response of some center-left populists is "I'll look out for myself, thanks." Nobody wants to be anyone else's charity-case.

Ultimately, my point is this: There is going to be a lot of fighting about whether we need to go "liberal" or go "centrist," but in the end, I think it's missing the point. As long as urban elites from the Left-liberal group and the Center-left libertarian group are arguing among themselves about "how to win the hearts of populists" we are going to lose. Because, let's face it: Most people don't have that much experience dealing with people who are different from ourselves.

If we want center-left populists to be Democrats, we need center-left populists in our coalition to show us how. We need to value their contributions, and we need to welcome them into our coalition as equal members.

Part of the reason why I am a Democrat (and why anyone is a Democrat) is because I am surrounded by people who share my values and who are all Democrats. Center-left populist Democrats are the members of our party who are most likely to reach other Center-left populists. Let's start valuing their contribution, before we lose them all to the other side.

[jab105]

1. It's ALL about values Skinner...

PM me ...we are going to start a Lakoff group to try to form our own think tank...defining phrases...and defining liberal values...

Everyone, read this:


http://www.chelseagreen.com/images/DTE_Sampler.pdf


And think of this: never use the term "tax relief"...its a conservative phrase that is absolutely birlliant...

Use birth tax...

any time anyone brings up tax relief...

Say, repeat birth tax, for example:


I do not support a birth tax. Every child born into the US has a birth tax of $100,000 on him that he will have to pay. I do not support a birth tax, that is why I do not support President Bush's policies of raising deficits now fso that babies to have to pay off in the future.

[Skinner]

2. I agree that values are important.

And I agree that language is important.

But I also believe that trying to frame the debate with clever labels will only get you so far.

[jab105]

13. But if you can cleverly frame the debate as well as

define it using values, then you can win...

We have been moving further and further to the right, but the right has not been moving towards the left at all...so why do we lose...we should win if that is the case...but we don't because...

People vote with their values...and truth be told, the republicans think that we have none...

Reading through that excerpt from the book was huge for me, because I finally understand how my mom thinks...I could not get to her with facts...that didn't work, because she was seeing things differently, her values had already been framed...

Well, the thing is that my parents are much more nurturing than strict, and I really think with time, thats where I can get her...

It is not JUST the phrase per say, but the phrase allows you to move on to a discussion about what this should have to do with your values...and that is where we can win, no matter if it is a liberal or centrist democrats...its about defining the issues, having clear values, and being on the offensive!!

[Blue_Roses]

25. I agree and labels have a way of backfiring.

As someone who has lived in the south all my life, I can honestly say that you are dead on with the "center-populist" thoughts. My 84 year-old conservative mother is a life-long Democrat who stands on the side of republicans with her belief in God and values (just an example) however, she is a staunch Democrat on economic and domestic issues--health care, Medicare, helping the poor, etc. I asked her once what made her a Democrat and she said it started with her father who thought the republicans were only in it for the money. He was right, however, now they have weaved the "moral values" issue into it. Back in the day, these type of Democrats, didn't have to face issues like keeping abortion legal or gay marriage. It just didn't exist, so they were free to argue their case about economic issues without it being laced with the domestic "gay and abortion" issue. I think this is where the label "liberal" comes in when republicans call us that. Many Democrats are offended and many say "you damn right I'm a liberal."

AS much as I hate to admit it, republicans stand for the same issues across the board (even though they in our eyes are fanatical to say the least) whether it be abolishing abortion, gays, guns, God and all the things Dean mentioned. Democrats on the other hand are more progressive in their thinking (thank-God) which allows many different views and ideas. This is where there is a divide in our party (not to say that differing ideas aren't very healthy--cause I think they are the root of change).

It's like a Social Work professor told me once about a crappy relationship that I couldn't get out of--I just hadn't had enough to make me get out. That's what I see with those who are unhappy with Bush, but voted for him anyway. Fear of change and fear of the unknown with a better candidate. Unfortunately, it will take all the rest of us down with them. It's like a addict--they take the whole family down with them too until they get help or the family gets away.
It's no wonder most of us are ready to go to Canada now!

[piece sine]

148. no discussion-based website censors faster than DU

Skinner...if you want to really effect change, than CHANGE!!! DU is just the worst in censoring, editing and edging-out discussion points it doesn't feel like confronting. I am a center-left and I have never been comfortable here because I step out-of-line I get the ax. Stop staring in the mirror and start looking around, Man!!!

[Skinner]

152. This thread is not about DU.

But I will respond by saying that DU's rules are very clearly posted, and they have served us well. This is not a free-for-all discussion board for all points of view.

[UCLA Dem]

46. I think in our language we should try to use gender neutral terms.

Using the "male generic" (e.g. he or his) to represent the individual excludes women.

We can get our values across without saying the individual and "his"...

We need to say "Every child born into the US has a birth tax of $100,000 on him/her or them that he/she or they will have to pay.

[jab105]

124. that would be fine...them, they...

good...join me in the fight!!

[independentpiney]

199. That is exactly the wrong thing to do

That's the type of political correctness that center-left populists refers to as p.c. bullshit. I'd consider myself a left-populist,but I'm surrounded largely by center-lefts.

It will be impossible to convince them and change their views on whatever of the 3g's are important to them to liberal- left in 2, 4 or even possibly 10 years. This is where respect comes into play.

Howard Dean, though he was never my candidate, had the right idea on this with his position on gun control. There is no 'one size fits all' national policy that can work in a country as diverse as ours. I would suggest this applies to god and gays as well. Within the bounds of the Bill of Rights, these should be State or local level issues decided upon based on the prevailing cultural norms of the area.

[letsgetiton]

141. That www.chelseagreen.com article is BRILLIANT!

It's a long read, but it hits the nail on the head. Now everything is clear.

[sarahlee]

271. Re reframing and think tanks

See:
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/

Be sure and listen to the audio files.

[mzmolly]

3. My step dad (union guy) fits your center left populist criteria, and he

almost voted for Bush. Funny thing is he voted for Nader in 2000.

These people are easy to lose and we have to think about the "greater good" when we approach the next election. Would we rather turn off voters and lose, or help poor kids?

I don't think we need to compromise our principals, but I think we need a new approach.

But, don't mind me, I'm thinking Lieberman sounds pretty damn good about now.

[Skinner]

4. I also belive that we don't need to compromise our principles.

But we very clearly need to do a better job of reaching these voters. I guess I'm arging that I don't really know how to do it, nor do most elites in the Democratic party.

We need people like your Dad to take the lead, and show us the way.

[mzmolly]

11. I realize you'd never suggest compromising principal, I just wanted

to clarify. :hi:

I think we needed to fight dirty too, and we didn't. We always take the high road straight to hell. Who is more "moral" Kerry or Bush? The answer is clearly Kerry.

I wish we'd have slapped together a made for TV movie based on the Kitty Kelly book before the election. We should have got the Bush family value story out, did our own commercials with people who knew them. Aired the abortion story (FOUGHT DIRTY).

Remember Rove's philosophy is "attack your opponent at his perceived strength" had we gone after Bush on his lack of MORAL VALUES, we'd likely be discussing the Kerry victory right now.

I am thinking we are also underestimating the Swift Boat Attack. Remember Kerry was up drastically after the Dem convention, they took him down. We fought back, and tried to stick to real issues ... it didn't work.

We need the Chris Lehanes and the mud wrestlers in their fighting next time. And on top of that we probably need a Southern Baptist (Jimmy Carter type) to run again.

[ibegurpard]

19. The Democratic Party has let its local apparatus wither on the vine

in "red state" in favor of chasing after money and focusing on national races. That's the answer. Go local. Rebuild the infrastructure and relationships at the local level that will gradually rejuvenate the party as a whole. But here's the bad news: it can't be top-down approach, from people who have this monolithic view of what a state and the people who live there are like. It also isn't going to pay off for a long time.
Look at the election results here in Montana: we elected a Democratic Governor (granted the outgoing Republican was hated and he picked a moderate Republican as a running mate). We passed medical marijuana by a large margin. We beat back an agressively-backed corporate initiative to relax regulations on cyanide leach-mining.
And yet we gave Bush a 20-point margin.
What does that tell me? That tells me that many of the VALUES that the Democratic Party holds are held by "conservatives" as well as "liberals." But people in libertarian (and I use the word libertarian philosophically and not party-descriptively) states like Montana have an innate distrust and disdain for national, "elitist" Democrats.
We also need to invest the propaganda apparatus to counter the Republican machine. Why no one ever saw what was going on with the right-wing for the past 40 years is beyond my comprehension.

[d_b]

67. That should be the first order of business..

"We also need to invest the propaganda apparatus to counter the Republican machine. Why no one ever saw what was going on with the right-wing for the past 40 years is beyond my comprehension."

[JusticeForAll]

165. It's the top-down approach that lost it for us.

ibegurpard, ya got it right.

Our hatred of * is not enough to persuade the patriots in the center-left populist or however we are framing that group. It will take time to involve ourselves and integrate in these communities, or entire states like Montana, in order to promote and receive acceptance of Democratic values. An 11th hour door knock on the eve of the elections just isn't the key of winning the hearts and minds of American citizens. It's "organized" grass-roots to use an oxymoron, that will do it. Involvement within the community at the lowest levels.

[JHB]

206. I'll second (or third, or whatever) this point

I fit somewher between the Center-left populists and c-l libertarians by the definition Skinner gave above, and I've practically ached at the times I've seen opportunities blown simply because "our side" were practically walking cliches and didn't know how to communicate with people in a way that would get through to them.

I use a travelling salesman analogy: we need more people who can go out there, get people to open their doors, get a foot in, and sell Democratic values and to listen and get the real deal from people. You won't get that by spending millions on polling, you get that by putting people out there on the ground.

The local organizations MUST be rebuilt.

[KoKo]

210. By focusing on the "Swing States" they made us in the South feel abandoned

And, by abandoning us by following the Polls they lost us. Just one reason...but the incessant Polling and Over-Strategizing by our Democratic Leadership cost us the South. "Values" is a Red Herring. It's putting "all your eggs in one basket" that's the problem. Folks feel manipulated.

Also the Primary Schedule was totally screwed for the Dems. And particularly for the country as a whole. Iowa and NH should be ditched as the "kick off."

We didn't even have a Dem Primary election here in NC until the week before the Dem Convention! (The Repugs caused that, but still that was a huge problem in keeping Dem morale up for us here).

Kick out the Dem Party Insiders who've lost us three elections (counting the Mid-Terms) and lets get fresh blood in there. And kick out the lobbyists. Bush has em all now. We can get money on our own if we appeal to honesty and the better nature of America. Most Americans are figuring out their 401-K's and the Market and Corporations are run by crooks. Just look at the investigations in the last four years. We Dems have condoned much of this at the higher levels of our party and participated in much of it, also.

We need a fresh slate. We have been failed by the Media and our leadership too long.

[lynintenn]

219. I am one of those centrist as is my husband

there are a lot of us and a lot have already defected to the other side. On the other hand there are a lot of moderate repubs who don't like the far right agenda. I think most of America is somewhere in the middle.

[KoKo]

256. We are in the middle but aren't there issues with all of us that could be

considered "extreme" if we differ? I have a Catholic friend who is totally in favor of abortion but voted for Bush. I have another friend who doesn't care about "social issues" like abortion or health care (she has lots of money) and she voted for Bush because he won't raise her taxes and that's all she cares about.

Both of them thought that Bush has a great personality and that somehow Clinton's "Monica Thing" made him unfit to be President. They don't even know what policies Clinton proposed or what he cared about...it's Monica..Monica...Monica with them. Both are Repugs but they only care about two issues with Bush. Abortion and Lower Taxes for the Rich.

If anyone knows me from my posts on DU you would wonder how they are friends. (I must admit...I've pushed them away in the last two years because I'm so different). I won't even talk about family members I can't deal with because I feel I see what they don't...in the world, environment, financial and otherwise.

But, that's the way they feel. There was nothing I could say that would stop them from voting for Bush. OTOH...my fundie friend that I took to see Farenheit 9/11 became a convert to the Democrats! This person disagrees with me on much but saw the peril in America and was "Open" to discussion.

We live in a very fragmented America. Where those who close their minds will never be reached until the Bush policies come in and destroy their lives...and those who are openminded (who seem so closed) who are willing to see it even through "Armageddon Fog" and upbringing in Rural Georgia.

It's the difference in people...

BTW my two Repug friends are NJ and PA respectively. They are Blue Staters. My Repug turn is Georgia ...total Fundie Red Stater.

Go Figure? :shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

281. The next time you see a picket line....

Bring 'em a kettle of soup and volunteer to hold a sign.

[murdoch]

61. Your step dad IS the party

You need a majority to win in elections and thus the Democratic party has to be based on the blue collar workers of the US, who mkae up 80% of the population (with a professional/managerial class of 20% or so, and a very wealthy 1% at the top).

As far as far-left liberal or whatever, I myself think that the workers should seize the means of production, produce for use and not profit and eventually head for communism. Anyhow, this group has to realize the blue-collar union guy (nowadays only 8% of the private workforce is unionized) is the party, and basically has to do what they blue-collar union guy wants! The blue-collar union guy runs the party, and more class conscious and whatnot people can try to pull the party towards where we want to go, which translates mostly to more money for wages, less for profit, leave reinvestment as it is. And the blue-collar union guy is all for higher wages.

As far as social liberals who are fiscally conservative - I don't think they are very important. Currently the Republicans are on a jihad against homosexuals, so I think a partnership can be made between gays who might not agree with the money stuff, progressives and the party base. But it has to be an agreement between the blue collar base and the homosexuals. You can't have a "radical homosexual agenda" like the Republicans always talk about. It has to be based on what people are willing to vote for.

I think the Democratic Party has abandoned its blue collar base with Clinton signing NAFTA and so forth. 80% of American workers are blue collar, yet only 37% of white men voted for Kerry versus 62% for Bush. Two thirds of white men voted for Bush, versus one third for Kerry! And with Gore it was even worse.

[mzmolly]

70. I totally agree that the Dems abandon the working person with NAFTA.

And, I don't know how we can undo it.

[eridani]

291. Um, get rid of NAFTA?

OK, easier said than done, I know.

[BeFree]

5. Hey, Skinner

Last I read you were headed to Ohio.

What happened? Isn't the battleground going to be in Ohio this year, a replay of the Miami crowd is bound to recur, eh?

[Skinner]

8. Is this supposed to be a little tweak at me?

Thank you for completely ignoring the point of my post.

My candidate conceded because apparently he felt that it was impossible to find the votes he needed. I'm not going to run to Ohio and stand by myself outside the Secretary of State's office for a lost cause.

ON EDIT: Let's not go off-topic here. Thanks.

[BeFree]

17. No sir

It was an honest question.

Sorry to head off topic, delete if you desire. But I had asked earlier if anyone had heard if you were in Ohio because the last I'd read was you might have been headed there.

I understand about not wanting to stand alone outside some gawd-awful capitol building. I was hoping some people had, I've posted a few today asking if folks were going to Ohio, I'm kinda planning on going there if I'm not all alone.

[RafterMan]

6. I don't think it's about the political spectrum

I think it's more a cultural/communications issue than a policy/spectrum issue. Kerry's platform wasn't that different from Clinton's, yet the electoral map was very different.

And let's be honest: if John Kerry had had Reagan's platform, he just wasn't going to be able to communicate it to Red America. He was culturally alien to them. People mocked it, but "Who would you most like to have a beer with?" was the defining issue of this election. You don't have to like it, but you'd better understand it.

I say move the early primaries to the Red states. That should help filter out the candidates who -- however good or well-intentioned -- just aren't going to play. Iowa and New Hampshire have a tin ear for this key critereon. Failure to do so will mean the Dems start every election down two strikes.

[Skinner]

12. I agree that culture is extremely important.

And we are very clearly doing a bad job at communicating our message effectively.

It is true that Kerry is culturally alien to much of the country. Gore, too. It makes a big difference for people to feel like a candidate understands them.

[troubleinwinter]

41. I think you are dead right on

about moving early primaries.

How is such a decision made, and how/when is the change implemented?

[unfrigginreal]

7. What a fucking GREAT post

The only thing that I would slightly disagree with:

They support things like gun rights, regulation of abortion, a strong military, and protecting the flag, and are skeptical of gay rights and affirmative action. When the country goes to war, it might not even cross their minds to oppose it.

They find themselves supporting most of these positions because we have not made the case for moderation versus extremism when considering those issues. They wouldn't necessarily blindly support going to war if a case was made against it. They wouldn't necessarily be opposed to affirmative action if it was more tied to economic conditions for all groups rather than certain groups. They wouldn't be opposed to Democrats on gun rights if we made a better case for protecting the right to own personal use(hunting,self protection) guns. They wouldn't necessarily be opposed to abortion rights and gay rights if they were couched in a constitutional freedom position.

Thanks for the post, I think you are spot on.

[Supersedeas]

9. and a quality follow-up as well (eom)

[Skinner]

18. We certainly have not made the case.

I believe that the Democratic Party and our candidates have pretty much given up trying to convince the American people that we are right. This is a huge error.

I understand why most candidates don't even try to convince skeptical voters. It's much easier to just tell people what they want to hear, and in the short-term it will probably work better.

But in the long-term, it is a losing strategy. It makes us look like we have no core values. It makes us look like we don't even believe in the rightness of our own positions. It doesn't move the public debate in our direction at all, and it doesn't win people to our side.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. all due respect but I think the 'character thing' did us in

Kerry came across as wishy washy and untrustworthy to a lot of the bonehead last minute deciders and persuadable people, and these idiots vote on the 'have a beer' factor to the exclusion of nearly all other considerations. That and the Kerry would appear 'weak' on terror thing.

I had a sickly, gut, intuitive feeling about this the last few weeks, and knew that it would be a miracle for Kerry to pull it off, but decided not to share it here.
Amazingly, Kerry still pulled in huge numbers- in the end probably 2 million more than Gore/Nader combined. But Rove tapped into his bag of tricks and seemingly produced Bushbots like he had the genetic patent.

It's simple: people wanted a change, but Bush won this by shaping the arguement into: 'whatever you think of me, Kerry will be worse'.

[Skinner]

23. The character thing is important.

We failed to recognize that the "flip-flopper" label was a character issue. Kerry played into their hands when he kept arguing in favor of nuance and pragmatism. You are right that he looked wishy washy and untrustworthy.

[KoKo]

190. Skinner, Bill Clinton did it. He won two terms. His "folksy touch" won

him enough votes to win. I'm one of your Lefties, however I'm against Nafta thought it was a terrible mistake and am close on some populist issues.

I grew up in the South and lived most of my life in the Northeast. I support strong unions (feel that so called "white collar" workers need to band together to form unions to protect their jobs)yet neither I nor any member of my family has ever belonged to one. I'm totally against Gay Marriages, but totally in favor of Civil Rights for Gays. All of my frinds have always turned out to be Republicans, I've lived in Repuglican areas and yet maintained my Democratic ideals (it has not worked out well since the Bushies came into power).

But, I'm probably a weird bird here on DU. Clinton's approach would have worked if he hadn't given up his principles with the Media Giveaway of 1998 and the SEC deregulation he was forced into, which has resulted in the hell we are living through to day. And if he had allowed Nafta to be modified (as Bill Moyers has pointed out). If he hadn't been brought down by the RW and Monica he probably would have forged a viable powerful Coalition for Democrats well into the future.

DLC and DNC are not the way of the future and without Clinton they seem to be Repug Lite. We aren't going to find another Clinton soon, so I understand what you are getting at. We have to make a start at finding a way our core principles can be defined.

If we can sort out the best of Clinton's appeal and policies we might find a common ground to forge a coalition. But, his personal style just as with any candidate is so much a part of forging a coalition, it will be hard to do with out a "Leader" to rally round.

I,personally, think it's more useful to find a way to go after the take over of the Media. Without the Media...it won't matter. Gore was a good candidate, he won, but look at the way the media portrayed him..they do it over and over again to us. Kerry would have had more appeal if he had taken on the media, and made an effort to visit the South and talk to people about what he wanted to do. Maybe it just was beyond his personality capabilities but the Media did him in.

my 2cents...

[SoCalDem]

275. I agree with 99.9999% percent of your analysis, but may I also add

that especially with the "code words" and "catch phrases", we are MILES behind.. (Not that we should use the same) The media gobbles up stuff like that because it paints a cutesy "word-picture" in people's brains.. They use it over and over and over and over, and occasionally even muse aloud about "why candidate "A" has not gotten positive coverage..DUH!! They are the very ones whose JOB it is, to cover the events and ANY coverage that a candidate gets, is TOTALLY the job of the media..

The media becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They designate early-on, how they will "cover" a candidate. They treat each intyerview as a "gotcha".."made-you-say-something-you-didn't-want-to-say" parlor game..

The candidates never really get introduced to the public in any fair way...unless they have a particular "friend" in the media..(FOX)..

but this is all water under the bridge.. Success has many fathers..failure is an orphan..:(

[jpgray]

14. The flaw here is that there are no personal, discrete, fixed value sets

Seniors broke for Bush, for example. People who were alive during the depression, who saw the brilliant success of the New Deal, etc. These people have had their values inexorably limited to those offered up for debate by mass media, to take sides in the cultural battles the GOP have created for their victories. When one party is actively shifting the debate right and the nation is following, the other party shouldn't just stake out a place in that debate it thinks it can win with--it needs to combat that shift. We can do both, so why don't we?

[meow2u3]

15. I'm primarily a center-left populist

Only my term is neoprogressive.
I think the best way to recapture a Democratic majority is to nominate and elect good, strong, center-left populist Democrats to both the House and the Senate, who normally can't get past the primaries because the left-liberals and center-left libertarians hold the bulk of the purse strings and power.

I think we're doing our Party a disservice when the left-liberal and center-left libertarian establishment appear to marginalize the vast majority of center-left populists, many who've either switched the party affiliation to Republican, became independents, or simply dropped out of politics because no one represents their views. Republicans have exploited this disconnect to the hilt; that was one way they seized power--by making empty promises to end abortion without having any intention of making good on their word.

[Upfront]

89. Center-left Agree

Like perhaps, Howard Dean? I think we had the guy to link with the people you are talking about. Not quite fitting the mold, but being from the blue collar union group, I can say that Howard Dean was drawing lots of these people. Against war and said why, good on guns, handled the gay issue well in his state. I came to like Kerry and voted for him and not just against Bush. The gay marrige issue was a killer with this group. I do think Howard Dean would have won.

[Cha]

140. I love Dean but I don't think anyone

would have "won" with the voting machines EXCEPT ..fuckhead himself!

[MattG]

181. I'm a centrist-populist

I go to church, make gay jokes, and only buy American cars (if I could afford them). And what I'm fixing to say will be really shallow and may sound stupid, but it's true.


What do Kerry and Gore have in common?

They're total squares. They are some of the most boring and dull people I have ever seen. W was the only thing keeping me awake in the first debate because he was funny (TRANSHIPMENT!!!). And while I really did believe in Kerry and thought that he was a good man, I still thought he was boring. Clinton played sax on Arsenio Hall, THAT'S COOL. Kennedy was well, cool. He was young and outspoken. Bob Dole could not ride the wave of conservative clinton hating because well, Clinton was awesome, and Dole was an old fart, for lack of a better term. If we want to win, we need to nominate someone who can captivate people so that they can hear our message, which I think is something most people would agree with if they truly knew it.

[Cha]

184. I'm neo progressive and I thought

Kerry was wonderful! I heard him in Manchester, NH last Sunday and was once again inspired by him.

bush is a fucking idiot and that's never entertaining!

Democratic Principles Excite the Hell out me!

[davepc]

16. We need to remove the barriers of entry into the party

most Center-left populists turn away from us on gun control and abortion.

Gun control is something that comes from the urban elite into the rural areas and tells them GOVERNMENT SAYS NO. People have a problem with this in general, but when the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States make specific mention of that right to keep and bear arms, its not a very popular position to have. "assault" weapons bans and similar legislation doesn't help our position, especially when these people see how intrusive it is into their otherwise law abiding lives, and also how just damn SILLY they are at preventing real criminal behavior.

50 Million gun owners in the United States. The VAST majority of them think we hate them and want to disarm them. Chuck Schumer and Diane Fienstine don't help us make our case to them.

Out of all the planks in our platform that does the most to alienate us from the rural voter, i think this is beyond the ultimate one.

Nobody votes *for* gun banners, Chuck Schumer doesn't get elected in New York by running on his gun banning record, but it sure goes a long way toward getting people to NOT vote for you.

Guns are a one issue voter issue. We have abandoned millions of them who would otherwise come our way, because they agree or tolerate us on social issues, and are REALLY there with us on economic ones. On top of that we have elements of our party that since they don't understand guns, and are afraid of them, resort to name calling. "Gun nut" "militia terrorist" and all that. Its a symptom of being out of touch with that part of the country. I firmly believe if we had a pro gun candidate running last race, and left every single other part of the platform intact we would had a pretty good chance to win at least 3 souther states.

Abortion is tricky since we have a very strong and vocal part of the party that has a "not one inch of retreat" position.

So where most of the center-populists can manage to stomach abortion, really they can, we lose them with the partial-birth abortion measures and parental notification. I don't know how to navigate this one, the abortion interest has their heels dug in and wont compromise.

I'm not suggesting they have to, but we need to see the issue from the Center-left populists perspective if we want to make any gains.

[MsTryska]

27. As one pro-lifer explained in his editorial

that soemone put up yesterday...


pro-lifers need to re-evaluate their affiliation with the republican party.

Bush hasn't made abortion illegal, despite having the pwoer to do it.


And jsut as with reagan and his father before him (who was pro-choice before he got the vp spot) abortions went UP.

When clinton was in office, Aboprtion went down.


republicans are pro-life and anti-welfare. This does no one any good - Abortions went DOWN under clinton, because altho he stood for welfare reform, the economy was much better.

i wish i knew what happened to that article, but it was excellent.

actually thanks to my history i found it:

http://www.thedailycitizen.com/articles/2004/10/28/news/opinion/opiniontaylor.txt

[davepc]

36. its very hard to make an economic correlation to abortion

to people who's views of it are created by pictures of dead fetuses.

Yeah, fewer abortions when the economy is good, but you cant run as the 'pro-allowing abortion guy who doesn't really like it sorta, but knows it will go down because he has good economic policy' candidate.

Personally, I think we could disarm the issue by backing off of partial birth and parental notification, but I know that the vocal abortion supporters will *never* allow it.

[MsTryska]

53. But the take home point...

they ALL allow abortion.


so whose policies lower the rates of abortion?



simple and to the point. if it's about loving every life, then the less lives lost the better. the anti-abortion guy in that article says it better than me tho.

[davepc]

114. I understand that

but in the voters mind, the guy were trying to reach, they allow LESS abortion. While our economic policy might PRODUCE fewer abortions, we allow MORE abortion, while they allow less.

For somebody who thinks abortion is a sin at best, but tolerable, but not preferable, they'll line up with the guy who allows less abortion rather then the guy who will create an environment that will produce less abortion.

I hope that makes sense.

[MsTryska]

123. it does.....

but this where we need to kick in the paradigm shift.


the fact of the matter is, the guy who alleges he provides less abortions?

he provides more abortion than the other guy.

[davepc]

133. and while were talking nuance they kill us with sound bytes.

And we'll be right where we are today, making a sound reasonable demonstrative position on the issue and getting out propaganda'd.

[MsTryska]

136. Nothing nuanced about calling him

a Lying Baby-Mass Murderer.

[davepc]

137. And the republican who gets called a Lying Baby-Mass Murderer says:

Look at these wackos calling me a Mass Murder! I'm the one that wants to limit abortion, but they want to let anybody do it, at any time during the pregnancy, and if its a child she doesn't even have to tell her parents! What nerve!

While were trying to explain how the economic tide rises it lifts the boat and less people need abortions because they can take care of the baby and blah blah blah blah.

[MsTryska]

143. 1.5 million on Your Watch......

90,000 on my predecessor's watch.


mass murderer.

[davepc]

147. You cant make a dead baby issue an economic issue

Yes, dead baby. Thats how they see it. Not choice. Dead babies.

They don't see it as an economic issue, and they wont listen long enough or don't comprehend the explanation why it REALLY is.

[MsTryska]

157. You have to keep reminding them the baby's die

on the lying guy's watch.



1.5mil on republican watches and they claim they are against abortion.

1.5 million dead babies beg to differ.


that's what these people need ot be hit in the head with.

[Pillowbiter]

230. Abortion

"Personally, I think we could disarm the issue by backing off of partial birth and parental notification, but I know that the vocal abortion supporters will *never* allow it."

And they shouldn't have to. This is an issue that we can't really compromise on, though I think if we frame it differently it will work. I got my anti-abortion boss who voted for Bush in 2000 to actually vote for Kerry, mostly because I made his key opposition to Kerry a non-issue.

If government has the right to control over a woman's body to not get an abortion, it sets the precedence for future, possibly more extremist administrations to excersize the control over a woman's body to get an abortion, even if she doesn't want one, possibly in the name of population control. It's already happening in China.

Secondly, getting the government to foot the bill for alternatives to abortion, such as government funded adoption services and orphanages. If they care so much about the baby's life, why do they stop caring after it is born. We liberals know the answer is because they want control over women, but if we frame it that way, they will start thinking of other possibilities than outlawing abortion.

PB

[JDPriestly]

200. We Democrats Need to Own These Issues.

We can't run away from guns and abortion. We need to offer solutions that people can understand and agree with.

Guns should be a local issue. Guns are fine in the country, but we don't need them in the cities. We city folk should be able to require permits to possess a gun within the boundaries of our cities. Requiring gun permits in urban areas does lower crime because it gives the police leverage when confronting organized crime and gangs. And gun permits in the cities don't hurt anyone. Ordinary people just get the permits, and no one bothers them again.

As for assault weapons, what do people want assault weapons? What can you use them for, other than collecting them? I'm not being sarcastic. I really want to know?

Abortion -- we Democrats need to propose policies that decrease the number of discretionary abortions. And we need to point out that Republican social and economic policies cause abortion rates to rise. Overall, abortion rates went down under Clinton, up under Reagan/Bush. Statistics show that electing Democrats is the best way to limit abortions.

[mosin]

224. "guns"

Guns should be a local issue. Guns are fine in the country, but we don't need them in the cities. We city folk should be able to require permits to possess a gun within the boundaries of our cities. Requiring gun permits in urban areas does lower crime because it gives the police leverage when confronting organized crime and gangs. And gun permits in the cities don't hurt anyone. Ordinary people just get the permits, and no one bothers them again.

As for assault weapons, what do people want assault weapons? What can you use them for, other than collecting them? I'm not being sarcastic. I really want to know?

You're missing the point. Guns are a rights issue, not a "need" issue. As soon as you use "need" language, you're losing the argument.

It is arrogant and elitist to say that "we don't need them in the cities." Those of us who live in the city "need" guns just as much as the country folk "need" them. I refuse to wait for the police to arrive to defend my family. I don't need a permission slip to speak my mind, and I don't need a permission slip to protect my family.

As for so-called "assault weapons," they are purely a cosmetic category with no differences in functionality from ordinary semi-automatic hunting rifles. The label was created purely for propaganda purposes to make people think "assault rifles" (military automatic weapons).

I say all this as a center-left libertarian from Texas whose father--a life-long African-American Texan--voted for Bush because of Kerry's career-long disdain for gun rights.

And yes, it has me pissed off. We need to listen to Howard Dean and drop all discussion of gun control at the federal level. Leave gun control up to state and local governments. There are many potential constituencies that the Democrats can court. Why not gun owners? Democrats can court gun owners without sacrificing core principles-- unless you consider the authoritarian position on gun control considered a core principle of the left.

[CitySky]

239. Great post, Davepc

You are right on rural/urban on guns.

And as for abortion: when people ask me my position, I tell them I favor reducing policies to reduce the DEMAND for abortions. But the posters above are right; it's hard to get people to hear.

[MsTryska]

20. This is a great post!

and sums up the angle i'm trying to figure out for turning red states purple at the very least, and blue in the future.


Many of these people (altho we don't have unions down here in GA really) are those Center-Left Populists.


they just don't know it yet. They think all dems stand for those "massachusettes liberals" as if that's a bad thing.

[TheDonkey]

21. It's all about the Gays and Abortion,period

these are the exact 2 reasons the conservative democrats are fleeing and voting against their interest for a "morality" president.

But if we drop gay rights and abortion rights we are put in the situation of losing the $$$ and dedicated activists which make the party crank.

This is going to be a difficult situation. I believe we need to be the opposition to the rethugs and keep highlighting their true intentions: wealth for the upper class.

[Cats Against Frist]

45. Exactly

as a codicil to my below post: I think you're spot on. However, I think the biggest thing that we need to communicate is that the rich actually rely on the huge government and police state and the military for protection of wealth, and the federal government is also necessary to further the corpo-fascism of the right.

That's why I feel that we can choke them with their own rhetoric. Why not dismantle the federal government. That's what they really DON'T want, just how they reel in libertarians -- and partially Christians.

It's extreme -- but it would certainly open up a new dialogue in this nation.

[davepc]

119. and bring us right back to where we started as a party.

Go back pre FDR, the Democrats was THE party of limited government.

Teddy Roosevelt won as a *Republican* by pushing PROGRESSIVE ideas with government support to implement them.

sometime in the mid 20's we switch that ideal with the Republicans, we adopted a social democrat platform and they took the limited government one.

We beat them over the heads until '52 as a result.

Might be a time to go back to our roots, in a manner of speaking.

[TheDonkey]

215. Yep, We need to villianize the republicans and their greed

just like they have been sucessful at villianizing Democrats.

I think we need to retool our language where it is outright anti-thug

[progressivebydesign]

66. They killed us with their exploitation of 'Partial Birth Abortion".

Many people could live with abortions being legal, most Americans used to support CHOICE (to the tune of 67% of Americans supporting it). BUT the Rovians have been expert at exploiting the EXTREMELY rare PBA procedure, to their advantage. They ignore that it is rarely used, and only to save the life of the mother. It made for a good issue to rally the fence sitters. They also manufactured the Gay Marriage issue.. they turned it into a polarizing event.

The Rovians are expert at manipulating wedge issues. It would do our Party leaders good to study some Machievelli strategies, also.

[PleadTheFirst]

106. Wedge issues killed us.

I remember hearing Newt Gingrich on NPR around 6 months or so ago, and he said "I told the president that he would lose the election unless he picked one or two good wedge issues (such as gay marriage and abortion) and used that to split the Democratic voter base." (I'm paraphrasing, but that is pretty much what he said).

They did just that, and won. We need to fight fire with fire, realize that the so-called "high road" does not work against these people, and fight dirty next time.

[lumberjack_jeff]

284. Four reason

There are four, not two;
Abortion
Gays
Guns
Environment

Many of those blue collar people that Skinner suggest correctly that need to be included are dependent upon natural resources jobs.

[RinaJ]

22. Spot-on post

I think many working-class African-Americans fall into the Center-left populist category, and honestly the Republicans got a lot smarter about going after that group. I talked to my Mom after the election, and she admitted that there were some in her church who had considered voting for Bush because of the gay rights and abortion issues. They did end up voting for Kerry, but there are a few other local black ministers (Jacksonville) who had started promoting Bush because of these issues.

But, I don't think this would work if, as you said, the groups in the first two categories did more to look out for this third group, which I think may be the largest IMO, and framed things so that it wasn't always political rhetoric, and made it more personal for them.

[WilliamPitt]

24. Unfortunately, I think there is going to be a vast bloodletting

in the Party, and a lot of the more socially liberal power players are going to be hustled to the back of the room and away from the cameras. The Democratic Party can no longer sustain itself while ceding the entire South and Midwest to the GOP. There are simply too many Electoral College votes to be found there. None of us will see another Northeastern or California Democratic candidate in our lifetimes.

This means, as you have stated so well, we are going to see a reorganization of the Party which will aim at upping our 'values' meter among voters. The Party is going to move to the right, at least rhetorically. In other words, get ready for Joementum, or something approximating it.

Beyond the myriad frustrations this immediately brings up, the worst will be the fact that it was the grassroots progressives who got Kerry as far as he got. It was the grassroots progressives getting out the vote, raising and giving the money, canvassing, wearing out the shoeleather. The floor of the Democratic National Convention was a big grassroots progressives party. I saw it with my own eyes. Those people were us, and now they are probably going to find the Party a less than comfortable place.

In other words, it is going to be a hard road for a lot of the people who frequent this board.

There is one HUGELY IMPORTANT FACTOR to place within this conversation about the importance of 'values.' The values thing is the big discussion in all the mainstream papers, but I think people are missing the elephant in the room.

This election should never have been this close. I am stunned that it was.

The American people went through a three year indoctrination of fear, a three year daily pounding of the idea that they were about to die, three years of plastic sheeting and duct tape, three years of being told that Bush was the savior and anything else meant death. This indoctrination ran on every television, on every news channel, 24/7/365.

Just enough people went out and voted against their own best interests because they were made to feel terror by their own government. There is nothing of 'values' in this. I'm amazed it was as close as it was, given this truth.

[ibegurpard]

30. This is very discouraging

It indicates to me that there is no interest in actually attempting to build the infrastucture needed to reframe the debate. The "red states" are out of reach for the national Democratic Party and this approach is only going to alienate many of the types of people who generated the enthusiasm that actually kept us IN THE GAME this time.

[WilliamPitt]

35. I don'tr think the Red States are out of reach

They sure weren't out of Clinton's reach.

[ibegurpard]

43. A lot has changed in the past 8 years.

The growth of fundamentalist churches has been phenomenal. The conglomerates have swallowed up much of the media (which has played a bigger part in our failures than the demise of the Fairness Doctrine). The economic successes of the Clinton Administration did not translate to a better quality of life in "rural America." The top-down approach is not going to go over in places like Montana.

[Callisto]

49. They sure weren't

I think that our party needs to quit trying to please everyone all the time. We need to say what we think, not what we think we should say. Our party is smart- too smart- sooo smart that I even started shaking my head listening to some of our talking heads go on and on..not that I disagree with a good discussion, but this country on the whole likes it simple and to the point- speak your piece and move on, hit a nerve and keep pounding it.....why can't we do this? Skinner has it right about the three factions... I'm one of those that are not as left (say like SF's Tom Ammiano ) but not as right as say..LIEBERMAN..Im in the mid range - I'd love to see our party start speaking for the working class and stop trying to save every little issue...we have a lot of action groups and such, but our party must whittle down our confusing message, even if it is good.Pull back from making it all about abortion and quit taking minorities for granted.

[Blue Wally]

216. Joementum

While Senator Lieberman is not very popular here on DU, he really stands there as the best representative of where Joe Sixpack is culturally and economically.

[unfrigginreal]

33. There will be 'bloodletting' as you say

but it is because of the grassroots progressives that have been energized. They're not going to find the Party a less comfortable place but they will fight harder to have the Party represent their ideas and goals and not cave to the establishment. I know that you see it differently but we did not run the candidate of the grassroots progressives. I also don't think that given the primary campaign that the grassroots progressive candidate could have won, but it was due more to the intra-party attacks than anything else.

[rockydem]

38. What about Thomas Franks' critique

He says that the party has become to much like the pugs on to many issues. We have abandoned the middle class on some important economic issues. Many centrist dems are as friendly to the big corps. as the pugs are - supporting unbounded free trade, etc...

Franks says we must get back to our *economic populism* and don't try and fight the pugs on the Christian values field - that will only further blur the lines and once again we will lose.

When it comes to the Christian values thing we need to go back to our founders - Thomas Jefferson coined the term 'Separation of Church and State' - and argue like Wes Clark did that we are a liberal Western democracy.

[madfloridian]

134. Yes, they will move to the right some more. No resemblance.

No resemblance to the party I grew up knowing. And the more they move to the right to be like them, the more they will continue to lose.

[KoKo]

204. Excellent Will.... and as I said in a post to Skinner...It's the Media

we've got to get back. We must expose the Moon funding, the Richard Viguerie Mass Mail, the Lobbyist who have our officials of both parties in their pockets, Dem and Repug.

I hate to see us fall into "navel gazing" about "values." Just what the Repugs want us to do and has been the Media Meme apparently from what I'm seeing on DU. (I turned the damned stuff off).

And, I saw what you saw with the Dean, Kucinich, and even two former Nader supporters here on the ground who totally worked their butts off to update the antiquated voter files in downtown Dem Party Headquarters, who pushed to have "Poll Monitors" in the voting places and who worked their shoe leather off going door to door getting out the Dem vote. We did very well here, even though Bush won the Pres vote. Bowles ran a lousy campaign where he didn't want our help but we have two House Reps who voted Against Iraq Invasion, who were returned to congress overwhelmingly by our efforts. We kept some Democratic Judges against all odds..and voted down an Amendment for big business that would have put NC in debt.

Without the Dean/Kucinich Activists my area and many others here in NC would be "Red" all the way down. As it is we held back the Repugs and made inroads.

The Democratic Party is in danger of losing us if they overlook us or try to change our views.

(That's just my personal rant) I thought your's was well said..thanks!

[theboss]

262. But would a strategic retreat on "values" be bad at this point

You can't drive anywhere without the keys to the car. We don't control any branch on the federal level. We have a minority of the governorships - including such huge states as California, Texas, New York, and Florida. We don't control the state legislatures. Unless we start winning somewhere, none of our values are going to mean anyhting except in two narrow strips along both coasts.

Edwards was onto something when he was connecting values and morality to work and economic freedom. At the heart of our party is the notion that all people deserve the same chance to live as they want, to work as they want, and to receive the HELP they need to succeeed in this world.

Civil Rights and gay rights and abortion rights all tie into this but somehow they were placed in front of the economic rights we believe in. We need to essentially flip that picture. And if it means pulling back a little bit on some rhetoric, I don't necessarily view that as a failure.

[welshTerrier2]

26. you put your left foot in; you put your right foot in ...

here's my take on what you wrote ...

i fully agree with you that we have a problem reaching the center-left populists as you've defined them ... of course, the obvious question is: just what actions can we take to change that ...

if we use your definition that people in this group are conservative on cultural issues, does that mean that we, as a party, should no longer endorse cultural change that may be offensive to people in this group? for example, take the gay marriage issue ... if we view this as a "liberation movement", should we align ourselves with those who see this as a sin? i guess my first question for you is "what can we do with issues like this to change the dynamic you cited?"

as for your statement that we should start "valuing their contribution", perhaps you could ellaborate on that ... to the degree that the party may show a subtle, or even not so subtle, disrespect for people in this group, i certainly agree ... but how do we translate "valuing their contribution" into action?

now, as for your statement that arguing "centrist" vs. "leftist" misses the point, i am totally on that bandwagon ... we will have bitter, intense arguments over policy ... we will not reach the same conclusions on the big issues of the day ... but it's way past the time for us to stop driving wedges and dividing the many factions of the left ... there was so much anger here, and so many people who left or were tombstoned because they were Greens or Nader supporters ... not all by any means, but we did lose, or it least it seems like we lost, many of the "far lefties" ...

i understood that some of them were "anti-democrat" and therefore violated the rules ... but we need to look not only at electoral politics but at building a coalition (i.e. a movement) of the left as well ... we need to find common ground among democrats of all stripes, Greens, Socialists and any others who are staunchly opposed to the right-wings corporate control of our country ...

the time for unity is NOW ... so i agree with you that, while we will have our debates over issues, proudly aligning yourself with "centrists" or with "leftists" seeks as its goal divisiveness rather than unity and we are all weakened as a result ...

[Cats Against Frist]

28. Skinner -- great post

and I do think that it's imperative that we start examining our coalition that is "the left," and when I saw the thread title, I thought you were going to talk about something that I've been thinking about, since about April.

Remember the political test that divides people up into "left" and "right" and then into "radical" and "authoritarian" and puts them up on a grid?

I've often felt like people might think I'm a troll, or a right-winger for my views on DU. I was always a "state socialist" until last spring, when I started reading libertarian philosophy. I guarantee that I'm as left as they come -- but what's happened is that I've started moving toward libertarianism. The view is complex, and it has to do with working within the federalist framework of the Constitution, taking into account the tenets of classical liberalism -- but at the same time recognizing that the virtuous, just society has a claim to governance in the United States. Meaning that I am for an un-coersed collective.

I admit, also, that I've taken a much harder stance on the populace, at large, than I had before -- when I thought the main goal of the leftist was to save a poor, exploited underclass from a ruling class -- but I have since come to believe that we've actually been trying to save an apathetic, consumerist middle class from itself.

The right has stolen the mantra of "personal responsibility," and changed it to SIMPLY mean that "poor people need to get a job," when, in fact, personal responsibility should extend to everyone -- the employer, the business person, the extended family. Even the left-est of the left need to up their "personal responsibility" score.

We talk about the phenomenon of people voting against their best economic interest to embrace "moral values," -- and Frank discussed it in the Kansas book. I think this election is certainly proof of that.

What I want to say, though is that I think that it is naiive to believe that we'll ever again, at least for the near future, be able to separate out economic from social and "win them over." The truth is, it's a broad-based, all-encompassing narrative. And while we're sitting here, fighting with each other and still trying organize to do the exact things we always do, and lose -- they're busy changing the language and the logic that we use to describe our very world. I know that I've posted that chilling Suskind quote, but I will again:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Their hate radio barons of the right are not harmless, and not infotainment -- but are true propagandists. They're the ones that are responsible for relaying the messages cooked up by the intellectual right. And there IS an intellectual right -- sometimes I think some people forget that, when they're calling the GOP stupid -- but the success of the GOP relies on the hate jockeys and unscrupulous religious organizations to control their population.

This is not minor league shit. And the true face of these people is the authoritarian right -- the people who have always existed -- conquistadors, crusaders, fascists, totalitarians, warlords, Kings, dirty popes, the nobility. Right now, they're simply controlling their populations, because it's early -- but eventually, as has already started -- the manipulators and the manipulatees will be bred into "one true believer." And in this new landscape, our same arguments that we make, time and time again -- will be meaningless -- because all of meaning will have changed.

I study critical theory -- not extensively -- but enough to recognize the de-centering of language, when I see it.

Ok, so the point of all of this is that some people were getting angry over the "starve the red states," threads, yesterday -- but the idea of federalism, and de-centralization might seriously be the only option that we have, simply because since they've re-framed the debate with re-framed language, the only things that we're going to be able to communicate, will be on their terms. You can argue to what extent this has happened -- but I think it's pretty pervasive.

Think about this -- they were able to change a man who had volunteered for combat in Vietnam, received three purple hearts, a bronze star and a silver star, helped save lives after the war, and was a respected senator for 20 years into "A GODDAMN TRAITOR," while an under-achieving alcoholic, who used connections to dodge the draft and was perhaps a deserter, and sent our troops into a country that didn't invade us, under false pretenses is "THE GOD DAMN MILITARY KING OF ALL TIME."

Most people have pointed out that the silver lining to all of this is that it's "ante up" time for the GOP. The Evangelicals are going to come knocking for their paybacks, and I'm still, to this day, not so sure that the higher-ups will think it's "good for business" if they are given what they want. Seeing as the pornography, entertainment, alcohol and tobacco industries are some of the biggest money-makers in the country, and that modern advertising RELIES on prurience to sell peddle its wares.

I do think the coalition between the libertarian male, the authoritarian Christians and the big government neocons is an exceptionally odd one -- one that can be exploited. But we have to be prepared to do something seriously drastic -- not violent -- but creative.

I like the idea of hanging them by their own messages -- getting rid of most of the federal government and keeping more money in the producing states, and maybe turning some red producing states into blue producing states. We have a built-in head start, because of infrastructure, and six years to carry it out, before the next census. That would give people time to save, and wrap everything up. I am in a red state :( now, Iowa, and I could either stay here to make it a blue state, or move where I was needed. You don't have to ask me twice, and I am scared enough by what the GOP is doing that I will not hesitate to put defeating them, before my own interests.

At any rate, I know that some people disagree with this, because their conscience sneaks up on them, but I feel the right has a lock on this country that "our good intentions" ain't going to shake.

What I'm saying is add some "radical" to your necessary equations above. :)

Just conversation. Thanks for your post.

[Kali]

96. powerful stuff

Not articulate like some of you, but I live in a rural community. I see THAT disconnect, between urban and rural, even though most of the humans out here are truly how I think of the term liberal - as in helping others vs. greed. I see much more dichotomy between rural and urban and its clear if you look at the red/blue maps they are voting repub. I agree with the concept of reframing the coversation. These people really feel that certain things are being IMPOSED on them and the way I see it is we need to open it up to where we promote a live and let live concept as opposed to ramming homosexual marriage, for example, down some traditional rural families throat. Its not about forcing its about freedom. I don't know, as I said I'm not articulate enough, but when you put an issue like that in terms of the right wants to control citizens' behavior, that is something a person like that can comprehend much better than the idea of two men in bed. Same with guns. I feel you lose a lot of people to that. Is there ANY way the anti-gun leftists can reframe thier arguments or attempts to limit access to some kind of local control. Rural folks are into local control and if they weren't seeing it in terms of a bunch of scared urbanites that have never even held or shot a gun telling them they can't have a tool they may use daily, they might be less afraid of the party as a whole. The issue of condescension is relevant, at least to me too, when it comes to environmental issues. This may apply especially in the west, but when some khaki dresses new yorker comes out here and tries to tell ranchers that have cared for a piece of ground for 3,4 and 5 generations that they have it all wrong and "we are here to help you in your ignorance" that just doesn't go over to well ya KNow?

This is the most frightening truth and I don't know what to do about it:

"The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Their hate radio barons of the right are not harmless, and not infotainment -- but are true propagandists. They're the ones that are responsible for relaying the messages cooked up by the intellectual right. And there IS an intellectual right -- sometimes I think some people forget that, when they're calling the GOP stupid -- but the success of the GOP relies on the hate jockeys and unscrupulous religious organizations to control their population."

I had this brought home very personally this week and it really shocked me. What do we do about this?

[TahitiNut]

29. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

Well, they're not self-evident to too many.

I agree on one very important point: that liberalism is in the equal self-interests of all people. It's privilege that liberals eschew: the privilege of race, the privilege of wealth, the privilege of property, the privilege of majorities(!), the privilege of gender, and the privilege of sexual orientation.

I disagree on two important thematic points. (1) It's not the liberal positions that need to change; you don't get 'better' by getting a "little bit pregnant" or a "little bit corrupt." (2) The "liberal elite" in the Democratic Party are currently mere window dressing in an increasingly 'centrist' party.

If by "elite" you mean "can't be bothered with communicating (self-evident) truths" ... you're spot on. It seems like the party 'establishment' has forgotten why they're liberal and, instead, substitute their "authority" - both in preserving it and in relying upon it. Wellstone understood this. That's why he's dead.


On edit: I also strongly quibble with the labels you've chosen, but that's not really as consequential.

[stray cat]

31. Great layout

The center left populists don't feel like the liberal democrats understand their lives or feelings whereas Bush tries to act like one of them. Values don't always refer to guns, abortion and gays in this group. It can also mean someone who is "like them". Clinton reached this group.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. hmmm

I am a Democrat because I am concerned about the little guy and have a healthy respect for everybody's civil rights...


I also am pro free trade and pro strong military but a military that is used as a last resort and not the first...


I am pro affirmative action and pro choice but believe abortion is a very, very bad thing that should be safe, legal, and rare....

[rockydem]

34. I think there is a libertarian-leaning liberal too

I think that's what I am. I like to hunt and opposed most forms of gun control. I'm liberal on social issues because I believe in personal freedom. I agree with liberals on censorship, the WOD, etc....

I believe in private property rights as long as what you do on that property doesn't directly infringe on anyone else's rights.

I'm a capitalist but don't want to return to the days of the robber barons. I want an increase in the minimum wage and think that the power of the big corporations should be reigned in.

However, I do get annoyed with things like enforced polictical correctness and other things that some liberals are always trying to do - like banning smoking, etc...

[Senator Lamb]

42. There is 1 man

that can appeal to all three groups.


wesley clark 08

[eridani]

292. When has smoking ever been banned?

Never heard of it. It has been removed from many public enclosed spaces, but that damned well doesn't constitute banning. You may as well call people snotty liberal elitists because they tell you you can't shit in the reservoir. Is that the same as banning shitting?

[Steelangel]

37. Wow, that's good post, Skinner

Quite understandably, the response of some center-left populists is "I'll look out for myself, thanks." Nobody wants to be anyone else's charity-case.

That's what my mom told me about that recent. It is biggest problem among these different Democratic group because of that. To get in order to beat republicans, these groups have to work together or they cannot beat these republicans...

Republicans become so successful because of working together regardless of their differences. We definitely need to do that or we will NEVER get our candidate to become president if we don't.

[UCLA Dem]

39. How do we appease the populists without giving into bigotry?

These are people who think its okay to discriminate against gays and lesbians. How do do welcome social Conservatives (which is basically what they are) without giving up the values we hold dear?

Further, how do we stop the repukes from driving in these wedge issues (e.g. same-sex marriage)? Do we just drop them and leave those who are vulnerable hanging out to dry?

I think that the repukes might get us here too. We try to table contentious "cultural" issues, but then are pegged as being vague and indecisive with no "strong" values. It seems to me that once the Dems started standing up to bigotry in the 1960's, the repukes have used that to divide us ever since. Thats when we lost these people, and haven't really ever been able to get them back.


How do we become the party that fights discrimination and bigotry and stay in power? How do we win these people and not turn our backs against the people who need us the most?

[Skinner]

57. First, I think we have to get rid of the ridiculous notion...

...that we are somehow compromising our values by trying to make our coalition larger. In our two-party system, we are forced to build large coalitions in order to win. By necessity, these coalitions will include groups of people who disagree with each other on some very important things.

But more importantly, I am arguing that we -- meaning urban liberal party elites -- might not actually know what is best for them -- meaning rural and working-class voters.

I can sit here and pontificate on what is necessary to appeal to these voters, but I gotta be honest here: I am totally unprepared to make that call. I am surrounded by urban liberals. I have very little contact with rural and working-class people. Any solution that I propose would not be based on actual knowledge. It would be based on my own ignorance and bigotry.

So, what I am proposing is that the urban liberal elites need to be willing to give up some control over the party, especially in the red states. We need to be willing to let center-left populists show us the way.

I know, it sounds kinda like I'm punting here. But I gotta be honest: People like me have no clue how to appeal to working class and rural voters. Someone used the term "cultural aliens" to describe how we see each other, and I believe that this analogy goes both ways.

[UCLA Dem]

69. I understand what you're saying.

Somehow we have to learn to have clear message that includes people from all walks of life, without being too vague and making ourselves vulnerable to repuke attacks.

Somehow we have to figure out a way to disarm the "wedge issue". We have to figure out at way to counter its divisive power.

We have to be a big tent, but appear to have strong, solid convictions simultaneously.

[Skinner]

78. Exactly.

We have to be a big tent, but appear to have strong, solid convictions simultaneously.

[Edmond Dantes]

105. "Appear" to have strong, solid convictions?

I would prefer that we actually HAVE them.

But I agree with everything else you've said--especially the need to bridge the gap through people who know how to communicate with working class/rural folks.

[Skinner]

112. Point taken.

I agree that people should have strong, solid convictions. I know I do. I'm sure you do, too.

But it is another thing entirely to get an entire coalition to hold all the same core values. When talking about large groups of people like a political party, obvously complete agreement is impossible. I think it would be great if we could foster the appearance and feeling of agreement on very broad values.

[Edmond Dantes]

139. Identify several important issues on which ALL can agree.

Focus on those. Agree to set the other issues aside ... just for now, until we get the ball rolling in our direction again.

Have you read the late Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"? He's the father of community organizing. Fast read. I'll happily loan you my copy.

ON EDIT: I'll leave my copy on a park bench for you. B-)

[VaYallaDawg]

164. Wow, Skinner!

Terrific thinking and even better communication! IMO what we need is the ability to communicate our beliefs (values, hopes, faith, whatever) simply and directly - to each other and to non-Dems as well.

[meow2u3]

126. Call a spade a spade---it's a SCAM

Somehow we have to figure out a way to disarm the "wedge issue". We have to figure out at way to counter its divisive power.

Wedge issues are nothing but an elaborate scam of demagoguery repukes use to con people into voting against their own best interest.

[Zensea]

191. I'm also punting a little on this

I lived in Kansas in a midsize town for 25 years and I've lived in NYC for about ten now.
Working class and rural voters are not really that much different from urban voters.
People are not that much different across the country. This is a myth that they are.
Who are the urban liberal elites going to give the power to, rural elites?
How's that going to change anything?
It's not an issue of urban vs. rural, it's an issue of elite vs. non-elite, in my opinion.

I would also recommend Thomas Frank's analysis as food for thought. I can speak to its correctness regarding Kansas having lived there at the times he is writing about.

[IrateCitizen]

94. What they're engaging in is more FEAR than anything else...

Most people, when asked, will tell you that they don't think that homosexuals should be legislated against. On election night, they showed a poll in which 35% of the respondents said there should be "no recognition" of same-sex partnerships. 35% believed in civil unions. Almost 30% believed in full marriage.

Seems to me that's a 65-35 split. Pretty big majority, IMHO.

The Republicans have been able to exploit this issue by convincing people that THEIR traditions and THEIR way of life is under attack, which has resulted in a predictable backlash.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that these people are bad, by calling them "bigots". Some of them may well be. But I refuse to believe that the majority are. I still believe that human beings are actually, by nature, good. I also know that they can react quite violently to that which they do not understand or that they see as a threat.

We need to minimize this issue by simply placing it in the framework of placing everyone under equal protection of the law. DON'T get into specifics on gay marriage. Simply state that we believe that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law, and cleverly infer that the Republicans, therefore, do NOT believe this to be the case. This will enable people to then stop seeing gay marriage as a threat. I will bet that the majority of people will then not allow themselves to be so swayed by this one issue, and will come back to reality. Those that remain swayed by it, fuck 'em, they're not in our column to begin with.

[Frangible]

40. Thank you Skinner

Well said.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Sounds like you're advocating the "I'm not a liberal" idea.

I am, undoubtedly, a "left liberal" in your equasion. A socialist/anarchist. But, I grew up poor. Hungry poor. I lived in trailer parks. Was even homeless for a time. My mother was an immigrant. There is nothing at all romantic or noble about poverty.

You say: "But they are conservative culturally, or they are deeply ambivalent about cultural issues. They support things like gun rights, regulation of abortion, a strong military, and protecting the flag, and are skeptical of gay rights and affirmative action. When the country goes to war, it might not even cross their minds to oppose it. To do such a thing strikes them as unpatriotic."

And, you're right. Most of them do. The most important thing to realize, however, is that they are WRONG in those beliefs.

I hate to use this analogy but, dammit, it's true. Most Germans supported Hitler on those same issues, and they were also wrong.

The people of this country has just elected a right wing capitalist, fundamentalist "Christian", that supports an elitist vision of America and the world. He didn't deny it, soft pedal it, distance himself from it, or play to the mythical "middle". He trumpeted it, and the "Center Left Populists", as you describe them, voted him in. He won because he appealed to their most base instincts.

They were wrong. Not "mistaken". Wrong. Just as the German people were wrong when they voted in Hitler.

This isn't a question of political strategy. This is a question of morality. That's right, Morality. And, the single question that we need to ask ourselves regarding that morality is, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

All else flows from that. If allowing murderers to obtain guns to kill people with; If allowing corporations to exploit the poor of the world and plunder the environment; If allowing religious fanatics to determine who shall be allowed to marry; If allowing religious fanatics the right to control the lives of women; all in the name of "populism", then I want no part of it.

If that's condescending to the "Center Left Populists", so be it. Call me a "Left Liberal" elitist.

[Frangible]

51. The problem is

Most of the nation does not agree with you, so how do you balance your beliefs with getting elected? I mean, my god, it's full neocon control of everything now. I see no choice for us but to compromise on some issues just for our own survival.

[deutsey]

56. Read this interview with George Lakoff

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

SNIP

Why do conservatives appear to be so much better at framing?

Because they've put billions of dollars into it. Over the last 30 years their think tanks have made a heavy investment in ideas and in language. In 1970, Lewis Powell wrote a fateful memo to the National Chamber of Commerce saying that all of our best students are becoming anti-business because of the Vietnam War, and that we needed to do something about it. Powell's agenda included getting wealthy conservatives to set up professorships, setting up institutes on and off campus where intellectuals would write books from a conservative business perspective, and setting up think tanks. He outlined the whole thing in 1970. They set up the Heritage Foundation in 1973, and the Manhattan Institute after that.

And now, as the New York Times Magazine quoted Paul Weyrich, who started the Heritage Foundation, they have 1,500 conservative radio talk show hosts. They have a huge, very good operation, and they understand their own moral system. They understand what unites conservatives, and they understand how to talk about it, and they are constantly updating their research on how best to express their ideas.

SNIP

IN OTHER WORDS: The Right did not get where they are today by compromising their issues.

[Skinner]

62. This is the attitude that will guarantee permanent minority status for us.

As long as we treat large groups of people as morally equivalent to Germans who supported Hitler, we are never going to convince them that they should vote for us. If you are fine with that, then more power too you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. And that's the attitude that says "winning is evetything".

Do you disagree with the thesis that the American people, in this election, did NOT vote much as the Germans did? They voted for war. They voted for bigotry. They voted for a "strong leader". They voted for greed in the form of "tax breaks". They voted for more "defense".
They voted for jingoism and nationalism. They voted for religious discrimination.

So, what are you saying? That we should mollify them by saying they're right? That we should "compromise" to appease them?

All so that we can achieve what? Is the Democratic Party so desperate for victory that it must assume the mantle of all that it allegedly opposes?

A hollow victory if it does.

[Skinner]

115. I have said nothing of the sort.

But I have argued that we exclude voters at our own peril. And I have argued that people like you and me are ill-equipped to make the case to center-left populists that voting Democratic is in their best interest.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

127. And, I'm arguing that we must stick to our principles without apology.

I believe that the reason that we (the Democratic Party) don't "make our case" is that we present a wishy-washy version of our ideals in the face of the slightest opposition. I believe, that the majority of the American people, like the majority of the German people, would respond to an undiluted call to the "better angels" of their nature. The Democrats have lost their appeal precisely because they have watered down their vision, their morality that says that "all people are created equal", that it is "unfair that some should live off the labor of others", that greed is not "good", that we are a nation among nations.

I believe that the "left liberals" have a helluva lot more in common with the "center-left populists" then you may think.

As for presenting "the case" to them. We could attempt simply telling the the truth. That we actually believe that equality for all is just and right. That living well isn't the sole province of the rich. That gays and lesbians are deserving of the very same rights as straights. That the environment needs protecting even if it is expensive. That allowing everyone, no matter how nuts or sociopathic, to have guns is downright stupid. That all children should be educated even if it means higher taxes. That everyone deserves decent health care, even if it means having to wait your turn.

Need I go on?

We don't need to "sell" our ideals. We simply need to state them clearly.

[sangh0]

180. Like bush* stuck to principle on stem cell research?

Like how he "stuck to principle" when asked about abortion in the debates?

Like how bush* "stuck to principle" when he first opposed the 9/11 investigation, and then supported it?

You've swallowed bush*'s lie about how "principled" and "resolute" he is.

[Cats Against Frist]

65. What do you mean he didn't soft pedal it?

It's always veiled -- they've co-opted a language to describe what they're doing that actually doesn't describe it -- "small government," "individual liberty," "rights," "freedom," "activist judges," "america didn't bring this on itself," -- they're always hiding what they're really selling. Imagine if they used the real language that describes what it really is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

116. And, most of them knew exactly what he was talking about.

Just as the Dixiecrats knew what "states rights" meant. And, just as everyone knew what the "Southern strategy" was.

You think that most of the American people don't understand what Bush is talking about when he says "tax breaks"? That they don't know that "individual liberty" translates to property rights, gun rights, and greed? And, that "activist judges" translates to an endorsement of bigotry?

Don't believe it? Corner a Bush supporter and ask them what all those "veiled" words mean. You will be surprised how well the "ignorant masses" are able to translate meaning. They knew, and approved of, what he saying. Just as they knew what race Reagan was referring to when he talked about "welfare queens". Just as they know what Bush is talking about when he talks about "traditional family values".

They knew what he was talking about, and they voted for it.

[sangh0]

179. You contradict yourself

You said the repukes makes their case clearly, but when someone pointed out that they don't, you backpedal and say "most of them knew exactly what he was talking about"

It sounds like the problem isn't that Dem candidates aren't clear - It's that some Dems don't understand what they're saying.

They knew what he was talking about, and they voted for it.

So I guess we DON'T have to be clear (here's where you come back and say we DO have to be clear)

[deutsey]

47. What I don't get is why we (whomever the fuck we are)

don't put our energy in framing a debate that will make sense not just to policy wonks and the converted, but to "regular" people.

Read what George Lakoff has written. It's not a matter of left, center-left, center-center, right-left, up-down, etc. It's a matter of taking our core values and framing the national debate around them. In doing so we put forth a meaningful and appealing vision of America that stands in contrast to the vision put forth by the right.

"The right", by the way, is a mixture of conservative Christians, libertarians, free-marketeers, far-rightists, business, wealthy people, "Reagan Democrats", etc. The right frames the debate in such a way that encompasses the core values that unite these disparate groups.

We sit around parsing hairs and debating how many angels can do tightrope tricks on them before the hair snaps.

[Blue_Roses]

48. One thing that has weighed heavily on my mind about this election is

how we approach the hot topic issues like abortion. I got into a discussion at our Dem headquarters with Dem volunteer about abortion. He said he is clearly pro-life and is against abortion, but supported Kerry on every other issue--mainly jobs and the shitty economy. As we talked, it became clear to me that this topic shouldn't be about abortion, but about educating those who oppose abortion about the REALITY of sex and lack of birth control education. It's unrealistic to think that we can eliminate sex by abolishing abortion. Do the fundies really think that teenagers sitting in a steam-filled car will stop to think "oh, I might get pregnant"? Some might, but many don't know or don't care 'cause they take the chance anyway. It's naive' and careless.

I worked as a counselor for women (and many girls) facing unplanned pregnancies and you would be surprised how many SOUTHERN BAPTISTS moms came in with their teenagers. This issue always takes on a new light when it affects you personally. I told this guy that if we could approach this issue not from the "abortion" stand point but from the "reality of sex" stand point then maybe we wouldn't need to worry about abortions after all (of course this is a pollyanna thought but it does merit some thought). Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion, but will only cause certain death in the pregnant woman and laws running amok). To expect teenagers to not be sexually active is unrealistic--no matter how "christian" they think they may be. I would love to see my teenage daughter wait till marriage, but that is only burying my head in the sand and forgetting reality.

[whistle]

50. All of this analysis and pigeon holing works great when the electorate...

...has access to the facts and the truth. But when an entire nation is deceived and lied to by the very leaders it has entrusted its well-being, security and future to protect and preserve, how is it possible to maintain any position? The political cancer has been festering for decades and American democracy is really on the verge of annihilation from dark, sinister forces within our own borders, who look and act just like patriotic Americans, but are interested only in the furtherance of their own selfish ends.

Give Americans the truth and I believe that almost all segments and groups in America can get along just fine. Let's work toward that end.

[Frangible]

52. Americans had the truth

And it was ignored for GAY MARRIAGE. I'm appalled at this election! How can America sink so low?

[progressivebydesign]

71. Absolutely... as we do all this self-examination.. we HAVE to look outside

The media, now controlled almost entirely by the right wing, played a BIG part in this election and the voters beliefs. When Fox News is the #1 station for news in America, what could we expect. Average Americans don't like conspiracy theories, and they tend to believe that people and news organizations are inherently good... they don't wonder 'why would they lie to me?'. It's a HUGE issue, getting the truth out.

My daughter's teacher at Jr. High was telling the kids that he believe those explosives (350 tons that are STILL unaccounted for in Iraq), were removed before we got there... and he cited that bogus NBC news piece that was reported on Fox, then later debunked. He stayed with that line thru the election.. he believed that they were gone when we got there.. He asked the kids to guess who he'd vote for in the election, AFTER the election. I told my daughter my money was on GWB. I was right. This educated man, a TEACHER of all things, was getting his news from Fox, and he voted for Bush. BUYING the lies about the explosives, because he felt the other information proving him wrong.. was just spin.

There are too many variables in all this. We can't beat up on ourselves and our party too much, because we have to acknowledge the role of the MEDIA, the DIEBOLDs, the intimidation and mininformation campaign to the voters, and the people in power right now.

[Socialist Dem]

54. You're on the right track,

Get the party back to it's roots. Harry Truman didn't win election by listening to the "elite", he took his case to the people he trusted. He knew them, and respected their values. (and yeah, some of those "values" were repugnant even to Truman, but he knew better than to beat a dead horse.)

On election day, the "rural" vote swept him into office.

The Democratic party, can't pander to them, they must be fully involved and respected.

[BeFree]

55. Important point

"They support things like gun rights, regulation of abortion, a strong military, and protecting the flag, and are skeptical of gay rights and affirmative action. When the country goes to war, it might not even cross their minds to oppose it. To do such a thing strikes them as unpatriotic.
"

Those kind of people are a majority that we have failed to get to understand us. Partly because our message is so scattered and partly we don't associate too much with them, culturally, or politically. And we have failed to understand their inherent wisdoms of patriotism, god and family. We simply must do more. Waiting for them to come to us has been a failure, we must reach them, find our common ground, and join together.

Afterall, they hate nazis as much as we do.

[TexasSissy]

58. Hmmm. I can't figure out which group I belong to. I'm sort of all over

the board.

Surely there must be yet another category between Left-Liberals and Center-Left-Libertarians?

War - Dislike it, but recognize that it is necessary at times; there are things worth dying for. America would not exist if it were not for the willingness to fight for its existence.

Abortion - Support it, but am okay with SOME restrictions and think women should be provided a balanced view and information on alternatives. But then, she, and only she, has the right to choose in the end.

Gay rights - I'm not passionate about this one way or the other. I see both sides. But if gays want all the rights of others, like marriage, I think that basically they will have to get a constitutional amendment or some declaration to the effect that being homosexual is orientation and not preference, so that the issue can fall under civil rights.

Gun control - In favor of it to a degree. For example, don't see the reason assault weapons are not banned altogether. Gun show immediate purchases on the spot should be restricted. Background checks should be required (I think they are?). We must protect the police officers who are on the street facing these weapons. But the average citizen should still have the right to purchase a regular firearm for hunting or protection (altho I wouldn't mind if hunting were outlawed).

Environment - totally liberal on this one.

Workers' rights - In favor of them. History has shown that companies will abuse workers horribly, without protections in place for the workers.

Organized labor - In favor of it, generally. But am concerned that they get out of hand sometimes (I'm from a union city). I guess that thing about power corrupting some is right - sometimes their demands seem unreasonable and the timing is bad.

Progressive and relatively high taxes - Not okay with me. The lower the taxes are, the better. BUT wealthy people should pay a higher percentage than poor people. 10% of a wealthy person's income has less value to that person than 10% of a poor person's income, which would probably be used for necessary living expenses. And people in poverty should pay no taxes at all. The govt. can then give lots of deductions to wealthy people to encourage certain kinds of activities, like creating jobs, investing in certain kinds of businesses, buying a home, etc. Warren Buffett said he paid only 3% in income tax in 2003; that is not right.

Universal health care - This makes sense to me. I'm scared of it. But something needs to be done. Kerry's plan made sense to me; it wasn't "universal," but something else. And the COST of health care should be dealt with. It is a RIGHT of every American to have health care. Not a luxury that you have if you can afford it.

Government regulation - It is necessary to ensure that corporations don't, in effect, end up running the country. There are certain public policy and fairness issues that only government can protect for us - like ability to get reasonably priced utilities, not lose an over-abundance of jobs to outsourcing, etc. But I don't like govt. regulating everything, or regulating to the Nth degree. In other words, the little guy needs to be protected from the powerful. But we don't need Big Brother.

Aff. Action - It's okay up to a point. Not to the point where there is reverse discrimination. Is that possible, though? I still think Aff. Action is necessary for a few more years in some places. And if it's in some places, it must be everywhere. But I don't think it works, anyway. I used to work on Aff. Action Plans for awhile, and I saw that the data can be manipulated to show anything. And I didn't run across any blatant discrimination, anyway. Seemed that most employers just wanted people who were good employees. Except for age and gender - I did see some weird data for that.

[Skinner]

64. That's why I made it clear that these were huge generalizations.

I was not trying to pigeon-hole anyone.

[progressivebydesign]

59. I tend toward the Center.. and I appreciate that Skinner gets it..

I'm often a lone voice on DU, because I don't follow the party line. Everything Skinner has written rings true with me... I see the disparity when I work on political campaigns.. on the Congressional and State levels. Often the stragegy and tone is set by people that don't have the life experience of those we NEED in our Party to keep it alive. This election was not a trouncing, as some would like you believe. What I did expect, and what did happen, is that we were not able to sway enough people to our Candidate, enough people to offset the voter fraud and disenfranchisement. That had been my feeling all along.. we had to win it with a large enough margin to erase ALL of the dirty tricks with registration and voting and republican owned electronic voting machines.

Months and months ago, I posted several times about the need for the Democrats to recognize the idealogical shift in America, that affected people on BOTH sides of the aisle. 9/11, and the ensuing onslaught of pushing the tragedy in the media and politically, the nation turned to the right. I could see it locally, I could see it in the popular culture. The return to the right, included in a LARGE part a return to religion.. conservative religion. It was obvious, if you looked around you. I noticed it while reading the local papers. When someone was hurt, the response was "God was looking out for me and I wasn't killed", or "all the prayer for my child was what sustained me", EVEN the Mt. St. Helens activity gave us this tv soundbite from a family parked nearby the Mountain: "yeah, it's dangerous, but I have my family all together, and we love Jesus, so if anything happens we're okay with that". The Republicans were just masterful at exploiting that mindset, because the Republicans KNOW how to do that. During the primaries, I warned here several times that we ignore the new American mindset "at our peril". Howard Dean was the one that really "got it" about the people that should be under our tent. When he said so, he was attacked by his own Party.

I'm not saying we should pander to someone else's religion, or become a born-again Party. What we NEED to do, is stop fighting the fact that churches are growing enormously, that pop music is now melding with Christian music, and that MANY voters will vote on a single issue THEY believe to be more imporant than health care, a job, and the well being of their own children. Remember again, the fellow at Mt. St. Helens. His small children were at risk of being harmed or killed, and his response was that.. 'it's okay, we love Jesus and whatever happens is okay with them'.

I cannot fathom that type of thinking... I"m more of a real world, you could be here on earth for 80 more years, type. BUT.. we can't ignore it. The Party needs to be shaken up from the top down. I recently read a piece in Rolling Stone about a journalist that infiltrated a regional Bush campaign office. His insights were priceless.. and I think it should be taken to the heart by the TOP level Demcrats.

I still think we were cheated in many ways this election, once again. I DON'T believe Bush has a mandate, as he is claiming this morning... BUT.. I think we failed to garner the enormous support we should have in the light of ALL of Bush's failures.. and that didn't give us the cushion we needed to weather the legal, filthy, and dishonest attacks on our voters.

[Cuban_Liberal]

60. AWESOME post, Skinner!

Can't find anything there to disagree with.

:thumbsup:

[Mike L]

63. This spin is worthless.

Middle America know where its values are. We have undeniable evidence this election of middle America's values on guns, God and gay marriage. I'm against gun control anyway, but anything the Dem Party can do to try and limit guns is worthless. Face it, the "assault rifle" ban was a joke. Those guns function the same way as hunting rifles. They just look bad. We should have banned high capacity magazines ONLY if we wanted to do something constructive.

And what damn good does it do to take the 10 Commandments off the courthouse steps and "God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance? Get real.

We got stuck with gay marriage because many Dems support it. This is a losing proposition. The gay marriage amendments have passed on state ballots by a large margin. Rove used it to kill us. Both parties have now said they support civil unions. We should officially jettison the gay marriage issue from our platform before it sinks us further.

It is political suicide for us to continue to be anti-gun, anti-God and pro-gay marriage. No amount of cutsie little labels will change that. Face it. The last election should have been a cakewalk (no pun intended).

[Skinner]

76. I'm not really sure what part of my "spin" you consider "worthless"

I'm arguing that Democrats need to appeal to the part of "Middle America" that you are talking about. And I'm arguing that cultural aliens like me are totally ill-equipped for the job. I would think that my point fits pretty well with your analysis.

[Mike L]

176. Skinner,

It's not gonna work unless the Party as a whole makes the move. The public only sees the "Dem Party". Unless we jettison the anti-gun, anti-God and pro-gay marriage part of our platform, I doubt it will make any difference, ALTHOUGH I COULD BE WRONG.

If we nominate a candidate (hell, if we can find one) who truely believes in gun rights, God and civil unions, then I think that will be good enough to get the middle America vote.

So, I apologize and thank you for your efforts.

[Socialist Dem]

103. why not go further then?

Hell, I'm not a woman, so what does taking away choice really hurt?

I'm not gay, so who cares if they have discriminatory laws voted into state constitutuions.

I KNOW it may be an old argument, but that doesn't make it less true.

You START with the 10 commandments, or putting god in the pledge. Then what? A manditory prayer every morning at schools? Hey, I don't believe in god at all.... what about MY rights? Why the hell don't I matter now? NO ONE is denying the right to beileve in god, but the movement to make belief in god manditory is real, and all it takes is those baby steps to get started.

You START with gay marriage. Then what? Will divorce be illegal, or made so hard to get that only the rich can afford it? Will ANY marriages outside the "big 3" religions not be recognized? Will a caste system be set up so no one is allowed to "marry out of their class"?

[OrwellwasRight]

166. Yup: All Fascism starts with baby steps

The Nazis had the Reichstag Fire ("It's the Communists' fault. They're dangerous. Let's ban them.), and it grew from there.

We had 9/11 ("All males from certain 'Arab' countries, please round yourselves up to INS offices for registration."), and it has grown from there to taking away the rights of women and assuring that gays lack full rights.

It's like that old story about they came for the Jews, and the Communists, and the gays, and the disabled, but I did not stand up for any of them, and then when they came for me there was no one left to stand up for me (severely edited version of the story).

Bottom line is, if no one is free until we all are free, then we cannot give up on fighting for the rights of the atheists, the gays, and any other group deemed unpopular by the Evangelicals.

And if that makes us immoral, Eastern elites, we need a better sales staff. I.e. Fire Terry McAuliffe.

[CindyDale]

173. If the Democrats won't even stand up to the Republicans right-wing loonies

Why should anyone expect them to stand up to foreign terrorists? They need to be stronger and tougher, not wishy-washier.

As far as I'm concerned, it's over though. I will probably vote for a third-party candidate next time if I vote.

[Mike L]

185. Orwell, the difference is that this phenonenon is real.

The guns, God and gays position is killing the Democratic Party. There is nothing we can do on 'guns' anyway. In fact, there is nothing we should do. Gun ownership is part of the Bill of Rights. If you are concerned with civil rights, stand up for gun ownership.

It's bigoted to be against people of faith. Why would you exclude them from the Dem Party?

Gays have gone from "don't ask, don't tell" to civil unions in 11 years. This is unbelievable progress. There is no need to press for more now. Anyway, they can't get more now. Why destroy the Party over this issue?

[CindyDale]

188. They will find other wedge issues.

The point is to divide people.

Do you think they really care who they attack?

BTW, this post is from a person of faith.

[Mike L]

197. Not if we divide THEM first.

When we mesh with middle America on 'cultural values', we can hit them with class warfare. We can point out that Fallwell, Robertson, etc. are "extremists". We can point out that America doesn't want to be empire builders.

[CindyDale]

201. Y'all do whatever,.

I am not into division, class warfare, whatever.

That's why I'm against Bush.

[Mike L]

Class warfare is a staple of the Dem Party. It's what the Dem Party is

about, you know-- working people vs. the rich.

I heard that Chimp will move on his plan to privatize Social Security soon. This should also be a good issue when the benefits of senior citizens get cut. The oldsters also screwed themselves when they voted for Chimp.

[CindyDale]

208. Oh, OK

If that's what it's about, I'm definitely changing my registration back to NPA.

[OrwellwasRight]

194. I have not argued that people of faith should be excluded from the party

Please don't read more into my argument than is there. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi are two of my heroes and they are also two of the most influential people of faith in this century.

Also, "under God" was not in the Pledge since the beginning. Those words were added in the early fifties under the Eisenhower Administration. The Pledge was written by a socialist.

I'm not against the 10 Commandments (I think they are a great moral code to live by and I personally try to live by them). But the 10 Commandments DO NOT say "thou shalt hate gays or thou shalt not have abortions." My point is that being a "person of faith" and being a good Democrat are not mutually exclusive and do not have to mean abandoning the essestial principles of equality, fraternity, liberty, and tolerance.

Saying that "it is too hard and too unpopular to press for gay rights, so let's abandon them for the more popular position" would be like the abolitionists of the 17 & 1800's saying "it is too hard and too unpopular to work for the abolition of slavery, so let's abandon that idea."

As to guns, I have to respectfully disagree with you. The Second Amendment clearly has to do with militias, not personal arsenals. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom (such as it was) did not include phrases to no purpose. James Huberty had NO RIGHT to kill 30 people at a McDonald's in San Diego in 1984, and he could not have done it if he was not armed to the hilt with semi-automatic weapons. I will never suport that and I will never pretend to just to get votes. I would, however, support the right to own unlimited guns so long as they were guns that existed when the Constitution was written. Those you could run away from.

You may support guns all you like, but don't tell me I must just to get the vote of some David Koresch-type. We will never get his vote anyway (and I don't want it).

[Mike L]

202. Orwell, Good luck beating your brains out and alienating

many rural voters on the gun control issue. You will never be able to outlaw the possession if semi-auto weapons in America.

As to the second amendment, at least we do have a right which is articulated in the constitution. The "right" to an abortion won't be found there. It's a judicially created right drawn from several of the amendments.

[OrwellwasRight]

209. Are you even a Democrat?

No there is no right to abortion listed, but neither is there any legislative power to restrict any medical procedure. It would be inconceivable to assume that the Founders expected Congress or any state legislature to make laws regarding what surgeries people can or can't have. Abortions were in fact quite common at some points in the middle ages -- and the Catholic Church was not protesting.

And you don't even address the militia issue, all you can say is that we are beating our heads against the wall if we don't suck up to gun-mongers. That's fine. Nelson Mandella was beating his head against the wall too, till aparthied crumbled.

I reiterate what you have not really engaged in a discussion about: The answer is not to be Republican-lite, but to explain why Democratic values of helping the little guy, battling corporate power, and having tolerance for differing religious and lifestyle views are morally superior to views that perpetrate gay-bashing, women-bashing, and tax-breaks for corporations and the wealthy while destroying the social safety net.

If we sell liberalism better, we win. If we abandon our core principles, they drawn the discussion to the right and they win.

[Mike L]

221. "Are you even a Democrat?"

Yep. All us "conservative" Dems have been keeping our mouths shut for the benefit of party unity. I like guns, believe in God, and personally don't like abortions (although I think women should have the right to choose.)

Re militia: You may not know this, but we still have a US Militia. The US Code defines the militia as all able bodied men ages 17-- 44.

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

Guess what those able bodied men would use if they are ever quickly called to defend their homeland from an attack-- their militia rifles. Also, militia "arms" at the time of the writing of the amendments to the constitution included sidearms (pistols).

"If we sell liberalism better, we win."

Not. Middle America doesn't share the anti-gun, anti-God and pro-gay marriage "liberalism". They won't buy it regardless of how pretty the package.

[OrwellwasRight]

223. Continue to try to sell Republican-lite then

And I predict that Gore, and Kerry, and all the other wishy-washy "don't stand for much except that we're Republicans, only nicer"-types will continue to leave us at the mercy of Bush, Rove et al.

And I will continue to sell equality, justice, and freedom, and I predict that it will win the day, eventually.

Have you ever seen films of RFK campaigning in Watts? The black residents of this LA neighborhood did not come out and line the streets 20 people deep--for miles--just to see him and maybe touch him because he took the easy-road, only asking the powerful to concede the rights they were willing to. They came out because RFK was willing to speak Truth to Power and to demand more from the powers-that-be. The American people should demand more of ourselves.

Jesus said love thy neighbor as thyself. He did not say love thy neighbor unless he is gay or has an unwanted pregnancy. The Republicans do not have a monopoly on belief in god, I think that the people who argue that they do have forgotten what Jesus tried to teach us.

Us lefties are not anti-god, we're anti-hate. We're pro-people, and that's very pro-god.

[Skinner]

225. Question.

You say that you "like guns, believe in God, and personally don't like abortions (although you think women should have the right to choose.)"

I can understand why you would feel that the Democratic party as a whole does not support your position on guns.

But why do you feel that you are at-odds with the Democratic party when it comes to your belief in God or your position on abortion? Most Democrats are Christians, and the Democratic party has been a staunch defender of everyone's right to practice their religion without government interference. Most members of the Democratic party share your position on abortion (personally opposed, but believe it should be legal). Why do you feel that the Democratic party is opposed to your values on these two issues?

I am genuinely curious. I think this gets right to the heart of the problem we face.

[Mike L]

231. Skinner, I don't feel that the Dem Party is at odds with my belief in God

or my position on abortion. But I'm politically active and am intelligent enough to know the score.

I'm talking about middle America's impression of the Dem Party. Rural America sees the Dem party as the Party that backs the removal of the 10 Commandments from courthouse steps and wants to take "God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. It sees Dems as the party of the ACLU, and sees the ACLU as anti-God.

I don't think the Dem Party can (or should) separate itself from the abortion issue. That would cause us to lose too much funding and too many votes. We're not going to get the Fundi vote anyway (and I really don't want it.) However, we must distance ourselves from the ACLU type attacks on what middle America sees as their freedom of religion.

[OrwellwasRight]

234. What ACLU-type attacks are you talking about?

I don't think anyone in this thread is attacking freedom of religion. That is exactly the point: Dems fight for freedom of religion for all: Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, whatever.

How is saying that we should fight for equal rights for all or that none are free until all are free attacking anybody's freedom of religion?

If you are arguing that unless fundamentalists can impose their religion on others then they lack freedom of religion, then my answer (and I think most Dems answer) is no: Dems should not support that.

I reiterate that Martin Luther King was a man of great faith and a perfect example of a great leader. Democrats can and should emulate him; they do not need to emulate Jerry Falwell.

Not sure where you ACLU remark comes from, but to say that the Dems should renounce the ACLU is to leave the entire country at the mercy of Ari Fleischer and his "watch what you say" mentality.

Again, giving in on core principles is no way to inspire the masses.

[Mike L]

236. Orwell, you're missing the point.

"I don't think anyone in this thread is attacking freedom of religion. That is exactly the point: Dems fight for freedom of religion for all: Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, whatever."

That's true, but that's not how middle America sees it, and they never will, regardless of what we say. Look, I'm from a rural area and I know how they think. We aren't going to change their minds on this. We must run real 'middle America candidates' in rural areas and Presidential races to connect with that group and win. "Elite" ACLU backing candidates will only lose.

Think strategy. Think survival of the Dem Party. We don't have much time left.

[OrwellwasRight]

242. Question

I'm not sure what you mean by "real middle America candidates. . . ACLU back candidates."

Do you mean that the ACLU must oppose our candidates for middle Americans to vote for them? Do you mean that candidates must be anti-gay and anti-choice? There were some Dems like that; many of them were thrown out in Texas (Stenholm, Lampson, Sandlin) due to DeLay's redistricting plan. Moderation did not save them (but I agree that with that evil redistricting plan, hard-core liberalism would not have saved them either).

If you mean that middle-Americans will never support religious liberty for all, I must respecfully disagree. I don't think anyone is articulating that to them as a "moral" position. I think it can be done, and it is exactly what McAuliffe & Co. have not been doing. No engagement, no persuasion: simply preaching to the converted.

I guess I am unclear about what you are advocating that the Dems do in order to "survive." I hope you don't mean to say we must back candidates that go against our core principles.

[Mike L]

249. Answer

"Do you mean that the ACLU must oppose our candidates for middle Americans to vote for them?

No. I didn't know the ACLU endorses or opposes candidates. But it would probably play well in rural America if they did oppose our candidate:-) What I'm saying is that we shouldn't actively support activities like removing the 10 commandments from public buildings and "God" from the pledge or, "In God We Trust," from our currency. If asked about the issue, I'd say something like, "I support.....(and name these three examples)." (Man, that's good. I should be a political strategist.) Remember, this is not a debate about what's right or wrong. It's a strategy for winning the middle America vote and saving the Dem Party. If the candidate has a strong enough religious background, he may be able to explain separation of church and state and get away with it. Another big qualification for a winning candidate is that he/she be 'likable'.

"Do you mean that candidates must be anti-gay and anti-choice?"

I think I have already answered that. A political candidate being pro-civil union is quite a step from even the start of this campaign season. That's the position I would take. The candidate should be anti-gay marriage. Being pro-choice is fine.

[Mike L]

182. Dog, your arguement is rather exrteme.

"You START with the 10 commandments, or putting god in the pledge. Then what? A manditory prayer every morning at schools? Hey, I don't believe in god at all.... what about MY rights? Why the hell don't I matter now? NO ONE is denying the right to beileve in god, but the movement to make belief in god manditory is real, and all it takes is those baby steps to get started."

The 10 Commandments are on the US Supreme Court building and "God" has been in the pledge since the start. The Dem position that these historical precedents should be changed is part of what has cost us Congress and the Presidency. Your charge about a "mandatory religion" is absurd.

[OrwellwasRight]

198. Not all that extreme

Outlawing abortion is about one thing:
Legislating their religious view that abortion=murder.

If I disagree that abortion=murder, I should be able to have one. Pro-choice folks are not forcing anyone to have an abortion, so why take my right to have one away unless you want to enforce your religion on me?

[Socialist Dem]

261. No sir,

"under god" has only been in the pledge since congress, after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words to the Pledge in 1954.

The 1892 version was 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'


Why is the idea of "mandatory religion" absurd?

Think it can't happen here? Why are we any different than other nations throughout history? It would just be returning to our puritan roots where law and religion were mixed, and one could be charged with heresy.

It's one thing the founding fathers made sure to try and prevent.

All it takes is something small and incongruous to get the ball rolling.

[really annoyed]

268. Two Things Wrong Here

1) Moses and his tablets are on the Supreme Court. The 10 Commandments themsevles are not engraved on those tablets. The whole design of the Supreme Court is to show law throughout time, including the 10 Commandments. If the 10 Commandments are posted in schools and government buildings, they must include all the others important legal codes throughout time.

2) "Under God" was not added into the Pledge until the 1950's. The original had no mention of a deity - and the man who wrote it was a minister.

But don't expect anybody else to understand that. It's just elitist nonsense! Don't let facts get in the way of emotional argument.

And I don't recall any "Dem" supporting any measure to get rid of these things. You are the one who is being absurd here.

[OrwellwasRight]

68. Should Dems give up on core principles to gain popularity?

Skinner's analysis is clearly insightful, but I am not sure where it leads us.

Some of the responses seem to be saying that we need to stop learning and learn to love the gun and the homphobe. Sigh.

I have to agree with UCLA Dem and bandera. If we have to pretend that we want people with machine guns roaming our streets and we have to give up on fighting for civil rights for gays and women who want abortions in order to win, then what have we won?

I went to Sunday school every week when I was in grade school and the biggest thing it taught me was to "do unto others as I would have done unto me." That is true morality, and if we all (Dems and Repubs) lived like that, we would all be more moral and better off. If the "vast Red middle" does not want to be told who to marry, why do they want to tell others? If they wouldn't want to be left out in the cold with no support after losing a job, retiring from a minimum-wage career after 65 years of hard work, or learning that their child has a life-threatening (and expensive) health condition, why do thay want others to be left out in the cold?

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke with moral force on many issues (not only civil rights for blacks, but also the Vietnam war and social programs). I don't think he would have had as much moral force had he tried to modify his views to make them more acceptable to the center. He was truly liberal, and he would beat the pants off of the anti-integrationists like Wallace in any contest of "morality."

If the vast Red middle is as religious as it claims to be, then they can be talked to and brought along, but not by us giving up on a visionary ideal of equality, but by a forceful campaign that includes education, discourse, and dialogue.

[iamjoy]

72. Why Two Parties?

I mean, there are so many issues now that didn't really exist 200 years ago, even 50 years ago. We have 300 million people in the U.S. - why 2 parties?

Why not abolish the electoral college (or at least the winner take all system) and let other parties thrive?

The Left-Liberals could get folded into the Green Party. Say what you want about Center-left libertarians not being the Libertarian party, this may be a more comfortable fit for them and the Libertarian Party might also absorb moderate Republicans. We could then have a populist party for those socially conservatives who support Unions and trade restrictions.

It's a wild idea, I know, but has advantages. Politicians would no longer feel like they had to "compromise" to get their party's support - think of Gephardt who was once pro-life and Bush Sr who was once pro-choice. The Populist Party and the Constitution Party (far right Republicans) would battle for control of the South and Mid-West. The Libertarians and Greens would jockey for control of the Northeast and Far West.

Otherwise, I say we fight to redefine morality, not concede the issue to them.

[Skinner]

81. The two-party system is an inevitable outcome of our system.

The Framers may not have intended it, but it is the inevitable outcome of the system of government they created. In the United States, large third parties cannot last long before they are absorbed into one of the two major parties.

If we want a multi-party system, we would have to change the constitution. Which would be fine with me, but I consider it extremely unrealistic.

[HereSince1628]

93. Would you agree that the Electoral College undermines multiparty

politics in the US?

The general situation of "winner take all" certainly works against building coalitions among several parties to choose leadership and consequently to pay back cabinet-type position for support as takes place in the multiparty systems in Europe.

Moving the electoral college toward a system of apportioned representation seems to me to be a necessary step to allow the spontaneous generation of party-affiliations that more accurately reflect their members views (for example I don't like being associated with the DLC mentality which I see as elitist, and I think that many Republicans will rue the likely return of the Neocons--now that their policies have a popular mandate :().

[Skinner]

100. Clearly, the winner-take-all system of the Electoral College

does encourage a two-party system. But I also think that abolishing the Electoral College would not abolish the two-party system. After all, we'd essentially be changing to a winner-take-all system with one large district, encompassing the entire country.

Our system of winner-take-all single-member districts, in the House, Senate, Presidency, and everywhere else, creates a strong incentive to organize into two major parties.

[iamjoy]

169. A Simple Change, I Would Think...

If you change the winner take all Electoral College system left Democrats may bolt for the Greens. Moderate Republicans may join the Libertarian party. Right now, people are afraid to back another party because it would weaken theirs.

The fight for the Democratic Party may destroy it and that is not good. First, it will further cement the Republican's control of our country and a One Party System is never a good thing - just think of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany (and I don't mean to compare Republicans to Nazis). Second, some one is going to end up not being represented. There are people now saying the Democrats should abandon the pro-choice and gay-rights platforms to take those "Populists" back into the fold. And what of the pro-choice people and homosexuals - ignore them? For that matter, there is no strong anti-war party - something is wrong with that!

A four party system isn't perfect, and you will still have dissent from the platform, but it is better than what we have.

[John_H]

73. It's about getting rid of the people who don't know how to win. Period.

[FubarFly]

74. Democratic values need to be better represented

in the media, and especially on TV. With all due respect to the James Carvilles of the world, we need to see people who come across with sincerity and integrity, and who represent the wide spectrum of Democratic interests. I no longer see environmentalists, feminists, civil rights activists, union leaders, etc. on television- but Anne freaking Coulter is a TV staple.

We have allowed some of our strongest and most passionate voices to be marginalized. Creating new forums like Air America is a good start, but in addition to creating new media, we absolutely must make better use of our existing media.

If we organize and put pressure on these outlets, we will get better representation. They will either comply, or face the wrath of literally millions of ticked off Democrats. Our leadership needs to realize that actual power resides with the people. But our anger needs focus. To unite us they have to stop reacting, and start leading. We will never regain our pride, until we regain our voice.

If advocating basic equality among all Americans isn't a winning issue, then something is drastically wrong with the way we're arguing. They should never have allowed "liberal" to become a dirty word.

[CindyDale]

75. You want the fundies? Start a cult. . .

That's what Bush did.

If the Democrats can't keep church and state separate, they'll be too un-American for me, too, though.

Cindy

[Frangible]

82. You're more or less correct.. we DO need to start our own cult

We *need* to connect with Christian voters. Jesus was the ultimate liberal! We need to show how democratic values are Jesus's values, and that the Republican's hate and fearmongering are what Jesus abhorred.

I am agnostic personally, but I realize what a huge factor the religious vote was for Dubya. We need to reach out to these voters, or the Republicans will.

[CindyDale]

92. I wish you were right but . . .

Problem is they don't like Jesus's values. Tell that Mel Gibson guy about Jesus's values, for instance. He said something to the effect that what Jesus said doesn't matter. What matters apparently is getting into heaven, I guess, and you don't need to share Jesus's values for that.

It's a cult. You can't appeal to it in a reasonable way.

[Edgewater_Joe]

77. The Problem Is The Way The Republicans Appeal To The Center-Left Populists

As I read your post, this passage sticks out the most to me:

"The Republican party is making great inroads into this group on an overtly cultural appeal."

And what is the basis of that cultural appeal? By all accounts, this year it came down to one word: FEAR. That's what a wedge issue does: it exploits fear and allows that emotional appeal to overrule all other issues.

If we as a party made a strategic mistake, it was in thinking that gay marriage would be the issue that would put so much fear into voters who by every other list should have voted with us to vote against us instead. To a person, I don't think ANY of us -- certainly not those in the K/E campaign -- thought "moral issues" would be the #1 factor in getting people to the polls, and if the exit polls are to be believed (and you believe all the votes were cast and counted honestly -- which I don't), that was what brought those 3+M out in the South and in OH.

Now, Skinner, if you are saying that in order to win in '08 we need to appeal and listen to the people who were scared enough by such social issues so that we prevent such a wedge from being driven, I'm in agreement with you -- it's the Clinton adage of people voting with their heads vote Dem and voting with their fears vote Rep. But if you are saying that we need to appeal to these people by somehow playing to those fears -- or worse, doing something that would be absolutely antethetical to this party like rejecting the notion of equal rights for all (which is how I think of gay marriage and its derivatives) -- then I don't want to be a Democrat, because that's not what the Democratic party is to me.

Because if we listen to those folks and they tell us that "I don't like queers," quite frankly I don't know what I would WANT to say to them, or what I COULD say to them in order to win their vote.

If you can tell me that, I'm all ears.

[lapislzi]

79. Let me tell you about Ray.

The retiring chair of my town Democratic committee is a center-left populist, and when I met him I couldn't for the life of me figure out what the hell he was doing in the group, much less chairing it. (My east coast elitist roots were showing big time.) I'll tell you what. He's the bridge between us and the larger community. He knows all the guys at the firehouse. He knows all the guys at the gun club. His wife is a church lady.

All those people at the firehouse and the gun club might be Republicans, but there's Ray, out there, one political ant step away from being a Republican too, who can demonstrate that Democrats are BASICALLY the same as they are. He's our point man, our value guy. I can't go there, and I know I can't. I would get laughed out of town for the godless socialist that I essentially am.

We absolutely, positively need the Rays of the world to build that bridge that can lead us to the center left. He has taught me so much, and I am grateful for the insight that I have into the building of coalitions. If the Rays defect, then left-liberals like me will wind up resembling that "coalition of the wild-eyed" we were accused of being earlier this year.

Come back, Ray. Don't leave us.

[ibegurpard]

84. These are the kind of people we are losing that is killing us.

I cannot stress enough how much it is hurting the Democratic Party to see these "blue-collar" local networks being neglected in favor of chasing after money to throw on the national races. The chase for money makes us beholden to the interests that betray the values that made people like this Democrats in the first place.
"What's the Matter with Kansas" should be required reading for every Democrat in this country. And any plan put into action to combat that problem isn't going to pay off for a long, long time.

[Skinner]

85. Amen.

The future of the Democratic Party lies with Ray. He's the guy I'm talking about.

[lapislzi]

98. OK, I got Ray...now what?

(Ray's actually a great guy; he nominated ME to chair the town committee, saying that I was the party's future. How's that for irony?)

The left-liberals risk looking like frauds if we go canvassing for Rays. How do we bring them back in?

BTW, your analysis is marvelous.

[Skinner]

107. I think we first need to start respecting them.

And stop treating them like they are morally-repugnant cultural freaks.

Which makes me a hypocrite. One of the core values of DU is bashing socially conservative people. And it has made us very popular.

[lapislzi]

146. Reminds me of an old, old Peanuts strip

The kids Charlie, Schroeder, and Lucy have a book or newspaper open on the floor in front of them. They're pointing and laughing. Linus walks by and asks what they're laughing at. They reply that they're laughing at a picture. Linus takes a look and asks why they're laughing at it.

"We're laughing because we don't understand it."

Linus walks away shaking his head.

I admit to being mystified by a religious mindset. But for the good of my party and my nation, I'm going to try to get over it.

Bashing people is not a particularly redeeming value. It is apt to get you disliked.

[OrwellwasRight]

251. All the right does is bash

Ann Coulter
Sean Hannity
Rush Limbaugh
Bill O'Reilly

These folks are outrageously popular. Most because they disregard, disrespect, mock, and condescend to us constantly.

Think about the epithets that have crept into common discourse:
femi-Nazis, tree-huggers, baby-killers, the use of "liberal" as an insult.

I'm not arguing that two wrongs make a right. They most certainly do not. But I think people here are missing a larger point if the only answer we can come up with is to prostrate ourselves in front of fundamentalists.

Advocating for universal health care and a fair tax system that asks the wealthy and the corporations to contribute in proportion to the benefits they have gained from our society is not condescending to middle-America, and it is not bashing their way of life. We have let the Right sell that to America because the DLC has let those charges stand.

Should LBJ have refused to sign the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act because that was somehow showing disdain and condescension for people of color? If you believe the "Democrats don't respect religion" argument, then you are buying what Sean Hannity is selling.

Universal health care is not communism. Raising the minimum wage is not paternalism. Providing affordable housing is not confiscation of property.

Until we can see ourselves through our own lenses, then we won't come up with any more creative solutions than "oh, I guess we have to give up on gay rights or gun registrations and background checks in order to get votes in red states."

Why does no one believe in the power of moral persuasion anymore? Do we think that Gandhi did polls before he decided that he would not stop fighting until India got complete independence?

Of course we should engage all voters (red state, blue state, Christian, whatever). But engagement does not mean capitulation. And believing in equality and tolerance and liberty for all is not condescension or disdain. Please don't let Ann Coulter make you believe that it is.

[MallRat]

80. There isn't only one kind of Republican, either.

We need to ask the same question about the Republicans.

There are religious conservatives, socially-progressive center-right libertarians, economic Darwinists who couldn't give a crap about any other issue, and neoconservatives.

These factions couldn't be more different. So why and how are THEY holding together? The center-right and the fiscal conservatives should despise this President. So why haven't they rejected him and his agenda, which is decidedly hostile to paleoconservative principles?

I can understand the purely cultural appeal to the religious right. But moderate Republicans have absolutely no reason to stick with Bush. Why are they?

-MR

[Skinner]

90. I don't think moderate Republicans are sticking with Bush.

My step-father is a good example. This year, he voted for a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time ever.

Many moderate Republicans (who would correlate with the Center-left libertarians in my formulation above) have been abandoning the Republican part for the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, there are not as many of them as there are Center-left populists abandoning the Democratic Party for the Republican Party.

[MallRat]

102. MA GOP is using center-left populists vs. liberal-left to win elections.

Pretty much every elected Republican in Massachusetts, including our governor, has won office by peeling away the center-left populist vote. They appeal to the blue-collar, union, socially conservative Democrats.

We just lost a state Senate race in my district, AGAIN this week. It was a rematch of a special election between Scott Brown (R) and Angus McQuilken (D). McQuilken was the chief-of-staff for Cheryl Jacques, a popular progressive state Senator and an openly gay politician.

Jacques left the seat to become head of the HRC. Scott Brown won the seat in March by running on one issue: gay marriage. McQuilken was adamantly in favor of it, which left him vulnerable to losing the center-left populists. He lost the special election by 0.5%.

Last Tuesday: same two candidates, same result. Brown won again on gay marriage. This time, his margin of victory widened to 3%.

-MR

[UCLA Dem]

151. And we have to win them back!!

[ironrooster]

83. People will continue to vote against their economic interests

b/c they - center-left - (I guess I'm one of those lefty liberals)... honestly don't realize just how out of control corporate power has become in our country. They might have a fuzzy idea as to what they don't like and that's lefty liberals like me - as defined by the Republican leadership. I don't see the contempt for these individuals that you write about - it's more of a type of anger mixed with dispair that secular humanism - the enlightenment - the age of reason whatever you choose to call it - seems to be on the retreat in our country. Republicans have done an excellent job getting elected to school boards in the regions(like Kansas) in question. We have organized our school system to educate students in the most expeditious way possible to 'prepare them' to be worker bees in the big Corporation in the Sky without much regard to actually helping them to reason. In short, it is a lack of imagination. We now see the fruits of a public school system in decline. Not everyone will go to college - but everyone needs to be challenged intellectually and at the primary and secondary levels. We are in for a long cold night, but if we plant those little seeds like the Republicans have done, we will - and our culture will be the better for it. To this observer, Center-left Populists sound no more than Republican 'lites'. The battle is lost to them but perhaps not to their children.

[yardwork]

86. The Republicans stole another election.

I think we need to remember that. A majority of Americans tried to vote for Kerry on election day, and their votes were trashed, tossed down the memory hole.

Does the Democratic Party need to do some rethinking? Sure. But the most important issue is to somehow restore democratic voting.

Democrats won in 2000. We won again in 2004. We probably won Georgia and Florida in 2002. Don't let the thieves turn us against one another.

[Skinner]

91. It is comforting to think that the Republicans stole it.

And it is certainly possible that they did. But I think we will get our asses kicked again if ignore the very serious problem we have among working-class voters who should be supporting us but aren't.

[IrateCitizen]

87. There's going to be a bloodbath within the party...

I've seen it coming for some time now. I've thought it would happen whether or not Kerry won.

Skinner, much of what you portray as the three prime constituencies within the Democratic Party is largely true. However, I don't know if I agree with your conclusions regarding these groups.

Personally, I think that much of the party "leadership" has become more comprised of the center-left libertarians, which I believe to be a losing strategy because their views completely contradict those of the center-left populists -- even more than the left-liberals. In fact, I would argue that the Clinton administration is a prime example of center-left libertarianism. Pro-free trade. Pro-balanced budget. Pro-environment only to the point that it doesn't anger corporate interests.

Speaking of corporate interests, I think that this has been the biggest loser of the current approach. The one card that we have that can effectively counter the cultural conservatives is the card of economic populism. However, in its desire to court corporate campaign donations, the center-left libertarian wing of the party has largely abandoned economic populism. This is why I think that people believe that Democrats are only marginally better on economic issues, when they should see them as blasting Republicans out of the water on them.

The Magistrate brought up an excellent point yesterday in this regard. People don't like the boss. The boss tells them what to do, and tries to milk them for every last ounce of their effort. All they want is someone to help them stand up to the boss, to get their fair shake. The problem is that when a chief economic advisor to the Democratic Party is Robert Rubin, it is clear that the Democrats have chosen to support the boss. Of course, the Republicans support the boss too -- and much more ruthlessly -- but when BOTH parties support the boss, is it any wonder that many of the center-left populists don't exactly get energized by the Democrats' economic message, even as they realize that it's marginally better than the Republicans? This lack of enthusiasm allows the Republicans then to exploit the cultural issues quite effectively, as proved two days ago.

Economic populism is the key we have to victory, if we're willing to invest the hard work necessary to re-frame the debate and be bold enough to abandon currently failing approaches.

If we want to win, we need to get back to being the friend of people against the boss. This doesn't mean that we're trying to take the boss down -- it only means that we're trying to help people get what they deserve. When the cultural issues come up, all that we need to say is that we support the law of the land, and that we believe that all people should be treated equally under the law. If we're clever, we'll even infer that this means that the Republicans DON'T want everyone treated equally under the law.

The Gay Marriage backlash is quite unfortunate, IMHO -- but I wouldn't say that the big motivation behind it is hatred. Rather, it's fear. People are afraid of something they largely don't understand, and they have been convinced that it is placing their traditions and values under attack. We need to reframe this issue simply as supporting equal protection under the law without getting into specifics. At their hearts, Americans STILL are good people -- even if easily misguided. Most people don't want to necessarily discriminate against others, they are only convinced to do so by being persuaded that they themselves are under attack.

[OrwellwasRight]

97. Insightful thoughts on economic populism

It's hard to openly discuss the rape of the working class by the corporations when the party has its hand in the corporate pocket. Every time I hear rabid anti-union comments, I ask people to read The Jungle, and I ask them if they think that corporations would have acceded to workplace benefits such as overtime pay, sick leave, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, health benefits, and all the rest is unions had not demanded it? Corporations are not benevolent, and the Dems dropped that populist ball long, long ago.

And I used to be with you about humankind's central goodness, but after recent electoral outcomes, I am seriously thinking that was just naive optimism on my part.

[IrateCitizen]

104. Curbing corporate power is the real winner, IMHO

I used to be an officer in the Army Reserve. I was just about alone in my left-wing views, surrounded by right-wingers. However, when I would discuss political issues with the more informed RWers, there were always two major, overarching issues on which we found ourselves in almost complete agreement.

1. The need to curb corporate power, given their near-total influence over almost every aspect of our daily lives
2. The need to reform the legalized bribery known as "campaign finance"

This all ties into economic populism. It's about telling people that their voice matters, and when it comes to political matters, their voice shouldn't matter any less than the CEO making millions per year.

If people from such disparate left-vs-right points of view can get this, then why in the hell isn't one of the major parties embracing it? Could it be that they have their own issues of being too closely wedded to corporate interests?

[ironrooster]

109. the economy? if the deficit continues to grow -

and there is no reason think otherwise, we might be in for a significant devaluation of the dollar. We will then have people of all persuasions joining up and believe me - Gay Marriage will be the last thing on their mind. A paradigm shift in the publics' thinking about the economy needs to occur before we can make serious progress.
I'm not saying that we don't need to refine our message - only that we need to take the long view. I'm not so worried about the center-lefts' reticence about voting the ticket. There are MAJOR differences that will only be highlighted the more extreme the Republican leadership becomes. When they can't put a chicken on the table, they will see the light.

[JDPriestly]

205. Ironrooster

You are so right.

[IrateCitizen]

276. Yeah, but which way will they go?

A similar situation arose in Germany in the 1930's, and they turned to fascism as the solution to their problems.

We weren't far off here in the US. FDR deserves a great deal of credit for steering the US in the direction he did during the Great Depression. We could have just as easily slipped into the abyss ourselves....

[tedzbear]

222. Americans, good people? Ha!

"At their hearts, Americans STILL are good people -- even if easily misguided."


Don't make excuses for that 51%! When they go into their private voting booths, they are anonymous and they can be who they truly are: racist, self-righteous bigots who are willing to sacrifice (bomb) innocent Iraqis to feel safe.

Remember that song, "Smiling faces..." Those smiles put Hitler into power.

[MUSTANG_2004]

226. As opposed to self-righteous bigots who

call 51% of Americans "racist, self-righteous bigots" simply because they didn't vote for the candidate you think they should have?

[OrwellwasRight]

232. Point taken. But there is something to the argument that American

willingness to bomb the hell out of non-white people is symptomatic of a calculation that a non-American life is worth less than an American life. And that is racist.

The mainstream media backs this position up by making a big deal out of American murders, American dead soldiers, etc. but never reporting on the 20% (or is it 50%) of the world's children who die before the age of five due to lack of clean water, health care, adequate food supply and on and on. Never reporting on the children who are killed by US bombs. Never reporting on the lingering effects of the Union-Carbide chemical poisoning in Bhopal, India. Never reporting on the annual devastation in Bangladesh.

When you look at the disregard for human life that lies behind many American policies, they do look very racist and bigoted. Granted, labeling may not fix the problem. Do we battle that by pretending it is not there?

How would you battle it?

[IrateCitizen]

277. Racism is more about ignorance and fear than hatred, IMHO

What you are describing, "willingness to bomb the hell out of non-white people," is not exactly what you portray it to be, IMHO. When people gleefully celebrate the bombing of "others", they are not viewing these "others" as people. They are only able to celebrate war in this way because they don't see them as people. They've dehumanized them.

Look at the difference between attitudes regarding the war in areas like NYC and San Francisco as opposed to many rural small towns throughout the American "center". I think that this is largely due to the fact that people in coastal population centers live in very diverse areas -- they are literally surrounded with people every single day that closely resemble this "other". Therefore, they cannot help but view the "other" as a human being, without some pretty severe conditioning (as in the south regarding white/black relations) taking place to delegitimize their humanity. However, in more homogeneous areas, it's easy for people to look at those "brown people" as the "others" who are somehow not as human as them.

It's very similar, IMHO, to the anti-gay backlash throughout Middle America. You don't see that backlash in more metropolitan areas, because people in those areas actually KNOW gay people. They may have gay neighbors. They have gay friends, and gay co-workers. They recognize that these gay people are just that -- people. However, for those who have no real contact with gay people, it's much easier to dehumanize gays.

How do you battle these mindsets? I wish I knew a quick answer. I don't. We just have to find some way to get people to recognize the basic humanity that they all have in common. That's a value shift that we've been working toward for centuries now, and we still haven't arrived.

[OrwellwasRight]

283. I think we are saying the same thing

It's just that I think that (ignorance, dehumanization) is what racism is (seeing the other as non-human). If you didn't view somebody as less than human, you couldn't justify bombing the hell out of them, not allowing them to marry whomever they chose, allowing their children to attend substandard schools, or whatever indignity of the moment one is trying to justify.

While one who cheers and celebrates the bombing and death of Iraqis may not see himself or herself as racist (ignorant, evil, pick your adjective), I do. Dehumanizing others to justify treating them badly is not good, kind, or moral. It is expedient, and I think we should hold ourselves up to higher standards than just excusing it as ignorance.

And that's where we in the Democratic party have lost the power of moral persuasion. We forgot that it is right, moral, noble (Christian, if you like) to fight for the rights of the outcast, less fortunate, minorities, pick your unpopular group. Why did we Dems never try to persuade middle America that it is immoral to indiscriminately kill Iraqi civilians just to take out our revenge for 9/11? There are a lot of churchgoers out there who could have seen our side if we had really engaged them.

[Blue_Roses]

269. I totally agree and I think this is key.

"The Gay Marriage backlash is quite unfortunate, IMHO -- but I wouldn't say that the big motivation behind it is hatred. Rather, it's fear. People are afraid of something they largely don't understand, and they have been convinced that it is placing their traditions and values under attack. We need to reframe this issue simply as supporting equal protection under the law without getting into specifics. At their hearts, Americans STILL are good people -- even if easily misguided. Most people don't want to necessarily discriminate against others, they are only convinced to do so by being persuaded that they themselves are under attack."

Living in a very conservative town in the south, I see this. This measure passed by 75% here! People do feel fear that their values are being attacked.

[jarab]

88. A very good analysis, Skinner.

I think you could have gone even farther left than "left liberals" to define much of the DU community. I don't know what you'd call that group (or maybe I do know).
I conclude this because we DUers oftentimes clash with the "true" left liberals of our party. We're ready to condemn Kennedy or Feingold just as quickly as we'd embrace them. The only ones - left liberals - who are exempt from persecution on DU are certain dead senators .... at least most of the time..
Yours was a good analysis.
...O...

[soundfury]

95. Republicans are moral hypocrites. Dems will never be moral enough for them

So, Dems should not get into "WeÕre going to prove we are moral to Republicans
to win more votes mentality."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1315134#1317865

[enki23]

101. i don't know if that's empirically backed up

look at the republicans. most republican politicians don't come from working-class backgrounds. they, too, are cultural elites. the vast majority of them are a hell of a lot more elite than i'll ever be. they just know how to pander to a large coalition.

but most of what you said is true. there are a HUGE number of weak-democrats, and "swing-voters" who would vote economically fairly liberal if they could couple it with socially conservative. they'd vote for single-payer healthcare in a minute, so long as we made sure to explicitly bar gays from receiving it.

listen. i am, demographically, precisely a member of that group. i'm a poor white trash son of a poor white farmer who farmed someone else's land till his back went out for good. my dad was always middle-of-the-road on abortion. he thinks it's a sin, but always said "it doesn't work well to legislate morality." he's probably the same on gay marriage. he's a conservative christian who thinks they are sinners, and would think gay marriage is an abomination. but he wouldn't choose, if he had the choice, to bar people in the blue states from granting civil unions and the "incidents" of marriage. he opposed amendments against flag burning. he remembered vietnam, and he hated nixon. i remember him saying to me, when i was just a kid, that reagan was "a little to the left of mussolini" and that he was trying to drag us back to the 1950's.

i know that group very well, even if i'm not an ideological member. thing is, to win them over might require completely ignoring some of our most basic, core principles. what could be more democratic, or Democratic, than "equal rights, and equal opportunity for all people?" that's what we're *about.* if we give up that up in the case of gays, do we have any credibility left on the rest? maybe so. i just don't really know.

i think it's an intractable problem. i think the bigots will continue to win, and the wealthy elite will continue to pander and play them like a rotten fiddle. gay marriage won't happen until another couple of generations die. i don't think the democratic party will do well again until that happens either. maybe even not then. the youth are socially liberal, but economically stupid. i see no future for this country. i see it going to hell in a handbasket, and i'm going to do my damnedest not to go along for the ride.

[PleadTheFirst]

108. Brilliant post, Skinner.

Thank you.

[LeftHander]

110. Another losing Strategy from the Moderator....

How many times to you have to lose to Republicans before you realize that leading the party from the center fails in today's poliitacal environment?

Clinton was the right person at the right time.

The country has long been shoved further and further right and it is dragging the center-left and moderates with it. the result is...the far right conservative is able to retain and hold more and more power. The populice has to ability to see the damage that it is causing because they care not to look and are perfectly happy with being "protected" and "safe".

The Democrats right NOW are losers. The stragey that has been used for the past 6 years by the Democratic leadership has produced what?

A senate and House controlled by the GOP, a senate miniority leader defeat, two presidential losses...and soon the ability to stem the tied of judicial change from lower courts to the supreme court will alter AMERICA FOR THE NEXT 25 YEARS!!!

The fact of the matter is this country is at war with itself. A uidelogical one theat will only get much worse before it gets better.

You have to stand up for what is right. Policies that discriminate and roll back advances in social equality and world peace are not in America's long term interests.

RIGHT NOW the deomcratic party needs to lead from the Liberal Left. We need to swing public opionion back form the far right and show the people that great injustices have been purptrated on thiis nation by the far right. The far right is in power and they are good at demonizing and inciting fear in the population. They pander to the religious right and will continue to do so because it is HIGHLY EFFECTIVE at controlling the debate. By keeping the progressive ideas off the table they keep the ball in thier court. And that is a court that the left center and populist Democrats are completly unable to differentiate themselves thus making their very existence nothing more than an affirmation of the moral stance of the GOP and a validation of thier political and social agenda.

No more center stances. The Democratic leadership is going to change or forget about any support from the far left. If the party doen't change it will continue to lose. Wake up and smell reality.

America chose Bush because he was Bush...and that sadly is what the majority America is about.

So all the democrats better start rethinking what it means to be a democrat because there is no more room fro having both ways anymore.

YOu can't support man-woman marriage rights and support the equality of gay people.

YOu can't be anti war and vote to authorize an un-just war.

You can't be green support policies that degrade the environment.

You can't support personal responsibility when people who do not have the ability to support themselves.

Good CHRIST WAKE THE FUCK UP!

George W. Bush is GODAMN PRESIDENT AGAIN!!!!


On Edit:

We do need the coalition. But we also need to LEAD the party from the core values we ALL share. The center can follow our lead or leave.

[Frangible]

118. That's the problem

"We do need the coalition. But we also need to LEAD the party from the core values we ALL share. The center can follow our lead or leave."

The center DID leave.

[ironrooster]

121. I think we need to really go left and mean it

But barring an economic catastrophe, we have to be sensitive to the manner in which it's sold. We also need to challenge the religious right wing in our schools at a grass roots level. I saw some of this PBS drama about the 'Hidden Prince' - there is a segment where they show the Russian royal family getting executed. It was all very sad
BOO - HOO! My daughter was watching and she said she felt sorry for them. I said that I agreed with her - that it must have been terrible for them, BUT there was a CAUSE to that EFFECT. I certainly don't want or think it will come to something like that but Americans deserve to have the concept of class war articulated to them - even my 12 yo daughter understands this.

[FubarFly]

131. I mostly agree with you.

But let me add one important thing

Our policies can be centrist or left-leaning or combinations both. Coalitions by nature will feature a degree of give and take. "Far-leftists" are a lot more reasonable than stereotypes dictate.

The important thing is this: the central debate HAS to move left.

The actual platform won't matter unless we can SELL that platform.
In this current environment of centrists pandering to right wing extremists, no one has any room to operate. Our ideas are villified, before we even speak them. As a result, our strengths on things like environmental and educational issues are totally neglected and thus negated. This is one of the reasons why we are being massacred in the trenches.

AS LONG AS THEY CONTROL THE TERMS OF THE DEBATE WE WILL NEVER WIN.

[soundfury]

144. We have to stop Democrats from trying to be more Republican.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1315134#1317865

[OrwellwasRight]

170. Word.

Thinly veiled attempts to emulate Clinton won't work.
Republican-lite is not the answer. True engagement is.
Let's drop the Madison Avenue advertisement form of campaigning and get back to grassroots, face-to-face discussion. People won't be able to write us off as immoral and elite if we are where they live, work, and worship showing first-hand what it is to be "compassionate."

[Almost_there]

111. Has the Democrat party switched with the Republican?

I just heard a fascinating little tidbit on CNN. They said that if we looked back at the 1930's and the geographical base of each Party, it is a complete mirror image of blue and red states. Back then, New York, New England, and CA were Republican bases, and the center of the country and the South were all Democratic bullwarks. So, what's happened? What has been the huge change?
I've seen a lot of great posts here, especially the opening post, but, is there an easy answer? Who do we go after? Who is the party base exactly? Perhaps that is an answer that the Republicans have been successful in defining, and the Democrat party has been left picking up the pieces, getting stragglers instead of having a sold focus for people to coalesce around.
The way I see it, the Republicans have focussed on creating a party of lower taxes, better for business, more independance and less government intervention in daily life. They are the party of "morality", gun ownership, strong national defense to protect American interests whatever they may be wherever they may be, at almost any cost. Perhaps it isn't so cut and dry, but, that seems to be what they are pushing, and perhaps winning at. We seem to simply take the antithesis to that instead of outlining a better choice etc.
We need to show a better choice, a clearer vision while at the same time embracing some ideas from the centrist movement.

~Almost

[ibegurpard]

120. I think you mean that DemocratIC Party

which is comprised of Democrats.

[davepc]

122. Its happened before, it can happen again.

Look at the election of 1904. Seriously.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north319.html

libertarian bent, but the history is fascinating to me.

[Cats Against Frist]

213. But it's not true

The Christo-fascists and the neocons are NOT for limited government, are NOT for the free market, are only for lower taxes insofar as they can buy off the masses, and shift the wealth to the top -- they're certainly not for balanced budgets or responsible spending. They're also FOR the welfare state, and some of the things you're calling "morals" is actually state authoritarianism. Also -- the empire building, foreign intervention, the army as a corporate arm.

Get real.

The joke is ON people who think the GOP are about small government. They're authoritarian right -- or "big government" right.

[happyslug]

113. I agree wholeheartedly

And the GOP also ID the Democrats the way you do, thus the whole anti-gay marriage thing. DO NOT FLAME ME FOR WHAT I WILL BE SAYING. I will NOT be addressing whether gays should marry or not (Gay marriage as a Right is unimportant for this topic), but HOW the GOP used the issue of Gay Marriage to separate the Center-Left Populists from the Democratic Party.

The whole thrust of the GOP driven Anti-Gay Marriage movement was to split the Center-left Populists from the Democratic Party. This appears to have been the GOP plan since 2000. Remember EIGHT of the Judges on the Massachusetts Court were REPUBLICAN. All eight GOP Judges sided with the lone Democrat to allow Gay Marriages in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Court could have deferred this issue to the State Legislature (Which most other courts have done) but once The Massachusetts Court made its ruling you quickly had at least ten other states with ballot initiatives to outlaw such marriages in their State. I do NOT believe these are unconnected nor unplanned. The Massachusetts's Court Decision was the Key to the whole Anti-Gay movement. The GOP failed to get such a ruling from Hawaii or Vermont (In both Cases the Court did rule but also gave the Politicians time to overrule the Court). Without that Massachusetts's Decision the Anti-Gay marriage movement would have been dead (just like how Dean killed the same Movement out of Vermont by his amendment of the Vermont Constitution and a statute permitting "Civil-Unions"). This is confirmed when the GOP Governor of Massachusetts decided to use an old law prohibiting out of state gays from marrying under Massachusetts Law. Gays within Massachusetts can marry but not gays who come from another state, showing that the purpose was not to make "Gays" equal to "Straights" when it comes to marriage but to use the issue of "Gay Marriage" as a wedge issue in this election.

My point is the whole Gay Marriage movement was to "fast". Massachusetts made its decision and within months you had the Anti-Gay Initiatives on the ballot. Who paid for these Ballots? Who Prepared them? These initiatives had to be written BEFORE you go out and get the signatures on the Petitions to put them on the Ballot (And written in a way to be able to be put on the ballot which meant some lawyers wrote them). To show you the speed look at the attempt at repeal of the Massachusetts Court Decision, the quick way required a overwhelming majority of the Massachusetts Legislature (Which is why it did not pass) but a slower way is permitted under the Massachusetts Constitution but requires two years to do so. The opponents of Gay Marriage in Massachusetts are still proceeding in the slow appeal method but will take at last another year for the Amendment to pass.

Thus if you look at the Speed of BOTH (the "repeal" by Massachusetts AND the initiatives on the ballots) you quickly see this was planned from day one (Probably even before the Lawsuit regarding Gay marriage was ever filed in Massachusetts). In my opinion this was a "wedge" issue the Democrats had been trying to kill for years but the GOP rosed it up from the Grave to use to win this election (And will continue to use until the Democrats somehow diffuse it as an issue for the GOP does not believe, or disbelieve in Gay Marriage, the GOP just uses it to split the Center-Left Populists from the Democratic Party.

In many ways the GOP does the same with Gun Control. The GOP emphasized certain Democrats who support Gun Control to wedge Center-Left people from the Democratic Party. The GOP were more successful with Gun Control as a wedge issue in 2000 than in 2004 for the Democrats by leaving the Assault Weapon Ban die removed Gun Control from being an effective issue in this election. Gun Control was still a factor, but no where near the issue of Gay Marriage (But Gun Control will still be a Wedge Issue in the upcoming elections until diffused).

Similarly the Abortion issue was really a non-issue in this election, people who decided on Abortion voted for Bush or Kerry on that issue, but as an issue was dead for most people on both sides of the debate (The Gay Marriage superseded it).

Now the point of all three of the above issues do NOT address great Social Concerns, Economic Concerns, or even Religious Concerns (Notice aid to the Poor was NOT addressed in this election), but to split the Center-left Populist from the Democratic Party. Give the Devil his due, in this election the issue of Gay Marriage worked like a Charm to split Center-Left Populists from the Democratic Party.

Now we need to address the above three issues (and the GOP will do its best to make sure these issues are NOT addressed for the GOP knows it needs all three issues to fester for them to continue to win elections).

Gun Control is the easiest, we need a Decision from the Supreme Court saying what the Second means (and hopefully a Decision saying any weapon used by the Military in Infantry Battalions can also be owned by an Civilian, with the exception of Pistols which can be banned under the Second). This is what I believe the Second stands for today, but a Court Decision making such a ruling will remove Gun Control as an issue in future elections. Please note I also believe there have been no such decision for the GOP does NOT want such a Decision for it would hurt the GOP use of Gun Control as a Wedge Issue.

Second is Abortion. Maybe we do need for the Court to overturn Roe Vs Wade. Now I support the right to an abortion but if the Court would overturn Roe vs Wade it will return the issue of Abortion to the State Legislatures (and to a limited extent Congress). The GOP have been having a free ride on the issue of abortion than will have to explain why they oppose abortion even while many of their relatives are getting abortions in the states that will permit them (and also have to vote for what is a "Medically need" for an abortion). It will force state GOP to show themselves to be the hypocrites they are. People will flame me for this but while I see my home state of Pennsylvania abolishing Abortion, New Jersey and New York will not. State legislatures and the Federal Courts will have to address the issue of what restrictions as to movement one can impose. The whole issue will have to be addressed and will become an albatross around the GOP just like Abortion has been an Albatross around the Democrats since Roe Vs Wade. Today the GOP can say it favors "Complete Abolition of Abortion" knowing the courts will strike it down. Many of the GOP economic Supporters ignore this GOP stand for they rely on the Courts to uphold their right to an abortion. The GOP runs the risk of losing these same Economic Conservatives of Roe vs Wade is overturned. Without the Economic Conservatives the GOP does not have to money to defeat the Democrats (and without the Social Conservatives the GOP do not have the Votes). Thus a Court Decision overruling Roe vs Wade will cause more harm to the GOP than it will the Democrats.

The Third Issue of "Gay Marriages" will have to be addressed, but if we leave it up to the State Legislatures the GOP will have to address and vote on the issue (Just like Abortion). The GOP could no longer just waive Abortion like a bloody shirt (as the GOP has been doing the last two years). Now some people on this board will object to this but unless we can show that the GOP really does NOT oppose "Gay Marriages" (and their corporate masters do not) we are giving the GOP a free ride on the issue, an issue that lost us this election. Forcing the GOP to actually address the issue of the Gay population will further split the GOP economic Conservatives from the GOP social Conservatives while showing the American People the Democrats what to help ALL Americans not just the people it needs to win an election.

[LeftHander]

117. Over turn Roe vs Wade....???

Now that is just plain not right. State legislatures in most states are controlled by the GOP...they would be more than happy to take charge of a constitutional right and legislate freedom of choice and the power of a woman to have domain over her own body into non-existence...

[happyslug]

149. Agreed, but it will force the GOP to actually define what they mean

When they say they want to "ban Abortion". Presently the GOP knows they can say they support a ban on Abortion knowing that it will NOT pass constitutional muster. If Roe vs Wade is overturned the GOP will actually have to vote on WHAT restrictions on Abortion they want to permit.

For example does a State outlaw a woman from going for a walk if she is pregnant and by the nature of her body just taking a walk causes her to abort the fetus? I heard Sophia Loren had that problem and when she decided to have a Child she had to lay in bed for the entire pregnancy. If a state makes it illegal to "cause" an abortion the condition of such a woman must to addressed.

Another issue that will come up is an old one (used in the 1960s but ended with Roe vs Wade). Under Custody and Visitation law a custodial parent can be prohibited from taking a child out of a state (But the parent can leave the state themselves). If a state gives a Fetus "Full Rights" of a new born baby, can the state prohibit a woman from leaving the state? What does a state do if a Woman violates a Court Order Not to leave the State and she does and while she is gone has a legal abortion in another state? The GOP will have to address that issue.

My point is a complete ban on abortion is NOT workable thus the GOP will have to make make some sort of Decision as to what is an "abortion" and when can a woman get one. This is what I mean that an over turn of Roe vs Wade will force the GOP to finally address the issue of Abortion. The GOP would actually have to pass the laws they have been advocating for 30 years, even if it means turning off vast numbers of Suburban Housewives and Economic Conservatives. The later have voted for the GOP knowing that Roe vs Wade prevented the GOP from passing what it said it wanted passed. With Roe vs Wade such voters will have to decide on Abortion in addition to their pocket book. At the present time such voters can vote for the GOP on pocket Book issues while ignoring the GOP stand on Abortion. If Roe is overturned such voters will no longer have that option.

Let me point out that Kerry did very well in the Suburban Counties of Philadelphia, counties that traditionally have voted heavily GOP (These counties have a lot of ECONOMIC Conservatives). The reason is the fear that the GOP would overturn Roe. This overcame the huge turnout by Social Conservatives in the Middle and Western Parts of the State. This shows my point, it forces the GOP to finally have to make a choice between its Economic and Social Conservative wings.

[davepc]

128. I agree to an extent but a few quibbles

1) gun control - banning pistols but allowing AR-15's and M-4's for civilians wont cut it. I know a woman who was raped when she was in her teens. She now carries a compact .45 in her purse (legally). She will tell you that the goverment can take it from her from her cold dead hands. She mainly votes Democratic, but tell her that the goverment says she dosent have the right to defend herself anymore, and you have created a life long Republican.

2) abortion - the vast majority of the people we're talking about here don't have a problem with Roe v Wade. I understand what you're saying, but we cant sell out THAT part of our party for the issue. We cant. We fought too long and hard for it, but the thing is most people are on OUR side about it. We lose them with the "no retreat, no surrender" types who wont let us soften a stance on partial birth and parental notification.

[happyslug]

171. The Topic is WEDGE Issues not the Second Amendment.

And how to diffuse those Wedge issues. My point was a ruling on the Second Amendment will lead to Rural voters no longer having to worry about their Rifles and Shotguns being confiscated (and thus less subject to GOP Wedging through fear). Such a ruling will end Gun Control as a wedge issues for Rural Voters.

While off topic (For we are discussing WEDGE ISSUES NOT GUN CONTROL) as to Pistols, I have always pointed out the courts have ALWAYS permitted the states the right (under the Second) to ban pistols (and any other "non-military usable" weapon). The rulings based on this has been used by the GOP as part of their Fear campaign. Remember we are talking of the Restrictions the Second Amendment imposes NOT that a state should ban pistols. The Second Amendment (In my legal opinion) bans state from banning Rifles and Shotguns but permits the state to impose any restrictions it wants on pistols. Also remember while a state could ban pistols under the Second, a States does not have to.

My point is that a ruling I believe the court will give does the Democrats no harm, but removes the FEAR of confiscation from Rifles and Shotgun Owners. Once that fear is removed many of these voters will vote Democratic not GOP (Which is the GOP's big fear).

As to abortion, I am sorry, the GOP has had a free ride on the subject for over 40 years. Economic Conservatives could vote for Social Conservatives knowing the Anti-Abortion plank will never pass constitutional muster. For the last 40 years the GOP could thus have it both ways, get votes from both pro and anti- abortion Voters. The Court Overturn Roe vs Wade that free ride disappears. I do NOT see California, New York and the west of the East and West Coasts outlawing Abortion and thus abortions will still be available to most people (remember right now there are many places where you simply can not get an abortion, no doctor will do one, thus you have to go to a different state anyway even under Roe vs Wade).

Thus in much of this Country will already have an abortion ban, all a reversal of Roe Vs Wade will do is force the GOP to address the issue of abortion, an issue it has had a free ride on since 1971 when Roe vs Wade was decided.

[davepc]

177. I gotcha now.

point very well taken.

[wallybarron]

129. Left of center?

I fit the definition of left of center. The only reason I'm left of center is the center has moved to the right. I find myself not welcome at Democrat Co. Headquarters because I support choice, gay rights, etc. You find this in every red state. For the most part the county parties are run by pre 60's dems. They want no part of our liberal policies. I don't even know where I'm supposed to go to fight the good fight.

[hdaddy]

125. Yes

I believe, as several of you seem to, that the major issue we need to address is the liberal/democrat position in the media. I have educated friends who believe that Iraq and 9/11 are linked, that we have found WMD in Iraq, etc. They get their news solely from Fox. But the other networks do very little to help debunk these types of claims, and appear to be afraid of the administration.

So the question becomes: why do people watch fox? Why does O'Reilly get such high ratings? Why does a clown like Ann Coulter sell so many books? I think the answers are these...

Fox has done a great job of disguising opinion as news. Also, their shows project excitement, and right-wing spin masquerading as common sense. The appeal of Limbaugh, O'Reilly et al cuts right to the heart of the problem. These guys flat-out lie to make their points. Points which play on the fears, racism, and prejudice of their audience. My brother is an auto mechanic, and let me tell you he does NOT identify with democratic leadership. However, I think you would find that on most issues he is in strong agreement with the democratic position.

So the solutions have components written throughout this post already. First, we need to retake a large share of the media. This is easier said than done, considering the corporate ownership of this industry, which overwhelmingly skews conservative. However, this is an area where appeals to people like George Soros should be maximized. Second, we need liberals/democrats willing to fight unfairly. Yeah, I said it. Propaganda will NEVER be defeated simply by relying on the truth, that has been proven. What the repubs do is rely on toadies like limbaugh and o'reilly to make things up, generate rumor and innuendo and push the party agenda. We need hacks and assassins like these guys. Regardless of what you think of them personally (druggie and harrasser), they are extremely effective at manipulating public opinion. The party doesn't need to be directly associated with them, at least not above board. Suggested personalities are people like Jesse Ventura. He is widely respected in EXACTLY the circles of people we want voting in our direction. AND, most importantly, he is a straight talker and not afraid to piss people off. He's entertaining. And that is the most critical piece of this. To get guys like this in the public spotlight, with their own radio/TV shows etc., they need to be entertaining, effective, to understand the issues, and to be absolutely ruthless. this is a war, they are fighting it that way, and we need to fight fire with fire.

A set of counterbalances to conservative media hacks who are :

1) Entertaining
2) appeal to middle america (working class men/women, straight talkers)
3) smart and understand issues
4) funny. A big part of conserv. hack success is their ability to poke fun at liberals/democrats and make it seem good-natured. We need that.
5) not too heavily principled about the facts they present. like I said, ruthless media assassins. Present the facts, but they should be spun your way.

My two cents...

[ironrooster]

135. become more like them you mean?

Oh, you mean use their methodology against them. I don't watch fox or for that matter a whole host of crap served up by BIG MEDIA. Not interested. Don't care about the losers that do either. If the Repug agenda sinks this country and I'm of the opinion that it's inevitable, we need to concentrate on whose going to 'pick up the pieces'. What the good is it to have a Dem president anyway when both houses and the judiciary are in enemy (that's right enemy) hands. Don't give me that fellow American bs - the Tories used to be Americans until we drove them into submission (or to Canada). Hell, maybe on second thought - my ancesters WERE on the wrong side.

[hdaddy]

138. the point is

whether we care about the fools who watch this garbage or not, fact is they vote, and not for democrats. The Repugs have a horseshit agenda, an idiot pres, and a bunch of clown neocons working for them, somehow they win the election. We don't become more like them. We want to use whatever tactics necessary to win. Their tactics work. Bottom line. I believe the democratic agenda is superior because it has more interest in average people than the repugs. No one ever suggested to an army not to use the new technology or methods of the opponent because you'll 'become like them'. You use it so you don't have to.

[ironrooster]

145. I do respect what you are saying but....

If you are correct, then do we just write off the media has having any integrity or even the possibility that it might be used to educate people in the FACTS not merely as another tool in an endless campaign. One of the the things good about Dems is that they don't(as a rule)run fast and loose with the facts. I still hold on to the view however quaint, that there is good journalism and hack journalism and I've generally associated the latter with fox and their ilk.

[hdaddy]

155. Amen Brother

I guess that is what I am saying. There are so many TV and cable news networks, none of which appear to be doing their job as watchdogs of the government. They are all too scared to have integrity. That being said, I think they generally TRY to report facts, as much as they understand what those are. I agree that Dems are generally more truthful, especially than the repugs in this particular administration (all liars). Good journalism, however, appears to be a whole lot less popular and influential these days. I say, keep the "real journalism" going where it is already (mostly print and internet), but there is no reason we shouldn't fight the propaganda war too. We're losing HUGE right now sticking to the facts. It wouldn't hurt to have some hacks on our side. I wouldn't watch, but a whole lot of people do. Remember that it must be portrayed as 'fair and balanced'. All the great propaganda is.

[Cats Against Frist]

217. I.Don't. Think. You. Get. It

The right is trying to de-stabilize the "liberal" media, so their right-wing propaganda can take the place of "objectivity."

They're changing language, creating false binaries, false dilemmas and riddling our thought patterns with logical fallacies -- and you will never be able to "explain" this away to people with totalitarian mindsets.

If they've changed the way the populace "thinks," then, all we can do is fight on that turf.

I know this is hard to deal with, and hard to grasp, but they're literally trying to undo the reality with which most of us, under 35 have grown up -- through historical and Biblical revisionism and the de-centering of language and the death of empiricism and objectivity.

True story. It's not better than you think. It's worse than you think.

[ShaneGR]

130. Since I'm what you consider a center-left populist, and have lived in DC

I agree with you. My time in DC (Back in Florida now) this year could, at best, be described as humbling during most of my conversations with party elite. I am originally from Ohio, so I consider myself to have midwestern values even though I'm city born and raised (Cleveland).

My general feeling, from speaking to most DC Dems, is that they simply can't fathom why everyone isn't exactly like them. They do tend to be from the northeast or far west. I mean, they're good liberals and all, but I never got the feeling that they knew jack shit about what one consultant termed "fly over country." It's that contempt that beat us this time around, in my opinion.

[GreenPartyVoter]

132. Use Instant Runoff voting in your primaries and you will have a MUCH

clearer idea of who makes up the bulk of your base.

-----------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT! Take this country back one town and state at a time!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[UCLA Dem]

154. I think thats something we should definitely look into.

[independentpiney]

142. we don't need to go left or center- we need to go Populist

We win the majority on economic issues, in which we are in fact populist. All we have to do to is get rid of the idea that Dems = big government and imposing 'liberal' cultural values. To do this all thats needed is to adopt a States rights' position with respect to god guns &gays.

[UCLA Dem]

153. the only problem with that is...

we can let the god and guns go a little, but we cannot allow people to be discriminated against and treated as second class citizens. we have to find a way to go populist and protect all those who are vulnerable.

[IrateCitizen]

161. The national party isn't economically populist anymore...

Being economic populists means standing up for the little guy against the boss. Endorsing free trade and cozying up to corporations and Wall Street isn't sticking up for the little guy -- it's further enabling the boss.

The Democratic Party will never be able to play economic populism -- its greatest potential strength, the trump card to beat cultural conservatism -- until it chooses the people over corporate interests. It can't have things both ways.

[UCLA Dem]

150. Skinner, I've been thinking. You really are right.

When I first read your post, I though it wouldn't work. We've tried to court the middle in the past and it didn't work (e.g. Al Gore).

But...I realize why it is different now. Back then, the repukes were also fighting for the middle, they were trying to appear moderate (while of course really right wing). Since we were the party in power everyone already knew we were more left of center (or at lease that was the public perception). So, since * had no record to prove (in 2000) he was RW, they won that round. Since then, we as Dems have stayed left and been able to take back the mid-west populist centrists.

However, now the repukes have nationally (congress, senate and pres. leadership) dropped a pretense of being moderate. They are RW and they are not bashful.

This our chance to take the the middle. The middle who will be alienated and crapped on by these disgusting RW policies. They will need someplace to fall back on and we will be there.

While the repukes move right, we need to take back the middle and thus control of the country.

[unfrigginreal]

168. I think that you're missing the point of his post

I read it to mean that we have to go after the people that benefit economically from our policies but are fearful of our stands on cultural issues. It wasn't a call to move to the middle as much as a call to redefine how we promote Democratic ideals. Unless you are of the opinion that we know best what's right for everyone, then it's important that we consider a better way to convince others of our positions rather than relying on our righteousness.

[Skinner]

172. That's pretty much what I was trying to say.

You said it better and more succinctly than I could.

I was not arguing that we need to move to the right or the center or whatever. I was arguing that we need to figure out how to reach people who, as you say, "benefit economically from our policies but are fearful of our stands on cultural issues."

[UCLA Dem]

178. i understand that. but in order to convince these fearful people we are

going to have to modify how we define the issues. We are very left right now when it comes to cultrual issues and capturing these people.

They way I see it is we have 2 choices:

1. We can either table to cultural issues and highlight the economic issues.

2. Or we can infuse the party with the morderate populist stances on cultural issues, which would mean moving to become more conservative.

To me, bringing them into the Democratic party means we will have to shift some of positions of those key cultural issues.

[KoKo]

252. I don't think as many folks are as "fearful" as you think, though. I

think it's much more complicated. I'm not fearful of Osama...but I am of Bush. I feel I have no control over a "terrorist attack" once again...what can I do about it? But, I hold Bush accountable because we got attacked on his own watch. If it was Clinton they would have taken him out with the White Coats with Needles if he sat reading a book about a goat to school children.

I think the Red States that some here are all worked up about...are not as "Red" as you think. I think they have felt slighted by Democratic Candidates not coming to stump for them. Gore (a much better candidate) had to deal with Clinton's fiasco with Monica which just freaked out the Southernors. But he could have overcome it if he hadn't run away from it.

It was up to him to position that Hillary hadn't left Bill and their daughter was loyal to both and that Jesus forgave sinners. The fundies would have gotten a lesson in "family values" and been called to look into their own hearts about their religion. But, Gore was told or chose to distance himself from the morality/Clinton thing. It didn't work. Folks saw him as running away from it rather than dealing with it "head on" and the media had a field day.

Al Gore and his Wife and their children are wonderful examples of American Family Values...as are Clinton, Hillary and Chelsea...but we Democrats allowed the REPUGS to steal it away from us.

Jenna Bush sticking her tongue out of a Limosene is considered "Cheeky" but Chelsea and the Gore Children are not considered as examples of great "upbringing" and "family values?"

Give me a break..our Dems should have been all over the "contrast or even playing up their families and their sucesses." But, we know the RW Think Tanks, FBI and everything the Bushies could throw at them would come into play and turn great "Dem Family Values" into trash.

TAKE BACK THE MEDIA...forget this values thing....it will never play for us without some "FAIRNESS IN MEDIA."

[CWebster]

156. Well Dean tried

but the party shouted him down.

[IrateCitizen]

159. Then perhaps it's time for Dean and the grassroots...

... to work for the long-term goal of taking over the party?

Isn't that what Dean himself said regarding the elections, more or less? Didn't he say that this is a long-term fight, and that we all need to be in it for the long term?

[davepc]

160. I think Dean is going to try and do just that.

And those of us who understand the problem and think he 'gets' how to fix it, or at least has a viable solution need to get behind him.

[IrateCitizen]

163. Amen to that, brother! (nt)

[KoKo]

259. Dean just sent an e-mail about how we can "Go Forward" to folks who

signed up for his site. It was upbeat and uplifting. It was good to hear it. We worked hard for Kerry on the ground here in NC...I'm glad Dean cared.

[BlueInRed]

158. Thanks Skinner

I really appreciate this post. I have been a DU Member for a long time, but stopped posting because I got weary of trying to defend being a fiscally responsible, socially moderate Democrat (ie, I support abortion, etc). I know a lot of independents and center-left populists and rural people who do feel that the Democratic Party looks down on them and welcomes them only when it's election time. Some of them are social conservatives, some are moderates like me who don't want the government making personal decisions for them, but to a person, they don't feel they completely belong in either the Democratic Party OR the DLC. The very easiest way to lose a person's vote is to look down on them and that is something I personally think the DNC needs to remember when seeking the votes from the South and Mid-West.

There were a lot of persuadable voters in those categories and they just were not reached. Clinton was a master at reaching them. A lot of people made fun of Bubba Clinton, but it was his Bubba-ness that allowed him to reach out and talk to the working folk. And strange as it may seem, I though Dean had a bit of "Bubba" in him too. It's about talking to them as equals with different values and respecting their right to disagree.

Again, Skinner, thank you for your post. I would love to see people welcome the alternative opinions from those of us who unfortunately live in red states. I would love to feel comfortable posting here without fear of being attacked for not being liberal enough. I still vote Democratic and know a lot of people who swing between the parties and they ARE definitely reachable if you treat them as welcome, rather than just a necessary evil you must endure to win elections.

[Baja Margie]

162. Skinner

With all due respect, I feel that Kerry stood strongly on economics and made a very rational and realistic approach to the third group which you describe.

Am I wrong?

I just feel that the factor here was FEAR, and this group could not see the forest for the trees. They were pumped up on fear, on a both conscious levels.

I think the question to pose is, and perhaps there are some professionals who could answer this, but how do you deal with a person or group who are experiencing a fright syndrome. How do you convince them, how to tame the beast, and how to win them over.

[RichardRay]

167. On the issue of language

Avoid stilted language intended to convey a political or social perspective hidden behind some out of the ordinary usage. For instance, insisting on 'gender neutral' usage like 'him/her' leads to nothing but quick, visceral discouting from the people you're trying to talk to unless they already agree with you. In that case, why are you talking to them?

Let the value of your communication be in the entire meaning of what you're saying, don't try to weight each word with such ponderous substance that the folks you're trying to talk to run away before you get to the end of the sentence.

I learned this one the hard way - doing down and dirty community organizing work. Until I stopped using the policitcal and social vernacular common among the 'political classes' and learned to talk the way folks on the street talked I got no place. That doens't mean having to 'dumb down', it does mean communicating clearly, directly and honestly.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[CindyDale]

183. LOL

I've never been discouted, and I'm curious. I will have to try using "him/her" on the street, I guess, to find out exactly what happens.

I avoid using "him/her" in writing, because it isn't considered good usage. The plural works better.

[RichardRay]

211. Unless you're feeling REALLY pedantic

in which case you find yourself making convoluted sentences trying to make certain the plural (them, their, etc) agrees with the rest of the sentence. Grammarians unite.

Or, you could go so far as to drop all the back to 'one', 'one's own' or 'oneself'.

:-)

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[CindyDale]

289. And if we immigrate to Quebec

We'll have to deal with nouns genders as well as pronoun genders. Saw an example of that on the Quebec Web site earlier today.

[Meshuga]

174. You said:

"If we want center-left populists to be Democrats, we need center-left populists in our coalition to show us how. We need to value their contributions, and we need to welcome them into our coalition as equal members."

That is my feeling exactly. Thanks for the great post!

[GOPBasher]

175. True. It's not about "further left or more centrist." Take each position

one by one.

[Locrian]

186. PLEASE go here and read this pdf

Its from George Lakoff "Dont think of an elephant" "know your values and frame the debate"

Its about how conservative vs progressives THINK. Also, how progressives confuse their own adgenda for the ONE and cant come together.

Amazing stuff - please just read the excerpt:

http://www.chelseagreen.com/images/DTE_Sampler.pdf



EDIT: ooops. Dint look down and saw someone beat me to it. Sorry. But READ IT!!! PASS IT ON!!!

[quaoar]

187. That's a tall order, I'm afraid

I agree with your argument, Skinner.

"If we want center-left populists to be Democrats, we need center-left populists in our coalition to show us how. We need to value their contributions, and we need to welcome them into our coalition as equal members."

A good place to start is right here at DU. The bashing of the South reached a fever pitch yesterday. I understand that people's emotions have been through the wringer. Mine have been, too. So I haven't gotten my panties all up in a wad about it. Maybe it's best if people just get it out of their systems.

And I can understand the frustration of folks in NY or Calif. with what seems like a vast sea of Bush-deep ignorance south of Maryland. But I live with those people, smack dab in the Heart of Dixie. I work with them. Our children play together. They are not ogres. They are not hopeless causes. Our concerns are not so different from their concerns that we cannot find common ground. We -- as in the Democratic Party -- just has to learn to speak the language and has to start to take such people seriously.

Also, there are a few folks here at DU who apparently don't realize that there are many, many fine progressive people who live in places like Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia. Many of us were raised in the crucible of the civil rights movement. Many of us have suffered for the stands we have taken for social justice over the decades. And when someone dedicates his/her adult life to the cause of civil rights and has worn himself/herself out trying to lift up Mississippi or South Carolina and then comes here and sees, "Fuck you, Mississippi," as if Bush is our fault, you tend to get pissed.

To reach your vision, Skinner, it seems to me it would be helpful to try to attract more people to DU who understand the South and Southern culture.

[Fla Dem]

189. Skinner, are we really FOR abortion, or for CHOICE?

I don't fit comfortably in any of these groups particularly the first two if you really mean FOR abortion. I don't really know any one that advocates abortion. But I am pro-choice. Personally, from an ethical and religious viewpoint I do not advocate abortion. If a woman's decision is to have an abortion, that is her own personal decision and should not be legislated. If that is what you meant to say, then I would fall into the center-left group. Except you did not mention a stance on war for that group. I too dislike all war. Is there anyone who "likes" war? But, I feel we have to have a strong national defense appropriate to the threat. I disagree with the invasion of Iraq. Was against it from the start. But agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan. I have never, ever voted for a republican, even on a local ballot. As a native Bostonian, I worked on JFK's election handing out leaflets before I was old enough to vote. I am unsure about free trade, because I feel we are diminishing the available jobs in our own economy. Jobs that could lift people out of poverty.

I do not consider myself to be an elitist. My roots are still pretty much Mom, apple pie and the Red Sox. I still get choked up when I hear the Star Bangle Banner. As a child we ducked and covered whenever we heard air raid sirens (practice drills), foolishly thinking that would save us from an atom bomb. My brother served during Vietnam and I hated the war, but he was doing his duty. We were after all, afraid of the domino effect and all of SE Asia would fall to communism, and then we would be next. I did not go to college because my family could not afford to send both my brother and me. I started working at an entry level position and ended up a VP in a national corporation. I took early retirement when the company restructured and cut jobs. But I never really became an elitist. I raised a family, and lost a husband. I am not particularly well off, but I'm comfortable. I have what I need and do not have to worry about living paycheck to paycheck. I am on a fixed income, but work part-time in a retail store and do volunteer work. I live in a mostly suburban, but also rural area.

I am for gun control.
I support gay rights.
I want the government to be fiscally responsible, particularly when it comes to pork barrel spending and out of control military spending.
I am appalled that Bush did not veto even one spending bill in the past four years.
I want health care to be available for all citizens.
I want our schools to all be on an equal footing whether they are in a rich or poor neighborhood. No child should be handicapped in life because of where they grew up.

I don't know if this clarifies my position in you idealogical groupings. So you are right, we as a group cannot be pigeon-holed. I think that's what makes this party truly the party of the people, our diversity of thought.

[Skinner]

212. We're among friends here.

I think everyone understands that when I say "for abortion" what I mean is "for legal abortion" or "support abortion rights" or "support the right to choose."

[Fla Dem]

240. I have felt all along I was among kindred spirits. But......

I do think how we frame our issues is very important. While it may be semantics, being for abortion is totally different from supporting choice. It's these little things that get blown out of proportion and offend the group you say we need to embrace. Just my humble take on the issue.

[Pragmatique]

192. What am I?

Gee, my head is swimming after reading what for me seems like complicated, if not hair-splitting, definitions on where I might fit in. Excuse me while I take a time out for some introspection and maybe some time in front of a mirror.

I'm 66 years old, a non-conformist, slightly dyslexic, mildly anti-social, highly independent, and completely suspicious of any authoritarian entity.

I don't care much about abortion as a political issue and I don't see that jerking a clot of embryonic tissue out of a woman's body, at her request, is much different than pulling a tooth. I've heard all the arguments to the contrary, but I'm just not convinced that life begins at conception. However, I'm open to trying a new, if not novel, approach to the subject.

For the sake of discussion let's go along with the notion that life does indeed begin at conception. OK, then why not issue a "life- certificate" as soon as conception is discovered. We could give the little zygote a name on the life-certificate just like we do on a birth-certificate, only birth-certificates would be obsolete since birth itself would become irrelevant, at least in the legal sense.

So, life begins at conception and the legal standing of that life is protected by the life-certificate instead of waiting out the term of pregnancy to issue a birth-certificate. Given this new legal status as a full fledged human being at conception it then follows that upon the death of that life a legal death-certificate would have to be issued. Naturally if the new life is purposefully aborted the cause of death would be murder.

It seems to me that this proposal would finally flush out our legal system by forcing it to declare when life legally begins.

I know this proposal might sound a bit glib, but I'm totally tired of the endless political debate on this issue and I'd like to see it put to rest once and for all so we can finally move on to other issues.

Gays and marriage: I don't see anywhere in our constitution any exceptions to all men are created equal with a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't mind if gays get married, and I don't mind polygamy, serial monogamy, or any other form of marital arrangement people might choose for themselves, provided of course everyone involved is of legal age and not financially dependent on the government.

Guns: I had my first rifle at age 9 and I don't see anything wrong with people owning guns. However I don't believe that our Constitution actually guarantees us anything more than a musket, gun powder, and ball shot. I certainly don't think that semi-automatic assault rifles with 30 shot banana clips, armor piercing bullets, and telescopic night-sites are what our forefathers had in mind, and even if they did, get real!

Government: I like government no matter the size as long as it's a government of, by, and for the people. It seems to me that in a Democracy the word "government" is synonymous with the words "the people". So when I hear right-wingers railing against the "government" to me what they're really saying is they're against the power of the people. I just happen to think that the more power the people have over their own lives, the better, and government is the only instrument that people have to guarantee that power.

Religion: Personally, I don't have the particular kind of vanity that includes a belief that my life is of any interest to Master of the Universe, if such an entity exists, which I doubt. It seems apparent from (human) history that mankind is afflicted with countless fantastic notions about the existence of various and assorted deities. I really don't mind. If my neighbor believes that the only way to eternal salvation is to insert a large nail up his behind, face a certain direction, make the sign of the cross, paint his face green, and shout at the stars, I really don't mind, so long as he keeps his practices private and doesn't insist that I, or anyone else, adopt his ways. Religion belongs to the realm of the unreal, like magic, so let's not insert and mix the unreal with the real. Politics and government are real, religion is unreal.

I have many other opinions, but I know they're boring, even to me, so I won't list them here and I promise to remain forever silent. But I would like to know, given your apparent interest and expertise on the subject, just what political label you might assign to me? I can't wait to read it.

Warmest regards to you...

[Skinner]

214. You seem offended by my effort.

As I said in my post, my intent was not to pigeon-hole anyone. If you do not wish to label yourself, I am not going to stick a label on you.

Warmest regards rightbackatcha.

[Pragmatique]

245. Darn!

I was really hoping that you'd apply one of your eloquent labels to me so I'd know what I am. No, I'm not at all offended by your effort, and I'm always interested in what you have to say.

I do think that liberals are doing a lot of inappropriate soul searching and election results analysis when the simple fact is that they were outsold by a better salesman. It's not the message that lost the election it was that salesmanship won.

I was in sales and marketing all my life and I know a good job of selling when I see it.

Think of it this way: Each party is really a brand, and the candidate is the salesman and spokesman for the brand. Then there's advertising for the brand, and the promotion at rallies etc. Kerry, although a fine man with impeccable character and high intelligence, was totally out done by a more finely honed sales pitch delivered by a slick salesman of dubious character and intelligence.

It's my view that the right candidate (salesman) perhaps John Edwards for example, could deliver the exact message that Kerry did, using a little different pitch, and he'd make the sale. Look at Dick Cheney for example. He's got used car salesman written all over him. His message sucks, but he knows how to package and deliver it. Remember Elmer Gantry? The hard drinking womanizing evangelist created by the author Sinclair Lewis. He didn't believe his own words, but he could deliver his message with enthusiasm and conviction and people flocked to see him speak. There's no substitute for salesmanship, and without it no message will ever hit the mark. Conversely, good salesman can sell dubious merchandise and it happens all the time. Billy Graham comes to mind, a former Fuller Brush salesman before he discovered that selling the Lord paid a lot better.

I've met people who couldn't sell a dollar bill for .50 cents, and just for fun I put them to the test. Sure enough, when they offered people a dollar bill for .50 cents they got turned down flat because they didn't have the knack for selling. People were suspicious and just didn't believe it was possible. In that same way John Kerry just couldn't make the sale, even though he was really offering a dollar bill for .50 cents. If the Democrats want their candidate to get elected four years from now, they'd better find the best salesman they can or they'll just be wasting time and money.

There's nothing mysterious about why the Demos lost the election, it was all about salesmanship. It's as simple as that.

my warmest regards to you...

[beevul]

227. Think about what your saying...

"Guns: I had my first rifle at age 9 and I don't see anything wrong with people owning guns. However I don't believe that our Constitution actually guarantees us anything more than a musket, gun powder, and ball shot. I certainly don't think that semi-automatic assault rifles with 30 shot banana clips, armor piercing bullets, and telescopic night-sites are what our forefathers had in mind, and even if they did, get real!"



To say that you believe that our constitution guarantees only "a musket, gun powder, and ball shot" would be the same as saying that it also only guarantees quill pens, parchment paper, and rudimentary printing presses. Our forefathers certainly weren't thinking about the internet or protests of hundreds of thousands.

This is exactly the kind of argument that turns away those in that third group skinner described, and why they don't trust with thier vote.

Its the CONCEPT that is protected as a right, not the particulars, and that third group is highly conceptual, especially where the constitution is concerned. I have lived rural, surrounded by folks that fit the description skinner gave for that third group - my entire life. They are a HUGE block, and vote issues first, party LAST. As skinner says, they consider themselves patriots, and he's spot on. They believe the second amendment, and all the rest of them, mean what they say.

That third group sees this:

"a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

as meaning:

"because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, (a no brainer, a well regulated militia IS necessary to the security of a free state - in their eyes, anyhow) the right of the people (them) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, whether you agree or disagree with that, history IS on thier side. Ample evidence exists as to WHY the amendment was written, and it sheds ample enough light on the context of what they intended it to mean. Thats the view of that third group, and there is no changing it. They are brought up that way, and raise thier kids that way. They're parents of kids who have been brought up to respect firearms, but not fear them. Those kids are brought up being told not to trust anyone trying to take the guns from the law abiding, just like thier parents were. It is an unending cycle.

Take them, or leave them, make them friend or make them foe, but know that either way, it will be as they are. They won't be changed. Most of them WILL vote, and they are the "against" voters. The kind that vote against people they percieve undermining gun rights.

That is the easiest issue to take away from the opposition. If that can't be done, the party will not survive.

[Pragmatique]

233. Greetings

Thanks for taking the time to respond to what I've stated.

First off, I'm a gun owner and I have no intention of voting in such a way that the right to gun ownership is taken away. But what kind of guns are allowed is the issue for me. I don't believe that the right spelled out in the Constitution is limitless, and where the line is drawn by sane people is really the issue. I don't see how
you justify such a liberal interpretation of the Constitution? The way I read it is that we're entitled to belong to the national guard or reserves and we can bring our own musket. Please enlighten me by showing me the specific language in the constitution that gives me limitless rights to firearms and munitions of any kind?

The NRA, which in my view is purely a high paid lobbying entity for arms and munitions manufacturers, promotes the notion that people are entitled to own any kind of weaponry they might choose to have. I'm sure if they thought they could get away with it they'd promote the private sale and ownership of hand grenades, fully automatic machine guns, etc., after all, one could modify their slogan to be that, "hand grenades don't kill people, people kill people."

I think the extreme views of the NRA jeopardize the rights of gun owners to own the type of guns appropriate for sport and other legal recreational uses. It's my view that assault rifles do not fall into that category and should be banned.

[OrwellwasRight]

238. Exactly

Technically RPGs, tanks, and nuclear bombs are "arms," and according to the NRA, I guess we should all have those too.

If free speech can be limited (and it can according to the Supreme Court); if police can do "Terry stops" without probable cause (they can); if the life imprisonment for stealing 5 video tapes is not cruel and unusual punishment (according to Scalia & friends), then the right to bear arms can be limited as well.

[Fla Dem]

241. Hear, Hear. Limit not ban. Register, not take away. n/t

[beevul]

273. My purpose...

is not to debate the second amendment with you.

Rather, to get you to see the mindset of that third group.

Before I continue, let me say thanks for being civil. It is sincerely appreciated.

Maybe it would help, if I better painted a picture of "Ray" (or that third group skinner defined).

Ray doesn't believe in restrictions on freedom of speech (gagging someone to prevent them from shouting fire in a crowded theater for example) any more than on the second amendment - beyond restrictions that are reasonable by rays RURAL definition. Not much.

Ray believes in consequences for abusing freedom rather than limiting it in the name of prevention. Thats whats going to be the stumbling block here. Ray is set in that belief. Its how he was brought up, and how he brings up his kids. In his worldview, that is how things are supposed to be. Ray is an individual. He wants to be responsible for his own problems. He wants to be responsible for his own safety. He resents anyone else assuming those duties for him, even if its just an offer. Ray is fiercely independent. Because of that, you can't see ray, or his people on the radar.


Ray is knowledgeable about the subject of firearms. Knows the difference between an assault weapon (military appearance but semi-automatic in function just like any old semi-auto rifle, combined with lowered power cartridge than most hunting cartridges) and an assault rifle (select fire, capable of fully automatic fire, heavily restricted under the national firearms act of 1934)

Ray has contempt and inherant distrust for anyone who takes a contrary position without knowing what they are taking a position on.
People who don't know the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle for instance, but decry the need for a ban nonetheless, for instance.

Ray RESENTS being forbidden to own something, by those who can't even properly identify of define that something.

Ray realizes as much as anyone, that rural and urban are different worlds, and fears urban rule on his rural life.

Ray has a classic car in his garage that was his fathers, or that he restored himself, watches football on sunday, has 2.3 children, a retriever for hunting, 2 dozen fishing poles, tents, sleeping bags, a house constantly under construction, and a distaste for too much commotion/scandal, and owns firearms.

Ray is content, and often disconnected politically, again, staying off the radar in that 30 percent of non-voters.

Ray has no problem with same sex couples, beyond his belief that same sex couples should use a different term to identify it. Ray believes that things that are different but similar should be referred to differently, but similarly.

Ray has no objection to civil unions.

Ray has a worldview that says liberties are non negotiable as political capitol.

Ray is not as green as most on the left, but hes catching up. He will be a potential ally in the future because of it.

Ray wont be interested in how an issue of liberty is framed, its real world effect that he sees.

Ray won't be sold on anything less than a voting record that backs up affirmative support for an individual rights interpretation of the second amendment, for which ray can pretty well make the case was the intent of the amendment.

Agree with him, or not, its his heart and mind we are talking about here. And how it needs to be understood before it can be won.

"First off, I'm a gun owner and I have no intention of voting in such a way that the right to gun ownership is taken away. But what kind of guns are allowed is the issue for me. I don't believe that the right spelled out in the Constitution is limitless, and where the line is drawn by sane people is really the issue."

Ray would probably agree with that. Where ray draws that line, and what ray considers sane people in terms of drawing that line, is a different story. Sufice it to say, that what ray considers sane, and what Schumer/Feinstein consider as sane are 2 verry different things.

"The way I read it is that we're entitled to belong to the national guard or reserves and we can bring our own musket. Please enlighten me by showing me the specific language in the constitution that gives me limitless rights to firearms and munitions of any kind?"

Rays answer to that , would be that the second amendment was written 100 plus years before the national guard existed. Ray now further distrusts you just for saying that. In his view, the only possible reason for saying that, would be to undermine his rights, because as far as hes concerned, noone could possibly believe it as truth.

"The NRA, which in my view is purely a high paid lobbying entity for arms and munitions manufacturers, promotes the notion that people are entitled to own any kind of weaponry they might choose to have. I'm sure if they thought they could get away with it they'd promote the private sale and ownership of hand grenades, fully automatic machine guns, etc., after all, one could modify their slogan to be that, "hand grenades don't kill people, people kill people."

"I think the extreme views of the NRA jeopardize the rights of gun owners to own the type of guns appropriate for sport and other legal recreational uses. It's my view that assault rifles do not fall into that category and should be banned."

Well, thats a pretty extreme view of the NRA, to Ray, at least.
I was under the impression, that the NRA supports the NFA and instant check.If they support the NFA, then they support the current regulations on machine guns. That is to say HIGHLY REGULATED.

I will check on that.

Whether ones view of the NRA is extreme or not, one thing can be agreed on. They are effective. They support and endorse both D and R, with support/endorsement appearing to be based on support of gun rights. They are claiming 95 percent success rate this election. On thier homepage they claim:

"Of the 251 candidates endorsed by NRA for the U.S. House of Representatives, 241 candidates won. 14 of the 18 NRA-endorsed U.S. Senate candidates won their races."



Ray, he already distrusts you, and after you said "guns appropriate for sport and other legal recreational uses", rays first thoughts were "apropriate in whos opinion?" and "what do sports and recreation have to do with the second amendment?" and he now further distrusts you, because he can NOT concieve why someone would say something so absurd (his perception) except to undermine his rights. It gets filed in his rhetoric bin.

Ray likes where the line is drawn now. The NFA of 1934 heavily regulates all fully automatic and select fire weapons, as well as short barrel shotguns and other destructive devices, like grenades/rpgs/rockets.

Ray sees the banning of SOME semi-automatic weapons as making no sense. In rays world, deadly is deadly, and there are no degrees.
A semi-auto with black paint, a folding stock, and a bayonette lug is no more or less dangerous than the semi-automatic 308 winchester with
nice wooden stock, sling and scope, that he hunts with for deer.

The thing about ray is this:

Left to his own devices,he won't bother anyone. in fact, he will likely support most anything where freedom of choice is concerned.

Threaten his percieved liberties, and he becomes a different animal alltogether.

Ray, and all his friends, will vote for whoever does the best job protecting his liberties. Ray will start becoming interested and being involved actively with single issue special interest groups that support his cause. And take this to heart: Ray will make no bones about whos aid he enlists in his cause. Ray wont be limited by means at this point. Its the ends that count. Ray engages in political guerilla warfare, because his worldview dictates that its the end if the issue is not successfully defended.

Ray is thinking about his childrens liberty, and his childrens childrens liberty. Rays way of life, worldview, and culture are under attack, and he will defend them vigorously.

Ray.

Hes not a great friend sometimes, but hes ALWAYS a tough opponent when hes energized and motivated. When he feels threatened.

If you don't want him with you, thats fine. Just be careful hes not against you.

I believe Ray would come back to voting FOR this party. I think it is going to take a long time to gain his trust though. Just last september, the AWB sunset was a reminder to Ray of "what the enemy did to me". "They attacked my culture, payback time" might have been in the thoughts of many "Rays" across america during this election.

Inroads can be made with Ray, but its going to take alot for him to have any trust.

Honesty is the best policy for starters. Ray isn't effected by soft language or windowdressing.

Ray is willing to listen to reason, but emotional kneejerking will turn him away.

Ray isn't going to go looking for anyone, he must be either attracted or provoked.

He is not unaproachable though, IMO.

I mean no insult to anyone in writing this, whether they be the "Rays, or not. I am just calling it as I see it. I have lived among them my whole life.

[OrwellwasRight]

288. The Ray you describe sounds very closed minded. Can we really reach him?

"Ray doesn't believe in restrictions on freedom of speech (gagging someone to prevent them from shouting fire in a crowded theater for example) any more than on the second amendment - beyond restrictions that are reasonable by rays RURAL definition. Not much.

Ray believes in consequences for abusing freedom rather than limiting it in the name of prevention. Thats whats going to be the stumbling block here. Ray is set in that belief. Its how he was brought up, and how he brings up his kids. In his worldview, that is how things are supposed to be. Ray is an individual. He wants to be responsible for his own problems. He wants to be responsible for his own safety. He resents anyone else assuming those duties for him, even if its just an offer."

First, Ray is living in Fantasyland -- there are restrictions on freedom of speech, whether he believes there are or not. I'm not stating my position, I'm just stating the facts. Commercial speech has certain restrictions (e.g., fraud); political speech has certain restrictions (e.g., donation limits, disclaimer requirements); obscenity and pornography have many restrictions. We all have limitations on all of our freedoms; I may not like them any better than Ray does, but the 2d Amendment, which quite deadly, cannot be the only "freedom" without restrictions.

Second, I don't see the upside here. If Ray is not willing to consider restrictions on his right to own a gun ("non-negotiable"), then where's the discussion? There are facts about guns in homes, and they do not support the notion that they make us safer. Is he at least willing to talk about that? Or do we just let the DC Sniper, the Son of Sam, James Huberty, David Koresch and all the others have their way? Then what do we have to give up on next?

I grew up amongst "Rays" as well. And most often, guns are not their only problems with Democrats. Most of them also have other hot-button issues, be it race, homosexuality, hawkishness on war, xenophobia, or whatever. Say we could get to a place where we can see eye-to-eye on guns, are you SURE we would then have his vote?

Finally, I guess I am distressed about Ray's conception that he is totally independent and doesn't want help, a handout, or assistance (he also generally opposes these things for others and that is why he is against TANF, affirmative action, and help for the homeless). This is just a misperception. Ray is white and a man. He has already benefited by being assumed competent when he shows up at school or for a job interview. Minorities and women have to prove their competence. His whiteness gave him another advantage: he most likely inherited some minor wealth from his parents (most likely in the form of a home). Because he's white, his parents were not redlined out of good neighborhoods where property values rose. Because he's white, his parents were able to get a bank loan to purchase the home. He does not understand that the wealth disparity between blacks and whites is not just "sour grapes" and "whining" about slavery which is "over" and "in the past." Jim Crow and other forms of racism had real economic consequences that mean whites of today had a leg up that their black contemporaries did not have.

Let's discuss other handouts Ray has received: quality public schools (paid for by taxes), public roads (totally subsidized by the government), low gas prices that do not account for the externalities (pollution) that his driving an 8 mpg SUV forces upon others in society.

Fiercely independent? Only in his own mind. Is he willing to discuss this? I am. I think we all need to see how we do fit into society, and how we have benefited from it and how we have been taken advantage of (I guarantee you Ray has also been screwed in ways he does not even realize). But if Ray is not willing to talk -- he just wants us to give in to his Wayne La Pierre extremism--then I don't think the Dems gain by reaching out.

[MissMarple]

193. Where is Will Rogers when we really need him?

Excellent post. We do need to better understand and respect our differences in order to come together with what we all can support. And I think we need to ask is making a law against something, whether it is abortion or guns or ...whatever, really the best way to solve the problem.

And to Lakoff fans, I think he does help us understand what motivates people to think and act as they do. "Moral Politics" was first published in 1996, it is past time to start using the knowledge he has provided us.

[NightOwwl]

195. Abortion - Phrasing values in our terms is key.

Just finished reading "Don't think of an Elephant." It should be required reading for all Dems.

Republicans decided to frame abortion in terms of God and emotion, not logic. Sure, we can cite statistics until the cows come home, but that doesn't quite grab people like this little gem I found when I Googled “partial birth abortion” (note the use of the term abortionist):

1) Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.
2) The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
3) The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
4) The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
5) The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

It's gotten to the point where the term "partial-birth abortion" is synonymous with any mention of abortion. So how can we fight a powerful image like that? Well, I’ve seen variations of this phrase posted on DU many times, “Republicans care about a child as long as they are in the womb, once born they are on their own”.

So when Republicans start talking anti-abortion or partial-birth abortion, rather than citing numerous statistics about children living in poverty, Dems should respond on a gut emotional level. In graphic detail, provide true examples of what happens after these “precious gifts from god” are expelled from the womb. Babies living in their own shit, babies having their vaginas torn open by an adult penis, babies still alive, wrapped in plastic and dumped in the garbage. Put pictures on websites; put pictures on posters to wave at anti-abortion rallies. Disgusting? Disturbing? Horrifying? You bet. But calling us baby-killers won’t be quite as effective when we define and expose them as hypocrites who may spout off about “the sanctity of life”, but don’t think twice about turning their backs on the suffering of "God's little children".

[KamaAina]

196. In terms of electoral politics, this is first-rate analysis

The only trouble I have with it is that it sounds like we'd be willing to sell people's basic rights down the river to pick up some homophobe and/or anti-choice votes from the "center-left populist" group.

Dumping any issue that doesn't focus-group well: Isn't that the DLC approach? And look how well it's done for us... </sarcasm>

[Skinner]

218. Actually, I would argue that the DLC is essentially the

Political arm of the "center-left libertarian" group. They also make some effort to appeal to the center-left populist group on the cultural issues, but I think they fail because the center-left libertarians and center-left populists actually have less in common with each other than they each do with the left-liberals.

[AuntPatsy]

203. Excelent analysis Skinner and one I can agree with to an extent...

I believe this party's problems ( I consider myself an Indpendent) is more along the lines of not being able to stay the course. Quit trying to be like the other guy, stand strong to one's convictions period as far as the basic core values of the Democratic party. If I wanted to end another's choices in life to mirror mine, I would belong to this notorious Republican party..

I dont happen to think abortion should be used as a form of birth control and yet I would stand up and fight for a woman's right to decide the decisions about her own body...

The same with the American gay population, they deserve the very same rights that I myself have...

With such people trying to limit the very freedoms that most Americans live with, they are in fact being hypocritical of the title of our land we so hold dear...

America Land of The Free Home Of The Brave...

You and so many others are much better in expressing your feelings but I have to try and add mine the best that I can. As far as talking to the working class and lower class, I wonder about your background, I find it fairly easy to communicate on all levels not withstanding that in some cases, your talking to deaf ears...

That has nothing to do with one's station in life, there are many reasons why some behave and think the way they do and it is not always reasonable to assume that some representitive from a political party can get through to them, more in lines of a good Psychiatrist is more in order for many no matter how much money one might have.

One's station in life is alot more complicated that some tend to realize..it's not so cut and dry as some choose to believe, therefore they are way too quick to rush to judgement in my opinion...

A huge part of a very human character flaw...

[JohnnyCougar]

207. What happened in this election was that Rove defined Kerry

because the Democrats have less of a voice. Kerry could not get his message out because the democrats lack outlets to get a message out. Rove's mouth was just louder, due to lack of the impact of conservative media and the coordination of message of the conservatives.

There are at least two conservative radio shows on at all times in every locality. These radio shows reach people of all classes. People listen at work, on the road, and everywhere they go. They are incredibly cheap to produce, and have tremendous impact on their listeners.

The impact on these shows, however, is not so much to draw moderates in as it is to create a coordinated message from the bottom up. The irony of this is that it is really a message from the top down. The most powerful, wealthy Republicans are creating this message and communicating their daily talking points to tens of millions of people without paying a dime. And yet the talking points don't appear to be coming from the Republican elite, they appear to be coming from the local guy doing talk radio. This format works especially well for the rural, working class conservative who won't trust some guy in a suit yabbering away with other elitists on TV. It comes from angry males just like themselves on talk radio, and the messsage sinks in much better because of this.

These people then bring these talking points to work, to their families, and to their churches. When everyone else is listening to the same talking points, they all have the same ideas, and they all agree on issues. Having your peers agree with you is perhaps the most important segment of this. It affirms the message you herad when people like you agree with your point of view. People are not lookng for the truth, they are looking for comapnionship of those with similar ideas! They (the confused, less educated, poor, working class males) are insecure of their veiw of the world, and are afraid of being considered wrong by their peers. Being right, but in the minority is thus not desirable to them! Republican talk radio creates a wrong majority, and it is more desirable to be accepted than to be logically correct! Therefore, the effects of RW radio reach even those who don't listen! The objective of bigoted talk radio is to completely crush and humiliate the ideas of those who don't agree with you! This creates a pretty scary environment for all pragmatic thinkers in a talk radio listening environment. To the confused and insecure, talk radio listeners blather on about the same thing forcefully. This makes them look like they know what they are talking about.

It is their coordinated talking points that frame the debate. The liberals need to do the same. They need to reach out to rural people that are poor, less educated and hurting. What voice from the DNC is getting to them?!? What talking points do poor rural liberals know to combat those from the dittoheads at work? In the Churches? At family gatherings?

The left can meet these objectives, but it needs to start in the grassroots format. No one in rural America is going to lsiten to lefty elitists like Al Franken. We need to get pissed off poor rural progressives on the air in poor rural areas. The abortion issue needs to be neutralized, and can be neutralized. All we need to do is link it to poverty and tell these rural voters that the Democrats stand for the elimination of poverty. Get some facts to back this up, and pound away at it for the next two years. Get the frickin' religious left mobilized. Get preachers to speak out against poverty and corporate cronyism. Religion will work even better for our side if we are mobilized. Our base is a rag-tag conglomeration of people that is not organized right now, and has no channels to communicate a clear message, and it shows. If we were organized, this election wouldn't have even been close.

None of us champion abortion as a good thing. We don't want abortions to happen, but we acknowledge that they are necessary in some instances. Get women on talk radio that had abortions that otherwise would have killed them had the pregnancy gone through. And remember, "Abortion has increased with Bush, because poverty has increased!" This would hit home in so many ways to these people. But no one from our side is in any position to say it enough so the message gets out. Formulate talk channels. Keep repeating the message. Give them the statistics. Spread rumors that the Republicans will never outlaw abortion because it provides a wedge issue for them to use, and making it illegal would take it out of their hands. No one is currently trying to do this now. We need to start right away.

Gay marriage can be framed in their favor as well. Tell them that it's an issue of "big brother" government, not an issue of homosexuals marrying. Tell them that Washington elitists should not decide what our states should be deciding. Tell them that taking power away from the states is un-American.

Gun rights can be framed in their interest as well. Instead of being told that "Democrats will take away their guns," tell them that terrorists now have access to assault weapons, and could strike their families at any time!!!

These are messages that are true from our perspective. They would sink in. You can't argue against them. They are the issues framed in our light. But we need to create a better network to get our frames out. The fact that the DNC hasn't realized this earlier boggles my mind. It's almost as if they aren't really trying and are in cahoots with the Republicans. I have been e-mailing my advice to them for some time, and I never get a response. I know this strategy will work. I am actually looking in to getting a job with them at some point, because if they can't do these things, I will. Their problems come from the psychological standpoint, and not from the political one. McAuliffe raises alot of money, but if they can't get social psychologists in there to formulate a message that connects with people, than all that money raised is for nothing. And if they can't get around their own egos, they will lose more elections.

[KoKo]

220. Skinner, your Democratic Underground spawned the Activists...could you

share with us, now after four years, how you feel about us. You know, the ones who are the "agitators" who supported Dean, Kucinich, Clark?

I wasn't a committed Dean or Kucinich supporter, but I gave money to both. I supported Kerry/Edwards.

But, I'm a total freaking radical, and I became that way, due in part to being able to connect, brainstorm and be inspired by the folks here on Democratic Underground.

But, I've often felt that you've not always supported us...in your heart even though you gave us this Forum to become a new force in the Democratic Party. I'm not sure you are always comfortable with us. Your post seems to say that. I realize you are trying to focus us on an important "realignment" that we Democrats might need to make as you feel for us to move foward after all of this. But, if our Party Establishment isn't comfortable with us, then why? Could you share some thoughts about why we Activists are being held at a distance and yet are used on the ground? What would be the "Inside Beltway" view of us.

I remember a post you made here on DU when you all were thinking about how you would get together at the Democratic Convention. You said DU was considered "Riff Raff." If you remember I posted in the "AA" Forum indignant that DU would be considered that way after all the activism we had done during the Pre-Iraq Invasion and throughout all the horrendous times of Bush where we "Faxed, Phoned, and e-mailed Congress/Senate/Media, etc.

I've felt there was a side to DU Admins that held "us" at a distance even though you always provided protection for us here on DU. Somehow I never felt there was enthusiasm from the Party or from you all for our efforts. ??:shrug: But, I appreciate all your efforts at trying to keep us "Un-Herded Cats together.

[Skinner]

228. I've never understood why some people on DU got the idea...

...that I did not like people who supported Dean or Kucinich or Clark. There is an entire other website dedicated to smearing me as some sort of DLC tool.

I voted in the DC Democratic primary. I posted a message here on DU that made it very clear that I was choosing between Dean, Clark, Edwards, and Kerry, during the primary. In that post, I pretty much dismissed Kerry and Edwards with one sentence each, and ultimately chose between Clark and Dean. I've never told people this on DU, but I voted for Howard Dean. (To all those stunned Dean supporters out there who have been smearing me for nearly a year, all I have to say is... Please, don't bother apologizing.)

I made it clear from day one that I would support the Democratic nominee no matter who it was. Yet there were some people who tried to paint me as some kind of Skull-and-Bones John Kerry bootlicker because I had the unmitigated gall to throw my support behind the Democratic nominee -- the only human being on the planet with any hope of beating Bush.

My view has always been: I don't care what your politics are. All I care about is whether you are a positive member of our community, and whether you're using DU to undermine Democratic candidates. It's that simple.

I am not part of the inside-the-Beltway crowd. I have no clue what they think of us. I live in Washington, DC, but I'm not plugged into the Democratic establishment at all. I'm just a guy with a website.

I am thankful for all the different factions here on DU. There is much to like about people in every different group, and about people who don't fit in any group.

In fact, I like almost everyone here. There are many members that I like a lot, and it has nothing to do with whether they are radical or centrist or whatever. If I have learned anything over and over again over the last four years, it's that nice people and jerks come in all different political persuasions.

I prefer nice people.

[ScreamingMeemie]

243. As a Deaniac and moderator during the primaries...I can vouch

for that. :hi:

[KoKo]

250. Thanks...a great example of those who can be considered "fair and

Impartial"is keeping "close to the vest" your true feelings. That you've been able to do this is a credit to DU. Thank you for sharing this. No one would have know this before, because you did keep this site "impartial."

I wish I had known your sentiments before...but for you to let us know would maybe have compromised the site. I understand, that it's a balance to keep all things fair.

I think for the overwhelming posters to this site..you've maintained those standards.

Again...thanks for your reply and for being very "fair" even in the most difficult of times when the decisions weren't always what you "from your heart" wanted to make and the decisions weren't always obvious to many of us...

"Wisdom of Solomon" to run a website with this many "stray cats." I see now, from your post, how fair you've tried to be.

Kudo's. :toast:

[HoosierClarkie]

229. You are absolutely correct.

We need to be the party of inclusion. To be honest, I feel the elitist attitude that can be projected on this board. We are not going to listen to you because you are not a true Democrat, attitude. Only by a few, but it is a few too many. We need to reach out to all Democrats. If you want Middle America's vote, get to know them, and don't judge them.

[CitySky]

235. I'm one of the populists

... and so are a lot of people in my church. But I'm sort of uniquely situated, as I came from left-left roots, grew up in a gay-positve environment, etc. and converted to a conservative type of Christianity as an adult.

But I cannot imagine EVER voting for our current crop of Republicans. Jesus was a liberal, i can tell you that. I live like a particularly cheerful nun and vote like a yellow dog.

So, one idea that has been rolling around in my head the last few months is to do a Christian Progressive radio show.

Respectfully reclaim some air space in the moral dialogue: corruption and greed are moral issues. Allowing the strong to take advantage of the weak is a moral issue. The murder of people who have already been born is a moral issue.

Ultimately, many people voted for what they thought was "the lesser of two evils." Seriously. We need to let people vote their consciences -- but at least give them the tools to weigh more than just 2 factors ("GAY PEOPLE! ABORTIONS!") on the moral scales.

[robbedvoter]

237. Agreed. Point is: we won, they stole it. Period.

[Fovea]

244. I am sorry Skinner

but I think your model is wrong.

Your Center Left Populists are already voting Dem.
I also think they are a not a very big group anymore.
The country's center has already contracted too far for them to be the target group.


I break the electorate into the following groups.

1. the Xenophobic. For them, Bush the Hater will keep them safe from those they fear.

2. The End Timers. For them, a vote for a Dem is a vote for Satan. That is what the voice on the radio, and the one in their head tells them, so it's unanimous.

3. The Progressives ... They were the core of the ABB once our candidates had been marginalized by the RNC and the DLC.

4. The Looto Repugs ... They hope to win a lucritive contract to steal resources from brown people.

5. The old School. Both sides really. They keep looking for a restoration of civility without first defeating one band of radicals or another.


I did not start this fight, Skinner. For me it started in 1980 when the Republicans tried to outlaw my religion the first time.
I know you don't want to fight, or for it to be war.
When it finally comes to your neighborhood, do me a favor and be ready to fight.

[YNGW]

246. BRAVO !!!!

>I know lots of Democrats here in Washington, DC, and they are almost all relatively affluent professional types from the Northeast or West Coast who don't have any life experience at all interacting with regular people from middle America. In fact, their opinion of them could almost be described as contemptuous. At a minimum, I think it could be called condescending.

Thank you for saying that out loud.

Wanna know why the Democrats lost the South and Midwest? I'm from the South, I know. I've heard it all my life, and it's not a Democratic or Republican thing.

No one likes to be thought of as a bunch of children who should consider themselves to be fortunate if a bunch of intellectual egg-heads from the stuffed-shirt crowd might be willing to take time out of their busy day to consider what the uneducated, unwashed masses in the heartland of America might think about the issues.

Bottom line, you treat people like dirt and they aren't going to listen to you. The "moral values" made its mark this year. You can't tell people "We don't care how you were raised or what your Good Book says, this is how it's going to be, we know what's best for you whether you agree or not, and you better climb on board", because if you do, they're going to leave.

Let's see if anyone figures it out before it's too late. I'm not placing any bets.

[The_Urge]

247. Great Article

I generally don't post here because there are too many screamers that just want to rant and won't listen. This article has made me want to come back and post. I am please to see that there are many very intelligent people here.

One thing to the admin, you wrote "This is not a free-for-all discussion board for all points of view."

The fact that I could be censored or banned for speaking my mind is disconcerting. I understand that it is necessary to get rid of people or certain posts because sometime people say some pretty vile things or threaten others, but banning people or deleting things just because they have a different point of view or an idea that is contrary to your own is not how our democratic society prospers.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

248. Center-left populists/Cultural division.

In regards to the cultural division, I agree.

Most of the people I deal with are of the, center-left libertarian, type. I know for a fact that democrats are not reaching them. Were losing voters that didn't even disagree with the platform that Kerry ran on. The republicans ruled the field with these people not because of the good job they did for the past 4 years, many were not happy with Bush's previous term, but because the republicans reached them and the democrats did not.

I would like to touch on the issues of gun control, abortion and gay marriage. There was a successful distortion of facts done by the Republican Party that we let happen. I think in part due to the view that, if they are too stupid to understand the truth, forget them.

How many people have we lost due to the exploitation of these issues in the last four years?

1) There are the ones we lost due to our alleged stance on guns (thank you NRA).
2) The ones lost due to abortion. (This was increased by the partial birth abortion smear).
3) The ones we lost due to the gay marriage issue.

I find that there is a large block of group 1 that is separate from groups 2 and 3. What I would like to find out is how many of group number 1 live in soft red states. I think this is worth a look.

I can tell you a story of an intelligent man who works in the Tech industry in an upper management position in Austin, Texas. Before you dismiss him due to his state, know that Travis County (Austin) was blue. He is pro-choice has no opinion on gay marriage and was going to vote for Bush. His sole reason was the smear done by the NRA had worked on him. It took me one 10-minute phone conversation followed by faxing a bit of information to enlighten him. He voted for Kerry. Even though he disliked Bush as a President, he was willing to vote him back into office over his 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Why have we allowed ourselves to lose voters like him?

Before the partial birth abortion issue was exploited, I knew of more people that were what I think of as weak pro-life. They would not choose abortion for themselves but were not ready to remove a woman’s right to chose. We need to explain in detail partial birth abortion to these people. These same people had no idea that stem cell research did not mean using aborted fetuses. The republicans reached them and we did not. Why is that? Think on it long and hard, these are not the zealot religious right-wingers. These are the more liberal minded Christians.

Gay marriage was a complicated issue with the rural people I talked to. I am still healing from that and won’t go into it. Suffice to say they opposed it, but were not entirely anti gay rights. Some knew Kerry was not pro gay marriage. They mostly took the Military’s view on gays.

[CindyDale]

255. Lies and Fraud?

Yes, there was a lot of misinformation. It was frustrating. Not enough was done to clear it up. Perhaps without an ethical media, not much can be done. The newspapers are more ethical than television, but not enough read them.

I still don't understand the exit poll fiasco, though. Unless it is investigated, we have to assume fraud.

Can the country survive four more years? From the sounds of it, the administration may be planning to loot anything and everything it didn't manage to loot during the past four years.

[Sugarbleus]

253. Wow.."Where am I"?

Lets see if I can find me in there. (lol)

I think I'm all of these rolled up into one:..but I may have left something out. :D

*Democratic-Socialist
*Liberal-Populist
*Social-libertarian
*Anti-fascist
**secular humanist in training...

I WILL NOT CONFORM

[HooptieWagon]

254. Interesting column from StPete Times Howard Troxler

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/11/04/Columns/Democrats_are_undone_.shtml

I think he pretty much hits the mark, and makes me question whether the Democratic Party has effectively defined itself to the voters. Obviously the majority felt stronger about anti-gay than they did about war, the enviroment, healthcare, or the economy taxes and job-loss.

[OrwellwasRight]

257. Thanks, I think there is comfort in that column for Dems

The Democratic Party would be better off now if it shook off its denial and operated as a true opposition minority, vigorously challenging the Republicans on policy issues across the spectrum - without reading polls and worrying about giving offense.

* * *

Wouldn't America be better served by aggressive questioning of ill-founded wars, unwise environmental policy and disastrous debt?

It will be tempting for Democrats to stick to the old pretenses. Once again the voters didn't really mean it, see. The sun got in their eyes. Once they see how wicked the Republicans are, they'll come around.

One almost wonders how soon party chairman Terry McAuliffe will start predicting a sure-fire Democratic victory in 2008.

We need to stick to our principles and sell them hard, regardless of polling numbers and despite those who tell us to lean to the right.

The vision-thing worked for Bush, and our vision of the world is better, if we would only get around to pursuing is agressively.

Thank you, HooptieWagon. :headbang:

[CindyDale]

260. He's right

>>The Democratic Party would be better off now if it shook off its denial and operated as a true opposition minority, vigorously challenging the Republicans on policy issues across the spectrum - without reading polls and worrying about giving offense.

Not for nothing was the Democrats' own Prufrock, Tom Daschle, deposed in the Dakotas. Wouldn't America be better served by aggressive questioning of ill-founded wars, unwise environmental policy and disastrous debt?<<

Call 'em for what they are: looting, misogynistic, destructive, hate mongering hypocrites. And if you vote for them, that's what you are, too.

[theboss]

258. Great post

I don't know if I would use the same term, but I understand the concept of the "Center-Left Populist." (In all honesty, you are basically talking about Reagan Democrats).

I grew up in a blue collar town in West Virginia, then went off to the Ivy League and Washington DC. I think I have a good feel for all parts of our party. And it is culture that has been killing the Party since the '80s. And it's not even the difference in values that is causing the "Center-Left Populists" to vote against their economic interests. It's really, I think, a matter of simple respect.

I believe that a typical West Virginian or North Carolinian or North Dakotan could give a rip about what gays do in Dupont Circle or what atheists do in New York or what Howard Stern listeners do in New Jersey. But I think they feel horrified when they feel that these values are forced upon them in a condescending way. And I think they feel there is a conspiracy between a "liberal media" and "secular elites" to force these strange values on them. So when Newsweek and USA Today and CNN run story after story on gay marriage or the Janet Jackson shows her boob at the Super Bowl or the Guardian newspaper has Oxford professors write them letters telling them how to vote, they get angry. And they take their revenge by voting Republican.

The bottom line is that Democrats have created a nation of scourned spouses. And to be honest, I don't know how to change this relationship.

I'm for gay marriage and Janet Jackson's boob. But I think there has to be a way to be for these things without scaring the ever-living shit out of a churchgoer in Kentucky. Any advice would be helpful, though I don't think that Michael Moore and P Diddy leading the charge helped us much in not offending people. If you noticed, the Republicans really put the clamps on Falwell and Robertson after '92.

[OrwellwasRight]

264. "Values forced upon them"

There was a really interesting Charlie Rose (featuring Bill Moyers and three others) that I watched in the middle of the night election night after they had called Ohio for Bush and I was so depressed I couldn't take "the news" anymore.

Anyway, part of the discussion rolled around to the fact that the religious folks in the Red States were not really any different in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s than they are today, but they have changed their voting (to Repubs on "moral" issues) because they are faced with the "proof" of moral decay on TV everyday.

It is not a bad thesis: Families today are poorer in real terms, so there are more two-career households. In those households, there is less time to spend with children to leave the parents' moral imprint, so the parents look at what is piped into the house (and in today's home, every single bedroom) 24 hours a day on TV: real porn, lite porn (e.g., Janet's breast, Elimidate), serious homosexuality (e.g., HBO's Real Sex), homosexuality-lite (e.g., Will & Grace) and on and on. They feel attacked and overwhelmed because it is not what they would choose for their children, themselves or their community.

And, here's the insidious part. The Republicans have made them believe that somehow this is the fault of the Dems. The "moral decay" of Hollywood (rampant sex, foul language, morally questionable behavior, whatever one finds offensive) is somehow a Democratic-Eastern-Liberal-Elite attempt to force those lifestyle choices on middle America. They can't do anything about what FOX broadcasts so they fight back by voting against us. Ingenious way to direct anger (and incidentally, to keep the profits rolling in for the corporate conglomerate movie studios and television networks because it leaves them unaffected).

Interesting take, I thought. (But really unfair; the Democratic Party does not control the networks or Hollywood. I'm a rabid very-left Democrat, and I wouldn't want my hypothetical child to watch of lot of that reality TV garbage either.) You might want to catch a repeat if you can find it.

I disagree, however, that Reagan Democrats were center-left populists. Reagan broke the air traffic controllers union, attempted to destroy the EPA for the benefit of his corporate pals, and gave billions in defense contracts to Lockheed et al, without even seeing that the money was well spent (recall the $59 hammer and the $800 toilet seat?). I do not think he was a populist (a demagogue, yes) and I'm not sure his Reagan Democrat supporters were either. I would describe them as working class-centrist-nationalists.

[theboss]

265. It's a fascinating debate

I don't think anyone would argue that the culture is coarsening. But what is interesting is that someone the Left-wing northeast and California elitists get blamed for it. What's really bizarre is that Dems like Tipper and Al Gore were once on the front lines with zealots in the Culture War.

And like I said, definitions are always a tricky thing. But on Skinner's scale, I think Regan Dems most closely resembled "center-left populists." I can't tell you how many unemployer steelworkers in the 80s voted for Reagan because Mondale was a pussy on "commies, aetheists, queers, etc."

[theboss]

263. One more point....We are no longer seen as the party of the "working man"

And I think that's what is really hurting us. If there is a culture war, we have been cast as the "Elite" and Republicans have painted themselves as the ones fighting for the little guy. This is why Bush had that line in his speech about the heart of America not being in Hollywood. Rove, Limbaugh and the lot of them have painted us as the party of Hollywood millionaires, rich media figures, DC cocktail partygoers, and rich trial lawyers. There's a reason Bush spends all his free time clearing brush on his ranch, and why the Repubs couldn't wait to get the pictures of Kerry on a snowboard.

[candy331]

266. Seems like some sensible posting here but when looked through

with fine glasses it is the same old spill and will change nothing. I will continue to post that if Democrats do finally see that they have to be inclusive not on just the feel good speeches and handouts but inclusive in top positions then those they exclude will continue to drift to the repubs. I suppose if an AA would have been put on the ticket being second in command AA would have been in line voting until now but of course no one wants to hear the truth so come with all your denials and strategies but for all practical purposes the Dems are dead in the water and this is a mighty big way for resuscitation if not oblivion forever. Yes, I will continue to post this, no I will not let up about this so don't even ask.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

267. I'm a Minnesotan with blue collar relatives who also has

a graduate degree from an Ivy League institution, has lived on the West Coast and overseas, and who is a life-long liberal Christian. As an unemployed Ph.D., I worked for a temp agency, doing both low-level clerical and industrial work, during the Reagan recession. I also lived in small towns in Oregon for nine years.

For the past twenty years, I've seen Democrats and other leftists do things that are guaranteed to either alienate or be ineffective with working class and rural voters. Here are just a few examples:

1) Failing to provide relief for the struggling farmers of the Midwest in the early 1980s, even though they had control of Congress.

2) Failure to stand up for labor rights when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers and when hiring permanent replacements for strikers became common practice. (There is no real right to strike if you can be fired for doing so.)

3) Letting the social libertarians become the sole voice of the party, so that people began thinking of the Democrats in terms of ideas that were either offensive to them (abortion, gay rights, gun control) or, in some cases, irrelevant (affirmative action in rural Nebraska, for example.)

In addition, while I attended integrated schools for part of my childhood and consider it a positive experience, cases such as South Boston, where ONLY working class people were required to integrate their schools while affluent people sent their children to school in the suburbs or to private schools. This understandably struck working class people as being hypocritical. Affluent Democrats should either have been willing to send their own children to Roxbury or used the money spent on buses and guards to improve each neighborhood school. As I understand, South Boston High School was pretty bad already.

4) Advocating "free trade" between the U.S. and Third World countries. I am all for arrangements like the EU or ASEAN or MERCOSUR, where countries with similar standards of living erase the economic borders. Even an agreement between Canada and the U.S. would be fine, especially if it allowed citizens of either country to live and work in the other. So would an agreement between the Central American countries and Mexico.

But allowing "free trade" between the U.S. and a Third World country is an open invitation to outsource blue collar jobs. Hard-working people who played by the rules all their lives were thrown out of their jobs--due to policies advocated by Democrats.

5) Centrist Democrats keep talking about "policies to benefit working families" (to quote Al Gore's phrase), but they are short on both specifics and results. Yet there are pressing needs in this society that no major figure in either party is addressing: universal health care with NO ONE left out (not even us free-lancers, who would have seen no improvement under Kerry's plan), affordable housing, urban planning and transportation that will lead us away from dependence on foreign oil, affordable daycare, a living wage, and bringing the poor of all races into the economic mainstream, so that bigotry and other drugs no longer have so much appeal.

Here are some positive suggestions:

1) You don't have to agree with or practice some one else's beliefs in order to respect them. I don't think many DUers would go to India or Thailand or Egypt and make snide remarks about religious and cultural practices there or deliberately flout them in a way that was offensive to the local population. A rural Southerner can't avoid growing up fundamentalist any more than a Thai can avoid growing up Hinayana Buddhist. If you must argue--and I can think of only a limited number of situations in which you must argue--start by trying to find common ground and argue in terms that they can accept, as much as possible.

2) Take a lesson from Louisiana's Huey Long and make sure you understand people's real needs. After traveling around the state as a salesman, he realized that its economic development was being held back by poor roads and poor education, and that kids were staying out of school because they couldn't afford to buy textbooks. So he ran for governor on a simple platform of building roads and providing free textbooks for every child. He made no reference to race, but black children were quietly included.

3) I've had enough contact with blue collar and rural people to know that they distrust anyone who is "too intellectual." (This is one aspect of American culture that infuriates me, but it's definitely there.) You can be smart, as Bill Clinton is, but you can't act like William F. Buckley, who is right-wing, but not well-known or popular among the working class and rural segments of the population.

You don't have to be a rural fundamentalist to be able to relate to this demographic. Look at Paul Wellstone, a non-observant Jewish college professor from the East Coast, definitely the most liberal member of the Senate, whose death was mourned by everyone from leftist students to farmers to veterans to immigrants to Native Americans to union members.

You have to be approachable, you have to be unpretentious, you have to understand your constituents, maybe indulging them on their hot button issues (Dennis Kucinich used to vote anti-choice, while Jim Oberstar still does; Peter DeFazio votes against gun control, Wellstone voted for the Defense of Marriage Act), you have to raise as much money as possible from small contributors in informal settings, you have to fight for their real needs, and you have to stand for something.

If you meet those criteria, you can be practically a socialist, and your constituents will love you.

[Blue_Roses]

270. this is a great post and it's spot on

as someone who was born and raised in Louisiana, I can relate to it.Huey Long was a great politician, not because of politics (which is probably what got him killed if that makes any sense) but because he did care about the little people.

[ibegurpard]

272. You're right Lydia

Montana boy here and I hear every word you are saying.

[Sapphocrat]

274. Without looking at a single response, here are my two immediate thoughts..

For as long as I have been a Democrat, we have taken for granted the obvious truth that we are better at protecting the economic interests of the vast majority of Americans. But I think the gradual erosion of support among Center-left populists suggests that they do not have the same opinion of the Democratic Party. Democrats need to figure out how to position ourselves once again as the staunch defender of the economic interests of the middle class.

This is where I experience one of the biggest disconnects. I am of the ilk who knows, and admits to the fact, that Democrats spend more money on social programs, and that money has got to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is from (what is perceived to be) higher taxes.

Neither I nor anyone in my family (knock wood) has ever had to take advantage of, for lack of any other blanket term, "low-income social programs." We are NOT rich -- my background is as blue-collar as it gets, and I remember vividly two heartwrenching, painful, and extracted periods during my childhood in which we were downright POOR.

Today, despite a past which includes fond memories of living very high on the hog during the dot-com boom, I am again VERY poor.

You might think I would be in favor of as many government-subsidized social programs as possible BECAUSE I myself am now among those living far below poverty level.

However, the truth is that while I was considerably well-off, I was more than willing to pay higher taxes (and my parents, even in their darkest days, always felt the same way) -- for the sole reason that it all boils down to taking care of your neighbor when he can't take care of himself. My people see such programs not as burdens, but an investment in other human beings, and in the future of America.

I honestly did not resent forking over a full 36% of my salary every pay period, because I felt I was contributing to a higher good than my own.

That said, I have great difficulty with those who balk at contributing to the good of the whole -- the tax reformers, that is. I think they are selfish, and greedy, and must not care at all about their fellow man.

What appeals to my nature is NOT any promise of lower taxes, but the determined effort to use what I contribute in ways that will best benefit the poorest among us. Call it bleeding-heart liberalism if you must, but there is a seed of genuine selfishness in altruism, too: I feel right about sharing the wealth, but I admit that lifting up the disadvantaged -- and making sure everyone is fed, healthy, educated, and has a place to sleep -- offers the longterm benefit of making the U.S. a happier, healthier, and safer place for me to live, too.

So, Dr. Skinner, can you tell me how I can relate to those who balk at what appears to be a higher rate of taxation, when the bottom line is that I don't mind paying higher taxes if doing so contributes to the common good?

I know lots of Democrats here in Washington, DC, and they are almost all relatively affluent professional types from the Northeast or West Coast who don't have any life experience at all interacting with regular people from middle America. In fact, their opinion of them could almost be described as contemptuous. At a minimum, I think it could be called condescending. We think that we are doing "those people" a favor by supporting policies which will help them, and quite frankly we feel a little offended that they aren't thanking us for looking out for them.

Father Skinner, will you accept my confession? Oh, good, let's go into the little dark booth...

My confession is that, try as I might otherwise, I harbor some of that contempt and condescension toward, uh, rural Southern and Mid-America. It has NOTHING to do with class, wealth, or even education.

As I said before, my roots are blue-collar. I come from nothing more than a line of immigrant farmers, ranchers, and tradesmen -- and not one of my grandparents had more than a sixth-grade education. So we are not bluebloods.

I am not by anyone's standard among the intellectual elite, but I am well-informed -- and I hold a huge grudge against anyone who refuses to be informed, regardless of education.

I grew up in the country, and I respect our rural neighbors. What I refuse to respect is deliberate ignorance. Southerners and Midwesterners are not stupid -- but the Bible Belt is littered with the deliberately-ignorant.

So, my question here is this: How do I relate to people who share my background, but cannot see beyond the ends of their own bigoted noses?

I also might ask how I got to be so liberal, coming from the same sort of background as someone in, say, Bucksnort, Tennessee (a real place!) -- but I will save that question for a shrink, not my confessor. :)

[OrwellwasRight]

285. Right on.

I think you explained so well what I have been saying all day: Dems do not hate and condescend to religious folks from the South and Midwest (many of us are religious folks from the South and Midwest).

However, there is no excuse for purposeful ignorance. As a former teacher in my hometown (in which the goal in life is to have the fast car, the biggest house, and the deadliest gun; where the "n" word can be heard at "polite" Christmas parties, and where cheating on you taxes in order to pay as little as possible is something to be proud of), I find America's anti-inteelectualism appaling. I have a high school friend who voted for Bush in 2000, and actually told me it was because she "liked that he was no so smart," he made her "feel smarter." And she wasn't kidding. We don't need to pretend to respect the uninformed view that Iraq was involved in 9/11 or any other moronic FAUX news BS.

Furthermore, you bring up another issue the Democrats totally miss every year: How is it patriotic to say you love your country, but to have no other political belief than wanting top pay lower taxes and to vote for any schmuck who promises you that no matter what else they stand for? You love your country, but won't contribute to it? You want a strong army, but don't want to pay for it? You want to drive on pot-hole free roads, you children to attend good schools, the police and fire departments to answer your calls for help, and Medicare and Social Security in your old age, but you want to contribute to all of this in no way shape or form? These people aren't patriots, they are the ones that hate America--they are bankrupting it.

We need to get off our butts and start calleing Cheney, Norquist, Rove and Bush the America-destroyers that they are. They do not love America. they love power and money.

[ithacan]

278. Jim Hightower

after reading the last category, leftist populist, Jim Hightower immediately came to mind.

I think you're right, especially on the condescension. And that we need left populism.

We should look at Montana, where populist Dems did really well in what we think of as a "red" state.

And Hightower, that's the ticket.

[KWBS]

279. From a Republican that backed Kerry - Edwards

In 1980 the South had 26 Democratic Senators, today it has 4. If you look at the national "red versus blue" map at both State and County level it is not hard to see that the DNC has become very isolated from the mainstream of this nation.

2 to 1 Americans classify themselves as conservatives and many moderates vote to the right, not the left on many issues.

Bush has one Achilles Heel that will bring him down, take the wind out of his Imperial Sails and that is 9-11.

I was part of the 9-11 Confronting the Evidence in NYC this year. I was part of the criminal complaint that was delivered to Eliot Spitzer on October 28, 2004.

Over 55 million voted against and many of those voters were ecumenical Christians you people are blindly bashing. They were Conservative Republicans and Libertarians that crossed over to try to stop the Bush Junta and the fascism that is represents.

Right here in Arkansas - two key counties that NEVER vote REP did vote Republican this year. Jefferson and Nevada counties and there were others.

The problem with DNC is DNC and that it represents the fringe left and that is NOT America folks. 2 to 1 says this nation is a conservative nation and one that puts certain values front and center every time.

www.karlschwarz.com

http://www.reopen911.org/petition.php

http://www.justicefor911.org /

All of this talk about running Hillary Clinton in 2008. The RNC has been ready to destroy her since 1994. The strategy that took the House and Senate away from Clinton was designed and largely financed by me. Again, run Hillary, rash into the side of the mountain. They are just waiting for another stupid DNC move.

I took a stand for America, freedom, a turning away from Imperialism and fascism. I have received hundreds of emails from Dems asking what to do now. Frankly, DNC is not "resuscitate-able" in its current form. Lest no one noticed, Bush now controls a stronger US Senate and that is more frightening than him being there for 4 more years.

Every person that voted against Bush should be on those petitions linked above.

It is the only hope you have to stopping Bush, and I am the only Republican of the 100 original names on the petition.

If you have not done so, go to my website under Articles and read the DEMAND LETTER that I sent to Bush September 30, 2004 about 7 hours before the first debate and THEN - get this CLEARLY INTO YOUR HEADS -

that DEMAND LETTER was sent to DNC and Kerry too and they did not use it in the debates to evicerate Bush. CONSIDER THAT!

Both sides of the aisle are covering up 9-11 folks, who did it, who is profiting from it and they are AMERICANS.

Ashcroft was forced to resign due to that letter and I was advised from DC yesterday to NOT accept that as the sacrificial offering and let the rest of the DOERS OF 9-11 OFF THE HOOK!

Wake up Dems.

Karl

[lumberjack_jeff]

280. Your post compelled me to get off my tractor and reply

I agree strongly with your post.

I live in a rural area in a blue state (WA) and I can say that this county has a strong tradition of Democrat values (especially labor). The local Republican party is absolutely incapable of winning local office. Nevertheless, the county usually votes against anyone bearing a taint of environmental activism.

In this natural-resource dependent area, there is a strong bias for democrats in general but against urban environmental liberal "elites".

Probably the single image that appealed here is this one.

I'm sure it looked like pandering to many, (the carhartt is a nice touch) and it was hard to pull off when he has a 600b net worth, but I give him credit for trying.

Unless we win, the environmental cause is lost, gender equity cause is lost, the gay rights cause is lost, the anti-war cause is lost, the gun control cause is lost.

We must pick our battles carefully. Once we have reestablished a beachhead with Left-populists, we can make our case with them that our cultural values mesh (or at least do not conflict) with their cultural values - or they may convince us of the inverse. To not admit this possibility is essentially the definition of condescension.

Until then, our causes are irrelevant.

Union members only supported Kerry by 60%.

I think that Dean had the right message, and although the press and the establishment did not agree - the right style.

[OrwellwasRight]

286. I find your post depressing...

One DUer says we must be pro-gun, another says we must drop gay-rights, a third says abortion rights are problematic, and now are you are saying that its the environmentalists that are the problem?

It's all true. if we give up on everything that we stand for, we will certainly pick up votes from those who disagree with our former positions. But then who are we? Do Dems want power for power's sake alone? And again we leave ourselves as nthe party trying to imitate Republicans and they will still beat us -- they will always be better Republicans than we are.

Nothing of value has ever been won by capitulating. It is too bad that those who make their living by extracting natural resources are too short-sighted to see that conserving those resources is the only policy that will allow such industries to survive in the long-term. Environmentalists are not destroying the fishermen's livelihood, overfishing is. We are not wrong on the facts, we just have not sold them very well.

We need to engage and talk to (not over) the people in Red areas. Those that are interested in the world around them and finding a better way will at least listen, and that is the first step. those that are closed minded will stay that way.

We can't give up on our core beliefs.

[sweetheart]

282. Republicans are a virus

Like a virus, they've spoofed their way across the political networks
of the world, infecting everything they touch.

When we are defeated by a virus, to be introspective and thoughtful,
whilst deeply respectible, is only indecision, and further loss.

We do not defeat a virus by following old paths, or changing little
bits of political position. The decline and collapse of just another
world empire has set in, and fighting the inevitable collapse of
Rome, is fighting entropy with wishful thinking.

I think liberal people have nothing left to lose, and should come out
wholly in support of root-and-branch liberalism, as tahitinut points
out. It may not win back lost ground, but at least, it will allow
truely liberal minded folks to band together for protection as this
collapse continues.

Ultimately, i expect the federal to go bankrupt, and like the USSR,
to have the empire cut back as the military goes without pay.

I think the democratic party really has 2 sorts of people:
Imperialists, and feminists. The former believe that the US is
the natural world leader and want to reassert this globalization
and neoliberal virus. The feminists do not support this imperialism,
and support all the sorts of things that you describe as "left
liberal", with strong sympathies for your latter category.

I do believe we are failing because these 2 philosophies are direct
opposing each other, and an attempt to reconcile them admits a trojan
horse of republicanism in to the democratic pure land, and turns
the whole project in to mud.

So what to do? What to do? I say that we should rally around the
flag of feminism with all that entails, and secure the critical
ground of minority rights before its too late. This sect needs to
put forward an economic alternative to "a return to clinton-third
way imperialism", that is coherent, and not alarmist. (Dennis
kucinich's demand to withdraw from the WTO and NAFTA, strikes me
as alarmist, even though it makes sense... a toned down to
revisiting aggreements that undermine labour rights.) Marketing
a fully rich call for human equality and social justice will resonate
with all people who are sick of partisan injustice, but only if those
calling for it, are not chanting imperialism on the other note, as
it undermines the sincerety of the former.

[Claire Beth]

287. Skinner, I agree with you

I understand exactly what you are saying.

[mrgorth]

290. Agreed

I fall somewhere between left liberal and center left populist. So if you can tell me how to cater to the CLPs without pissing off the NARAL types WHILE the pugs are trying to drive wedges all over the place I wanna hear it.