So what do we abandon to "reframe the debate"?

[11 Bravo]

A woman's right to choose? Gay rights? Stem-cell research? Sorry, I'm not ready to back off on any of those. So what, if anything, are we willing do we to do to capture some of the "red state" voters? (And I'll state right here and now, that, aside from gun control, I can't think of a single issue.)

[Radio-Active]

1. we don't abandon anything

we should talk up "state's rights"

[Azure]

4. Exactly. We don't "abandon" anything...

We just decide what we have to leave to the states and what we will push at the federal level. If an issue is killing us, we leave it to the states to decide -- and enact it immediately in our own blue states, which is MUCH better than losing and having it enacted NOWHERE. Would you rather have progressive policies in 15 or 20 states within this decade, or would you rather have them nowhere at all for the next 20 years?

This is not rocket science. The choice is clear. It's compromise and win or be stubborn and lose. What we have to do has been made very clear by the electorate, so let's quit bickering and accept reality.

[mondo joe]

2. Nothing. It's NOT ABOUT THE ISSUES. It's about branding.

Companies don't sell products any more - they sell brands.

Kerry was branded a far left gay marrying flip flopper. His stance on issues didn't matter.

We have to outbrand them.

[MissB]

3. Reframing the debate isn't necessarily about

abandoning anything. If you haven't had a chance to yet, please consider reading George Lakoff's recent book Don't Think of An Elephant.

[LiberalAndProud]

5. Abandon nothing!

Pro-choice: Promote & enable better choices. (Pro-choice is not pro-abortion)
Pay as you go: You get what you pay for.
Civil (read GLBT) rights: Every citizen is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (It says so in the Declaration of Independence)
Conservation: Responsible stewardship of God's creation.

We need to co-opt the "transfer of wealth" meme that Rush has so eloquently expostulated re: taxing the wealthy. Transfer of wealth takes place daily in an upward funnel in the form of predatory lending (we should have stolen that issue from Nader) and a myriad of other methods.

We need to OWN the Christian values that the religious right have rejected, as so brilliantly outlined by Kerry in the last days of his campaign. Care for the needy. Promote justice. Rail against iniquity. Love thy neighbor.

As pointed out in an earlier post today, we need to hammer home that we are the working families side of BIG BUSINESS vs. WORKING FAMILIES.

These are few of my own ideas, and some I have picked up from others browsing through the posts today.

Last, but not least, our party has to get organized! We came to the battle too late, with too little organization. We cannot afford to ignore middle American any longer.

[sangh0]

6. Did you get the clue that we don't have to "abandon" anything?

Can you please stop relying on empty rhetoric and try to LISTEN and THINK about what your fellow democrats are trying to tell you?

We're on the same side. We don't want you to abandon ANYTHING

[11 Bravo]

11. Wow, me and my "empty rhetoric" are suitably chastened.

Perhaps the thread title should have read differently, although the body of the thread indicated that there is little that I'm willing to back away from. In any case, thanks for yet another dose of sanctimony.

[sangh0]

14. Once again, did you notice that NO ONE said you should abandon anything?

I realize that my sanctimony is an issue of national importance, but maybe you take a moment to respond to the question. After all, YOU asked the question.

[Walt Starr]

7. reframing the debate does not mean jettisoning the issues

There are dead weight issues that must be jettisoned without any hesitation. A good example of one that MUST be jettisoned in order to even get a seat at the table of the debate in future elections is gun control.

Joe Sixpack simply feels better having a gun in the house, and quite frankly I agree with Joe on this one.

The issues that directly affect the personal freedoms of people are the ones that are off limits. Reframing the debate means altering the language utilized to convey the meaning of these issues to Joe Sixpack in order to appeal to him on a visceral and personal level.

"Gay Marriage" turns Joe off because you give him that terminology and he immediately is inundated with imagery of male homosexual sex. This repulses Joe on a visceral level in such a way that he cannot be approached on an intellectual level about the meaning of this issue, thus we have lost the debate before an argument is made. We have to find terminology that Joe can relate to and be convinced on an intellectual level once he connects to the issue on a visceral and personal level. The existing terminology of "Gay Marriage" was seized upon by the Republican Party because they knew what Joe would think of when he heard the language being used. It was win-win for the Republicans.

The Republicans have been successful utilizing this sort of reframing of the debate in order to move a rightwing position into the maninstream where abortion is concerned. The debate was framed in such a way as to make the Republicans "anti-abortion". This was a doubly negative connotation that Joe Sixpack reacted negatively to, thus ending any possibility of an intellectual argument convincing Joe this was a good idea. The Republicans reframed the debate in such a way to make themselves "pro-life" which put the issue in a doubly positive light and thus, the Republicans got a seat at the table of the debate where Joe would start listening to them.

[Lerkfish]

8. frankly, I think we should veer sharp LEFT....

I think the REAL problem is that by pandering to the centrists and even assimilating right wing platforms, we have drifted into a "repuke lite" and therefore a banal choice.
What Dean did was to shake us up into realizing we DON"T have to become LIKE republicans to win elections, we have to offer voters a CLEARER choice.


IMHO

besides, what plank from the repuke platform is even worth considering, much less adopting? I'd rather die first.

[Walt Starr]

12. Reframing the debate says nothing whatsoever about moving left or right

Reframing the debate simply means altering the laguage used to convey positions on the core values already in place.

In other words, the Democrats do not move to the left or the right. They stay in the same place and alter their language to bring the center to them.

This is how the Republicans have been successful since Ronald Reagan. This was a basic principle of Lee Atwater and was also used extensively by Karl Rove.

[sangh0]

9. Was that a "hit and run"???

.

[union_maid]

10. Not a thing

This is freeing in a way. We have nothing to lose now. Fuck 'em all. No compromise. This is war. If they're against it, I'm for it. If they're for it, I'm against it. I don't care if it doesn't make any sense. This is absolutely war.

[Walt Starr]

15. You're Karl Rove's wet dream

Further hostility and anger is precisely what Karl desires because he knows Joe Sixpack would really rather not be bothered by a hothead. At the end of the election, you've lost again because Joe didn't even consider listening to you.

You're doing Karl's work for him, and frankly he likes that because it's a lot more cost effective if you push Joe to him instead of him being forced to pull Joe along.

Instead, alter your language and the way in which you convey your ideals and you become Karl Rove's worst nightmare. At the end of the election under these conditions, you've outdone Karl because now Joe likes you better. You win.

[cally]

13. Reframe the debate..yes. Abandon issues..no

I think we have to find new rhetoric. We failed at this. Our issues are too complicated and nuanced. So let's make them simple and effective. We lost the language battle but our issues are mainstream values.

I like the idea of outlawing divorce :evilgrin:. Maybe we should outlaw usury. Just turn the bible passages against the pharisees.

[JohnnyCougar]

16. Nothing. We don't have to. We just have to define our message better.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1329385

Here's my thread!

[Trahurn]

17. I Can't Believe Some Of You

I cannot believe how many of you have posted that you are prepared to forsake your beliefs and values just to be viewed in a kinder, more electable light. Funny how I don't remember anyone suggesting I alter or modify my stances on issues during eight years of the Clinton administration yet he was elected twice in a row.
If someone has a problem with what it means to be a democrat then perhaps maybe one needs to reevaluate where you feel you ought to be as I know I will not put on a veneer of political expediency just to make it look like I have "adjusted" my beliefs and values. Seems to me the ones that need to so some adjusting it's the folks in the red states and the ones that were able to steal this election.

[Teaser]

18. You clearly don't understand what framing is.

Read Lakoff. Then come back.

[Walt Starr]

19. WHO THE FUCK SUGGESTED FORSAKING OUR BELIEFS AND VALUES??????

Let me at 'im, let me at 'im.

I'll moider da bum!

[11 Bravo]

21. Grab a dictionary, and look up up "rhetorical question".

Then re-read my post. I'm not abandoning shit. Then come back and lecture me about what it means to be a Democrat.

[RafterMan]

22. Actually, NOBODY suggested that.

Clearly, you have not read the thread.

[AuntPatsy]

20. We don't back down, we stay on course and we stick to the message

that the issues this party are for are in the best of all the citizens of this great country, this message will have it's day sadly when each household that follows this adminsitrations morals message gets touched by the real horrors of war...

Sadly and I don't wish this on anyone, when they begin recieving their loved one's coming home in body bag after body bag, for many, it must touch them personaly before they begin to open thier eyes..

I've seen the way they work, the way they hypnotize people with the fear of things that have no clear understanding of. It works every time, I intend to constantly waylay these fears just as I have these past months. Even my husband made the comment that had Kerry won we would have been attacked the day after the election..

He watches too much faux and he is not home often enough for me to work the magic of deprogramming. I promise you, this threat of such intimidation that they have used through the media is very real, and he is one of those manly men who fears nothing, or so I once thought...

Crazy..

[RafterMan]

24. "Stay on course"....

Hmmm. Whee have I heard that before?

[catbert836]

23. We don't ABANDON anything

Just not let's let the Rethugs define us next time as gay baby-killers.