Why can't the Midwest call itself the Midwest?  I"m from there, and have no shyness about it.  People on the coasts often have a messed up vision of it, but it's usually in the opposite direction from what these stereotype-makers would have you believe...

I think the key factor to remember is that
people here treat Rush limbaugh, or FOX
news, as news.

You absolutely have to reign in these channels
of propaganda, and make it well know theyre
not to be trusted..

One thing that frustrated me about the Kerry campaign was the way he mentioned "middle" so much (middle class tax cuts for middle class families) and didn't really address issues of people outside this middle effectively.  Have the Democrats totally given up on fighting poverty and lifting the underclass up out of despair?  If Democrats talk as if the middle class is all there is, then there is no need for the welfare state.

"We need to figure out who we are, not how we talk to others, before we move forward. Our conversations need to be internal--in Meetups, at House Parties, in Union Halls, liberal churches and liberal blogs. Let's take a few weeks off from framing them and figure out who we are. Until we do that, we will never know what it is we stand for, and we will never grow as a party. "

Where in world did you get the idea that Middle America is a geographical location?  And if, as I suspect, you don't really believe this notion then it seems to me that you are using it for the sole purpose of swaying the party to abandon all hopes of winning over the moderate centrists.

Middle America is a metaphor for the slightly right of center exurb and rural folks who used to identify themselves as slightly left of center farm/labor individuals.  It's a philosophical orientation, a world-view, that currently sees us as disconnected from their ideals or values.

When we won over the moderates we were able to advance our objectives of creating a better america.  Right now the republicans have them and will advance their objectives of a more controlled, theocratic america.

It's all about the numbers.  We don't have the White House, the Senate, or the House of Representatives because our opponents have framed their issues in ways to win the hearts and minds and votes of the vast middle ground.

Talking about the "language of our oppressors" plays into their hands; the perception is that we see ourselves being oppressed, while they present themselves as being "liberators" of the nation.  That's not "using" their language, that's creating it for them.

</rant mode>

I am pissed off, deeply displeased with my government, and worried about the future, but not oppressed.

We need a term for people of all walks of life, who value freedom, responsibility, and opportunity. It needs to include vocabulary that is already evocative of America. Not the dull small town America that everyone wants to move away from, but the vibrant place where the future is created, where all the children are above-average. Maybe something as simple as the Land of the Free or hopefully something better than that.

Then we need several authors to write books about this new place to establish its authenticity and show how the conservatives are serving it badly.

http://209.200.79.146/ee/index.php?/trifecta/comments/talkin_organizing_vol_i_a_tale_from_the_city/

snip
But it was at the third door that I realized I wasn't hearing the whole question.  As it happened, that third door was the little bungalow on Marion Street, where we were greeted and welcomed in by Johnny Molina.  I saw in that tiny house all the pride and effort that people of no means can put into maintaining dignity in a home.  And again, I was asked, "Why are they doing this?" And it suddenly hit me, the part of the question they weren't putting in words, what I was really being asked was, "Why are they doing this to us?" The scales fell from my eyes.  And I don't know where the words I responded with came from, I certainly didn't think them out, I just began to speak.

"Because they think they can do it, because they think they can get away with it, they think they can push you around and push you out and and that no one will do anything, no one will say anything.  They think you don't care, that you have no pride, that your homes mean nothing to you." Oh yes, I added about payoffs and developers, but that was just filling in gaps.  Johnny's eyes lit up as I talked about the contempt that the Tully machine had for the people of the Triangle, a dark cold fire.  He grabbed his coat, said something to his wife in Spanish, turned to Val and me, and told us, "We will go talk to the people."

We can recapture our identity by unashamedly embracing our progressive values and patiently explaning to those who are ignorant--the ones who live in the middle--why they should do the same.  Many of us moved to the coasts from the Midwest because we wanted to expand our possibilities, search for opportunities, while relying on a personal optimism and shared values of individual freedom.  If our rhetoric becomes too strident, too anti, we loose ground because America is essentially a conservative country. But because it is still somewhat democratic, its open to persuasion.

To reach a mass audience we need to create progressive mass media.  Air America is a start, but we need our Fox, and our Wall Street Journal too.  As Lewis Lapham has pointed out recently the Plutocrats have been developing an effective propoganda machine since the late 60s. When disillusionment with the "righteous empire" sets in, we need to be ready.  

We and the Dems need to talk about our people, not places.  Everyday people. Regular people.

And forget middle class.  People in America don't like to talk about class; they don't like to see themselves as part of a group based on limited wealth as the entire concept of the American dream is based upon economic fluidity.  

As for how we frame them, may I suggest 'Regressive'?  If we're progressive, they're regressive.   Conservative implies conservation, the status quo - which is not what the Republican party is about anymore.  They want to roll back society to another era, rejecting contemporary society completely.  And doesn't 'Religous Regressives' sound a proper to describe the radical Christian right?  Doesn't 'Social Regressives' describe those who want to want to make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy, to prevent gay adults from having consensual relations? Doesn't 'Corporate Regressives' describe Wal-Mart's anti regular-people union-busting tactics?

As for Wall Street, or big business, what do you think of 'Corporate Elites' or 'Big Business Elites'?  Regular people vs big business elites.  I know who's side I'm on with that.

Also, it's not like liberals on the coasts don't have disparging terms for the red states in the middle of the country, to go with Taxechuttes and the like on the right.

Usually, the middle half of the country is referred to liberals on the coasts as fly over country, as in the place you fly over when going from Los Angeles to New York, but care zero about.

What is really happening here is logic.

Cities are red.

Rural areas are blue.

Cities first begin, and are largest, on the coasts.  Ports and beaches encourage cities to form around them.

Therefore, the coasts are urban, and the middle of the country is rural.

Therefore, states on the coasts mostly go blue, and states in the middle of the country mostly go red.

The only exception is The South, which has it's own issues (slavery, breaking away from the Union, etc.), which lend it to be redder than it should be.

The idea has rather less significance over here, partly because the high population density throughout England means that rural 'Middle Englanders' are widely dismissed as an affluent minority. It may also be true that the Conservative party's ownership of the phrase has contributed to their dismal performances in Scotland and Wales over the last decade.

However, your article reminded me of a story I read in the Guardian in August. While it is largely about the British education system, the following passage would seem to be relevant here:

By the way, the most widely swallowed GOP invention over the last few years has been "War on Terror". Democrats should have found better words, in order to disassociate homeland security from vague fantasy and naked imperialism.

My blog Things I Don't Have Time For

Innovation rests also on a tolerance of, even a promotion of, difference.  So our identities as diverse people who come together to create the common good and prosperity is integral to our cultural strength.  I think we have to emphasize that aspect of who we are:  we are culturally strong.

Claiming this identity as Entrepreneurial America also allows us, culturally, to claim back something that is deeply ingrained in American mythology and the American consciousness.  The progressive, frontier mythology of America is bound up in the language of innovation and entrepreneurial risk-taking.

One image and metaphor of this comes with the way New York came together after 9/11.  There were a lot of working people of all colors, flavors and faiths in those images:  that was America.  That, even, was the "heart" of America.  But for political purposes, New Yorkers have become framed as the "other" again.

By approaching our identity as Entrepreneurial America this way, we can also point out a couple of things, by way of contrast.  First, it gives an opportunity to demonstrate again that the so called "blue states" subsidize the economies of the so called "red" ones.  Furthermore, as Andrew Sullivan has argued recently, our policies and culture are actually better in terms of producing the "moral" outcomes that the right wing seeks to promote.

The way I see it, using the frame of "Entrepreneurial America" not only has the benefit of being good politics, it has the benefit of being true, as Lyndon Johnson once famously remarked in another context.

Fiscal responsibility: balancing the budget, maintaining our nation's fiscal health, not passing huge debt to our children, preserving Social Security

Social responsibility: protecting working people, children, people struggling to rise from poverty, elders, people with disabilities and other vulnerable members of our society; preserving the health and welfare of all Americans; assuring clean air, clean water and a healthy environment

International responsibility: working with allies to preserve peace, stability and advance freedom and prosperity throughout the world.

Responsibility for the liberty, equality and right to pursue happiness of all citizens.

The theme in Barack Obama's speech to the DNC that "I am my brother's keeper and my sister's keeper" resonate here. Years ago, Newt Gingrich used "personality responsibility" as a conservative political slogan and code for eliminating welfare, but Democrats support a broader and deeper form of responsibility.

The dream world of the "Political Center" is a different place entirely.   The "Political Center" a majoritarian set of positions with no constituency.

So there are two conversations disguised as one taking place here.

"Middle America" would have understood if John Kerry had said, "NASCAR's not my thing.  I like baseball.  Hey how bout those Red Sox?"  Instead he asked, "Who Amongst Us Does Not Love NASCAR?"

So Chris may be right (I'm not entirely convinced) you can't pander to "Middle America" because it doesn't really exist.  In fact, if you try to pander to it, you automatically lose because you start operating on a set of premises set up by Republicans that all tilt their way.

As for the "Political Center" their is a center on cultural issues and a center on economic issues.  Two different axis'.  A majority of Americans may be in the center on cultural issues, but there is also a majority to the left on economic issues.

Tacking center may be a successful strategy for individual Democrats to win specific elections, but it's been disastrous for the Party as a whole.  

The most obvious example is Clinton's legacy.  He created lots of loyalty to Bill Clinton, but party identification continued to decline as the GOP pulled up even.  

NAFTA may have been smart economics, but it was lousy strategy for the Party.  People were scratching their heads asking how people in Rust Belt states with massive jobs losses could vote for Bush.  My guess is that they don't blame Bush for the jobs, they blame Clinton.

Welfare reform was a popular position for Clinton and helped him win over "The Center" but does any one think that it inspired anyone to become a lifelong Democrat?

That's the problem with tacking to the Center.  You have to fight for those same damn votes in election after election.   Deliver on universal healthcare and you'll have votes in the bank from a generation.

The other problem with tacking Center, is that the GOP keeps moving Right so the Center keeps moving Right.  Tacking Center facillitates that.

Democratic Party identification comes from Social Security, Medicare, the GI Bill, the FHA, the Civil Rights Act, the Apollo program, etc.   There is nothing in the DLC project that could remotely build that kind of party loyalty.

Move the Party Left on Economic issues and let individual candidates tack Center on Cultural issues when necessary.

That's how Brian Schweitzer won in Montana, which might be part of "Middle America" if such a place existed.

(please exuse my uncrisp writing.  Little hungover this morning.)