I was in Britain when he managed to removbe Clause 4 from the labour party constitution. What he accomplished angered a lot of lefites like myself, but it doesn't eliminate the fact that he accomplished it. We have much to learn indeed.

I'd love to see a series of commercials that just promoted the word "Liberal".  Something like a picture of George Washington while a voice reads the quote:

As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.
-- George Washington

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

I think that the solution is education (and I don't mean public schools.)  We must tell people that many of their views are liberal.  They think that it means something that it doesn't.

Often, realignments don't occur because of a radical change in a party's message in the election in which the realignment begins, but because of a cataclysmic event that discredits one party.

In 1932 and 1968, one could argue that the rhetoric of FDR and Nixon wasn't very radical -- in fact, FDR gave a speech in Pittsburgh where he ironically criticized the GOP for deficit spending -- but the beginning of the realignment occurred because Hoover was discredited to the Great Depression and LBJ/the Democrats were discredited because of Vietnam.

From 1932-1968, the only GOP President elected was a celebrity not elected because of his party, but his personality.  From 1968-present, we've elected two Dems:  Carter (narrowly, for one term, because of stagflation and Watergate) and Clinton (who didn't bring coattails and often won by defining the Dems. as what the GOP wasn't, not by what the Dems. were).

I'm not saying that having these discussions aren't a good idea:  if we ever are going to become the majority party again, these discussions will define us for the 30+ years that we govern.  

But... it won't get us to majority party by itself - nor will a charismatic leader (in fact, minority parties often can win the WH historically by electing a charismatic leader or a general).  What will cause the realignment is something we should rooting against and what we all in our gut think is going to happen:  a horrific 2nd term that causes great damage to our national psyche.

I have a bad feeling about the next four years.  Second terms are always bad and this is going to be a doozy.  We face tremendous challenges, many of them created by the mismanagement of the first term -- many of them long-term challenges such as oil dependence, entitlements/Baby Boom retirees and our relationship with Saudi Arabia.  I have no faith in this current Administration and I have a feeling that the 2nd term is going to bring a realignment.

I hope I'm wrong.  It might be a good thing for the Party, but a horrific thing for the country.

But, if by Liberalism, you mean, the elixir of freedom's march, that ideal all mean hold in their bosom to think, to live, and to in all ways be free, why then, ladies and gentlemen, I say I'm for it!

So, just exactly what did you mean by liberalism?

• Appease foreign threats and are against the military
  
• Support welfare as a way of life (non-corporate, that is)
  
• Want to destroy common "values"
  
• Support the environment at the expense of jobs
  
• Tax and Spend
  
• Think the government can solve all problems

• Support an intelligent foreign policy and strong defense
  
• Support a social safety-net for those that are unfortunate enough to fall through the cracks
  
• Support equal rights for all
  
• show that we can improve the environment and have economic growth at the same time
  
• Are more fiscally responsible than so-called 'conservatives'
  
• See the government as an instrument to improve the lives of common people and a guardian of the underpriviledged

In the following states, Kerry moderates are enough to close the gap between liberals and conservatives: CA, DE, IL, IA, ME, MD, MI, MN, NH, NM, OH, OR, PA, WA and WI (a total of 196 EVs).  Together with the states where liberals already outweigh conservatives that amounts to 275 electoral votes, barely enough to win a presidential election, even if we run a perfect race.  So, we need to convert some conservatives to liberalism, if we're going to put states like Florida, West Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona consistently back in play.  

This only confirms what the nationwide numbers already told us:  we need more liberals.  Although it may appear to help us focus on which regions to concentrate our efforts, if we can't come up with messages that help us with rural voters in Tennessee, I don't see why we would stand a chance in West Virginia with the same type of voter.  

Do you become more ideological to inspire them, as well as the base, or move to the center so you don't spook moderates off? Same question goes for dealing with conservative states.

My instincts say we need to can the consummate moderate stuff - across the board - because it's a clear opportunity for the party to find its soul and emerge with renewed verve and coordination. The polity will be expecting it, essentially. That way, too, we can hold ground for true ideological liberals in conservative territory. But I'm a rookie; I don't quite know what to do with this dilemma we're in.

"Generous..Bountiful..Tolerant.."

Webster's defines conservative as:

"Preservative..disposed to maintain existing views..Moderate...Cautious"

I prefer the first definition to the latter, regardless of the label.

But isn't the conservative/liberal tag just another play on words by the GOP, like reform, which means elemination (Social Security reform, tort reform, welfare reform,tax reform).

To me, liberal means "to each his own." Let every person run their own life in whatever way they see fit, while also helping those who are unable to help themselves, for whatever reason.

Of course, letting people run their own lives is the conservative platform according to them.

So, if conservatives believe their own platform, then they are actually liberal by definition, whether they like it or not.

I advocate substituting the term "progressive" as a meaningful replacement for "liberal."  It carries positive connotations for most people and seems a much smaller leap for moderates who don't want to be demonized by the right but who want to identify themselves as something more than wishy-washy bumps in the middle of the road.  

This is consistent with my view that the party should return to its roots as the party of "progressive populism."  We dominate when we are perceived as the party that can advance the lot of the many in concrete and positive directions. Our record on this is proud, solid, and real.  We are the party of Social Security, workplace safety, civil rights, and a safe environment.  We must now also make it clear that we will be the party that will not send the people's sons into harm's way without just cause.

A majority of the public agrees with us on these issues and understands that they are big and more important than posting the Ten Commandments in schools.  Republicans (or at least conservatives) have fought us tooth and nail on almost every significant step towards progress, and now they are recklessly endangering our troops.  John Edwards was on the right track.  Add in a populist appeal to protecting our sons from stupid wars and we should be in good shape, perhaps even in some of those red states.

For example, here are the states where the "conservative advantage" is in single-digits:

ME    -1    12   
CA    -2    15   
MD    -4    22   
IL    -4    17   
WA    -7    24   
MN    -7    15   
OR    -7    13   
PA    -8    14   
NH    -9    15   

You may note that we took all of these states in the past election.  While they may have a numeric edge to conservatives, in practice, they can genenerally be counted in our camp, and it might not take all that much work to tip the first column in our direction, either.

Then, there are the states in which the moderates swing liberal in about the same or greater percentage as the conservative lead over liberals:

DE    -10    25   
NM    -14    21   
OH    -15    18   
MI    -12    14   
IA    -17    19   
WI    -12    12   

In other words, these are states where the "moderate" block is really pretty solidly liberal in practice, if not in realization.  A better job of reframing (pace Lakoff) the liberal case should be able to bring these states into greater balance.

Finally, here are some states where, while we're clearly behind, our advantage in the moderates places us closer to tipping the balance than it might seem (although I think Florida is beyond the pale as long as Jeb holds the election machinery):

FL    -14    13
CO    -13    9
NV    -16    12
VA    -21    15
WV    -16    7
MO    -17    6

In each of these states, we may not only have to re-frame our positions but explicitly moderate some of them.  I would think, in partiuclar, that Colorado might well be within reach.

So, aside from the 8 states or voting territories we now control, we have a serious shot at anywhere from 9 to 15 additional states, and at least a chance of picking off one or two others.  Given that most of the remaining states have little more than a handful of congressional districts and electoral votes, I would say the demographics are on our side, if we put a smart and determined effort into "selling" liberalism.

It's a well-established fact that most ideological conservatives and self-described conservatives are none-the-less supportive of maintaining the welfare state and other forms of government spending--or even increasing such spending.

Quoting from an article I wrote in July:

It's not just limited to spending issues, either. While most conservatives can be rallied to vote against gay marriage, as we just saw, that's just one side of the coint. A substantial majority of conservatives just think that homosexuality should be a private matter--not something that government should try to punish--despite the fact that only a third of them personally accept it.

Findings like this are little-known to most liberals, thus contributing to a false sense that we are a tiny minority in our beliefs. That's simply not so. We are a small minority in correctly labelling our beliefs. And that's something we've got to work on changing.

But this is no longer true. To get elected, President Bush had to yank the GOP so hard to the right that its political center has fallen off the map.

For example, in OK, Sen.-elect Tom Coburn's worldview is far to the rightward extreme of his party, even compared with Sen. Don Nichols, whom he is replacing. Same in SC, where Jim DeMint is miles to the right of Sen. Lindsay Graham or even Strom Thurmond in his later years - and in NC where Sen.-elect Burr is a genuine wingnut compared with Sen. Liddy Dole.

The time has come to remove the fig leaf of "moderation" from the progressive Republicans. We should start calling them what they are: Liberals.

The best way to reclaim the word "liberal" from the GOP smear-masters is to redefine it - or re-redefine it - as a description of a degree of idealogy on the spectrum of political views.

Used in a sentence: Anyone to the left of Tom Delay is more liberal than he is.

It would be relatively simple to redefine these Republicans - as easy as it is for GOP pundits and pols to consistently refer to our party as the snarky-sounding "Democrat" Party. All we have to do is substitute "liberal" for "moderate" in every reference to Republicans.

Examples:

"Liberals in Congress like David Dreier and Mark Foley..."

"Pres. Bush flip-flopped in the last week of the election and came out with a liberal position on civil unions..."

"The most popular figures in the GOP are Arnold Schwarzennegger and Rudolph Guilliani, both of whom are liberal Republicans."

This is my first posting here.  This actually ties in with something I am starting to work on.  I have registered liberal-truths.com and conservative-truths.com (and several variants of these) and starting January 3, 2005 I am planning to post various truths that people may not be aware of.  I first got the idea by reading a dailykos article about how conservatives divorce more than liberals and that born-again christian conservatives have the highest rate of divorce of all conservatives.

The websites are not active yet, but within a month they will start beta-testing.  Please feel free to email me suggestions for various truths for inclusion on the site.

Thanks.

-Derek

But, if by Liberalism, you mean, the elixir of freedom's march, that ideal all mean hold in their bosom to think, to live, and to in all ways be free, why then, ladies and gentlemen, I say I'm for it!

So, just exactly what did you mean by liberalism?

Thanks...