I agree with you on that abstract issues point. Progressives love framing and all that kind of abstract argument, but it doesn't do much unless you get things done.
Of course, a Constitutional argument isn't worth anything if you don't tie it to real issues. But that's why I like it so much. You can get almost all of your positions from the Constitution, not only addressing the bread and butter issues everyone wants to hear about, but reassuring voters of your principles and overriding philosophy at the same time. If you base your arguments on the Constitution, I think it makes them stronger.
You see folks like Dennis Kucinich doing it. Ron Paul does it really effectively, and it has made his long-shat candidacy have a chance at winning New Hampshire. I think it's a really powerful argument if done right.
Given that you did not understand my point, I'll take my final crack at it. The general public doesn't have more than a vague understanding of the Constitution. In fact, polls have consistently shown that when asked about defendants' rights in criminal cases, from how police interact with people stopped to the court process, the general public would curtail all these niceties. They really believe if you're picked up, you must be guilty & criminals are coddled too much.
Issues that hit people directly in the gut are: it will cost me my job, I'll pay more in taxes, I can't afford health insurance, I need secure retirement income, they'll draft me in the army & send me to fight, this candidate is a crook/sleazy, I won't be safe, they'll take away control over my body etc.
GET IT.
PS. Both Paul & Kucinich are trailing badly in their respective parties. To some extent for Kucinich, its that he looks like a gnome. For Paul, his appeal is that he basically wants to do away with government.
It's what we call an "elite" argument. I'm a latte-drinking type myself, so I don't mean to criticize. Elite voters are disproportionately represented in the blogosphere.
Even though elites are outnumbered, we supply a disproportionate amount of the funding and activism, so we're not irrelevant. Some cynical types have speculated that Dodd's fixation on issues like telecom immunity - a classic elite issue - has been motivated more by a desire to raise money from the netroots than anything else.
As always, the successful Democratic politician is the one who keeps all wings of the coalition happy and working together.
I'd agree, and of course, I see the points carter1 is making. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can talk about jobs, education, healthcare, and all that (keeping the wings of the coalition happy if you will) and base that all in Constitutional rhetoric. To me, that kind of argument accomplishes both talking about bread & butter issues and clearly defining your principles and values, something all candidates want and should do.
I guess I'm in a disagreeable mood today. From what I remember of my grad days in political science: elites are a subset of the population that have disproportionate power & influence in society. Think the upper socio-economic crust, ie. the very wealthy, corporate power, the media owners.
Steve: the people you're referencing are powerless. That's why we're in the blogosphere rather than the movers & shakers in the inner offices that are pulling the levers of power. My sense is that, sociologically, progressives that are abstract come mainly from comfortable middle class backgrounds where there's pride in thinking about societal issues. We need this & it certainly resonates with a portion of the American population. However, electoral campaigns to be successful, need to focus on gut issues. This is why progressives, who want us to campaign mainly on abstract principles, are a detriment to our cause.
