The GOP sells Big Ideas. We sell Small Technocratic Tweaks

[Armstead]

Obama's Town hall yesterday encapsulated what I believe is the problem with him and with the "centrist" faction of the Democratic Party.

Yes there were a lot of good ideas, and Obama presented himself well personally. Obama tried to strike a "populist" tone, and used the word "fight for you" over and over again.

But it implicitly did not get to the heart of the matter in the Big Picture. What is he "fighting" for? A lot of small tweaks to the system, mixed with a little bit of carefully crafted rhetoric.

Message sent: "Everything is basically fine, but we just need to make a few tweaks and ask powerful people and corporate interests to behave better."

The GOP, meanwhile, is hijacking populism with their crap about government that is too big and too powerful and too corrupt. "Get the government off our backs, and we will all do better."

IMO Obama and the Democrats need a counter liberal populist message that can be equally clear and aggressive.

When you contrast Obama's message to that of people like the guy in the photo on my avatar or Bernie Sanders or the many other passionate liberal/progressives Democrats, it's the difference between a healthy hearty breakfast and a bowl of cold unflavored oatmeal. Oatmeal is sort of nourishing, but not very inspiring.

I am not advocating empty rhetoric. Nor does it mean advocating some sort of utopian lack of reality. A good model is Sanders. Although he labels himself a socialist, Sanders is not advocating a takeover of the private sector or anything like that. His arguments are based on a tough demand that the rules be reformed to benefit the majority, and accountability by the powerful and wealthy.

IMO, the Democrats and Obama can rebound and grow is they were to unite behind a truly liberal/progressive populist message that ACKNOWLEDGES the systemic inequity that has been established under conservatism and offers tangible alternatives.

[cali]

1. I disagree. saying gov't is too big is not a "big idea". not even close

I agree that saying "I'll fight for you isn't a big idea either and that dems need better messages.

The pukes sell hate and fear. they aren't ideas.

[Armstead]

5. It IS a big idea that resonates

To balance the larger "debate" we need to offer a counter vision that is more positive and hopeful.

Fixing a faucet is not sufficient when the pipes have burst.

[tblue]

2. K&R! I didn't vote for tweaks.

10000% agree. I can't add anything because you said it all. Kudos & thanks.

[ProSense]

3. Big ideas?

How's that working out?

The Republicans' whole game is lying and obstructing.

[Armstead]

4. They are not Good Big Ideas -- But they are selling a fundamental idea. We are not.

We are selling a bunch of little adjustments that are devoid of a larger alternative vision.

[ProSense]

6. Like I said,

how's that working out?

[Armstead]

7. It's worked out well for them for about 35 years...They have driven the agenda and still do

How's that mild little public option or slight expansion of medicare eligibility working out?

ooops. It got killed because we're afraid to step on the toes of the insurance industry.

Who's the new Senator from Massachusetts? Ooops, it's a Republican.

How about the behavior of those Supreme Courtjudges that the Democrats failed to even try to filibuster? Ooops, they just gave Corporate America another belated Christmas gift.

Get your head out of the sand and admit that the leadership of the Democratic Party is not perfect. C'mon. It won't hurt to acknowledge that maybe they could be doing a begtter job at giving us a real alternative to the GOP and Corporate Conservativism.

[ProSense]

9. "Who's the new Senator from Massachusetts? Ooops, it's a Republican."

That's the problem with some Democrats: every minor set back means the Republicans are better at everything.

Another GOP idea: The permanent Republican majority.

I remember between 2005 and 2006, the constant harping on how the Republicans are better a shaping perception when in fact they would fail without the media. Despite the handwringing, the Democrats won big, and have since.

Here we are today, and it's the same bullshit: spinning how good the Republicans (even Bush) are at this or that and finding creative ways to denounce everything the administration and Democrats are doing.

Meme: Obama isn't a leader.

Bullshit!

[Armstead]

10. Obama even admits he has made mistakes and needs to make some changes

He's more realistic than you are.

While I may not totally agree with Obama on the extent of what is needed, Obama himself acknowledges that mistakes have been made in leadership by hi,mself and others over the past year, and he is trying to make changes.

So in your view is Obama one of those "handwriging" whiners who has bought into the "Obama isn;t a leader" meme?

[ProSense]

12. He would be a fool to not admit he has made mistakes.

What does that have to do with all the other bullshit?

[Armstead]

13. Others say he made mistakes they're "whiners." he agrees and you ignore it.

It's like you refuse to ever yield a position. You can never say to others "maybe you have a point."

[ClassWarrior]

45. Oh snap.

:rofl:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

46. (laughing some more)

:rofl:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

51. (still chortling a little)

:rofl:

NGU.

[treestar]

41. Bush never acknowledged he made mistakes

Since the Rs are so much better than we, maybe Obama should take from them that he should never admit a mistake?

[hfojvt]

23. Kerry did lead a fillibuster against Alito

and he was only confirmed something like 58-42. The Republican Chafee voted against him and Byrd, Conrad, Johnson, and Nebraska Nelson voted for him.

I cannot remember if I called Johnson for Roberts, Alito, or for both. Of course, I don't live in his district so why should he listen to me just because it is my home state?

[Armstead]

26. Kerry and Kennedy tried to lead a filibuster -- But they got skunked by other Democrats

[karynnj]

48. You're right that they did not succeed, but as you said they got skunked by other Democrats

The problem was not them - but the Democratic leadership, which both Kerry and Kennedy had earned a right to be part of it, but neither were really allowed that role. Kerry, in particular was mocked and ridiculed - by the centrist Democrats as well as the Republicans. Given what he already experienced in 2004, his willingness to continue to try to lead in the face of this derision was an act of courage for a serious man who cared about his reputation.

They used every skill, talent, and resource they had. More than on any other Congressional issue, they really did get the blogosphere educated on the issue and reaching out to Senate. Recently, Schumer spoke of it being a mistake that he "did not lead a successful filibuster". Now, that statement minimizes his offense and shows real chutzpah. The problem was NOT that he didn't "lead", it is that he, Reid, Clinton etc actively fought Kerry and Kennedy. It was not just a failure to lead.

The fact is that there are many people who really blew it here, starting with many on the Judiciary committee. The Democrats did a really terrible job - from Biden's irrelevant 26 minute monologue to the concentration on long ago Princeton eating clubs - rather than unitary President theory. They also turned him into a sympathetic figure.

Kerry, who is not on Judiary, picked this up because Kennedy could not find anyone else. His three speeches in the Senate were exceptionally good - especially the last one. ( The last one made me understand things I read about the exceptional prosecutor and lawyer he was in the 1970s. He was incredible.) Kennedy outlined all the things that he worked a career on that were all at risk. Very emotional and clearly passionate in what he was saying.

That they could not win over many Democrats was the fault of the Reid/Schumer/Clinton leadership. Even Obama was not helpful - telling the media early on that it couldn't work. Biden - saying he would only vote once for cloture was surreal. If he did this and was the deciding vote - they would simply have had a second cloture vote.

Now, the names I named are not all the people who were not helpful - but they are all the people then or now who are the top party leadership.

[Armstead]

50. Good context. Thanx

[ClassWarrior]

8. Exactly. Lakoff says we need to relate everything back to our basic values as progressives.

Our Moral Values
by GEORGE LAKOFF

This article appeared in the December 6, 2004 edition of The Nation.

We are the 55 million progressives who came together in this election, voted for Kerry and rejected the Bush agenda.

We came together because of our moral values: care and responsibility, fairness and equality, freedom and courage, fulfillment in life, opportunity and community, cooperation and trust, honesty and openness. We united behind political principles: equality, equity (if you work for a living, you should earn a living) and government for the people--all the people.

These are traditional American values and principles, what we are proudest of in this country. The Democrats' failure was a failure to put forth our moral vision, celebrate our values and principles, and shout them out loud...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041206/lakoff

NGU.

[Armstead]

11. It's frustrating that this still hasn't sunk in for some people

[Aramchek]

14. you don't speak for 'we', pal

[Armstead]

15. Meaning?

[Aramchek]

16. speak for yourself.

if you have to puff up your argument by pretending you speak for everyone, then it's not that strong, is it?

[Armstead]

20. I donlt claim to speak for everyone -- I assume you missed the IMO's in there

IMO -- In MY Opinion.

What part of that don't you understand?

[Aramchek]

36. "We sell small technocratic tweaks"

[Armstead]

40. IN MY OPINION

Don't you think any DUer is giving their own opinion about what is happening?

IM MY OPNIONS we are selling small technocratic tweaks.

Feel better now?

How about pointing out where IN YOUIR OPINION we are doing more than selling small technocratic tweaks, instead of usinmg some stupid ad hominum personal distraction from the subject?

[ClassWarrior]

33. Wow, is this how y'all pump up your post counts?

NGU.

[Robb]

17. Excuse me. Is "technocrat" today's DU secret word or something?

[Ildem09]

19. no its a well defined political concept

a technocrat is one that believes endless refinement of law or system X will result in betterment of society

[Armstead]

24. Say the secret word and win $500 from groucho

[Ildem09]

18. +1000

I've been saying this for years. ever since the DLC formed in 1985 they have slowly damned this party to technocratic mediocrity. well lets see if we can shift the marginal tax bracket from 35 to 39 by allowing tax cuts to expire. lets see if we can modify the reimbursement scheme for Medicare to shore up a few billion. Yeah that resonates with voters... Republicans "We are gunna kill all them foreigners cause they wanna take your god, guns, and freedom. and they drill it into peoples head. Republicans since 1980 have always had better messaging control for fuck sake. some 40% of the country still believe Sadam had something to do with 9/11 and that Government is the enemy.

We are screwed until we can come up with simple declarative sentences about our policies and where we wanna take our country. we need FDR, and LBJ. not some DMV bureaucrat

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Allowing the Right to claim the mantle of Economic Populism by near default...

...is one of the most disturbing political trends I've witnessed in years.

[Armstead]

30. Also one of the most insanely illogical ones

[Hansel]

22. You mean like "just say no"? nt

[Armstead]

25. More like "Just say yes to real reform"

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Privatization, Cutting Government Red Tape, Simplified Tax Codes that also are less progressive

...the push to acknowledge that our society is based on shared "underlying Judeo Christian values", the position that government programs are synonymous with fraud and waste, the concept of preventive war. Do I really have to go on?

[hfojvt]

28. seems similar somewhat to what Somerby said about our messaging

or the lack thereof.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh090409.shtml

"Frankly, it’s too late for Obama to make such appeals in any serious manner. Narratives develop over stretches of time; you can’t ask Obama to show up in the year 2009 and magically make up for decades of Democratic and liberal lethargy. The other side has been aggressively building its messaging—its frameworks—over the past forty-five years. People have heard these claims again and again, and many more times after that:

Big government never did anything right.
Liberal elites think they’re better than you are.

You can’t expect Obama to compensate for the lack of a strong, well-established counter-narrative. But if we ever do build such a narrative, it would probably turn on these points:

First, it would turn on some well-crafted statement of an obvious fact: Big Moneyed Interests will try to loot you. They’ll do it every time—till they’re stopped.

Second, it might turn on a second obvious fact: Big Moneyed Interests will send tribunes out to deceive you. They will lie in your faces—till they’re stopped.

If Democrats and liberals hadn’t dozed all these years, we might have familiar, well-crafted versions of these obvious truths at our disposal. Voters might have heard those well-crafted statements many, many times. Of course, it’s hard to imagine Big Democrats saying such things—and the children at our liberal journals would pretty much rather jump off a bridge, and then fly.

But if such messaging pre-existed, Obama could talk about the conduct of the insurance companies—and the things he said would fit into a larger framework, a framework voters pre-understood. But on your side, that larger framework simply doesn’t exist. Your side has slumbered, burbled and dozed. We are simply too lazy and indifferent—and too bought—to spend time on such messaging."

Either a few days before or a few days later, he suggested some basic messaging. I cannot find it now.

[Armstead]

29. He's got it right -- That's what has frustrated so many for so long

The Democrats have not presented a coherent counter-message to gthe right wing lies for decades.

Instead they echo them, in a slkightly "kinder and gentler way."

We ought to start delivering that counter message -- and mean it.

[scentopine]

31. We Need Less Talk and More Fight -nt

[MerryBlooms]

32. Negativity, fear and anger

$ell. The American public will tune in in heartbeat to negativity, anger, someone's pain and suffering - the US gets off on that shit, otherwise, we wouldn't have all these 'reality' shows. The majority of this country tunes in and feeds off of other people's misery. The republicans have keyed into that mindset and use it, the left is still betting on focusing on the positive to win. Meh, if people wanted positive, there'd be a GNC (good news channel). We're basically a nation of assholes.

[ClassWarrior]

34. So do care and responsibility, fairness and equality, freedom and courage...

...fulfillment in life, opportunity and community, cooperation and trust, honesty and openness. Our side just hasn't tried to sell them.

And no, we're basically a nation of ill informed, overworked people. It's our job to change that.

NGU.

[MerryBlooms]

35. I will agree with you on some points

but I see a lot of the media feeding willful ignorance and I don't consider that ill informed. That's an agenda and it has to do with the negative mindset with a lot of our country. How many people will tune in and watch a happy well adjusted family who just does the normal thing? How many will tune in and watch a totally fucked up family who one or several members end up with jail time?

We're working to change it and yes, it's definitely our job, but it's a long uphill battle. Negativity is a comfort zone for many.

[ClassWarrior]

37. That starts by speaking to their values. See the Lakoff article in #8 above...

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

39. .

[bvar22]

38. K&R....back UP to +1

I voted for "CHANGE", not tweaks.

I'm an Old Style Democrat, and will continue to FIGHT for THESE values:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.---FDR

If the Democratic Party no longer fights for these values,
then I'm in the wrong Party.

I will not lift a finger to help a Political Party increase Corporate Profits at the expense of the Working Class and the Poor.

[treestar]

42. In the end, this type of post says only

How do we do a better job than the Rs of manipulating the stupid voters who can't think for themselves?

We managed to do it in 2008. The Rs did not win then.

The swing voters will always cause us to go back and forth between R and D. Those stupid people. How do we get them to swing for us again in 2010? That is the only question. We have to control how they vote.

In which case, there is no way to know until closer to the election. Those stupid voters who can't think for themselves will be swayed by whatever is going on then. We can't predict that.

[Armstead]

43. No, the same approach applies to all intelligence levels

The basic idea of presenting a clear vision that actually goes to the roots of the problems has nothing to do with whether voters are smart or stupid or average intelligence.

[ClassWarrior]

44. There are plenty of intelligent people who aren't thinking for themselves too.

They're overworked and under-informed. We need to remind them that their values -- the best of American values -- are progressive values. Over and over and over again.

NGU.

[Bullet1987]

47. I agree with the part about the GOP hijacking populism

But the Obama administration is never going to establish a Democratic Populist faction of the party. I think it's clear where the "New Democrats" (DLC corporate Dems) stand on this. And that's a major mistake IMHO, the Republicans are going to frame the debate throughout Obama's presidency if the Party doesn't support populism.

[karynnj]

49. Not only that, but Geitner is the link that connects us to the 2008 failure of the economy

It is sickening, but the right is beginning to blur the line of when Obama took power. Yesterday while driving I listened. There new "history" is that things done in 2000 (Clinton's fault, nothing, of course, said of any corrections that could have been made afterward) led directly to the economic problems - then Geitner, Bernanke, and Paulson (never defined as Bush's Treasury Secretary) robbed the country to keep the investment bankers whole.