Challenge: If Bush were OK, what should the Democratic message be?

[Armstead]

Here's a question for you (us all). I'm asking this to find out what people think what the Democratic Party should stand for in a positive sense, aside from being in opposition to the excesses of this particular administration.

Suppose Bush had a reasonable, innocuous or popular persona, his administration were competant, there had been no 9-11, and Katrina had been "just another" hurricane. And suppose there had been a coup in Iraq, and Sadaam had been ousted by an internal popularly supported rebellion.

In other words, the same Republican policis were being pursued, but on a more moderate-seeming basis. The same underlying trends were going on, but in a more publicly acceptable way.

What should the Democrats have been doing? What message as an opposition party should the Democrats have been conveying?

What alternatives should our side have been offering? What issues should we be highlighting? How strongly should we be opposing the underlying framework of corporatism that is the conservative philosophy?

Are there issues the Democrats can pursue aggressively, without the personal aspects of the present situation?

In short, what should the Democratic Party's vision and specific goals be on their own terms, regardless of the surface partisan and personal framework of politics as usual.


(I'm not going to give my own opinions in this original post, because I want to know how others answer, without injecting my own biases. )

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. I see the strength of the Democratic message

in social issues. I would see universal healthcare (better than Canada, please!); day care relief; elder issues...

Also environmental issues particularly a huge initiative to get out of the oil rut.

Internationally, aid initiatives that would help repair our image.

And strangely enough, (as this USED to be a GOP plank) firmer immigration control. More green cards available for guest workers, but less uncontrolled border crossings.

I think that abortion and gay rights issues can be distractions in the platform. Now understand I am talking about in this lovely world you have imagined. Now, with both these areas being threatened they MUST remain in the forefront. But all things being equal, I'd assume these areas would be stable and a given.

[Armstead]

9. Good point

regarding the wedge issues like abortion and gay rights.

But in the scenerio I proposed, they would most likely remain issues. The question is how to protect those rights, without letting them overshadow the larger economic issues and systemic issues of power and democracy for everyone.

Another way to put it is what can the democrats offer that would make more people who might not be sympathetic to those issues overlook their differences on those specific issues?

[seeker4ever]

2. Democrats have no message...

just review their response to the Katrina debacle. Deafening silence.

[txaslftist]

4. Waaah. horsepuckey.

Go read the Kerry platform, the Democratic Party platform, Move-on's platform, the Edwards platform.

Democrats have a message. It is a strong message, with good values. Don't just repeat R/W talking points.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

13. Maybe Dems just have too MANY messages? n/t

[1932]

15. They have too many issues that they don't tie together with a single

unifying theory.

All good movies, books, philosophies, theories, or whatever, can be reduced down to a coherent summary. If the democrats can't do that, then they shouldn't be surprised that they're not connecting with the vast majority of Americans, whose interests they represent so much better than Republicans do.

[txaslftist]

3. The Deficit & Poverty

The deficit is some 8 trillion dollars if you include the cost of Iraq and Katrina. The latest budget/spending bill just increases it, as will the one in 2007.

Democrats will cut the military budget, will not spend money on corporate welfare, and will not give tax breaks to the uber-rich.

Education: Democrats will focus on REAL education reform, the kind that says "if you do the work in school and qualify for college, we will make sure there is either a loan or a grant to get you through college. We will put programs into place to match you with employers."

[Skwmom]

12. Name one Democrat (except Clark) who would have the guts to

cut the military budget? They gave Bush a blank check to go to war because they were too afraid of being painted as "weak on national security."

[txaslftist]

17. You just named one yourself. Add John Edwards.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. Excellent question!

And if I were Howard Dean, I would put all the Congressional and Senate Dems in small groups in conference rooms and make them answer just such a question. "Pretend that a moderate, reasonable Republican is in the White House. What positions should the Democratic Party run on if it has no obvious target to attack?"

Then they would have a massive meeting in which they looked at which points recurred in the most groups and refined them and made them into campaign talking points that every Dem candidate across the nation, from dogcatcher on up, would use.

Personally, I would look at the needs that are not currently being met in this country and make bold proposals to meet them, a 21st-century New Deal:

1) Universal health care, taking the best from the various models already up and running around the world

2) Affordable housing: Build housing and put people into it on a low-interest, fairly-financed "rent to own" basis. In other words, they acquire equity wiith each payment, perhaps, dare I be so bold? on Section 8-type financial arrangements, where they pay only a certain percentage of their income. (This would have the added benefit of raising employment, see #4)

3) Alternatives to the automobile and airplane: Retrofit this country, beginning with the largest cities, so that no one is FORCED to drive for lack of alternatives. This includes both public transit and high-speed intercity rail (so that we can catch up with Korea, Taiwan, China, and Thailand). People may still choose to drive, but don't make it compulsory. With the coming oil shortages, the cities with the best public transit and pedestrian/bicycle facilities will be ahead.

4) Attention to climate change in general, with a crash program to find alternatives for the various uses of petroleum products, especially plastics, and emergency measures to help regions that are affected by flooding, drought, or other side effects of global environmental trends.

5) Rebuild America: We have had warnings about "crumbling infrastructrure" since the 1970s, and our water mains, sewers, roads, and bridges are in need of repair and replacement. Put people to work by doing this.

6) Make it illegal for employers to hire permanent replacements for strikers. If you can lose your job for striking, there is de facto, no right to strike.

7) Place confiscatory fines on employers who hire illegal immigrants, the equivalent of a year's earnings. If that causes them to go out of business, too bad. They may find that the alternative of having to pay legal residents legal wages doesn't look so bad under those circumstances.

8) Equalize school funding across the nation. Every school district should have a per-pupil budget equivalent to that of its state's richest district, with mandated teacher-student ratios, mandated subject offerings (every high school student should be able to choose from a wide range of college prep and vocational courses), AND--here's the revolutionary idea--a strict upper limit on the number of administrators per teacher and per student. Use standardized tests for internal assessment purposes only. School buildings should be included in the rebuilding program described under #5.

9) Keep Social Security solvent by removing the cap on FICA assessments and give the poor true tax relief by making the first $10,000 of income exempt. Really put SS in a lockbox, so that no administration can raid it for other purposes.

10) Get out of Iraq and pledge no more invasions of countries that are merely pissing the elites off, as opposed to trying to conquer the world or massacre their own populations. In all cases, gain the genuine cooperation of allies before acting.

11. Cut the Pentagon budget to remove all "legacy" programs from the Cold War, weapons systems such as Star Wars, black ops, and all wasteful no-bid contracts. Tell the generals that their budget will be frozen until they find and recover the $3 trillion that is unaccounted for over the past 25 years.

12. Discourage overseas outsourcing by giving preference to potential government contractors who have the highest percentage of their workforce in the U.S. Companies whose manufacturing workforce is entirely overseas will not be allowed to bid unless NO companies in that industry have U.S. manufacturing facilities.

13. With people feeling economically secure, they will be less likely to channel their anger and anxiety into racism, sexism, and homophobia, so legislative efforts in this area will be less likely to turn into wedge issues. Everyone will be too contented to need scapegoats or to worry about someone else's private life.

[Armstead]

7. Great list

As usual, we see pretty much eye-to-eye.

Pluse you got what I was getting at. What kind of Pro-Active initiatives can the Democrats stand for to really offer ideas and solutions?

[1932]

10. Now, fit that laundry list into a one paragraph argument about what you

believe, and make that a paragraph that can be reduced to a sentence, and you will win elections.

Incidentally, this is an excellent question. Whether Bush is good or bad, that is what the Democrats should always be thinking.

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. It is an impossibility

It is like traveling faster than the speed of light or knowing what is happening inside a singularity. The GOP represents the very worst in humanity and if Bush were somehow normal that would mean we be living in one Feynman's QED experiments.

OK, I will play along by briefly mentioning that the Democrats already HAVE dozens of areas that they should be and are formulating policy to address. Unfortunately, it seems that many have become addicted to the crack cocaine of politics - corporate money. Minimum wage, health care, energy etc. the list goes on and on.

Fundamentally, the Democrats aren't even in the game because they have lost the ability to effectively deliver any message. The BushCo. regime learned in the 70's after watching Nixon get his ass handed to him that they needed to control the media as much as possible. It has taken a while, but they have succeeded. I would propose that if Bush were "OK" that Democrats still would have this incapacitating problem. Add to that the probability that BushCo. has the ability to manipulate election outcomes and your mental exercise is meaningless and a distraction from the real fundamental problems we face.

[Armstead]

8. Not impossible.

Sure reality is what it is. But we need to start thinking outside the box.

IMO it's a cop-out to totally blame the media or election fraud. I do agree that the media is a big part of the problem -- but the Democrats can use it more smartly to get around that. As for election fraud, I'm not saying that isn't a problem. But it exists because the Democrats are so politically weak.

It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. It's not an either/or question to deal with election fraud, while also looking for ways to become stronger politically.

[Vinnie From Indy]

18. I agree

It is the amount of energy and resources devoted to the different parts of the equation that has me most concerned.

[Armstead]

20. That's a good point

My personal bug-up-the-butt is what has happened to the media. The combination of allowing such revolting consolidation and also the removal of basic accountability to the public interest is a central prioblem on many levels.....I believe the Democrats should make media reform a central issue, and challenge the Big Media instead of kowtowing to them.

Electoral reform is also important. I tend to be a little more sleptical about the conspiratorial aspects of that than some here. But it seems therearea lot of common-sense steps that Democrats should be pushing for, like paper receipts of electronic votes. And not privatizing the election systems.

[1932]

11. I wrote this in another thread:

Democrats should run on a message of hope and compassion and a sincere concern for the way people actually live their lives and we should provide working solutions which will improve those lives.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2116295&mesg_id=2116711

and

Basically, I want a president who cares about how most Americans live their lives and is willing and able to do the things necessary to alleviate their misery. I think the tax code is a bigger part of the solution to that problem then many liberals realize (because, even during the Clinton years, it has been one of the biggest tools used to shift the burden off the wealthy, and therefore, increase their power). I think international trade is a big part of that problem, because corporations are getting immense amounts of money (and therefore power) from exploiting people in developing countries, increasing the polarization of wealth all over the world AND within the US. I think increasing wages for working people is also a big part of the solution. There is so much wealth concentrating in the top. Just about any policy that makes people at the top share America's wealth with the people who create it with their labor is going to help alleviate the serious social and political problems were having right now. Other important issues cascade down from these three. I'll be looking for a candidate that is good on those issues.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2113651&mesg_id=2113872

and

{T}he world is more polarized in terms of wealth and the way people actually live than ever before. It has gotten especially bad since the early 70s. The New Deal closed the gap between the wealthiest and poorest in America, but neoliberalism has opened the gulf between America and the rest of the world, and the same tools for exploitation abroad (debt, wealth concentration, disappearance of the middle class, making a few powerful families more powerful, sabotaging true progressive political impulses, destroying the idea of the government as the entity that looks after the welfare of its citizens) are now being turned on Americans to undo the gains of the New Deal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2113651#2115769



In the last paragraph, the things in the parenthetical are the issues we need to address.

I think this is a brilliant exercise. This is how we should think of political campaigns.

You should be able to reduce your entire argument to a sentence. In fact, this is what everyone should do: make a list of all your important issues, then try to reduce that to a paragraph, and then reduce that to a sentence. The sentence should be an idea that you spend all your time getting into voters heads by working with that pyramid structure. Every time you talk about issues, you should make sure they connect to the paragraph argument and the one sentence argument.

[Armstead]

14. Clinton had the right message in 92 -- The problem is the details

My original question was addressing the other part of your suggestion. I think the broad strokes are less a problem that the lack of substance behind them.

Clinton had a soundbite that to me perfectly captures the essence of the Democratic/liberal/progressive message in a broad sense. Substituting his use of "I" with the more general "we" it was:

"We'll fight for you until the last dog dies."

Another candidate (I forget which one) also came up with a variation of the message "I will represent the people versus the powerful."

One of Paul Wellstone's speeches said "We can do better." He meant it in a generic unpartisan sense, as in society can do better.

Those three statements capture what the broad message of our side is and should be. However, the devil is in the details. Clinton was disappointing, because rather than fighting, he often capitulated to the powerful.

IMO the willingness to challege established power is currently a hole in the mainstream Democratic position on many issues.

I also think Wellstone's optimistic assertion that we do not have to be slaves to blind market forces and Social Darwinism is an important counterpoint to the fatalism of the GOP.

[1932]

16. I don't think Clinton did NOT have set of issues that he persued.

I think Clinton knew exactly what set of issues filled out his campaign message (and I think the issues determined the message). I think the problem for him was that once he started governming, especially after losing control of congress, politics inevitably became about compromise. At that point, doing the right thing required LBJ-like political skills and not simply checking off your issues with a compliant congress, as FDR was able to do from '32 to '38,

If Clinton had been more skilled in the first two years, and not lost Congress, I think he would have had a very different two terms. I also think, in terms of campaigning well, the Republicans started doing things the Democrats should have been doing in '94 (ie, building the central theme, rather than making a laundry list).

[Armstead]

19. True, but there was no unified force fighting for the people

I think there's a balancing act that is required, between your idea of a simple core message, and the steps required to accomplish that.

I agree that Clinton became hobbled by the loss of Congress, and otehr early missteps.

However, IMO, we needlessly lost much more than we gained overall in the 1990's, both politically, and in terms of actual progress, because the Democrats gave up or were bought by the same forces and ideology they should have been contesting more vigorously.

Part of that was Clinton's centrism and his adoption of "triangulation" strategy of watering down liberal goals to appeal to Republicans.

The Democrats also shifted from big issues to "micro issues." Healthcare was an example. A"patients Bill of Rights" is meaningless when an increasing number of Americans can't even afford coverage.

With something like healthcare, there are many ways to deal with the specifics, but they don't mean anything without a larger goal that would result from the cumulative results.

[1932]

21. Actually, I think there was. The problem that it was confronted with a

a very well organized, smart effort to defeat the interests of the people.

Clinton chose compromise in an effort to get something done for the people.

It might be that if he chose conflict, he would have come up with similar results.

I agree with George Lakoff, to a degree, however, that because Clinton chose compromise he did not leave us with the legacy of a well-articulated statement of the progressive purpose. I also think that being followed by Gore dissipated even further the possiblity of a coherent progressive message.

So, in 2008, I think the result is that we're going to have reinvent the wheel, the same way former New Dealers had to for 1960 after two Stevenson campaigns which had seriously dilluted Truman's dillution of the New Deal.

[Armstead]

23. Well, I think we ultimately agree

Regardless of what the results might have been in terms of pushing through policies, I believe if Democrats had been more distinct and forceful in pushing for liberal/progressive positions in the 90's, our side would be in a much better position today.

Much of the right-wing spin and mischaracterizations only took hold because they were not challenged directly by "mainstream" Democratic leaders.

So, in that sense, we do have to re-invent the wheel, although I do think FDR's basic wheel is a really good starting point.

[1932]

26. And I agree with everything you just said.

I'd like to add that I think there were Democrats who were able to forcefully articulate progressive principles, including Clinton (yes, Clinton), Joe Stiglitz, and even Arthur Levitt, in the context of Wall St regulation. I guess the problem might have been that there were others like Summers, Rubin and Gore who were doing something else that wasn't helpful, and the latter faction ending up driving a lot of the compromises that Clinton accepted.

[Rambis]

22. Anybody but corrupt bush

This time I think it will work if we put up a decent person. I was against Kerry running again but he can now say...

We didn't gaurd the ammo dump that they are using to blow up our troops just like I said-
Iraq is 200 Billion+ just like I said-
The tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1% just like I said-
Jan 1, 2006 you all got dumped into the perscription drug plan I warned you about just like I said-
Osama was in Tora Bora and we outsourced the job ot the warlords just like I said-
Our health care plan was not a government plan that was a lie...
He still voted to go to Iraq but with faulty inteligence the fact that he voted for it still bothers me though-

[TheFarseer]

24. 4 things

Stop outsourcing, stop corporate corruption

Stop illegal immigration

Affordable health care

and above all, do something about the energy crisis and gas prices

[Armstead]

25. Certainly short and sweet

I agree with three out of four.

But I'm not sure illegal immigration ought to be a top priority.

[TheFarseer]

27. even if it isn't at the top of your list

it plays well with 'Joe Sixpack'

[bklyncowgirl]

28. Here's three

1. Effective, efficient and honest government.
2. Real security at home and abroad.
3. A helping hand--not a handout--for people in need.