The Final Words On Moving to the Center

by Chris Bowers, Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 11:37:42 AM EST

I still believe we need to seize the mantle of reform, but as far as moving to the center, I will let Lakoff and Arianna Huffington to the talking: As cognitive psychologist George Lakoff told me: "Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party's progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are." It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side's positions are worth moving toward, while your side's positions are the ones to move away from. From the Rockridge Institute Website: There are clear distinctions between the Nurturant Parent (NP) family and the Strict Father (SF) family. The logic of the models are contradictory, but we all have both models present in the synapses of our brains--either actively or passively.(...)

What determines how we vote is which model is active and dominant for understanding politics at that time.(...)

Our goal is to activate the progressive model in the non-aligned voters. Activation is done through language--by using a consistent language that reflects and activates progressive values. The same language that rallies a base activates the same worldview for those in the middle.

Conservatives have already figured this out. What they have learned about winning elections is that they have to activate the Strict Father model in more than half of the electorate. Fear is a good way to trigger the strict father model, making it active in our minds, because fear reinforces the basic ideas that the world is a dangerous place and that strict discipline is therefore needed for safety.(...)

There is a myth that voters are lined up in a left-to-right line, and that to gain the support of swing voters, you must move to the center. When progressives move to the right, they lose in two ways, setting up a self-defeating double-whammy:

1) Moving to the right alienates your progressive base.
2) It actually helps conservatives because it activates their model in swing voters.

Notice that conservatives do not gain more voters by moving to the Left. What they do is stick to their strict ideology to activate their model in swing voters by being clear and consistent in policies and messages framed in terms of conservative values.

Short version: arguing that we need to move to the center openly implies that Bush and Republicans win elections because they are right on issues and we are wrong. This is dangerous and self-defeating. Instead, we need to do a much better job of articulating our own ideas, especially to ourselves.

Tags: Ideology (all tags)

  • 69 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

69 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Keep the Base
but Take the Center
by kydem 2004-12-13 11:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
we already have it
check the fucking exit polls already!
by Pachacutec 2004-12-13 12:30PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: we already have it
on abortion rights?  on gay rights?  on national security?  because that's where the republicans won
by kydem 2004-12-13 01:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
false definitions
Define the "middle" by those who define themselves as "middle:"  moderates and independents.

If you define the "middle" in terms of issues that activate right wing, fundamentalist, moralistic elites, then no wonder you have no clue about what it is to be a Democrat.

by Pachacutec 2004-12-13 01:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: false definitions
Centrist Coalition principles:
Our guiding principles generally fall to the right on economic and fiscal matters, but to the left on cultural issues such as abortion, gay rights, and church-state separation.

The principle behind our stance on cultural issues is fairly simple. We believe a diverse nation needs to embrace all of its people, and that it's inappropriate to use government to apply the moral convictions of some citizens on others.

Our views on fiscal and economic issues are rooted in a more complex analysis.

First, we believe economic growth is the single most important goal of economic and fiscal policy. A growing economy tends to lessen any of the wide variety of social challenges we face. It also produces more tax revenues to help meet rising government obligations.

We embrace economic policies that promote competition, open world trade markets, and establish a simplified, rational regulatory system.

The second major consideration is our ongoing fiscal imbalance. Over the last quarter century, our nation has experienced several periods of rapidly rising public debt. We began making modest payments on the debt in the late 1990s, but have since returned to fiscal red ink. Generally, we fail to make payments during good times anywhere near proportionate to the debts we incur during bad times.

Add to that the rapid rise of public obligations we expect in the near future, as the baby boom generation begins to retire, and we have a fundamentally strained fiscal environment within which to make policy.

We believe there are solutions to this difficult fiscal puzzle, but only if we control spending, implement fundamental entitlement reforms, and maintain a strong economy that generates increasing tax revenues.

We believe fundamental reforms in these areas can actually make government work more effectively.

by kydem 2004-12-13 03:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
mission statements don't vote
We're after votes.  

Some of what you are talking about can comprise a reform agenda - fiscal responsibility, deficit reduction, transparency in government, for example - but these cannot be attacked as "issues."  Talking points don't win anyone over.

Having balls and expressiing your values is the way to win people over.

Positions on issues must emerge as expressions of principles, like fairness and responsibility, as part of a larger ideological and historical narrative.  Republicans have cleaned our clock on this.

Fairness and responsibility are liberal values.  Why be afraid to say so?  Why not check out Dean's speech to the state chairs again from last weekend?  It's in there.

I'm a business development consultant.  First rule of marketing:  define your niche by differentiating yourself from the competition and exploit your niche.

The problem with your philosophical approach is that it fails to develop and exploit a nihce that is sufficiently differentiated from the currently prevailing brand.  Now, in the days of triangulation, with a strong third party in the Perot campaigns, a "not this, not that" approach could win a plurality.  Congratulations, Mr. Clinton.

But that did not address the longer term erosion of the Democratic/liberal brand.  It only forestalled the longer term erosion.  

Now reality leaves us nowhere to hide from the truth.  Without an ability to clearly differentiate ourselves from the other side, we are not a viable alternative.  That's why Chris writes the way he does, after lengthy examination of the current and historical data.  The prescription for a long-term erosion of the brand is a long term strategy to rebuild it, involving hard work on all fronts.

Solutions like "run a Southern candidate" are the equivalent of what I see CEO's of failing businesses do when they think one little quick fix will turn the company around.  They usually end up filing for bankruptcy.

I'm a Mets' fan.  For yeras, that dumbass franchise has been convincing itself it is one or two key trades or players away from contention.  They've been in last place a lot these last few years.  But they never seem to be able or willing to do the wholesale organizational things needed to rebuild the franchise.  Your logic and prespcitions for the future of the party follow the same pattern.

I know you mean well.  But your analysis is deeply flawed, and more to the point, you never really wrestle with the deep analysis Chris and others around here present.  You repeat your message, so you get points for staying on message.  But your message does not gain merit by repetition.  

Even your last post - this quotation of a mission statement or statement of policy priorities - completely avoids the point of my previous post.  We're after votes.  Where do you see any more centrist votes for us to win, based on recent election results?  The only way to shake up the equilbrium is to create a new eqiuilbrium.  Chris's prescription to retake the language and energy of reform is on point.  Now there's a niche to exploit, especially with all this Republcan corruption brimming over and over!  We need more Elliot Spitzer, and less Joe Lieberman.

Rebranding the party means updating liberalism to become relevant to modern times.  When people begin to see that others who are not wacky actually are willing to call themsleves "liberals," then the stigma associated with the word evaporates.  Trust me, I know a little about taking away stigma by defining yourself on your own terms.  Being gay will teach you that.

That may not do much for you, in the immediate term, in Kentucky, but it will do a helluva lot more for you than Joementum will, or Evan Bayh, for that matter.

You want to win Kentucky votes?  Come out of the closet.

Call yourself a "liberal."

by Pachacutec 2004-12-13 04:24PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: mission statements don't vote
You make several powerful points that sum up as the need for not only strategy and leadership, but to learn the lessons of Madison Avenue which is how best to run a campaign using every tool that is available
by bruh21 2004-12-13 05:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Exactly
Look at the Mehlman model:  they did classic targeted niche marketing.  They've built a great database, have bought lists of consumer behaviors, and have built sophisticated profiles of individual voters' likely turnkey issues.

They also turned their consumers into salespeople.  We criticized them for their closed rallies, but making those people take pledges and recruit others - their neighbors - to vote BC04 was a far more effective marketing strategy than our less spohsiticated GOTV efforts.

That's classic, cutting edge viral marketing.  We used to call it grass rooots organizing on the political side.  Either way, it's far more powerful than advertising.

by Pachacutec 2004-12-13 05:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Exactly
This came up also over at Kos. This guy  or woman (not sure) kept mentioning GOTV as though I was arguing that we can't do better on that front. Yet, what you say precisely sums up why leadership will be required in order to do better. In other words, we had great GOTV in terms of energy and some of the volunteering, but not much leadership about what to do with it. THe call lists were not as up to date as they should be. In the off, years- like as in 2005- they should be updating the lists rather than waiting for 2006 or worse yet 2008 to role around. They should be doing the marketing thing of identifying the characteristics of the Democratic voters on the group- and who will act as thought leaders in the regions in question. You are correct that loyalty is another factor. How do we build brand loyalty? That's the question that this leadership issue comes down to.
by bruh21 2004-12-13 06:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Leadership and Building Brand Loyalty
Yes, we can and must do better to compete.  Our targeting is very crude.

It's interesting you mention leadership, since I wrote a diary or some extended comments about this somewherre, maybe at kos, and got negative responses about it.

As a party, we have challenges in implementing the very things you and I are discussing because

  •  we don't like the corporate model or corporate metaphors

  •  we don't like to be disciplined and organized.  We like to have ideas, have opinions and write comments!

  •  which all means we don't really allow leaders to lead us very well.

This all gets into my areas of expertise in my professional life.  I'm more expert at operations development and leadership than I am at cutting edge database and viral marketing campaigns, but even in those areas, I know more than nothing.  But by my analysis, and perhaps also by yours, our greatest obstacles may lie within ourselves.

We have to be willing to learn from the success of corporate models of brand development and viral marketing if we are to be successful.  I don't know if we even have the right talent empowered in the coalition to do this well, but even beyond having the talent, we have to have enough of a movement that says, "yes, this is something we have to do."

Knee-jerk anti-corporate resentment is not our friend, in this case.  Business sense matters, even in politics.

Building brand loyalty has many components, and the main book on the subject in corporate America is called The Loyalty Effect by a guy named Riechheld.  

The book is a little out of date, in that cutting edge social-network based viral marketing strategies enabled by technology are more recent, and even required, because the amount of "message glut" in the marketplace has accelorated so much.  People are much more sophisticated at tuning untargeted ("dumb")messages from untrusted/unknown sources out.  We have to do that to survive.

The republican brand is well established, though it has strayed from its historic core when it comes to fiscal conservatism.  The New Deal Dem brand is outdated, and needs to be updated.  But loyalty can only come through:

  •  a clear identity we own with pride (revival of "liberalism")

  •  a product that is relevant and responsive to the real needs of current consumers/voters, as understood by them, but shaped by our well-chosen terms (the "value proposition," in marketing language)

  •  a consistent identity and message over time (trust in a new brand by the majority takes time, and that's why the "flip-flop" frame is so damaging)

  •  a strategy to build a social network-based movement, building across the change/innovation adoption spectrum, beginning with innovators --> early adoptors --> early majority --> late majority  (the work of Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations).  Hell, if you get through the early majority, you've got 50% of the poplutaion, by definition.

The good news is, even with our recent failures, we still have 48%.  The bad news is, presidential elections magnify small differences through the electoral college.  

So we have a lot of work to do, in one sense, but then again, we can still regain meaningful territory in a relatively short amount of time by taking the right steps.  However, those right steps mean getting back to fundamentals and recognizing the New Deal brand was for the last century, and it needs thorough reevaluation and updating.  

Otherwise, we can just bend over.

by Pachacutec 2004-12-13 06:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
And one more thing. . .
Writing my post above led me to this thought:

Majorities don't vote for issues.  They vote for an identity they feel most comfortable calling their own.

This is one more reason to re-own liberalism without shame.  For, if we are ashamed of our identity, then shame becomes our identity, and that will never, ever win an election.

That's what political branding is:  defining your identity on your own terms, and defining the other guy on your terms afterward.

Since we have been trying to do the later, without first doing the former, we have been failures.  

I'm not Kerry bashing, but how many slogans and catch-phrases did he mess around with during the campaign ("let America be America again")?  

It's not his fault:  these identities have to be built by the party, not the candidate.  He was simply a reflection of. . . us.  With a strong, vibrant party behind him, he would have been a different candidate.

by Pachacutec 2004-12-13 06:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Liberal distorted/ Conservative Distortion

the word Liberal is now commonly associated with "anything goes" "complainer/whiner" "pacifist" "weakling" "overly sensitive" in my view, by the republicans/fox.

What five words would we like people to associate with "liberal"?

What words would we like associated with "conservative"?:

by slammers 2004-12-13 07:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Liberal distorted/ Conservative Distortion
rather than words- I would say concepts that use down home language to convey basic values

there are some that I have used in the last couple of days to illustrate a point:

1) "A promise made is a promise kept"

This evoked loyalty, community, trust- all good values that people can relate to.

2) "the buck stops here"

I am a man of responsibility.

3) "I see the promised land"

Biblical and also has other values- afterwards you can lists what you see in that promised land- I see an American where each child can live his or her dream wihtout worry of lacking an education or being sick (you don't have to say healthcare or environment both are implied by saying not being sick). I see an american where no man, woman or child lives in fear (challenge them to be more in this promiseland)

4)"we shall live together or die a lone"

again- evocative language that signifies many things that are democratic values- but also about  our fears- that we really will die alone.

5) "nothing worth having has ever come to use without a little sweat"

the need for sacrifice and commitment to work ethic

these are just some off top of my head of how if the dems want to win they need to use the direct language that evokes commonality

when bush said he was working hard- americans understand how to work hard

by bruh21 2004-12-13 07:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Liberal distorted/ Conservative Distortion
with the conservatives I would use again concepts that evoke everyday language to reach for deeper themes that can be returned to by use of the common phrase:

a) " a man is nothing if not his word"

here is how kerry could have called bush on his shit:

mr president, a man is nothing if not his word, you have lied to the american people, now I don't use those words lightly, it's not something with would have say of a president unless the events were extraordinary, and mr president your actions against this country were extraodinary. a many's mr president is nothing if not his word.

b) the road to hell is paved with good intentions

directly attacks the theocrats and links up with the imagery of hell and what will occur if they take over.

"I don't question your faith mr president. I don't question y our loyalty to your country. But, good intentions are not enough. They just aren't enough. The road to hell was paved with good intentions. right now y ou are leading our boys down into the mouth of hell from which this country will suffer for generations." strong simple evocative language using commonly understood concepts to get to the incomptent. "You are doing this because you have been incomptent." One theme we need to start building is that Rpeublicans mean well with small govt- but this argument is not a basis for governing. This is the openning salvo on that sort of argument.

c) " one of the 7 deadly sins is greed"

"I'm not talking competition. Greed isn't competition. It's the death of competition." here then evoke the different examples in pop culture- like enron, like chenney's company, even using sports methapors- of fair play in the game

d)its morning in a merica

a  return to nostalgia but an attack on the fear machine. using their own words against them- have them go into a hissy over their own pol god being used in this way. and gets at in what direction the country is going without saying are you better off now than you were 4 years ago.

e) what would jesus do?

on the social questions

by bruh21 2004-12-13 07:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Liberal distorted/ Conservative Distortion
Your instincts are right, but your ideas are not nearly succint enough.

You want a succint branding message?

"Coke is it."

And then repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and. . . you get the idea.

From a branding perspective, your catchphrases require too much bandwidth to process at the front end.  They make nice building blocks for a speech, even a campaign that leans to the religious in its imagery, but not for a brand.

The five words test above was actually not a bad one.  

If, by repetition, we get our five words for our identity out there and known, and we get the five words for them out there and known (and we deliver on our end of the value propostiion), We. Will. Win.  Period.

by Pachacutec 2004-12-13 08:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Liberal distorted/ Conservative Distortion
All good points. Thanks. I tend to think like a writer of fiction rather than, and am trying to tell a story rather than focused on how to brand effectively, which is a diffrent animal although both are needed.
by bruh21 2004-12-13 08:09PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Liberal distorted/ Conservative Distortion
what the telling of the story does is the set up the candidate as the m ythic hero of the narrative for which one develops a certain sense of what makes him a hero. that part that inspires one to follow through the to end iwth the hero no matter what happens in the story. your point is that branding is strictly focused on making sure that the most basic units of information are provided to that character in a marketing oriented fashion
by bruh21 2004-12-13 08:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I'm with you on the Joseph Campbell
but that comes when you fit the candidate to the brand, and not before.  Narratives matter, but Kerry was a narrative in search of a brand, as we saw with all that Viet Nam stuff.  It did not sell.
by Pachacutec 2004-12-13 08:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Liberal distorted/ Conservative Distortion

This language sounds good for speeches and it has the soaring quality we miss in our candidates who seem mostly prone to listing out programs and problems in the vein of Clinton.

But I'm wanting us to develop "tags" that the media can pick up and apply. Just like the repugs turned "late term abortion" into "partial birth abortion". We need "negative" tags for conservatives and positive ones for liberals.

We need to come up with the liberal equivalent of "Compassionate conservative". i.e. come up with a qualifier that will pierce the facade the repugs have painted of the "anything goes" liberal.

for conservatives: irresponsible, fear-monger, wreckless, strident, insensitive, in denial, if Dean or party chair could get every democratic senator and govt. talking head applying these terms fiercely and fearlessly we might get through to people.

by slammers 2004-12-13 08:12PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Liberal distorted/ Conservative Distortion
I agree- I was not using focused language in the way that you mean to brand the candidates. I will have to think it over some more.
by bruh21 2004-12-13 08:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Liberal distorted/ Conservative Distortion
I agree- I was not using focused language in the way that you mean to brand the candidates. I will have to think it over some more.
by bruh21 2004-12-13 08:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
tags are lakoff frames
but you can't advance frames without having the brand down, which you can encapsulate with those right five words.

First things first!

by Pachacutec 2004-12-13 08:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: tags are lakoff frames
I agree with the need for brand as separate- but I am not sure Kerry had a clear narrative either. I couldn't place him in the story. A character has a throughline that drives him in the mind of the audience. Bush's throughline was "I'm a man of faith. For us, it organized his entire narrative." What was Kerry's throughline that got people to realize what was this guy's story. Not Vietnam- that's like  a plot point- not the through line of the story.
by bruh21 2004-12-13 08:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
competing crucible narratives
Bush crucible narrative = I was a drunk asshole and I found Jesus and sobered up.  This was most in play in 2000, but it was still there in 2004.

Kerry crucible narrative = I was tested under fire and answered the coutry's call, killed the enemy and got three purple hearts.

Kerry's problem was that his crucible narrative had a second act that did not serve him well, in terms of hero/narrative structure:  he came home after the war and protested it, taking a visible and controversial role.  

So in a sense, you are right to call his narrative convoluted:  it was.  It lacked the simplicity of the Bush narrative, and of the most effective candidate/hero narratives.

That left him vulnerable to the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies and for all that Jane Fonda bullshit.

Of course, there are ways to counter and undo Bush's narrative, but Gore failed to do them in 2000 (now THERE was a guy in search of a party AND a narrative), but Kerry just had too much going against him with the weakened brand behind him.

by Pachacutec 2004-12-13 08:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The Kerry story isn't over yet
Id vote for him any day. He is a good man, perhaps even a great man.
by Paul Goodman 2004-12-14 06:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Liberal distorted/ Conservative Distortion
Okay, I'll take the five word challenge:

Liberal = trust, reform, responsibility, prosperity, education

Conservative = corrupt, fear, intolerance, abuse, fundamentalist

Those might not be the best, but they are not far off.

Maybe we should start talking more about who we are using words like the above, linking "liberal" with the words I suggest, and "conservative" with its own associated words.

by Pachacutec 2004-12-13 07:57PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: And one more thing. . .
Do you know how much I have been trying to say the exact same things to people over at Kos and here? It has become a source of frustration for me blogging with some here and at Kos because I find they lack the fundamentals to even begin to be on the same page. Not being on the same page, means you end up spending most of your time, or at least I do, repeating the same concepts just to get out the basic groundwork. I haven't been able to go to the next level like y ou have just done. These things you are talking about are off course something that must grow out of local communities- in the sense that the best way to implement them is to use the technology to amplify and focus the local efforts rather than the reverse. The local people will know the situation on the ground. They will be able better to tell you where the resources need to be alloted and what part of the message is gaining penetration into the voter's minds. Someone mentioned the need to revitalize precint captains as a source of command leadership at the state level, and I agree with this but would also make certain that these people are already thought leaders at the local level- preferably those who comman respect as the go-to community leader types.

The liberalism without shame thesis is exactly on point. You can't build a brand based on shying away from it. If you do, someone will think there is something with your product. I don't get why people don't understand this is about how we sell ourselves and how we lead?

by bruh21 2004-12-13 07:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
what to do?
I have not known about your kos struggles with this, but our paths have crossed there before, and we have found oursleves to be of like mind, at least on some matters.  I know you're an early kos member.

I feel as if, were I to condense and post these ideas over there, the diary would sink into oblvion in short order.

Too bad we can jointly sponsor a diary somehow to get it more exposure.  I guess that's what blogs are for, but I don't have time to start one, and I don't think I have enough to contribute on a regular basis anyway.

What do you suggest we do?

by Pachacutec 2004-12-13 08:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: what to do?
I am a later comer over there. And, like you while I want to get these points out, I am not sure with the day job, and my second career whether I have time to do it. Maybe contact one of the people who set up front page articles? I did this with one idea- but he or she recommended that I place the diary and see whether would get recommended. I am told this is a sign of how people  value what they are reading- but I am wondering if it is more a sign of the chaotic nature of the blog?
by bruh21 2004-12-13 08:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
chaotic nature v. relevance/popularity?
it's a little bit of both.  It's a problem over there, and kos knows it, but there's no real solution yet.  The site has gotten very, very big.
by Pachacutec 2004-12-13 08:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: chaotic nature v. relevance/popularity?
I saw the popularity problem referred to as "the heathers" once. I have no idea what group "the heathers" are, but it was apparently a dominant clique.
by Gary Boatwright 2004-12-13 10:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: what to do?
Speaking for myself, I would love to read a diary from you two about the branding/marketing/message issues you've been discussing in this thread.

I'll recommend it.

by tgeraghty 2004-12-13 08:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
maybe later this week. . .
I'll think about how to present and organize it for the kos environment, and see what happens.  

I have the same screen name there, so if you subscribe to my diaries, you'll know when it hits.

Thanks for the encouragement!

by Pachacutec 2004-12-13 08:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: what to do?
in that case, if he is willing to work on a diary with me- i am willing  to work on it. you can contact me at redstatepurplestatenews@yahoo.com
by bruh21 2004-12-13 08:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I'll draft a sample outline
and send you one later this week. . .

And now I'm off to bed!

Be well.

by Pachacutec 2004-12-13 08:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I'll draft a sample outline
I"m also one of the folks frustrated by this.  we get plenty of critique but few proposals from dem leadership.

So I started a proposal including narrative, brand and honing from our many values and programs to a few key pillars to communicate -- rough at this stage, and who knows if anyone will agree, but i put it up just a couple days ago at: A Progressive Framework

To see what my intent was, see Goals and Operating Principles.

My interest is more in throwing out a strawman to talk about than any particular pride of authorship -- it is more synthesis than orginality in any case.

by Will Neuhauser 2004-12-14 01:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Post some Diaries at MyDD
I've run across both of you two at Dkos. I'm a very casual contributor both here and there for a number of reasons. Time is a big one. I only have a couple of hours a day I can devote to the blogosphere. Skill is another. I haven't used my writing skills in my job, therefore I haven't used them in about twenty years.

We lack a certain critical mass of posters and commenters here, but diaries have a much longer shelf life. I think Chris dropped the recommended diary section because we didn't get enough high quality diaries to justify it. I for one, would be very interested in seeing some of the ideas you have that fly by at Dkos.

Try posting one of your golden oldies from Dkos over here every day. I think it would help the MyDD community and just might trigger some insights as well.

by Gary Boatwright 2004-12-13 10:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: we already have it
It's becoming more and more clear to me that you really don't understand politics. Are you sure you are a Democrat? Or, are you a troll? Then again, given the losing streak of the DLC, maybe you are. I hate to ask this, but at this point, when I see posts like this- the subject matter here is not even what you are bringing up, but general discussions of how strategically we are failing, you bring up things that really, in my opinion, based on the lack of support for what you saying, add nothing. For instance, almost all of us know of the polling that shows you are wrong, and yet, you still post as though the polling doesn't exist. Where's that four years of research in your statements?

Let me just talk about one of the issues you mention. Gay marriage. In Ohio, the Right won that debate, and passed an amendment that not only banned gay marriage, but also straight civil unions that were the product of people living together. In other words, they banned marriage between straights who had not gone through the formal process of marriage, but in actuality were acting as a married couple. This is something you would think Christians would want (last I checked living out of wed lock is a sin). Yet, they passed the amendment with this language in there. The language was so broad that even the Republican Governor of the state belatedly toward the end of the election cycle came out against it. Nevertheless, it passed.

Why do you think this is the case? In your mind set, which at this point, I can only fathom is not very critical, it is because they were against gay marriage so we need to move to the "center" on this issue. But, that hardly explains it because last time I checked, one can pass an amendment against gay marriage that doesn't also ban de facto marriage for straight couples. It only starts to make sense if you go behind the strategy  of what the Christian Right did in Ohio.

Before I start, let me point out that 56 percent of Ohio voters according to exit polls supported some version of legal protection for relationships between gays (this was normally in the form mostly accepted as civil unions) even as they were voting for Bush for "moral" reasons.  Pew later confirmed that despite media CW those morals were not gay marriage- they were leadership. So, again, why did the legistlation pass if it were as simple minded as your comments?

The answer is that it wasn't. It's all about how the debate was controlled and framed by Ralph Reed and his ilk. Specifically, they were going into the churches telling congregants that if they didn't support the amendment, it would mean that the govt would force them to perform gay marriages. Maybe you don't realize- but that would be an impossibility because of a little thing call separation of church and state which actually works both ways. The Govt could not forces churches to perform gay marriages, and yet, they used this fear tactic to win the debate. This is the point that the person above is making about social security.

I don't expect you to answer this posting, because as of this point, you only seem to answer those things that support your world view. Which again, I am starting to realize is probably that of a troll. But, here's the value for anyone else reading this- the lesson here is that it really is about how we act to these issues strategically. We need to be out thinking them, and because we are not. We lose.

Like I said to someone last night over a Kos, how the hell did Kerry and Dems not know that Bush and Co would come after the Dems as weak. It's been a mantra of the Republicans since 1968 with the damn Southern Strategy (of which you are clearly a product or else you wouldn't mention the obvious issues). The reason why they got caught like deers in a fucking head light is that they lacked strategic leadership skills.

In this case, as with the case also of the GOP mailings saying that the Dems wanted to ban the Bible (a mailing sent out by gay men as the head of the GOP leadership (do you like the irony?), we have a situation where we let them control the debate about gay issues in Ohio. Unlike KY, Ohio is a swing state- do you understand the difference? Let me explain- all politics is local. The strategies there would not have match what one would do in KY.

Finally, just because you live in a fucked up state like KY doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow the rules of KY. The fact is that even parts of the South like Va are more progressive than your state. If you want to be a self hater, or whatever you are, please do it some place else, or at least back up what you're saying. Which, and let me be even more rude, we both know you can't do.

by bruh21 2004-12-13 03:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: we already have it
Although I don't appreciate the Kerry-bashing I absolutely agree with all the denunciations aimed at kydem.  She's a product of Nixon's Southern Strategy all right.
by Baltimore 2004-12-13 04:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: we already have it
As I said over at Kos last night- it's not Kerry bashing to say what someone did wrong. It's not a matter of his character to ask how he ran his campaiqn. It's this kind of thick skinned frank discussion that is necessary to us winning future election cycles
by bruh21 2004-12-13 05:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Keep the Base
If the Democratic Party moves any more to the center, then I and millions other liberals are leaving.  By the way, Balance Budgets is liberal.  Fiscal responsibility is liberal.  Conservatives are fiscally irresponsible.  If you do not believe me, check the record of Reagan and Bush II to Clinton, Carter and Johnson.  Stop spreading the Myth.
by SRconbio 2004-12-13 07:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Another Plus In Standing Tall--Modelling The NP
Another plus in standing tall is that it sends a message that disrupts the Strict Father's greatest strength, while modelling what the Nurturant Parent is all about.

The greatrest strength of the Strict Father position is that it illustrates itself. You say, "We need to bomb the shit out of everybody!!!" and you pound the table while you're saying it.

Nobody dares speak up to say, "Yeah, but you dodged the draft six ways from Sunday!" much less, "But aren't we trying to isolate our enemies, rather than doing their recruiting for them?

But if we stand up tall for what we believe, without apology, then we send a message of strength, which disrupts the automatic association of the conservatives with strength. It creates the space in which people can actual hear what we're saying, as opposed to what they're saying. And that's the space in which we win by such lopsided majorities--as with the Florida minimum wage initiative.  

This distinction is perfectly in line with Lakoff's description of how the two models work.

The Strict Father sees strength as an end in itself. Strength is what you need to stand up to evil. (So what if you crush a bunch of innocents along the way. God will take care of them, right?)

But the Nurturant Parent sees strength as a means to an end--strength in service of nurturance. So standing tall in order to convey a positive vision that actually protects and empowers people is a perfect modelling of what the Nurturant Parent is all about.

Modelling is different than framing. Framing is done with words. It is about how we think. But modelling is done with action--showing how something is done. It is about what we do and who we are. The only thing more fundamental than framing is modelling. Put the two together, and you've some real power.

by Paul Rosenberg 2004-12-13 12:09PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Another Plus In Standing Tall--Modelling The N

I would agree and believe Kerry started to portray the strong nurturant parent only in the debates and perhaps it was too late but it did give me, and I think many other dems some hope because he showed strength with reason instead of just the pounding on the table type.

But it's the reframing that Kerry didn't have. He just couldn't articulate the  issues in ways  that struck a chord. I believe we need to move away from talking about "rights" like right to abortion and instead talk about the reality of 33% of teen girls getting pregnant and ways/options needed to deal with this problem with access to a safe abortion being one of them. Every mother who hears the number 33% gets a real reality check when it comes to the issue. It hits home. Rights are too abstract.

by slammers 2004-12-13 06:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Choosing the battle ground as well
One thing Rove always has Bush do very well is run on only a few issues. Dems seem to want to overwhelm the voters with quantity instead of focusing on a few strong quality issues. That gives Repugs a long list of targets to shoot down or use to preoccupy the voters attention away from our strongest issues.

Dems actually seem to think that platforms win elections. If we develop a few strong issues very well our candidate can run on those issues and give the voters a clear frame of reference for what the candidate stands for and believes.

by Gary Boatwright 2004-12-13 12:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Choosing the battle ground as well
When you have a hard time adhering to core principles (see definition of move-to-the-right democrat), the default position is going to be the platform. So, you run on proposals rather than principles. This does not help the democrats over the long haul because move-to-the-right democrats are busy selling the product not the company.

Ask someone what a republican stands for and you will probably get: lower taxes, less government and a strong military. At their core, these items represent a philosophy of government that republicans can sell every day and link specific proposals to.

Ask someone to create a similar list for a democrat and they will have more trouble. They will be able to identify some of the democratic product like abortion rights, gay rights, environmental protection, etc. but a list that positively defines a progressive government philosophy is not likely to be provided because we have failed to successfully develop and market one.

by dicta 2004-12-13 07:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Choosing the battle ground as well

Absolutely right. Democrats are identified with "rights" issues that are too abstract for most folks and they only directly affect the fringes,  rather than directly touching everyone, as taxes do.

This is why so many folks talk of moving to the "center". it's to get away from being defined by these "rights" issues which frankly most people don't feel personally affected by. For the suburban mom driving carpools and living on one income, the democrats don't have much of a message that matters to her. Sure she may agree that it's right for gays to have the ability to visit their partners in hospitals etc., but it's not exactly at the top of her voting priority list.

by slammers 2004-12-13 07:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Adding something to this
Some political strategists interpret recent Republican success as an indication that their program sells better with the swing voters. They argue that it is therefore logical that Democrats base their appeal on the same program in order to win the swing voters back from the Republicans.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding a swing vote psychology. They don't vote for a particular candidate or party because of ideology. By definition a swing voter is someone who does have an ideology. What is really happening is that the swing voters are buying into whichever program is most successfully marketed to them. It is marketed by the Republicans, of course. But the Democrats are selling it as well by openly making the same appeal.

Democrats are going into the red states trying to win back votes while wearing the "Vote Republican!" slogan on their shirts!

And don't think that the Republicans aren't getting a real laugh out of the whole thing.

by Chris Andersen 2004-12-13 12:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Coalition dynamics
One point perhaps missed is the Left overall here is more of a coalition and likes it that way; and the Right is less splintered and wants to become a true pure/radical conservative capitalist unipolar situation.

If I'm a progressive and I view my team as a coalition, and I view my own morals/beliefs as rock solid, then when I hear there are others who are nearby but not quite in the tent, I will obviously want to expand my tent.  That's not necessarily wishy-washy, it's coalition building common sense.  When the tent is quite large, however, people who don't automatically feel at home there, and even some who do, might find it hard to explain in a simple way, what exactly defines that tent.

So, its the difference between moving the definition of the tent to the center or right, vs. expanding the tent to include more of the center and even center/right (ie, progressive/reform Repubs).

So, this means raising the roof of the tent, so coverage area is larger, rather than actually shifting and twisting the tent around, which confuses people.  A flexible tent is a great invention, but it can be confusing.

Raising the roof of the tent, means abstracting the policy ideas into principles, moral abstractions, and really starting to promote these as an identity, a common reference point for all inhabitants.

It's learning how to create an identity politics of the progressive side, rather than progressive being defined as a long, flexible, list of sensible alternatives to crazy right wing fantasies.

Then policy is important, to show you can pull those abstractions off in the real world, but the policies must flow from pre-established principles, and the principles must be crystal clear, profound and not waver.

Jefferson seemed to do this very well, for example, so we know it's humanly possible.

by jimpol 2004-12-13 12:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Moving to the center also reinforces
the stereotype of liberals as weak because the bland flexible centrism of move-to-the-right democrats does not present an image of strength through commitment to core principles. This lack of commitment then further undermines the credibility of these candidates because they are more easily portrayed and viewed as politicians who will say anything to generate enough votes to get elected.  
by dicta 2004-12-13 01:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Language and the Social Security debate
In the spirit of Lakoff, lets inspect the framing Bush uses when talking about his yet-to be-proposed Social Security privatization plan:

From his weekly radio address: "A crisis in Social Security can be averted, if we in government take our responsibilities seriously, and work together today. I came to Washington to solve problems, not to pass them on to future Presidents and future generations. I campaigned on a promise to reform and preserve Social Security, and I intend to keep that promise. "

Here, Bush elicits fear-- the same tool used to whip the population into a frenzy for the Iraqi war.

And he is painting himself as the savior, (in Lakoff's terms), a strong leader, the strict father who can lead the nation out of its "crisis," the omniscient father figure.

The fact that the crisis is fabricated is irrelevant; the language he uses urges change, it overtly identifies a crisis. And in a crisis, something must be done!

The framework: Bush is showing strength in a time of crisis!
Translation: How can you not support this brave and heroic president! He is willing to stand up to the problem.

As long as Democrats work in this framework they will loose the Social Security debate.

Progressives should frame social security in terms of responsibility to our elderly. Democrats are the party of responsibility. The Republicans/Reactionaries/Conservatives are the party of weakness: they are weakening the financial security of senior citizens.

more details here: www.politicalthought.net

by ivolsky 2004-12-13 01:30PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Language and the Social Security debate
This is excellent. We should also extend this from a material (rates of return, benefit cuts, etc) to a moral issue:

Social Security is not a just a monthly government check. It's also a contract (covenant? promise? what's the right word?) between American citizens and our elderly, that they will have economic security in their old age.

The privatizers are breaking America's promise to its' seniors. They are breaking their word. It's fundamentally wrong.

So focus on the material issues of benefit cuts and rates of return, yes. But also use the moral language of irresponsibility, broken promises, insecurity in an increasingly unstable and uncertain world, etc.

by tgeraghty 2004-12-13 02:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I like "covenant"
so nice and biblical. . .
by Pachacutec 2004-12-13 02:56PM | 0 recs
Jeffhead2
Nurturant families (nations) vs. Swim or sink
The strict father quits being a family member after the kids are grown. Then they are on their own. If they are righteous then the will succeed. If they fail then they have not been righteous. Part of being successful and righteous is making the correct choices for your old age. If you put your money on the wrong stocks too bad, you were not righteous, you deserve to suffer in your old age.

The nurturant parent recognizes that it is their duty to care for their own elderly parents (who nurtured them as kids.)

That's the difference between the right-wing social security and the left-wing social-security. For the left, it is the workeres of today supporting the elderly (nurturant families caring for their elders). For the right it's the workers of today taking care of themselves tomorrow. It's swim or sink.

by Jeff Wegerson 2004-12-13 03:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nurturant families (nations) vs. Swim or sink
I like that word "duty."

Basically, the issue is are we just a bunch of atomized individuals on our own, or are each of us part of a broader community, a "commonwealth" you might say, in which we take care of each other, we have responsibility for each other's well-being?

"Community" is a liberal word. It is totally alien to the world-view of modern conservatives (and libertarians, I might add).

by tgeraghty 2004-12-13 03:35PM | 0 recs
Jeffhead2
Not quite totally
Family values should trump individual values even for the right. But the only way they can stomach communal family (and by extension communal national and species values) is through hierarchy as embodied by the strict father.
by Jeff Wegerson 2004-12-13 04:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Language and the Social Security debate
This is all fine. But Bush has said there is a crisis. You are saying "keep things the way they are" which isn't a "solution" to the "crisis" the President has said is there. This is where democrats get painted into a corner of being whiners who never want to change social security. But due to the marketing efforts of republicans and the fact that they've created huge debt, it does appear we have a crisis.

so, my point is, we need to propose a solution, not just a stay the course, we're committed to our elderly. And of course, the solution can't be raise taxes. How do we solve this puzzle?

by slammers 2004-12-13 06:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Language and the Social Security debate
Why are you so quick to accept conservative premises? This is one of the major failings of the Democrats.

If there is no crisis, then we don't need an immediate poorly-thought-out radical "solution" that destroys the system.

Nonetheless, there are plenty of good solutions that will bring the system back into long-term balance while preserving the defined benefit. Here are a couple:

The Ball Plan involves some tax increases, putting some of the trust fund into the stock market to take advantage of potentially higher returns while letting the government assume the risk of a market crash, and a voluntary system of individual investment accounts that does not divert any revenues from the existing defined-benefit portion of SS.

The Diamond-Orszag Plan involves a combination of tax increases and modest benefit cuts for high wage-earners.

So you'd better drop your objections to tax increases, and we'd better figure out how to sell them (as investments in our future retirement security? as ways of keeping promises to our seniors?).

by tgeraghty 2004-12-13 07:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Language and the Social Security debate

I'm not accepting their "premises' I'm just saying they have control of the message that's being put forth and most people believe what the president says (we witnessed that in this election). So unfortunately we have to respond with this in mind i.e. recognize that most people will believe there is a crisis. And if we just keep saying "we gotta take care of our elderly" we're not really adding anything to the discussion because Bush is saying he's gonna take care of our elderly too, just differently than the system in crisis will.
by slammers 2004-12-13 07:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Language and the Social Security debate
Obviously, the Democrats have to establish some level of control over the message.

I think we should draw a line in the sand: no diversion of the payroll tax from the defined-benefit portion of SS.

If Bush wants his individual accounts, let him find the revenue somewhere else.

The reason FDR set up the regressive payroll tax system in the first place was to provide a dedicated stream of revenue solely for SS that politicians couldn't touch.

He didn't want to rely on the more progressive income tax, because he knew that would put SS revenues at the mercy of future ill political winds.

Well, FDRs worst fears may be about to be realized. Only 44 Democratic senators standing in the way . . .

by tgeraghty 2004-12-13 08:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Language and the Social Security debate
I sort of lost my train of thought here.

What I meant to say first was:

Obviously, the Democrats have to establish some level of control over the message.

We can't just accept the Republican frame that the system is in crisis and the only way to save it is through privatized accounts.

I think that one way to recapture the terms of the debate could be to emphasize that the Republicans are breaking our promises to America's senior citizens by essentially abolishing the Social Security system.

Emphasizing ideas such as "community values," "mutual obligation," for our side, and "broken promises,"  "insecurity," "irresponsibility," corporate "corruption" for their side.

What is our alternative? Just accept what the Republicans want to do?

by tgeraghty 2004-12-13 08:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Huffington is inaccurate.
Lakoff is not a cognitive psychologist; he is a cognitive linguist.
by DC Pol Sci 2004-12-13 03:12PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
And then assert the center is where you stand
Take your stand, make as few compromises for political expediency as possible (but, at the same time, take heakthy doses of reality at regular intervals), and then take the next step.

Assert that you are at the center, that you represent American majority beliefs on reproductive rights, on sex education, on the environment, on social security, even on Iraq.  Assert that, in part, because it's true.  Assert it, in part, because it works.

Time to start stealing some definitions back.

Of course, the Bush two-step was to seem to move toward the center (compassionate conservatism and all that) while actually edging right.

by Denver 2004-12-13 03:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: And then assert the center is where you stand

"Compassionate Conservative" is an amazing term that has incredible staying power. Look what they did, they turned the "image" of conservative as selfish, hardnosed, cold-blooded on its head.

Can we do the same for liberal. Come up with a qualifier that will turn around the general unhealthy impression of what a "liberal" is. And then we need to find some candidates to go with it.

by slammers 2004-12-13 07:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The compassionate conservative label
also reveals a weakness in the conservative philosophy that progressives do not exploit with sufficient intensity.

As I have said elsewhere, calling yourself a compassionate progressive is being redundant. Saying that you are a compassionate conservative is making an argument.

Progressives need to challenge the compassionate conservative argument at every turn and remind listeners that the warmth you might experience in the presence of a compassionate conservative is not compassion, its the heal of a government boot on your neck that will press down if you step off the conservative path.

by dicta 2004-12-14 07:00AM | 0 recs
Jeffhead2
Of course what we really do when we move to the
left is that we are moving towards the center. Because the right has so skewed politics in this country.
by Jeff Wegerson 2004-12-13 03:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: example
The Powell Doctrine. Now, that position has become a left leaning position because the Republicans, with Dem bending over for it, has moved the center to the right of the Doctrine.
by bruh21 2004-12-13 03:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Move Left, open up room for "Perot"
I would love the Democrats to move left. That would allow a viable third party to rise up in the middle and America would have three parties being true to themselves.
by Paul Goodman 2004-12-14 06:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Bravo
I agree with what Lakoff is saying here.  Wholeheartedly.

So many times, during this last election cycle, that the reasons why people have no interst in politics, is that policticians are all the same; no matter what party they're from.  Since, even the parties are the same.

Now, I know there are differences (even though I don't consider what we have in the White House to be true Republicans); however, we all have to agree that the Dems gradual move to the center has made their message less clear.  And yes, this has hurt the Dems.

I know that if the Dems just stuck to their core beliefs, the very beliefs that made the Dems great, more people would definitely be attracted to the whole idea of being "liberals" or "progressives".  Heh, even though I believe there are MORE liberals and progressives out there; they just don't know it, yet.

by smugbug 2004-12-14 11:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Bravo
Ooops.  And a big "ugh" at my typo.

So many times, during this last election cycle, that the reasons why people have no interst in politics, is that policticians are all the same; no matter what party they're from.

Should read:  "So many times, during this last election cycle, I heard that the reasons why people......"

Sorry.

by smugbug 2004-12-14 11:55AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------