"The only way we do this is if all Democrats, including moderate Democrats, start defending liberalism and telling the truth about conservatism. We have to grow liberalism. This does not necessarily mean that we have to adopt more liberal policies, but at the very least we have to start defending liberals."

I agree 100%. And Lakoff is talking about something even more fundamental--EXPRESSING the liberalism that we already embrace.  I mean "fundamental" here in a structural sense. I think that both are equally essential, and will work to synergize with one another.  

The more we work on expressing liberalism, activating liberal frames, the better our foundation for explicitly defending and defining liberalism--as well as attacking conservatism.  The more we work on defending and defining liberalism, the more clearly Lakoffian language will translate into specific political messages.

You've been doing some excellent discussion of this. What I come away with is a two-prong approach. First prong is honor liberalism and what it's done for our country. We should be discussing how liberal policies have made this a more tolerant nation with a strong middle-class.

The second prong is denigrate conservatism. We have to make people feel more comfortable with being a moderate because being a conservative is just too...um...disturbing.

How to do this on a national level? I don't know.  I just don't think letters to the editors is going to do this job.  We need something more aggressive.  All I do know is that I'm going to ask our local DFA to fund some radio commercials blasting conservatism this year and next. Of course, I'm living in a blue part of Arizona.  These efforts need to reach the red part, which runs a little higher for ad costs. This is one idea. Anyone else have some suggestions?

Very much what Howard Dean did.  It always made me angry when I saw media pundits spinning Dean as a Extreme Lefty when I knew he was just fiercly defending the positions we already have.  Weak moderatism will only push the country farther right.   Very Strong Liberalism will scare away the moderates.  A Strong, and forceful Center-Left approach would be the best.

Excellent. This "move to the right," no, "move to the left" arguing is pointless. Liberalism is actually closer to how most people see things than they realize. The majority of Americans are in favor of either civil unions or marriage for homosexual couples, for example.

But since "liberal" has become an epithet, they don't realize it--because they don't know what "liberal" really means. Here's a step in the direction from a guest editorial in our local daily (today's Austin American Statesman):

"I think it's immoral to arrest people and hold them indefinitely in secret prisons without charging them with a crime or giving them any access to an impartial legal system, no matter what they're suspected of.

Honesty and compassion are also values that I think are worth upholding, so I am morally offended by leaders who strategically manipulate people's fears of terrorist attack for partisan political advantage.

But, for me, the ultimate moral value is, "Thou shalt not kill," which I am pragmatic enough to understand not as an unconditional commandment but as a solemn obligation not to take life -- or to send young surrogates to take the lives of others and lose their own -- except in genuine self-defense."

Read the rest at: Who decides which values will be called moral values? by Evan Carton.

It would be better if he had said clearly, these are liberal values, but as I said, it's a start.

There is a technical challenge, faced equally by the Republicans, namely that if a party moves too far toward the center a gap opens on the outer (left for Democrats, right for Republicans) flank.  And I mention both parties to remind readers that the other guys have their problems, too.

On the other hand, the Bush position is such a  scramble that at some point it may be possible to persuade Buchanan or other old right conservatives that they are not theocons, and that the Democratic Party gives them more of the items they want.  

The Republicans helped put Mr. Nader on the ballot.  In 2008, friends of liberalism could return the favor by helping put on the ballot Mr. Peroutka or others of his persuasion, to split the Republican vote.

Truth in advertising.  I oppose the war in Iraq, conscription, the racist war on drugs which through disenfranchisement costs the Democratic party hundreds of thousands of votes, the antiabortionists...this makes me a Libertarian, a party that draws roughly evenly from liberals and conservatives.

Um...how do you mean?

we almost knocked off a wartime incumbent.
relax.
the country needs a few more yrs to get sick of useless war and we have to accept this.
we will win, and soon.

We actually won the last presedential election, and barely lost this one, so I do not feel a major change is needed. So many people want to vote Democrat, but they are conflicted. They are beginning to see the lies of conservatism, but we have failed to show them the truth of liberalism.

I have been saying for some time that the message we should craft should be true, simple, and populist. We have to show people how certain policies hurt them and how the opposing policy helps them. And we have to back it up. We must stand by our principles (which should not be interpreted as moving further left). We MUST tell these people what we really feel, tell them why we feel that way, and why the other side is wrong.

We as a group tell discuss these principles open and honestly, and then our candidate gets up there and starts playing to the middle. Plus, we cannot continue to support policies that go against our platform. As pro-labor, pro-worker, we cannot whole-heartedly support expanding global trade agreements. If we support a national health care system, we cannot keep the big insurance lobby in the loop. If we are against tort reform, we cannot acknowledge in any way that lawsuits are part of the problem.

What we have to do is be ourselves. The majority of Americans agree with us on nearly every issue when it is presented at face value. They want environmental regulation, national health care, corporate regulations, progressive taxation, and civil rights. We have to stop muddying the water by saying that we agree with some of what the other side proposes, but our plan is better. If we disagree, then let's just say we disagree,and show the people why.

The voters want a clear cut choice. If we tell the truth and stand up for our convictions, we can give them one. If we try to ride the fence, that just drives them harder to the other side and solidifies their belief that Democrats are flip-floppers who will say one thing to get elected and then do another.

We are fighting for the common folks. We just have to show them why and how, and dare the other side to do the same.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and we are right. Let's just tell them why.

ack i shuld be doing reading for class but this post has been bugging me.

We are doing it over again.  Chris, love your posts but i have to say it's not that difficult.  Majority of Americans want 5 things:

1. Food
   
2. Safety
   
3. Shelter
   
4. Jobs
   
5. Opportunity

platform centered on those things wins.  Keep It Simple.   The goal of this government to perform at peak efficiency, to create safe environment for people to live and to help those that have been unable to help themselves, ensure opportunity for all.

Left, center, right........all meaningless.  Progressives need to learn how to talk to people.  Our ideas work and our ideas are better.  Give people hope, involve them in a grand vision of a stronger, wealthier, more just, safer america.  DREAM A LITTLE.  Not a blurb in some speech about a some beacon on a hill.....people don't buy into that BS.  It needs to be a part of the essence of progressive, the essence of a democrat.

Passion, Dedication and Effort.  Right, Center Left......not one, not a single person in america can deny those virtues.

We are not in trouble.  This is democracy for god's sake.  Serve the people!  Listen to them, inspire greatness in them, promise greatness in them and then fight like hell to give it to them.  

I believe that we must let people know that they are liberal, even if they do not even know it.  I have a diary at dailykos about a strategy for education of the people of this land with regard to the meaning of liberalism.  Here's the link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/10/115511/37

Instead of moving to the left or to the center in order to attract voters, I think the solution might be to embrace the extremes.  Reorganize the party into progressive and centrist wings who will be able to play off each other in public debate.  

Have the progressives focus on issues such as the environment, social justice and minority rights, and all the good liberal issues (including some radical proposals like Kucinich's Dept. of Peace).  Have the centrists focus on fiscal responsibility, corporate ethics and responsibility, quality of life issues (education, health care, child care, fair trade and fair wages), etc.  The two wings should compliment each other to create broadly liberal policies that are fiscally sound.

Make the leaders of each wing visible and prominent in the public debate.  Allow the progressives to be the attackers of Republican policies, and the centrists to be the voices of reason and moderation.  Do as we saw Bush and Cheney do...Bush attacks equality in marriage rights with the FMA while Cheney offers a more moderate state's rights argument.  Progressives attack GOP policies while centrists offer moderate responses.

The goal is to expand the base.  Having more progressive voices will help solidify the liberal base and may even expand membership by appealing to Greens and Socialists.  Having centrist voices speak about responsible policies will draw in more of the so-called conservative voters, Libertarians, and maybe even enable those moderate Republicans like Chafee, Snowe, et. al. to switch parties.

Whatever happpens, someone should introduce legislation to make voting day a holiday at both state and federal levels, along with a national campaign about the responsibility and obligation to vote.

Just my $0.02.

Liberal is a prejorative, conservative is not, in the last three national elections, we have beaten our repug opposition by 5 million votes.  The south is going through a realignment we expected after Southern senators retired, Graham, Holings, Breaux, aaaand Zell Miller (if you want to call him a Democrat).  Consider this, we'll pick up Bill Frist's seat with Phil B., and Liz Dole's with Mike Easley, two very popular southern Democratic governors.  We're OK.  Everyone just keep working and we will get this country back on the right track.

You won't get people to adopt a modern liberal set of beliefs wholesale.

Step one is to get people to identify with modern liberal economic policies no matter their stance on social issues.

This is not the same as moving toward the center.  What we are about is building a liberal coalition.  I think a better solution is taking a base of people who are liberal on both economic and social issues and concentrating on adding people who are liberal on economic issues but not on social issues rather than people who are liberal on social issues but not on economic issues.

A clear progressive economic vision is what is needed.

The former group might be harder to pull out of the Republican big tent, but once they are ours, they are ours.  They are a larger group and they are better positioned geographically to help the Democratic Party win.

The latter group is probably flakier and more willing to foresake a left-of-center coalition if they don't get their way, yet they can also be lured torward a quixotic Nader-ish right-of-center third party effort that can sap votes away from the Republicans much more than the Democrats.

We need to get fewer people voting party-line R, especially in the South and border states. That means getting fewer people to call themselves conservative (in other words, getting them to stop assuming that they'll agree with R positions). We can do this in part by defending something called liberalism, and I don't want to stop anyone from doing so. I'll defend it myself if asked (though I'm not running for office in a border state). If we can get a chunk of conservatives to re-identify as moderates and split their tickets, we'll be in much better shape. That means attacking "conservatism" as an ideology, whether or not we defend something else called "liberalism." It means having every talking head in America (and every local figure of note, from sports heroes to local TV commentators) labeling powerful Rs as "extreme conservatives," "fanatical conservatives," "intolerant conservatives," even fake Christians. It also means using messengers who won't repel, and can attract, some segment of self-identified conservatives. In other words, everything Chris says seems exactly right, but I still think we need a standard-bearer with a Southern accent, or at least a midwestern populist with border-state appeal.

My ideal candidate would be someone with a Southern accent who's proud to stand up for environmental regulation, women's rights, unions, and a higher minimum wage, and who has shown he can stand up for those things and win in a Southern or border-state climate. I'm taking suggestions. Fortunately, we've got several years to find him or her.

The great progressive base in this country was formed not by the progressive movement in the early 1900s, but by the Great Depression.  

Alas, 30 years of right wing propoganda combined with the failure of the left to teach each successive generation about the need for the New Deal has caused the majority of Americans to forget the hard learned lessons of the Depression and WW2.

So, history will have to repeat itself.  The proposals here for selling of liberal/progressive ideas are good ones.  They should be polished and practiced.  But until the Republicans drive the US economy over the cliff (again), Americans won't be listening to liberals/progressives.

Can someone answer me this?  

Half of the comments argue that people's real values are liberal values, they just don't identify it as such.  
The other half argue that liberalism is a lost symbol, that most people react negatively to it.  
Putting these thoughts together, might we consider the possibility while that self-identified LIBERALS are few, many people who don't self-identify as liberals will still tend to vote democrat?  

My concern about these statistics is that the argument equates liberal self-identification with regularly voting democrat.  Given the negative image liberalism has had in recent years, it seems certain that the latter category is much greater than the former.  

Liberal and conservative are just labels. Ideas and candidates win elections. We will win with the right  message and the right messenger.

What I think Chris is arguing for is that we make a foreground/background switch in our political approach. Much of Democratic strategy over the last few years has been based on the idea of shifting a movable foreground object (the Democratic party) in one direction or another over an immovable background scene (the American political landscape). Unfortunately, it hasn't worked and, as Chris so ably illustrates, it probably never will.

But, if we switch our conception of foreground and background and instead treat American political opinion as the movable object through the landscape of Democratic ideals then maybe, just maybe, we might have a chance.

This is what the Republicans have done so well. They fleshed out the details of their landscape and have taken the American electorate on a storybook ride through that landscape. They have asked the voters to come along for the ride on their Jungle Cruise and have left the Democrats standing at the docks pathetically waving our public opinion polls and demographic studies.

No wonder the Democrats have developed the reputation for being weak-willed and indecisive. It's a reputation that is based on truth.

Democrats must come to understand that they have a landscape of their own. We don't need to change ourselves. We need to change the country. We need to develop a narrative that will allow the electorate to go on a journey through our landscape and see that it has something better to offer them.

Maybe the answer isn't to get more people to identify with liberalism.  I think it's possible that the word "liberal's" time has come and gone.  At this point, it may have too many negative connotations to really be an effective label for a party's ideology.  Face it, nobody wants to be liberal with their money - it almost connotes wastefulness.  It may be time for a new word for essentially the same positions.  I think the solution might be to work hard at changing the dichotomy from liberal - conservative to progressive (or any other "ive" that polls well) - conservative.  I think it may be a much easier task for Democrats to convince voters that they are truly, deep down inside, progressives than that they are liberals.

The whole post is wrong.  We don't need to "move" anywhere.  Its based on a simplistic assumption that there are right wing people and left wing people.  TV newsmen who want an easy story to tell use this logic.  

The country is about the same as it was in 2000 or 1996.  There are some things that each fringe wants, but there is a big middle ground where values are shared.  The idea is to capture the middle ground and be able to move an agenda which includes somethings from your side.

I think the common ground is good ol' American civic virtue.  Time to bring out the inner Kennedy in all of us.  We have a lot to offer this country and everyone is acting like we have to go out and watch "Passion of the Christ" or we are doomed.  This is wrong.  Were we to become something we are not we would be seen as panderers, not real leaders.

I think most Americans agree that religion is a private affair.  Although 20% of the people out there are anxious to convert others to their religion, most want to be left alone and to leave others alone.  

Time to remember why we are her, not immediately pander to a non-existent "side."

I agree with this comment.   The issue is not moving left or right, we must learn how to talk to people.  We cannot rely on using facts and figures to make a logical arguement to attract more voters.   We must use the facts and figues to analyze where we need to concentrate our efforts but we must have a message that appeals to all Americans and a messenger who can talk to average citizens.  Bill Clinton prevailed because he could relate to everday citizens and make them feel like their opinions mattered. FDR was elected because he could communicate with everyday working people. He enjoyed meeting and talking to citizens and they responded to him.  As I have stated before we must put the "ivory tower" in the back seat and develop a message that sells on "main street".   Our tent must be big enough to accomodate more opinions and we must stay united.  Both parties have parity and the electorate is basically split 50/50, our goal is to control the debate to win a few more voters to our side.  The 11th commandment for Democrats should be no fighting

I too agree with this solid post from Chris. I think many people on this board realize that we need to re-frame the debate, create some new memes, and repeat them ad nauseum until we start to sway some people.

But, as I said in a post in another thread a few days ago, Republicans have this innate loyalty that makes them come together in lockstep to support the message on any topic. We don't have that, partly due to our philosophy -- after all, if liberalism is the philosophy of tolerance, then we have to tolerate those who have different views and express different opinions, right?

So my question is, how do we get everybody on the same page, and staying there? Who "enforces" that among Democrats, or should there not be any enforcing, in which case will we really stay on the same page? This sounds ridiculous even to me, but I think we have to learn to do what the GOP has done so well -- create a party line, send it down, and have everyone repeat it endlessly -- in order to "re-market our brand" and re-frame the debate in the direction of our philosophy. We will be hard-pressed to win elections otherwise.