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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

more details here: www.politicalthought.net

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

Time to start stealing some definitions back.

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

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

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

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