Good call, I agree with you.

Bingo.

The whole "Emerging Democratic Majority" approach was fundamentally flawed from the start. There is a potential Emerging Democratic, but that doesn't mean it will be realized. And cutting and dissecting focus groups isn't going to get you anywhere.

After perusing the Ruy's website for years, he's proven to be great at distilling what the current state of thinking is. But he's lousy at any advice at moving opinion.

And that leads right to a core problem right now: Although most of the American public think the GOP are nuts - they also think the Democratic leadership are pretty ineffectual.

And the irony is also obvious - most Democrats don't really like the Democratic leaders either.

My take also. They're approaching the problem from the wrong direction.

Democratic position on Iraq: Bash Bush

Democratic position on Social Security: Bash Bush

Democratic position on fixing Social Security: Bash Bush

My Democratic platform:

Government that works well, taxes fair to all, people before corporations, jobs for American citizens

There is one simple message the Dems need to remember from the past. It's a message Govs Kaine and Warner used effectively in Virginia, hardly a blue state. The message is:

The Democratic party fights for the little guy.

Repeat over and over.

Frequency nailed it!

I second Broken.

There's another school of thought that says that the modern Democratic Party does indeed stand for something, but if they ever actually laid it out honestly, they'd never win another election.

Or haven't you noticed that the most successful Democrats in national elections tend to be those who dress up as Republicans before the vote?

How IS Hillary doing, by the way?

Why can't we just tell the truth which is that the Republicans are terrific at PR (hype) but terrible at governing, and the Democrats are terrible at PR and very good at governing. If we emphasize this to the American voters, they should get the point.

Democratic position on Iraq: We need to force the elected Iraqi government to take charge by giving them a date certain that we will no longer be there to prop them up. Republican translation = Bash Bush

Democratic position on Social Security: Social Security will be solvent for several decades to come, but in order to assure solvency, we should raise the cap. Republican translation = Bash Bush

It's hard to project the Democratic vision when most media outlets keep aping the no-postion line.

The Democratic party fights for the little guy.

But where is the bar set for "little guy?" At what point in your life does your success make you part of the enemy?

I remember asking someone once how much income someone would have to make before they weren't part of the "working class" any more. I still haven't seen a hard number on that. Damn sure it's a lot lower than $100 a minute.

The definition of "middle class" is equally vague. There aren't enough really poor people in America to win a national election, so you have to convince people that aren't poor that they're being screwed over, and do it without those people noticing that most of the politicians they're voting for are, and are supported by, millionaires.

Yeah, this is pretty tricky.

Come on, we all know what we stand for as progressives. Especially now. That's the easy part.

We stand for the ethical values articulated in the U.S. Constitution. Why can't we just say that? The Republicans are well on their way to establishing an authoritarian government that rules by executive fiat. We're against it.

We want the law to be applied equally to all and to be supreme, and we want equal opportunity for all to pursue happiness, as they see fit, in freedom, security and health.

That's it.

Kevin your falling for the old tired right wing lie. The message is out there, The only problem is the right can not see anything beyond there God and Tax cuts.Don't fall for it, The message is quite clear,It is only the right that can't see it, Everyone else can see our message very clear,We don't need to paint pictures for the rightwing, there blind let it stay that way.

tbrosz: There's another school of thought that says that the modern Democratic Party does indeed stand for something, but if they ever actually laid it out honestly, they'd never win another election.

Tommy, you are precious. How fucking ridiculous, coming from the party that lies to start wars; renames initiatives Alice in Wonderland style to indicate the exact opposite of what they're actually intended for (see SS "reform," "Clear Skies Act," et. al ad nauseam); and distracts the masses with xenophobia, homophobia, racism and religious paranoia so the mopes won't notice they're getting screwed economically.

Agree that this is the wrong approach - the question isn't "what do Democrats stand for?" Despite the perception, explaining our core values and beliefs - at least when I'm talking with other Dems, is not hard. What we have are distinct differences in terms of priorities and approaches. These can be worked out, and go back to a very fundamental point that Texeira, Halpin and others miss - we're not Republicans. This is not the home of the 24 point porgram plan.

What we need to discuss - with people who know what they're talking about, and not with the whole world - is how best to present our core values, because lots of people, disconnected from politics generaly, don't see them. That's a smal-bore, narrowly focused discussion, ultimately. And I hate to see it played out in front of lots of people, tinkered at by committee, and further pushing a notion of constant disarray. We are a lively conversation, to be sure - but we do have things that we stand for, and they're not as hard as people are making them out to be.

And calling it "common good' is a vast oversimplification.

John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira are competing for the Amy Sullivan award for being the most ridiculous advisors to the Democratic Party.

If GOP was not the impeccably honest political party that we know it to be, it would be easy to conclude that Halpin and Teiceira are Republican moles doing their best to ensure that Democrats continue to be members of the minority party in the congress.

It is a terrible shame that modern political power does nothing other than care & feeding of their fanatical base. Until we free our Democracy from the tyranny of the two-party system, America will continue to be hijacked by noxious political sects who wrench the wheel at any hint of a "mandate". The Democratic legacy should be about progressing America towards a better future. But as long as Democrats pine for Republican-like focus-group-inspired power-grabs, we are steaming full-speed ahead towards disaster.

Kevin: ... they used the demographic breakdowns and focus group results to figure out what we're supposed to feel passionately about in the first place.

I am weary of people who don't stand for anything telling me that I need to stand for something.

This whole meme drives me crazy. Leave your office (or stay in it) and talk to people about job security, education (cost of, quality of), health care (cost of, availability of), the environment (quality of), and then tell me these are not core Democratic issues.

And contrary to Tom's inane post, it is the Republicans who couldn't get elected if they actually said what they wanted - Social Security Phase Out, anyone? Common cause with Christian Talibanists, anyone? The only thing the GOP has is to shout "look out behind you!" - they can't actually govern on simple effectiveness, on the quality of their "ideas", on any of that. It's the Fear Party, straight up.

Even talking about the idea that Dems don't stand for anything is buying straight into Republican talking points. It's not true, and I don't think we should distinguish it with comment. Except for mine, of course!

tbrosz: There aren't enough really poor people in America to win a national election, so you have to convince people that aren't poor that they're being screwed over, and do it without those people noticing that most of the politicians they're voting for are, and are supported by, millionaires.

People who are hanging on by their fingernails to the shrinking "middle class" designation--and there are a hell of a lot of these, despite your continued attempts to ignore them--have a funny way of noticing that jobs are disappearing, health care through the roof, gas costs $3 a gallon and other things that, you know, affect their daily lives outside your garage.

And however much it may personally bug you that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are rolling in the green stuff, the more reasonable and far-seeing members of the population care less about how much money their elected representatives have and more about what those representatives do to improve their constituents' lives/opportunities.

This isn't hard, Tom, for anyone but you.

tbrosz: But where is the bar set for "little guy?" At what point in your life does your success make you part of the enemy?

tbrosz, Class Warrior.

I don't see Halpin and Teixeira's approach as in any way really wrongheaded.

Look, the do seem to agree, on more or less apriori grounds, that the overarching goal of seeking the common good is basic to progressive belief, and also distinctively progressive, as opposed to right wing.

But what does seeking the common good even mean? What kind of subgoals does that entail? Which of these subgoals are politically feasible?

None of those questions are answerable without the sort of demographic/political analysis that they are proposing. Really, they seem to be saying little more than that progressive goals should be adjusted to, and understood in the light of, political realities.

Whether the goals are fully top down, or bottom up, or coming from both directions and meeting at the middle, is basically irrelevant. In the long run, such accomodations to reality must be made. It is the total, finished product that must stand or fall before the American people.

Cute, shortstop.

Now, tell me, if Ted Kennedy had the power, and a free hand, what would he do with the oil companies?

You'd be better off with "Booo's" approach: The message is very clear to those with eyes that see. Why should be need to go into details?

I don't think we should distinguish it with comment. Except for mine, of course!.

Well, I'd taken a crack at some of the same ideas a couple of minutes earlier. But you said it better.

What does the Democratic Party Stand for?

Well, we know what the republican party stands for.
1. Low Taxes
2. A Strong Defense
3. Less Government
4. traditional Values

So by inverse logic, its easy to figure out what the Democrats stand for.
1. High Taxes
2. A weak Defense
3. More Government
4. Decadence

I remember asking someone once how much income someone would have to make before they weren't part of the "working class" any more. I still haven't seen a hard number on that.

That's because the critical distinction that makes someone "working class" isn't primarily how much income you have but where your income comes from. There is a weak connection with income, of course, because having more surplus income provides more room to invest and become less dependent on labor income, but the critical distinction is the source, not amount, of the income.

The definition of "middle class" is equally vague. There aren't enough really poor people in America to win a national election, so you have to convince people that aren't poor that they're being screwed over, and do it without those people noticing that most of the politicians they're voting for are, and are supported by, millionaires.

Why? You seem to assume that people cannot support policies whose primary direct beneficiaries are people who are in different circumstances than themselves. There is no more inconsistency in some millionaires supporting the interests of the middle class than there is in some whites supporting civil rights legislation to repudiate discrimination against blacks.

...the more reasonable and far-seeing members of the population care less about how much money their elected representatives have and more about what those representatives do to improve their constituents' lives/opportunities.

This would be where the pork comes in, right? Both parties excel at that.

The "reasonable and far-seeing members of the population" are busy making their own way in the world, and it doesn't take much progress before the government becomes the obstacle, not the helper.

Democratic position on Iraq: Bash Bush

Democratic position on Social Security: Bash Bush

Democratic position on fixing Social Security: Bash Bush

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth

Another way of saying this is "Democratic position when Bush is as wrong as a deep-fried lollipop: Point it out."

Well, we know what the republican party stands for. 1. Low Taxes 2. A Strong Defense 3. Less Government 4. traditional Values

So by inverse logic, its easy to figure

There is virtually no evidence for 2 and 3, and 4 is only true insofar as patriarchy and autocracy are "traditional values".

Extreme, unnecessary, and counterproductive use of military force is not the same thing as a "strong defense", indeed, it is diametrically opposed to it. Similarly, radically expanding the size, scope, and power of the government at the expense of individual rights, and concentrating that power as much as possible in the person of the President is not "less government", but more.

So by inverse logic, its easy to figure out what the Democrats stand for...Decadence.

We're the Party of Decadence? Oooo-eee! Now what have you guys been getting up to while I'm out of the room? Come on, you can tell Auntie Shortstop.

fitz:

Well, we know what the republican party stands for.

1. Low Taxes
2. A Strong Defense
3. Less Government
4. traditional Values

At this point, number 3 needs a LOT of work.

The box that they've successfully put us in now requires the Democratic Party to sell the Republican Party on the merits of Democratic positions. Like that'll ever happen.

We're portrayed as having no position, when in fact, we have positions that Republicans will never agree with. Yet that is framed to the larger audience as not having a position.

Another perfect example of how the Republican Party seems to control the channels of discourse with the average media-addled American.

But what does seeking the common good even mean? What kind of subgoals does that entail? Which of these subgoals are politically feasible?

Treating the last question as important in the context of standing for something is exactly what is wrong.

To show that you stand for something as a principle means that, while you may accept temporary compromise because of feasibility, you never waiver from the goal set out by principle.

Which means that, to get to what you should stand for, feasibility is simply not a concern. Feasibility is a concern later, on an ongoing basis, when you decide what to accept today as the best you can get right now, and only then with consideration of the effect of compromise on the long-term goal.

For those protesting the democratic strategy of "Bash Bush" - there's nothing wrong with that strategy, nothing at all.

First, wouldn't we all be a lot better off if the Democrats had managed to stop Bush on Iraq, tax cuts, and Medicare?

Second, look at the GOP strategy recently. Hasn't been essentially to bash the Democrats? Flipper Flopper wasn't a positive message - but it worked beautifully. And 2002 and 2000 fit in the same mode.

So, I'd say that the Democrats should proudly say that there first priority would be to stop whatever nutty idea the administration throws out. Like Social Security Privitization or bombing Iran.

And for goodness sakes don't worry if the GOP whines about "going negative". That should be blood in the water.

The Rightwing stands for Nothing.Iraq? Economy? SS? Healthcare? Natural Diasters ? The Debt ? The Deficit ? Terrorism ? Foreign Policy ? Nope no answers from the Rightwing on any of these issues.

Since almost everybody in America is doing so well economically, all the Democrats have to do is to claim that they are just like Republicans, but only better.

most Democrats don't really like the Democratic leaders either.

Actually, I'd say that most bloggers don't like Democratic leaders. I'd say most real Democrats (i.e. those involved in county parties and precinct operations) generally do.

As far as "the little guy", that is a non starter. "Justice for all" is much better. Liberals need to understand that the lower class doesn't really want "help", they want a fair chance, especially for their children. Similarly, why should wealthy "help" the lazy poor (which there are some, though not that many)?

I think Kevin's criticism misses the point. There are a lot of things that Democrats stand for and are good at. To use an analogy, they are like HP printers. Generally the best around, but they are stuck living off a reputation from decades past and haven't bothered with a real marketing strategy. What I believe Teixeira and Halpin are proposing is a marketing strategy for the Democrats.

Just as you would likely use different advertising strategies for different demographics if you wanted to sell a product, the same is true with politics. The GOP markets racial tension in some areas, greed in others, and "values" to churches. It's time the Dems do the same so that they can build a coalition. There's some pretty crappy products out there that sell because they have good PR strategies (e.g. the GOP).

My penny's worth: "common good" is a sure loser.

It's too easy to counter as: "The Democrats think they know what's best for everybody. They want to decide where your kids go to school, what they're taught, who your doctor will be, and how much of your money you get to keep."

What's dividing this country so sharply is a fundamental disagreement about the role of government. Until the Dems tackle that debate and make a case for their position, the GOP will have the rhetorical advantage.

So by inverse logic, its easy to figure out what the Democrats stand for.
1. High Taxes
2. A weak Defense
3. More Government
4. Decadence

Posted by: Fitz on

To rephrase this, Democrats stand for:
1. Taxes high enough to pay for national needs rather than add to the national debt
2. No discretionary wars for secret reasons
3. Enough government to take care of national needs
4. Personal freedom

Since almost everybody in America is doing so well economically

Compared to...what? Certainly not compared to the status quo ante Bush.

Well, we know what the republican party stands for.
1. Low Taxes
2. A Strong Defense
3. Less Government
4. traditional Values

At some point, people will stop believing in the tooth fairy, and hopefully the Dems will be in a position to take advantage of the growing disillusionment (3 more years of W!).

KD: "they used the demographic breakdowns and focus group results to figure out what we're supposed to feel passionately about in the first place. I'm a pretty analytic person, but that doesn't work even for me."

Sounds pretty Rovian, and I don't know that you can argue with success. Still, I don't see much chance for the Dems if they try to emulate the Republican plan of pandering to the religious right to make sops to the wealthy more palatable to Joe Megachurch.

The "little guy" theme will have to be the one to bank on, basing it on wages, health care and education. "It's the economy stupid" may not work at the moment, but BushCo's sugar-rush of tax-cuts and deficit spending is starting to wind down.

Tbroz Could you explain ALMOST EVERYONE? Sounds like your going to the strawpile again.Bush 31% Republican Congress 23% Cheney 15% Yea,Your side is doing really well.

Well if Kevin is going to dump on the common good, which is an excellent idea because it happens to be true for a lot of people, then he'd better do it fast so I can start ripping into him.

"To rephrase this, Democrats stand for:
1. Taxes high enough to pay for national needs rather than add to the national debt"

Yeah, that must be why the budget was in deficit virtually every year that the Democrats controlled Congress.

"2. No discretionary wars for secret reasons"

Yeah, that must be why a majority of Democrats voted to go to war in Iraq.

"3. Enough government to take care of national needs
4. Personal freedom"

These two are so vague they are basically meaningless. The Republicans would also claim to
have these principles.

There is some corrupt dimwit fraud with a new show being heavily advertised on one of the news networks (it might or might not be cnn) who's ad appears on your tv and he shouts at you, shouts at you, 'It doesn't matter if they're a Republican or a Democrat! Just do the job!', which is to say 'It doesn't matter if he's a Republican as long as he gives you an emotional authenticity!'

Utterly corrupt.

Treating the last question as important in the context of standing for something is exactly what is wrong.

I'm opposed to the death penalty on principle, in any state. I'm in favor of gay marriage on principle, in any state. Should vehement support of both of those become part of the progressive agenda?

As I said over at TAPPED on Friday: if Dems of all stripes would stop moaning that the party doesn't stand for anything, and get up and say what they individually stand for whenever they are on TV, then the perception might start changing a bit.

Then the next step: there are roughly 250 Dems in Congress. Once each of them said what it is that they stood for, and what they're passionate about that makes them a Democrat and not a Republican, I bet they'd find a lot of overlap between most of their lists.

It might even be enough so they could forget the polling and focus groups, and just do a bit of trimming to come up with a concise list of things that the vast majority of public Dems are already willing to go to the mats for.

And then they could go on TV and fight for the things on that list, which would be the things they already care about.

What do we stand for?

Today, first and foremost: Responsible government. This means we believe in the rule of law.
Country before party.
The freedoms in the Bill of Rights.
Balanced Budgets.
Accountability.
Transparency.

We also believe in the responsibility of all citizens to contribute to the common good. This leads to our positions on fair taxes, people before corporations, jobs for American citizens, etc. But that's not all we believe in, and we're fools to keep letting our agenda be reduced to kumbayah, love the poor solidarity-type stuff. We're not the anti-libertarian party--we believe profoundly in freedom from government. Our tax policy isn't what fundamentally defines our relationship to freedom, and we're fools to continue playing into that storyline.

We believe in responsibilities and freedoms that the Republicans don't--we believe that the American people have freedoms and rights more fundamental and important than the freedom of wealthy people to pay less on their taxes. And we believe they have responsibilities to their nation and to their neighbors.

But perhaps most importantly, Democrats aren't afraid. We don't fear and hate the American government. Fundamentally, we respect the Constitution and think it's a goddamned masterpiece. We believe that the power of government is like fire--it's dangerous and needs to be controlled, but properly controlled, it can create a powerful infrastructure that allows a nation to achieve great things. It needs to be respected and contained, not feared.

We believe that in a post 9/11 world, the most dangerous thing would be for America to turn into a police state. We believe that our nation is strongest when it's open and free, and when its leaders are held accountable to the American people for their actions.

We don't think freedom and accountability are the problem. We think they're the solution.

The only reason the majority might think Dems don't have an identity is because the media tells them that. If any of the talking heads actually delivered liberal talking points, they should be to preface everything with the Republicans being the party of extremes --- ruining the country with their caving to the wacko extreme right and trying to change things back to the way they were in the 19th century. The Democrats are the party of moderation, the party to continue to move us forward and make sure the United States continues to be a dominant force in the world.

In Part 1 they talk about the high numbers for the 18-24 demographic. I'm in my mid-30s, and just the other day I was talking to a progressive, age 22. He was saying how he's given up on the Democrats. I argued with him about that, and during the conversation he mentioned that he's never voted for a winning Democrat before. When your voting record only goes back to 2000, you're in danger of "teaching" young voters that voting for Democrats is pointless. I think the youth numbers are soft, for this reason. If we don't start winning elections, we can write that bloc off.

"As far as "the little guy", that is a non starter. Posted by: gq"

A "non-starter"? The present and past Govs of Virginia (kaine and Warner)used this message and won. How much more "starter" do you want?

tbroz attacked the "little guy message" immediately because he recongnizes it as a real threat.

Repubs talk populist but they deliver for the top 1%. That leaves the other 99% as the "little guys". The little guys are not just the poor. The entire middle class is being squeezed, and the middle class knows it.

Small businesses are also the little guys. The Repubs write legislation for the big buys and small business gets squeezed.

The message is simple. David vs Goliath.

The Democratic Party fights for the little guy

I still like variations of John Edwards's phrasing of our values -- the Democratic Party is the Party that believes that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should get ahead.

It's excellent for two reasons: first that it's right, and second that it correctly casts the Republican Party as the Party that not only does not reward hard work, but actively rewards corruption and connections.

I'm opposed to the death penalty on principle, in any state. I'm in favor of gay marriage on principle, in any state. Should vehement support of both of those become part of the progressive agenda?

Define "vehement"?

Despite the fact that national majorities and majorities in most states support legal access to abortion, the Republican Party has been very successful, electorally, while embracing anti-abortion positions fairly consistently, as a party core value proposition, across the country, even though the specific policy proposals through which that position have been realized have often fallen far short of the rhetoric, and have been adapted to the political condition of the particular time and place (but often gone beyond what is pragmatically useful except as a symbolic act.)

Has that been a help in convincing people -- even those who wouldn't support the most extreme form of anti-abortion policy -- that the Republicans have constant values? I think so.

So, yes, I think a positions for equal rights without discrimination based on sexual orientation and against capital punishment ought to be recognized as core Democratic values that the party is oriented toward everywhere.

I also think that the particular policies that the party supports in realization of those values have to be adapted based on pragmatic conditions.

But to define what the party stands for in terms of basic, general principles -- on a level more concrete than "the common good", but less specific than particular immediate policy -- there need to be firm principled goals, not tactical compromises that will be seen through to reveal a preference for present power over principle.

Just to follow up my previous post, what's important is not so much what progressives happen to believe amongst themselves.

What's important is the vision and agenda that they are willing to get behind in public. THAT agenda clearly must be tailored to political realities. If, after compromises to those realities, the agenda seems incoherent or endless complex, it is a failure.

The crucial thing is that that product be as simple as possible, as clear as possible, and as coherent as possible.

Well, we know what the republican party stands for.
1. Low Taxes [for rich people]
2. A Strong Offense
3. Less Effective Government
4. Hatred, fear and loathing of non-white, non-heterosexual, non-Christian fundamentalists.

Yes, good list! Thanks!

Define "vehement"?

How about, as an explicit plank in the Democratic platform?

Do you want to make, say, support for a federal amendment extending marriage to the gay population an explicit part of the Democratic platform?

Wouldn't you support such an amendment? I would, but I would NEVER recommend its adoption in the Democratic platform, at least not until some years or decades pass.

Here's an idea that needs no focus groups to back it up:

Stand for the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights.

Stand for the majority of people in this country and not the tiny elite who've been handed the proceeds from this administration's looting.

Period.

Any policy you want to support can be covered by these principles, for which we stand.

The other guys are rubber stamps for dictatorship and corruption.

I am a bit perplexed about Mr. Drum's comments, as I presumed he would do exactly the same thing Halpin and Teixeira propose - find out through polling what people want the liberal/progressive identity to be, in order to win elections. It is truly shameful that Democratic/liberal/progressive politicians are so Selig-like, that they cannot inherently exhibit what a decent American liberal/progressive identity is.

Foreign policy: fair play. We cannot condemn others for what we do. Pledge to end all policies and support to other nations that contradicts our stand on the infallibility of human rights and the rule of law. Stop all economic aid and armaments sales to dictatorships and terrorist states. The US will no longer play the Great Game or adopt the enenmy of my enemy is my friend as tactics.

Economics: Americans need another New Deal, one that makes individuals and families more important than wealthy corporations. Progressive taxation and strong corporate regulation.

War on Drugs: legalize everything, ending the iron triangle of law enforcement, politicians and organized crime that keeps our minorities and poor trapped in addiction and imprisonment.

Immigration: open the borders and enforce fair labor laws.

Military: Reduce spending and infrastructure as there is no strategic threat to the US since the fall of the USSR, and all of the intangible spending does nothing to make Americans richer or safer.

I do not expect any of these proposals to be adopted by the Democratic Party, which is why I renounce my membership and work for a new party to replace them.

Dems should say, over and over, something like this:

Republicans: great at campaigning - terrible at governing.

Our platform should say: Democrats will fight to give every citizen a good job, good healthcare and good education.

Keep it simple.

If you want to live like a Republican, vote for a Democrat.

- Harry S. Truman

Simple, succint, true. It doesn't get better than that.

Here's another:

Are you fed-up after 5 years of One-Party Rule?

Vote Democratic Party

Do you want to make, say, support for a federal amendment extending marriage to the gay population an explicit part of the Democratic platform?

See, I think the point your missing is that this is the kind of thing that is after, subordinate too, and less important than the level of deciding what the party stands for that I am talking about.

There has to be a decision on broad-but-meaningful principles (things much more specific than "the common good" which can mean, literally, anything the speaker approves of) to stand for first: things more like "freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation", around which tactical decisions about particular policies is organized.

Feasibility plays a role in particular policy stances like the one you aks the question about, but only after the broader, basic principles are established. You convince people you stand for something based on clear and constant articulation of the basic principles; the specific policies are often secondary.

Wouldn't you support such an amendment?

No, because I don't think federalization of marriage law, in general, is a good idea, nor do I think marriage needs to be a special case carved out in the federal Constitution in this way.

Now, I'd support a federal statute aimed extending the benefits already existing in federal law for those who are married to those in same-sex unions married by states (or foreign governmentS) on the same basis that such benefits are extended to opposite-sex partners.

What's important is the vision and agenda that they are willing to get behind in public. THAT agenda clearly must be tailored to political realities.

I think you miss out that it is important to recognize that the "vision" and the "agenda" that are publicly embraced are two distinct things. The "vision" is the goal, the "agenda" is the roadmap (or, at least, the prescription for the next few steps on the road).

The agenda must, as you say, be tailored to present pragmatic concerns. The vision, however, should not be (or, from a more cynically strategic perspective, must be well-tailored to appear not to be a reaction to present opportunity). This also means that the vision must be concrete enough to be meaningful, but broad enough to admit of considerable adaptation in terms of different immediate agendas to different political circumstances.

I haven't read it, but I do want to make one comment based upon Kevin's excerpts - I highly doubt that most Americans equate progressives and the Democratic Party, and I would bet that, if framed properly, Americans would very easily see a platform and agenda for progressives. It's the Democratic Party that has a public image problem, not progressives.

Also, lots of progressives, I'd say a majority, don't equate progressives and Democrats either. Progressives can fall into Democratic, Green, Reform, and independent affiliations. The Democratic Party has not been a progressive champion in the past decade, unless the progressive vision has greatly attenuated.

If the Democrats want to start remaking their image, then they should continue to ramp up the progressive overhaul of the agenda and platform. For too long the Democratic Party has shied from progressive vision and campaigning in fear of losing the corporate vote. Thus, the progressive vision has been watered down to suit corporate officers and executives, who are generally socially liberal to an extent but see finance and profits as the primary bottom-line. The result is a very limited progressive vision that sounds good but is dominated by real-world wealthy lobby concerns.

Turn it around.

You know, Howard Dean had the passion thing down cold in '04. It had little to do with ideology; Gephardt was further left on healthcare and trade, Kucinich and Sharpton were much more peacenik.

It's that he stood there and articulated the rage Democrats felt -- and still feel -- about being the national party of Republican Lite.

Seems to me that passion is more a style thing, and can't even be addressed by demographic-driven issue analysis. So I agree with Kevin's gut reaction.

Passion, more than anything else, is about having a spine. Picking a cause and sticking with it.

Bob

Political professionals like Texeira and Halpin are company men. The company in this case is the Democratic Party. The party exists for the purpose of delivering funds, advice and electoral victories for professional politicians running for office. The job of these company men is to figure out what the Democratic party has to turn itself into in order to deliver more victories for its candidates.

Of course, that is not the perspective of most ordinary people, who are not political professionals. For the professional, the success of the party is an end in itself, because securing victories for the party that employs their services is their job. If they could make the Democratic party successful electorally by turning it into a profoundly anti-progressive enterprise, they would do so. For most people, the victory of their party is only an instrumental end, based on their belief that the party advances their values better than the alternatives.

However, I doubt that the approach of Texeira and Halpin will be successful even on its own terms. The public wants leadership from their parties, but the compulsive tendency of the reigning pros is to turn its candidates into meek followers. They prefer to canvass voter preferences, and then follow those voters by pointing their candidates in whatever haphazard directions the voters happen to be drifting at the moment. But my sense is that people would prefer to vote for a strong leader who differs from their own preferences in certain areas, but inspires confidence, rather than for a weak and obsequious sycophant who just flatters them and regurgitates their preferences back at them.

Progressives need to build a political movement that is functionally and organizationally independent of the Democratic Party. If the movement succeeds in attracting adherents, then party pros like Texeira and Halpin will have to pay attention to it.

When I say a political movement, I do not mean merely the usual loose and disorganized network of lefty dissenters' groups given only to their standard, ineffective bitching. Those are potential foot-soldiers in the movement. But what is needed is a disciplined and aggressive national front with overarching thematic goals and policy proposals and, most importantly, a few very definite and visionary projects for national transformation around which a majority of Americans can be rallied.

Good stuff Dan.

If Kerry had won the election in 2004, would anything be any different today? Iraq would be the same. Corporate dominance of economic policy would be the same. Perhaps we would not have two really big authoritarian assholes on the Supreme Court, but that is more wishful thinking rather than reality. We would probably still have two more Catholics on the SC.

When Democrats take over the government again, who will the liberals/progressives blame for all of the problems caused by US policies? I remember Abbie Hoffman saying that the more liberal the administration the more vehement the liberal/progressive reaction to antithetical liberal policies they enact. Perhaps it will take a liberal back stabbing Democratically controlled government to finally mobilize the people against the American values of war and authoritarianism established under Reagan.

Dan:

While I agree with your analysis of leadership, it's at cross-purposes with the congenital fear of organizations that most progressives express, especially since the lost of union ascendency. There's been a strutural critique of organizationl power that certainly FDR wouldn't recognize.

I'm not in favor of creating a progressive splinter movement outside of a party structure. That's just more opportunity to create divisions on the left that can be exploited. I much prefer Howard Dean's visionary approach for the DNC, which is based on *rebuilding* the Democrats from the ground up, running young activists in local races in every state, until these folks percolate into leadership positions.

Once that happens, then the vision and passion of which we speak will be a part of both the party structure and its ideology.

Bob

Dan and Jimm:

I *would* be in favor of creating a progressive party structure outside the Democrats *if* we had IRV and/or other alternatives to first past the post elections.

If we can negate the spoiler effect, I'd be with you.

Bob

I'm not in favor of creating a progressive splinter movement outside of a party structure. That's just more opportunity to create divisions on the left that can be exploited. I much prefer Howard Dean's visionary approach for the DNC, which is based on *rebuilding* the Democrats from the ground up, running young activists in local races in every state, until these folks percolate into leadership positions.

I don't think these approaches are incompatible; a group that is a non-party can have substantial organizational and grass-roots mobilizing effect which can shift the realm of the political possible and thus enable even the tacticians in the party to shift. Its perfectly possible to work in that direction while also working to reform the party from within; just as its possible to work through, e.g., Amnesty International for change at the same time as working through the Democratic Party.

It's not unfair. It's what has created this situation in the first place--trying to find out what people want to hear, and then package it into a some nearly content free bullet points.

They simply cannot take a lesson from the Republicans. Reagan got elected by taken strong, principled positions. Republicans have worked hard at taking strong, principled positions in the teeth of popular opinion. This works, even though the do not follow those principles when they govern.

Right now, the principled positions have to do with the rule of law, real commitment to security, fixing health care and making federal taxes more progressive.

Playing Hillary's game is not gonna work this time. The republicans are on the ropes. The democrats have to start throwing some punches.

"We also believe in the responsibility of all citizens to contribute to the common good. This leads to our positions on fair taxes, people before corporations, jobs for American citizens, etc."

Tell it, Theora!

If the Democratic Party has to conduct a poll to see what it should stand for, its electoral losses of the past as well of the future are extremely well deserved.

"We believe that in a post 9/11 world, the most dangerous thing would be for America to turn into a police state. We believe that our nation is strongest when it's open and free, and when its leaders are held accountable to the American people for their actions.

We don't think freedom and accountability are the problem. We think they're the solution.
"

Great stuff.

I'd word the first of these sentences a little differently:

"We believe that in a post 9/11 world, the most dangerous thing would be for America to give up the freedoms we have valued for more than 200 years."

You convince people you stand for something based on clear and constant articulation of the basic principles; the specific policies are often secondary.

But the problem is precisely that the principles one espouses, by their very nature, when consistently maintained, become politically infeasible. Thus the natural set of principles that embodies "freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation" would ENTAIL the support of a Constitutional amendment requiring states to allow gays to marry.

You may say, well, we just won't make it explicit in our platform, that's just NOT going to cut it. Why not? Because, of course, the Republicans are going to ask that very question, maybe making it part of a resolution, and the question will HAVE to be answered, whether you'd like to avoid it or not. They'll say, well you don't think ANY discrimination of ANY kind based on sexual orientation is acceptable, right? So why DON'T you support such an amendment? And you're answer will have to be "weasel, weasel, weasel".

So the consistency in principles that you may grandly espouse when its just progressives talking to progressives simply must break down in any political agenda. You're simply hiding your head in the sand if you think otherwise.

And my point, still again, is that what is important is NOT the consistency, simplicity, and clarity of the principles that progressives hold amongst themselves, but rather the consistency, simplicity, and clarity of the agenda which is put forth publicly, and which progressives will be obliged to stand up and defend in mixed audiences.

Basically, you and others are simply arguing that we must do all such compromises top down, and that that's the only way to come up with a coherent, sensible product. Other than the good moral, satisfying feeling such a belief seems to give everybody, I don't know why you or anyone else should believe that. As I said before, it could come bottom up, or work its way from both the bottom and the top. That aspect seems basically irrelevant to me. It's the quality of the final product that counts.

And one further point. Simply because the polling data is taken into account early on in the process makes NO commitment whatever to how "forward leaning" the agenda may be. THAT is an adjustment that is likewise made in the light of likely political consequences. It is a fair thing to say that Democrats have been far too risk aversive when it comes to how forward leaning their agenda is, and that Republicans have been much less so. But calibrating that assessment is simply part of the political calculus. It may indeed be true that a signficantly more forward leaning agenda is actually MORE not LESS effective, because it makes a party more distinctive, and appear stronger.

cmdicely:

Don't get me wrong; I'm certainly not opposed to advocacy groups. I don't know if Amnesty does much in the way of electoral advocacy, but I'm certainly not opposed to Sierra Club or ADA or the ACLU, etc. etc. What does worry me is the "take my marbles and go home" effect of coalitions of single-issue groups in backing candidates. I'd be all for a progressive party if we could avoid the spoiler syndrome.

I think the tactical model is the Christian Coalition. After Robertson's '88 run, when America discovered the power of previously-marginalized charismatics, the Christian Coalition learned from it and certainly didn't propose a Christian third party. Instead they trained activists to take over local and influence state Republican Party structures. They bored from within. One of the results we've seen has been the flap over Creationism and Intelligent Design, proposed by thoroughly infiltrated, Manchurian local school boards. As ridiculously unconstitutional as that position is -- it's still a testament to the power of that kind of organizing.

Bob

This is hysterical. The Dems are now looking to the polls to see what their values should be. This is further proof that the left has no core values, no vision and no backbone.

lib nailed it!!!!!!

I still think Howard Dean's '04 run has a lot to teach the Democrats. First off, nobody -- least of all his enemies -- ever doubted his passion and committment. And none of his friends ever doubted that he was merely a sensible guy -- not an ideologue by any means -- an "accidental politician," who advocated positions so mainstream as to be simple common sense.

In the context of Bush, of course, they looked "radical" -- but they were pure Rockefeller Republicanism.

Here's what he did: Pick a handful of key positions upon which there would be no compromise. Dean's major two were the Iraq war being a mistake (prescient at the time) and the Republican culture of corruption -- which he got on before everybody.

Defuse a number of hot-button issues by splitting the difference and/or allowing the states to decide. He was brilliant to table gun control as a national issue. Period, end of story. People in NYC will never understand guns the way that people in Utah do. So let the national assault rifle ban go. Second, split the difference on gay rights with civil unions, which he courageously signed into law amid death threats. Call marriage the sole property of churches and religion, and get it out of the debate. Again -- brilliant.

Demonstrate long-term vision with healthcare policy by advancing a broad goal -- cover all children as he did in Vermont -- but show flexibility in how to get there. Tell supporters of single-payer that it's more important to pass a program now that we can fix once it's enacted than by immediately championing something more utopian (i.e. Gephardt's proposal).

With three distinct types of issues, he showed 1) no compromise, 2) intelligent compromise, 3) a pragmatic, flexible approach to a visionary long-term goal.

I still believe that this can serve as a model for Democrats nationally.

Bob

It's very simple, really. Here is the free advice for the Democrats. I gurantee that it will work.

1. Fire all the consultants and advisors.

2. Straighten the firing circle.

3. Shoot.

Do not light a match the righties have such a huge straw pile in here it could take the whole web with it.heh hah ah

But the problem is precisely that the principles one espouses, by their very nature, when consistently maintained, become politically infeasible.

Principles aren't policies, they aren't directly implementable, they aren't things that are generally voted on, and they aren't either "feasible" or "infeasible" in any meaningful sense.

Yes, certain principles may be unpopular (the anti-abortion stand of Republicans, for instance), but nevertheless can serve as part of a structure demonstrating principle, and if care is taken in how they are realized into policy stances, not necessarily politically harmful at all.

Thus the natural set of principles that embodies "freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation" would ENTAIL the support of a Constitutional amendment requiring states to allow gays to marry.

No, it wouldn't. It might imply support for an end-state in which gays could marry freely as a goal, it would not entail support for any particular mechanism for acheiving that goal.

You may say, well, we just won't make it explicit in our platform, that's just NOT going to cut it.

Actually, no, I'm more likely to say, as I have already, that you are wrong as to what the principle entails in policy terms, rather than favoring a stealth policy agenda.

Why not? Because, of course, the Republicans are going to ask that very question, maybe making it part of a resolution, and the question will HAVE to be answered, whether you'd like to avoid it or not.

Sure, if such a resolution came to a floor vote, individual members would have to take a position on it. It might even be useful for the party to take a unified position, although there are times when not doing so is the best course.

But having a consistently articulated position can actually help opposing set-up positions like this, by allowing the opposition to the proposed policy to be more credibly framed as opposition to the means rather than the stated goal.

They'll say, well you don't think ANY discrimination of ANY kind based on sexual orientation is acceptable, right?

Sure, and we don't think murder is acceptable, either.

So why DON'T you support such an amendment?

Because the federal government doesn't set marriage policy -- it, like murder, theft, child support, etc. -- is principally a matter of state law. The proper venue for implementing that kind of change is not the federal Constitution.

The proper federal course of action in support of that goal is merely to remove the discriminatory portions of federal law, and leave it to the states to correct their law.

Believing that something is wrong is not the same as believing that it is the federal governments job to prohibit it, though it does imply believing the federal government should stop practicing it.

So why DON'T you support such an amendment? And you're answer will have to be "weasel, weasel, weasel".

So? Frame up questions like this are seen through by the electorate, too, as long as there is more to look at. The electorate can see the principle in pragmatic, environment-sensitive work to advance anti-discrimination policy, and recognize that as a consistent principle even if the party doesn't support set-piece strawman votes.

So the consistency in principles that you may grandly espouse when its just progressives talking to progressives simply must break down in any political agenda.

Again, you seem to be confusing principles with agenda. They are too separate things. Principles are broad, long-term, strategic goals. Agendas consist of series of tactical steps. You need both, and the latter needs to be clearly guided by both the former and pragmatic considerations.

But you need to have the former -- and they need to be fairly stable in articulation even if not in how they are implemented in agendas -- if you expect to be seen as having a commitment to values rather than mere political opportunism.

And my point, still again, is that what is important is NOT the consistency, simplicity, and clarity of the principles that progressives hold amongst themselves, but rather the consistency, simplicity, and clarity of the agenda which is put forth publicly, and which progressives will be obliged to stand up and defend in mixed audiences.

I think it is a giant mistake to see those as two different things, first of all; if you want to convince people you have real values, the vision and principles and agenda that the party communicates to its activist base has to be the same vision, principles, and agenda that the party communicates to the masses.

Now, the immediate agenda is naturally more targetted to the public-at-large, at least in the general election context, whereas the principles in the vision are, inasmuch as they are the focus rather than off on the periphery, more the focus of long-term party-building.

But the connection needs to be there and be visible even in the electoral context, because the relation between the vision and the agenda is what demonstrates principle and, thereby, an important aspect of the character voters look at it in evaluating candidates beyond narrow policy stands.

Basically, you and others are simply arguing that we must do all such compromises top down, and that that's the only way to come up with a coherent, sensible product. Other than the good moral, satisfying feeling such a belief seems to give everybody, I don't know why you or anyone else should believe that.

No, actually, I'm not saying its the only way to come up with a "coherent, sensible product". Inasmuch I'm saying that we have to do such compromises "top-down" (presuming you mean by that working from general principles to specific policy stands), I'm saying that because that's precisely what having principles means, and the easiest way to convince people that you are making decisions from principles rather than political opportunism is to actually make decisions from principal rather than based on practical opportunism. Well, that and, in fact, while I think it is a tactical necessity for the Democratic Party to appear to be principled, as long as I am going to support the party, I expect it to be actually principled, as well, so even if it could sell itself as effectively with the illusion of principle (that is, even if genuine principle had no tactical advantage), I'd prefer real principle anyway.

Furthermore, doing the reverse, working for the bottom up, makes your strategic principles prone to change with the tactical environment, which very quickly makes it clear that you actually don't have any principles at all; if you are going to try to sell yourself as having principles, you need to stick with the principles you choose, which means they better be principles you can live with, which means they'd best as much as possible represent your actual principles rather than your perception of the transient political environment at the time you framed them.

And one further point. Simply because the polling data is taken into account early on in the process makes NO commitment whatever to how "forward leaning" the agenda may be.

I don't even know what you are trying to say by "forward leaning".

Don't get me wrong; I'm certainly not opposed to advocacy groups. I don't know if Amnesty does much in the way of electoral advocacy, but I'm certainly not opposed to Sierra Club or ADA or the ACLU, etc. etc. What does worry me is the "take my marbles and go home" effect of coalitions of single-issue groups in backing candidates.

A broader progressive non-party action group presumably wouldn't be a single issue group, but I group of people who were unsatisfied with the performance of the Democratic Party to date, but dedicated to a common broad progressive vision. Essentially it might work as a caucus within the party (sort of an anti-DLC), or as a group not directly connected with the party but strongly overlapping it (like the DSA; indeed, but for the unfortunate emotional baggage attached to the name, the DSA would seem to be the most natural existing vehicle for such a movement.)

I think the tactical model is the Christian Coalition. After Robertson's '88 run, when America discovered the power of previously-marginalized charismatics, the Christian Coalition learned from it and certainly didn't propose a Christian third party. Instead they trained activists to take over local and influence state Republican Party structures. They bored from within. One of the results we've seen has been the flap over Creationism and Intelligent Design, proposed by thoroughly infiltrated, Manchurian local school boards. As ridiculously unconstitutional as that position is -- it's still a testament to the power of that kind of organizing.

I agree, which is why I think a non-party organized movement is precisely what is needed.

Ruy is a numbers guy; he doesn't pretend to be the second coming of William Jennings Bryan. Read and learn and maybe somebody else can make the leap from numbers to passion.

Ruy is a numbers guy; he doesn't pretend to be the second coming of William Jennings Bryan. Read and learn and maybe somebody else can make the leap from numbers to passion.

You can't make the leap from numbers to passion; passion tells you what numbers you should be looking for to set tactics. All the number-hunting in the world (especially this kind of number-hunting) won't lead you to passion.

Bush is on automatic self destruct because his immigration policies don't match his most loyal consituency.

Do you know how he will get them back?

Brokeback USA -- brought to you by the DNC!!!

Keep the pink tuxedos at home for one election cycle and you might get the votes to take the house and start impeachment proceedings.

If you trot out the marriage act... the RIGHT WILL COALESCE and forgive their differences.

Check out Prime Minister Michael Rimmer in the UK. He ran ALL policies through polling before deciding anything - after a few months people gave him dictatorial power's just to get out of filling in polling forms.

' The rise and rise of Michael Rimmmer ' Starring Peter Cook.

@cmdicely: Right now, the Progressive Democrats of America seem to be what you're describing.

I await the barrage of denunciations of PDAers as "Greens with one foot out of the party". Personally, pleading guilty to that in advance....

rmck1 wrote: People in NYC will never understand guns the way that people in Utah do.

Likewise, people in Utah will never understand guns the way that people in NYC do. (Hint: there isn't a lot of deer hunting in NYC, particularly with cheap handguns.)

cmdicely:

Read your thread with frankly -- nice job of separating principle from agenda. Exactly.

As for your response to me; I think as usual we argree much more than we disagree. And again, I think the Dean approach points to a solution. What you propose is precisely Democracy For America, the group spun off from Howard's primary campaign which is run by his brother Jim. They're not affiliated with the DNC, endorse candidates often more progressive than the DNC would touch (Jim's a CT resident and close to Lieberman's new primary opponent -- although I think DFA is trying -- and perhaps failing -- to stay out of that fight) and run activist training seminars and retreats throughout the year. Their goal is to develop ground-level, person-to-person political skills in the netroots Howard's campaign energized. How to turn a bunch of politically-motivated computer nerds into folks comfortable enough to sit down with committee members and Democratic Party honchos and talk turkey like real people :)

I'm on their mailing list; they're busy as beavers ... They put up those billboards in DeLay's district about the golfing trips :)

Of course that's only one avenue. DFA certainly doesn't preclude the existence of others who would be working for the same broad progressive goals ...

Bob

SecularAnimist:

Dean's position certainly wasn't *anti* gun control, either -- that was the beauty of it. His position was to call it a state issue. Let New York City regulate the hell out of handguns and let Southewestern cities have "shall issue" CCW laws ...

Bob

I like the concept of "Looking out for the little guy" but not the language. Most people in America these days don't think of themselves as the "little guy". They think of themselves as up and coming, and just one lucky break away from being rich.

Because, of course, the rich and powerful want them to think that. It's a lottery mentality. Boy, why did I ever favor state-sponsored lotteries, anyway? But I digress.

I think that language that's better is "the ordinary person", and "the consumer" and "the middle class". The thing that needs to be understood, and understood deeply, is that most Americans feel that materially, they are ok. Even if you make 20,000 a year, you still have enough to eat and a tv. So they don't vote on material issues.

Make it more of an issue of empowerment. Find all those annoying everyday reminders to them that they have little or no power, and offer it to them. That's what Rush does.

SecularAnimist, glad to read you are back.

Tate's rule: How you define the problem determines the solution.

Is the problem that "a majority of Americans do not believe progressives or Democrats stand for anything" in which case we need to get