MyDD :: More Self-Loathing Democrats

More Self-Loathing Democrats

by Scott Shields, Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 08:12:55 AM EST

I really don't have that much trouble with the DLC. I can see the value (in some cases) in triangulation, public-private partnerships, or 'third way' governance. I can even respect their position on the Iraq War, though I disagree with it. However, one thing I cannot stand about the organization and their allies is the fact that they love tearing down progressive Democrats. A story that hit the wires on Thursday about a new report from the DLC-linked group Third Way typifies the problem.

Former Clinton White House policy wonks Elaine Kamarck and William Garston authored The Politics of Polarization, which details four "myths" which they believe the Democratic Party must abandon.

The myth of mobilization is the belief that the key to Democratic victory is to energize the base and bring them to the polls in record numbers.
The myth of demography is the view that long-term, ongoing changes in the U.S. population - such as an increase in the number of Hispanic voters and female professionals - will secure a Democratic majority for decades to come.
The myth of language holds that the problem with the Democratic Party is not what it advocates, but rather how it speaks.
The myth of prescription drugs is shorthand for the theory that the Party can win national elections by avoiding cultural issues, downplaying national security, and changing the subject to domestic issues such as health care, education, and job security in the post-9/11 world.

I happen to think there's a good amount of truth in there. We need to grow the base -- not just mobilize current Democrats. We cannot take demographic shifts for granted -- we need to work for every vote. Framing the debate is important, but it's not everything. Democrats cannot afford to ignore any issue.

That last point dovetails nicely with what Chris wrote the other day, that Democrats cannot pretend that Iraq is not an issue. However, it's Galston and Kamarck's comments to the AP that really burn me.

Democrats must choose to appeal to a broader majority that includes many moderates, said Galston, a political scientist at the University of Maryland.

The Democrats also must develop a coherent foreign policy because "we just don't have one," said Kamarck, a political scientist at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

This goes back to something I've written about before. There are ways to say that the Democratic Party needs to sharpen its message on foreign policy and defense. But to say that "we just don't have one"? How is that a constructive criticism? It's not. It's acceptance of Republican smear as gospel truth. Kamarck knows better than most that the Democratic Party certainly does have a foreign policy. Democrats want to strengthen diplomatic ties with allies around the world to increase cooperation in battling terrorist organizations.

Is there disagreement within the party over Iraq? Yes. No one is denying that. It's a serious issue and we need to get a better grasp on how to handle it as a party, and not just on an individual basis. Still, America's foreign policy is not defined solely by Iraq.

And Galston's comment that Democrats must build "a broader majority that includes many moderates" is also annoying. As E.J. Dionne pointed out right after the election, "moderates went 54 to 45 percent for Kerry." Dionne goes on to argue that 54% was not enough, and I agree. But the Democratic coalition already includes quite a few moderates, a fact I'm sure Galston is well aware of. What is there to gain by implying otherwise?

It's great that wonks like Kamarck and Galston are trying to put together a framework for Democrats to regain majority status. I have great respect for that work. But while they shrug off the suggestion the framing is vital to Democratic success, they could at least recognize the value of framing in building up the Democratic brand rather than knocking it down to selling their fixes. It's comments like these that allow the pundits to throw around the easy lie that the Democratic Party is ideologically empty. If leading Democrats are saying it, why shouldn't the talking heads repeat it?

Essentially, what I'm advocating is a looser, Democratic version of Reagan's 11th commandment -- thou shalt not speak ill of the Democratic Party. It's pretty simple, really. The GOP is in the toilet. Democrats are poised to make huge gains in Congress next November. Stop constantly carping about what's wrong. We're not trying to fix something that's broken. We're working to improve something that could use some refinement.

The party doesn't need to go from bad to acceptable. That's something I can't imagine any committed Democrat believing. I think there's room for improvement too, but for me, that means going from good to great.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 111 Comments :: Post a Comment

square peg in a round circle (none / 0)

Scott, I don't think this is gonna happen with the DLC: Essentially, what I'm advocating is a looser, Democratic version of Reagan's 11th commandment -- thou shalt not speak ill of the Democratic Party.

Here's why. The DLC, and I just got done ready two books about this in prep for the book, had been all over the map before hitting, what they felt, was gold: first, their antagonization against Jesse Jackson, second their triangulation, and third, grouping labor with the left. That all came together for them, during their heyday, probably '95-98 or so, when triangulation worked so well for governng from a centrist mode. But that's history now.

Nowadays, these attacks that they do against Democrats are attempts at rekindling their fire. Remember, to triangulate, you need two other parts than yourself. For them, the Republicans, and the 'left', or some working variation of that group.

So when bloggers go attacking the DLC, they look at and say, 'cool, it's working.' From their viewpoint, switching out Jackson and the Labor for Dailykos and the blogosphere is essentially their way of catching up with the times, and making a new enemy on the 'left'.

It of course is nonsense, especially given the minority status of the Democratic Party. But it's not like they have a lot of alternatives.

As for the four points, I'll have to read why they point them out, but except for number three, they sound plausible. I would take if for granted that policy wonks think the details matter more than the language-- but that's why they don't direct communication in campaigns too.

Mobilization must be combined with targeting the other's sides base too.

Demographics matter less and less, which is one of the reasons why the DC pollsters suck so hard today; and identity values matter more.

And yea, no doubt about number four; the bane of the Democratic Party this decade-- not that whatever the DLC advocates is the path; hence the problem of a polorization over the issue in the Democratic party-- not that I think the alternative split ala the late '60's to early 70's is anymore attractive. I think the forces that oppose the continued occupation need to start an open and interactive dialogue with those in the Democratic Party that support the Republican position of status quo stay the path.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 08:54:12 AM EST

Re: square peg in a round circle (none / 0)

Who exactly in the Democratic Party supports the status quo in Iraq? Its a serious question.

I agree we don't have unified positions on any thing but even the latest poll shows only 36% of all americans support continued involvement in Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/opinion/polls/main924485.shtml

Are there possibly dem leaders who are out of touch with the rank and file?

by aiko on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 10:11:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: square peg in a round circle (none / 0)

Meaning stay in Iraq? I don't know the exact numbers among Dems, but iirc, it was around 50-60% that were oppossed to leaving-- of course, a lot of that depends on the wording.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 10:32:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: square peg in a round circle (none / 0)

Dang, I got that wrong. 39% in the CBS poll.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 11:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

eleventh commandment (none / 0)

I agree that our wonks and talking heads should talk the party up, never talk it down, in public appearances.

But I'm not sure that "strengthen alliances" works, politically, as a thumbnail sketch for a Dem foreign policy (even though it's a good idea). Actually I'm sure that it doesn't work. And I am sure that Dem elite dissensus over Iraq policy makes us look like we don't have a foreign policy consensus in other quarters. Heck, Chris Bowers has implied as much around here, IIRC.

Kamarck shouldn't be saying what she said, but the discussion she wants to provoke seems useful.

Also, re: moderates, remember how many more conservatives America holds than liberals: we need to win more than 54% of moderates to get a governing majority. Again, Chris (and Kevin Drum and other blogosphere number-crunchers) have shown as much repeatedly.

I wonder whether Kamarck got her quote sliced up by a Pickleresque reporter? I wonder what else she said.

by accommodatingly on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 09:01:31 AM EST

Is the democratic party ready to reach out? (none / 0)

I for one think the time is ripe to bring some independents permanently into the Democrat's fold, and reach out to a chunk of moderate disaffected republicans. But reading blog after blog I am not sure that is possible. Any move to the middle (yes, that is what it would take) is met with instant scorn within the activist community.

by dpANDREWS on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 09:02:03 AM EST

Clinton moved to the Center (3.00 / 1)

Because he had to not because he wanted to. David Stockman revealed the Republican strategy right back in the eighties. The goal was to put this country on a path where the Right could make the argument that we could simply not afford even existing social programs (Social Security) let alone new ones (Universal Health Care) but was compelled by necessity to throw unlimited dollars at the military and tax cuts to the wealthy.

Well it was all bullshit and we are not going to get anywhere by tacking to the center. FDR was the greatest president of the twentieth century and it is time we got back to selling that message.

Clinton moved to the Center while he waited for his tax increases to prove themselves to be a success. And they were. And would be again if the Democratic Party would just embrace its core values: "economic justice and security for all Americans"

The New Deal and the Great Society did not get everything right, but they got a lot more right than wrong. Government is not the problem, in many cases it is in fact the solution and Democrats need to learn to re-embrace that and not just accomodate ourselves to the oversold rhetoric of Cato and AEI.

Here is a message for the Democratic Party: "Unleash your inner FDR". And while you are at it bring cousin Teddy's Big Stick.

PollKatz: Bush Approval in 15 polls

by Bruce Webb on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 09:38:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton moved to the Center (3.00 / 1)

And was repaid for it by a sour relationship with many Democrats in Congress, and a muntiny on the left in 2000 that cost the Democrats the White House.

.... those of you who voted Green will have to live with that shame for the rest of your lives

by dpANDREWS on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 09:44:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton moved to the Center (3.00 / 1)

".... those of you who voted Green will have to live with that shame for the rest of your lives"

AMEN!!!!

by Politicalhack06 on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 09:58:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nader was right (none / 0)

The conduct of the Democrats this session have demonstrated that Nader was correct about the shallow differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. It's not Nader's fault that Kerry threw in the towel and conceeded the election.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Oct 09, 2005 at 12:04:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Mythology (none / 0)

There seems to be this myth that Nader voters would have voted for Gore, when all the Nader voters I know would not have voted at all. Most Nader voters knew very well that their vote would not make a difference because their state was sewn up by one side or the other.

That Democrats refuse to learn this is not surprising, for it questions the very assumption that Democrats need to be more Republican to win. And too many people are making money advising that path.

You call it a mutiny. But what politician or party is entitled to votes? I ask you. A "mutiny" assumes that there is a top-down authority to honor, but that does not exist in electoral politics. The people have the authority, and the people vote their interest.

Since the Democrats pushed ever rightward, people have seen no choice but Republican or some undefined other party that's kinda Republican but not quite. Small wonder people don't vote.

And if the Democrats abandon liberal values and progressive ideals, then the Democrats can't bitch about not winning the votes of citizens who hold liberal values and progressive ideals. If the Democrats want to be wishy washy on everything, then that's the kind of base they can attract -- wishy washy, and not willing to take a stand, let alone give the benefit of the doubt.

There are some pretty appealing Democrats running for office. But there are some very repugnant Democrats, too, who are opposed to civil rights, who are in favor of stripping women of equal protection, liberty and privacy, who are all for empowering corporations even more over the people, who are for gutting the Bill of Rights....

...and as long as there are significant numbers of these misogynists, bigots, closet fascists and plutocrat coddlers in the Party, I will not consider myself a Democrat.

media girl
Our Word

by media girl on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 11:26:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

PS (none / 0)

...and I still held my nose and voted for Gore.

Gore looks a lot better now, in part because he's let go of his image neurosis, and in part because he's proving to be a progressive. Who'd a thunk! The DLC must resent his ass.

media girl
Our Word

by media girl on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 11:27:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mythology (none / 0)

"The Democrats" are the people who show up at party meetings and vote. Look at what has happened with the Democrats since people did start showing up and voting? Howard Dean is the Chair of the party now, for example.

Instead, the Greens just grabbed their toys and walked out. The labor movement learned the hard way about sticking together to fight the moneyed interests (hence the laben "Union") and the Greens split up that coalition. They were scabs who lost us the 2000 election. Enought of the 90,000 Greens in Florida WOULD have voted Gore to keep Bush out of office.

-- Seeing the Forest

by davej on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 12:07:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mythology (none / 0)

There seems to be this myth that Nader voters would have voted for Gore, when all the Nader voters I know would not have voted at all.

It's certainly a myth that all Nader voters would have voted for Gore. But there is solid data that significant more Nader voters would have gone for Gore than Bush.

Those who are more activist, and hence likely to be parts of networks, knowing lots of other Nader voters, are, quite logically, the most ideologically committed, and the least likely to vote for another candidate. But this makes them un-representative of the larger body of Nader voters. It exaplains why your annecdotal report is echoed by many others as well. What you--and others--report is absolutely real. But you mistake yourselves as representative of the larger universe of Nader voters.

p.s. I voted for Nader in 2000, and have no regrets. That's because I live in California and everyone knew that Gore would win it easily. But I did know a fair number of more hardcore Nader voters who seemed to live in a bubble that I was never part of. I don't think they realized how many Nader voters there were who were much more like me. (One reason is that I don't think they even realized my existence. But that's a subject for another time.)

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 02:09:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mythology (none / 0)

"There seems to be this myth that Nader voters would have voted for Gore, when all the Nader voters I know would not have voted at all."

When 97,488 people voted for Nader in the state of Florida and Gore "lost" by 537 votes, the very idea that Nader's presence on the ballot didn't cost Gore the state is just outrageous.

Mythology is a Repubican claiming that Bush performed admirably on September 11th. Mythology is the claim that Tom DeLay is an ethical man. Mythology is claiming that Social Security privatization will help women and minorities.

There's nothing mythical about this.

It happened.

by Politicalhack06 on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 03:26:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton moved to the Center (none / 0)

Well, you can live with the shame of:

Expanded federal death penalty
NAFTA
GATT/WTO
Telecom '96
Welfare Reform
Defense of Marriage Act
Normalized Trade Relations with China

We got all that UNDER Clinton (as well as Republicans controlling Congress for the first time in 40 years), and Gore promised us four more years of the same. And before you yap about the brilliant economy Clinton gave us, just ask yourself who benefited from the 90s economy. The Yuppie Class? Sure. The working-class? Not hardly.

If you want we can keep looking at all the Bush initiatives that have passed with substantial DEMOCRATIC support.

I'm not a purist. I don't demand 100% fealty on all the issues that matter to me. But the list above was (and is) just too much for me to stomach.

I'm happy to work with and for Democrats, moving forward with a liberal agenda, so I don't mean to re-hash the Nader-Gore feud, but many here seem to think that there was no substance behind the Nader revolt, and there was.

by Kumar on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 05:10:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton moved to the Center (3.00 / 1)

We also had the most Progressive president since FDR, from the environment to labor to civil rights. You can't always get everything you want, especially with Republicans controlling the House and Senate.

-- Seeing the Forest

by davej on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 07:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton moved to the Center (none / 0)

"most Progressive president since FDR"

Umm... are we forgetting about Truman, JFK, LBJ and Carter? Or are you using a different definition of the term "progressive."

"from the environment to labor to civil rights"

If you'll consider the list of legislative accomplishments I mentioned (and make no mistake, Clinton touted ALL of these as things he believed in), I think you will find that they worked to undermine the enviroment (NAFTA/GATT/WTO), labor (ditto) and civil rights (death penalty, welfare reform) far more than any efforts Clinton took to improve those areas.

That's why I got fed up. Clinton was good (sometimes even great) on little things, but he was terrible on the big things. And at the end of the day, the big things had (and continue to have) a greater impact on our lives than the little things.

"especially with Republicans controlling the House and Senate"

Fine, he had a hostile Congress. Big deal. Frankly, I consider him to bear a large share of the fault for that as well. In his first two years his major legislative accomplishments were his budget (which Rs tarred as a tax hike for everyone) and NAFTA (which basically gave pink slips to the blue-collar working-class voters Dems need to win). His MAJOR prize was healthcare which he lost. So come the midterms, those working-class voters largely abandoned the Dems by either staying home or voting Rep. Why? Because Clinton didn't deliver on the one thing that would have benefited them (healthcare), but he was orgasmically ecstatic over the one thing those voters knew would harm them (NAFTA). So what was in it for these voters to keep voting Dem?

by Kumar on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 09:14:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton moved to the Center (none / 0)

The Democratic leadership in Congress wasn't exactly in the best shape, especially when you consider Jim Wright's resignation and Dan Rostenkowski's conviction.

The Republican takeover was not overnight. Gingrich had been working on it for many years (he played up the check-writing scandal, for example).

And the Dems in the Congress from 1993-1995 weren't exactly helpful to Clinton on health care and other issues either. Clinton is not blameless.

But isn't it time for congressional Democrats to take some responsibility for their own failures?

Clinton won twice, after all, even while congressional Democrats were losing ground

by v2aggie2 on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 12:35:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton moved to the Center (3.00 / 2)

While I agree in principle I have to disagree. While government can do things right and good it is remembered for what it has does wrong.

As a state activist who has worked in and our of gov't I hate the dem politicians who just throw good money after bad-especially in the big entitlement programs and who refuse to reconsider thier policy options.

I don't consider it moving to the middle to adopt a more strategic position on accountability, requiring programmatic outcomes and results based budgeting.

By not recogizing the huge problems and unintended consequences of the new deal and even more of the great society (which I believe helped to create our underclass) and by not correcting the policies mid-stream when we were still in power we handed the right an opening on a silver platter.

Adopting the GOOD ideas found in right and center political thought is not moving to the center. Moving to the center is when you water down your existing ideas to make them more palatible, which has proven over and over again not to work.

by aiko on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 10:25:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What's To Hate??? (3.00 / 1)

I hate the dem politicians who just throw good money after bad-especially in the big entitlement programs and who refuse to reconsider thier policy options.

The big entitlement programs--Social Security and Medicare--are (1) quite successful, (2) far more efficient than anything the private sector has come up with, (3) regularly tinkered with to bring them more up-to-date, and (4) enormously popular, even with extreme conservatives.

Just this week I ran the numbers on self-identified extreme conservatives' views on national spending in the 2000s from the General Social Survey. Leading the way were two items on crime-fighting, followed by Social Security, two items health care and one on highways. All five had 90% or more who thought we the amount we were spending was either "too little" or "about right":

GSS Variable    "Too    "About    "Too    "Too Little"
________    Little"    Right"    Much"    + "About Right"
NATCRIMY     60.4    35.6    4    96.0
NATCRIME     70.6    21.4    8    92.0
NATHEAL     57.5    33.6    8.9    91.1
NATSOC     53.3    37.6    9.1    90.9
NATHEALY     63.8    26.4    9.8    90.2
NATROAD     43    47    10    90.0

These figures are for the ~3% who identify themselves with "7" on a liberal/conservative scale from 1 to 7.

So, I repeat. What's to hate?

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 11:05:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's To Hate??? (3.00 / 1)

there's more than SS and medicare in gov't.

The numbers speak for themselves.

american high school graduation rates: 68% overall, 50% for children of color; and 30% for inner cities.

prison population: more per capita than any other civilized country in free world. mostly men of color. jpi.org

mothers of color are too often single--what a coincidance that welfare required moms to be single in order to qualify for assistance and it became inculcated in the culture.

see kids count at aecf.org for more dismal outcomes.

These things didn't happen overnight and were products of years and years of dem traditionalists staying the course.

i have worked for reform for too long to give these guys a break.

by aiko on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 11:54:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's To Hate??? (2.50 / 2)

I don't know if you understand that you are espousing standard right-wing doctrine with your statements: Poverty programs creating an underclass, public schools failing, black women having babies so they can get welfare payments, etc. This is hard-core right-wing stuff.

What's the deal?

-- Seeing the Forest

by davej on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 12:11:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's To Hate??? (3.00 / 1)

But the thing is I am not right wing. Look at my diaries, my old comments.

In many ways the dem party has abandonned the poor. Its as if they are just overwhelmed by too complex of a problem, Its too messy. The politics of poverty have been coopted by the right and the left has almost given up.

Issues of race and class should be high on the progressive priority list. They are high on mine.

by aiko on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 12:33:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Using Rightwing Language To Attack From The Left?? (2.00 / 1)

There is something seriously wrong when you use rightwing language to attack from the left. And that is what you claim to be doing.

Why is this a good thing?

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 02:12:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Using Rightwing Language (none / 0)

I am not using right wing language.

The organizations that track the data and policy and advocate on these issues are anything but right wing.

aecf.org
jpi.org
clasp.org
ets.org
civilrightsproject.harvard.org
cdf.org

low income people are suffering and not just because of policies created over the past five years.

my initial argument was that

by aiko on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 02:47:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

THIS Is Rightwing Language: (2.50 / 2)

As a state activist who has worked in and our of gov't I hate the dem politicians who just throw good money after bad-especially in the big entitlement programs and who refuse to reconsider thier policy options.

I don't consider it moving to the middle to adopt a more strategic position on accountability, requiring programmatic outcomes and results based budgeting.

By not recogizing the huge problems and unintended consequences of the new deal and even more of the great society (which I believe helped to create our underclass) and by not correcting the policies mid-stream when we were still in power we handed the right an opening on a silver platter.

I don't care if got your information by channelling Joe Hill. If you express that information in language like that above, you are doing precisely what I accused you of. And you have done nothing to respond to this critique.

One real reason that the Democrats are so weak is that even folks who consider themself on the left will use rightwing narratives to talk politics. And you are a walking example of that.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 04:50:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: THIS Is Rightwing Language: (none / 0)

If you don't believe that there weren't unintended consequences of the great society you must live in all white rich suburbia.

it is not right wing to question lbj's politics and policies.

it is not right wing to expect that 30 or 40 years of dem control of congress should have delivered more significant outcomes for low income people.

by aiko on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 10:08:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LBJ was a conservative Texas Democrat (none / 0)

If you can't recognize the profound changes generated by the Great Society you are either ignorant of history or have exceedingly high expectations for how much political change can be achieved in a single generation.

The final state ban against inter-racial marriage were not ruled Un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court until 1967. The last "Colored Only" signs on drinking fountains didn't come down in Florida until 1973.

Women's rights and gay rights advanced geometrically over what they were in the 50's and 60's. What kind of perpetual progressive paradise did you expect LBJ to accomplish?

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Oct 09, 2005 at 12:12:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Changing The Subject (3.00 / 2)

You specifically attacked Democrats for

"just throw[ing] good money after bad-especially in the big entitlement programs and who refuse to reconsider thier policy options."

Social Security and Medicare are far and away the largest entitlement programs. Now it seems you want to talk about something else. I take that as a concession that your original attack was bogus.

Next you turn to figures for high school graduation. Here the problem is exactly the opposite of what you suggest: we don't throw enough money at the problem, as Jonathan Kozol has been making clear since at least the publication of Savage Inequalities. He has a new book out, btw, which updates and steps up the attack on school re-resegregation and the funding disparities that accompany it. Money alone is not the solution, of course. We also need a serious re-commitment to school integration. But without the money, integration will never happen.

The prison explosion is due to the war on drugs. This is one of the driving engines of the rightwing political resurgence of the past 30 years. The last politicans on earth to blame for it are Democrats who want to fully fund entitlement programs.

Welfare is a much more complex issue, but single-mother families have much higher poverty rates in the US than they do in Europe, making it very clear that our system is at fault for being too stingy, once again refuting your presumption that the problem is "just throw[ing] good money after bad."

I certainly think that much more could and should be done. The problem is that we do too little, and do it in an uncoordinated fashion. But this is hardly the fault of traditional Democrats. It's the fault of Republicans--both traditional, and the ones who used to be Dixiecrats--who opposed the development of a robust, European-style welfare state, with a much more coherent and rational structure of social programs and supports.

If you really have worked so long for reform, you could have spent some of that time reading up on the history of the Americna welfare state, and comparative studies of the US and European welfare states. Hard work based on limited or even bad information is just a waste of hard work. It can also result in a lot of mis-directed anger.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 01:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Changing The Subject (none / 0)

more money and more money isn't enough. political will and compasionate people will fix this if it is ever to be fixed. Kozol is a great man but even he says fixing schools in not only about money. if you read his books you know the difficulties facing the educators, the communities and the students.

prison explosion is about racism in sentencing. period.

welfare created a dependant class and it required mothers not to marry--really it did, it was in the law for 20plus years--and it did a lot of good things too. so split the difference. i live in a city that is 80% black and most of the black women I know of all income levels are single mothers OUT OF CHOICE-they didn't want to get married. Forget the mothers and the kids-they do ok considering , it is bad for black men, very bad.

we are never going to get a robust welfare state in america--its never going to happen here. we gotta work with what we have.

i could tell you why i like no child left behind--its the required outcome data that is exposing the disparities in our nation's high schools. i mean isn't it shocking that only 3 out 10 kids will graduate in places like Oakland, Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore, Washington,DC, Philladelphia. education is the most empowering and preventative program we have to offer.

researchers never had validated high school graduation rates until recently. sometimes its easier not to know. these graduation rates are not becasue of polices put in place over the past five years. it occured under our watch.

we can't rely on the policies of the past. money is only part of the solution, a small part. in order to build political on behalf of low income folks we will we need to acknowledge some mistakes.

by aiko on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 03:20:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Changing The Subject (none / 0)

Of course "more money and more money isn't enough." It's necessary, but not sufficient.

"political will and compasionate people will fix this if it is ever to be fixed."

"Compassionate people" are highly over-rated. "Some of my best friends are Negroes," was one of the most important catch-phrases in keeping segregation alive. We need a whole lot more Justice. Then we won't need so much "compassion."

"Kozol is a great man but even he says fixing schools in not only about money."

Except, that every time I've ever heard him interviewed he always stresses the money, and the way that people try to avoid the issue of money.

Education is like bread. There's more to it than dough, but without dough you ain't got nothin.

"prison explosion is about racism in sentencing. period."

No, it's not. It's a whole lot more complicated than that. There is racism in who gets stopped. Racism in who gets searched, once they are stopped. Racism in who gets arrested. Racism in who gets charged. Racism in who gets tried. And all that happens before the racism in sentencing.

But the conduct of the war on drugs is responsible for an overwhelming amount of the racial disparity.

"welfare created a dependant class and it required mothers not to marry--really it did, it was in the law for 20plus years--and it did a lot of good things too."

This is racist bull. The vast majority of welfare recipients only stayed on welfare for a few years at a time at most. What was far more damaging was a combination of policies that stymied large portions of the black urban poor in their struggles to earn their way out of poverty. Jobs had already started leaving the inner cities before blacks began arriving in large numbers in many of them in the 1950s and 60s, but the job flight accelerated quite quickly after they arrived. The broader de-industrialization of America--centered on the very Northern Rust Belt cities where most blacks migrated to--was a further factor blocking the upward mobility of blacks.

But talking about broader economic issues like these would take our eyes away from blaming the victims. And we wouldn't want to do that!

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 05:44:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Changing The Subject (none / 0)

what is your story? I think you are in a california bubble. is it academia or just too much low cal?

maybe it is time to get out of the books and off the beach and meet some real people--maybe even people of color!

by aiko on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 10:02:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton moved to the Center (none / 0)

"Because he had to not because he wanted to."

This is exactly right. The Republican Noise (propaganda) Machine had geared up, and the "convernetional wisdom" was in place and Clinton engaged in a practical response: "If that's what they believe, let's use it." You can't counter 30 years of right-wing propaganda in one election cycle.

My criticism of Clinton is that he (and the whole third way movement) should have also been encouraging a long-term response geared toward moving the conventional wisdom BACK. They didn't see that then, but we see it now. It's only recently that we have started to understand what the Republican machine is, and how it operates.

So now WE need to build an infrastructure that over time moves "conventional wisdom" and the public back in a Progressive direction.

-- Seeing the Forest

by davej on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 12:03:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree that communication is key (none / 0)

But we also have to win elections in the here and now.

by dpANDREWS on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 03:44:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Knowing your beliefs and (none / 0)

standing up for them is rewarded, especially in the long term. Polldriven politics without strategies of changing the ideological climate is a recipe for disaster.

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 09:56:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fuzzy logic (3.00 / 0)

What is "the middle"? What does that mean? The DLC has been pushing rightward in some misguided effort to win the "middle" for years now. The Dems have been losing with this strategy.

By abandoning talk about core Democratic values, nobody knows what the Democrats stand for any more.

What you may not realize is that those "moderate disaffected republicans" were Democrats. What happened? How did the GOP become the majority party, not just in power, but in registrations?

As an independent, I've voted Democrat almost my entire life. But for the life of me, I don't recognize the Democratic party today. It seems determined to stand for nothing. And so they sit for everything.

And trying to be more Republican is no answer. If I want a Republican, I'll vote Republican.

media girl
Our Word

by media girl on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 11:17:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fuzzy logic (none / 0)

>>What you may not realize is that those "moderate disaffected republicans" were Democrats. What happened? How did the GOP become the majority party, not just in power, but in registrations?

Why do you think Mediagirl? Because just like what Republicans are DOING TODAY, Democrats were guilty of pandering to 'Special interest groups" while we were in Control & SHOVING IT to people's throats. The Old Democratic party got too comfortable & started assuming especially in the 70's & 80's that most americans agreed with them.

From being fiscally irresponsible thru Tax & Spend policies, the Welfare Dependency state,bloated social programs, the highlighting of controversial social issues of Anti-Gun, Affirmative Action, Gay Rights,
Prayers in school issues, the perceive "DOVE" attitude in our foreign policy, etc.

These issues may have been kosher with our Democratic base particularly in the Northeast & the West, BUT THESE WERE KILLER ISSUES in the South, the Midwest, and the Rocky mountain regions of the country & independent voters all over the country.

That's what happened to our party. We became too arrogant & assumed that most americans agreed with us. TODAY, the Republican party is COMMITTING the EXACT SAME MISTAKES!

If there is one thing good that Clinton & the DLC types brought to the party in the 90's - its the steering back the party to a MORE FISCALLY DISCPLINED APPROACH as oppose to the ' Tax & Spend" image of the party.

Today's Democratic Party, is much more fiscally conservative across the country.

by labanman on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 11:36:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

More Rightwing Propaganda (none / 0)

This is all a bunch of rightwing propaganda, much of it racist in origins. The Democrats never pandered to "special interest groups"--meaning workers, women, and minorities. They did pay some sort of attention to their needs and demands. But pandering? That's rightwing corporatist, sexist, racist talk.

And as for "being fiscally irresponsible thru Tax & Spend policies," as I recently pointed out in response to a diary by Bonddad, Democratic Administrations have long been more fiscally responsible than GOP ones. Truman balanced the budget. Ike did not. JFK/Johnson rolled back Ike's deficits, which then ballooned because of Vietnam--not social spending--but Johnson still managed to virtually wipe out the deficit before leaving office. Nixon/Ford then pumped it up again, Carter struggled to try and reduce it, then Reagan skyrocketed it to levels never even dreamed of before, Bush continued the deficits, Clinton turned them around into surpluses, and Bush II brought us back to record deficits again. The pattern is clear--Democrats are fiscally responsible, Republicans are not.

The rest of what you're writing is just racist crap. Ther is no "Welfare Dependency state," except for the likes of Halliburton. "Welfare dependency" is a term coined by racists to justify starving poor blacks into working for less than nothing.

Ditto "bloated social programs." Ours are significantly underfunded compared to Europe's where the poverty rates are far lower than ours.

As for "the highlighting of controversial social issues of Anti-Gun, Affirmative Action, Gay Rights, Prayers in school issues, the perceive 'DOVE' attitude in our foreign policy, etc." this is the work of the rightwing propaganda machine: highlighting social issues to get people voting against their own interests. It was a strategy invented by Southern Whites in the 17th Century after an alliance of slaves and poor whites almost succeeded in overthrowing the white aristocracy. See Jefferson's Pillow by Ron Walters for some exquisite analysis of Colonial racial politics.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 01:34:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More Rightwing Propaganda (none / 0)

Democrats never pandered to special interest groups? The Tax & Spend Democrat is all made up by Rightwingers? The cycle of Welfare Dependency from generation to generation is just imagined & the work of Racist people? All our problems are due to Corporate welfare?

Man, it is lefties like you who will keep our party at minority status for years.

You are living or dreaming of utopia which does not exist.

If you and I approached total non-partisan strangers in their age of 30's,40's or 50's from the most Red States of Alabama, Texas to the most Blue states of Massachusetts, Connecticut- AND ASK THEM ( assuming they have some idea what politics is all about) & ASK THEM WHAT THEY DON'T LIKE ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ?

I'll bet you that many of them will respond with the " Tax & Spend, Welfare, weak support of the military, pro-abortion, pro- gay marriage, etc etc

Whether you and I agree with those labels or not, You can spin it the way you want. You can deny it all you want. But those Images & reputation of the Democratic party is still OUT THERE in big numbers.

Why do you think that with Bush screwing up left & right, moderate & Independents are STILL hesistant to join us in droves.

Its because of those fair or unfair reputations that cost the defeat of Democrats after 40 years
in power.

Your No Way or the Highway attitude may make you feel real good, BUT it ain't going to get us to the majority in your lifetime.

by labanman on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 02:05:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More Rightwing Propaganda (none / 0)

"Man, it is lefties like you who will keep our party at minority status for years."

Glad to see you totally got the point of my post...

by Scott Shields on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 02:43:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The notion of too much welfare in this country is (none / 0)

a conservative myth, fueled by potent racist undercurrents.

The American welfare state has always been a joke compared to more advanced European models.

by Cyt on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 02:44:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm Not Saying The Propaganda Isn't Effective (none / 0)

Obviously, the propaganda is very effective.

It's still propaganda, and the proper response is not to adapt to the lies, but to find an effective response to them.

p.s. Obviously, I speak differently here than I would to an audience composed largely of people who've been drenched in non-stop propaganda for two decades. Either you know this, and are simply taking a cheap way to avoid the real argument, or you do not, and are... well, I better not say.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 04:56:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fuzzy logic (none / 0)

"What you may not realize is that those "moderate disaffected republicans" were Democrats. What happened? How did the GOP become the majority party, not just in power, but in registrations?"

When you call pro-life voters "misogynists", those who oppose gay marriage "bigots", those who at least party approve of the Patriot Act "closet fascists", and those who believe in moderate, rather than liberal economics "plutocrat coddlers", how can you wonder why people have left the party?

I'm not saying that you're side of the issues is wrong, but this inability to respect/accept sincerely held opposing views has sent people to the republican party, where they pretend to accept moderate voters.

by JRyan on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 01:21:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're The Fuzzy One! (none / 0)

The logic of the producers is exactly as stated.

Anti-abortionist pro-death penalty warmonger activists aremysoginists, pure and simple. The vast majority of the consumers--the people they appeal to--may not be. But that's the beauty of reactionary politics--it succeeds by mass deception, while accusing its opponents of mass deception. And there's nothing whatever that's sincere about that.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 01:41:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're The Fuzzy One! (none / 0)

Mediagirl stated:"and as long as there are significant numbers of these misogynists, bigots, closet fascists and plutocrat coddlers in the Party, I will not consider myself a Democrat." Well, there are democrats that are pro-life out of principle, and aren't misogynist. There are democrats who oppose gay marriage but don't hate gays. There are democrats who honestly believe that the Patriot Act is necessary, warts and all. And there are democrats who believe in fiscal conservatism or in moderate economics. I'm not endorsing people who hold these views, but if she wants to know why voters have left the party,all she need to do is look at her own insults to find out.

Now, when you say that "The vast majority of the consumers--the people they appeal to--may not be", are you then agreeing that many voters do hold some of the views listed above sincerely? If so, then I hope you'll agree that insulting a person's belief, even if you think it is misguided, hurts rather than helps your cause.

By the way, I hope your talk about reactionary politics isn't a way to lump democrats who believed sincerely in their positions (like Bob Casey, Sr.) with jerkoffs like Allen Boyd or Zell Miller.

by JRyan on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 02:49:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right (none / 0)

Media Girl fundamentally misunderstands the nature of electoral politics in America. If she thinks it's bad now, she should take a look at the 1830s, 40s and 50s.

OTOH, it really doesn't matter whether you "hate gays" or not. Opposing equal rights is objectively homophobic, just as opposing equal rights for blacks was objectively racist, even for those who sincerely said, "Some of my best friends are black."

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 05:19:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right (none / 0)

"Media Girl fundamentally misunderstands the nature of electoral politics in America. If she thinks it's bad now, she should take a look at the 1830s, 40s and 50s."

I'm glad we agree, uh, sort of.

"OTOH, it really doesn't matter whether you "hate gays" or not. Opposing equal rights is objectively homophobic"

I disagree. I believe in granting civil unions but not marriage itself, and I don't think that makes me either homophobic or comparable to a racist of any kind. Neither of us, however, are going to change the other's mind.

by JRyan on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 06:11:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, Well, (none / 0)

Maybe that's because some of my best friends really are gay and lesbian.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 08:23:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, Well, (none / 0)

My best friend is gay. That still doesn't mean that I believe gay marriage is right, and it doesn't make me homophobic.

by JRyan on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 10:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I Can't Believe You Walked Right Into That One! (none / 0)

Actually, I can.

It's why I wrote that.

Case closed.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 03:51:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right (none / 0)

Yes, because I have a gay friend, but don't believe in gay marriage, that makes me objectively homophobic. Don't think I didn't see it coming, but when your entire arguement is faulty (i.e. if you disagree with what I say, then you are racist/homophobic/evil/nazi), then why should your traps mean anything to anyone but you? Prick.

by JRyan on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 06:52:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you JRyan=Fuzzy logic (none / 0)

Until some of the radical left in our party learn to understand & respect that millions of americans including millions of fellow democrats may have pro-life views, may be against Gay marriage, may support parts of the patriotic act, may be religious people who attend church regularly- WE WILL NEVER ATTRACT the number of people that we want to & need in our party.

Understand that your average joe & jane democrat in Alabama, Montana, Wyoming, Georgia will mostly likely be pro-life & against gay marriage.

That;s their belief & it should be respected.

by labanman on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 02:13:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you JRyan=Fuzzy logic (none / 0)

Sorry, I can't respect those beliefs any more than I can respect the belief that black people are sub-human and fit only for a life of manual labor as the property of whites. Like the pro-slavery belief, the pro-life and anti-gay-marriage ones are based on factually false premises and lead to ethically indefensible outcomes. Put more bluntly, they're evil. That they're also faith-based does not in any way excuse them; pro-slavery beliefs were once a central tenet of many Americans' Christian faith as well, and that didn't make them any less wrong or any less evil.

To force a woman or girl to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and endure the pain and inherent risk of childbirth is no less a violation of her person than rape. To deny a gay couple the legal privileges conferred by marriage is no less a violation of their rights (including, notably, the free exercise of religion guaranteed under the First Amendment) than to deny those privileges to an interracial couple. For the sake of building a progressive majority and making progress on the many other issues that matter to me, I will compromise with voters who hold these evil beliefs, just as progressives in the first half of the twentieth century compromised with southern racists in order to make progress in areas other than race relations, but I will never respect their positions; the most I will do is despise them in silence.

Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for President! Beat McCain!

by Alex on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 03:12:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

For a different formulation (3.00 / 0)

of the 11th commandment, and to be different from the Republicans, how about having as our rule, "attack your opponents, defend your allies".

by 8051FSW on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 09:20:46 AM EST

Embrace our inner FDR (3.00 / 2)

Was every part of the New Deal an unqualified success? Well no. Was every bit of the Great Society an unqualifed success? Nope. Were both noble and largely successful attempts to show that progressive, collective, "we are on this earth together" solutions to structural social and economic problems were possible? Hell Yes.

Social Security and Medicare are our crown jewels. TVA, BPA and Rural Electricfication are such successes that few people even realize those were Democratic projects bitterly opposed by Republicans. Just about everyone goes weepy eyed over the Greatest Generation yet fails to understand that the Republican Party maintained to the last minute that challenging Hitler was a mistake. If Hitler had not declared war on us the official language of the Manchester Municipal Council might well have been German right now - because the then leaders of the Republican Party were split between Isolationists and Outright Supporters of Hitler.

Clinton got handed his lunch because Republicans launched their typical ugly attack on Health Care reform. And in large part that attack relied on the hackneyed claim that we just can't afford entitlement programs. We can afford Star Wars, we can afford wars of choice overseas that cost $100,000,000,000 a year, but we can't afford programs that give elderly people retirement security and everybody health care. Well Clinton got his head down and seriously tackled the Reagan/Bush deficits and put this country on a track where we could have afforded Universal Health Care.

That was the subtext of Bush/Gore. The economy was on the verge of throwing off huge surpluses that would have allowed this country to complete the legacy of the greatest twentieth President of the United States. The overall General Fund was actually in surplus and Social Security, given honest productivity numbers, was overfunded. And by the narrowest of numbers and with the benefit of vote fraud we elected a guy that blew the whole wad on tax cuts for the wealthy.

The Cato Society and the American Heritage Institute set out on a conscious effort to convince America that the New Deal was a failure. They were not particularly shy about this, their assault on Social Security was laid out in plain sight in the Fall 1983 Cato Journal http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj3n2/cj3n2.html . And they laid out their methods in the 11th article in that issue: ACHIEVING A "LENINIST" STRATEGY
Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis

Its all there and it was a huge success. They set out deliberately to sell the message "Government is not the solution, government is the problems". And by and large twenty-two years later, despite a blizzard of Enron, WorldCom and Halliburton headlines people by and large believe that private solutions are always more efficient that public solutions.

Time to cry "bullshit" and let loose the Dogs of War. Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy and even LBJ put this country on a progressive path that made it the object of envy of the whole world. Rightists like to sneer that poor Americans have TVs and so are not really poor. Well sorry Charley we have raised our standards a little bit. Having a working toilet and a change of clothes is not where we want to put the gauge of "Poverty". We can do a lot better than that. And if we just pop our defensive heads out of the ass that the Cato Institute forced us into to we can do great things. Just like Franklin Delano Roosevelt told us: "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

The Republican Party has been strutting around the political playground for the last two decades terrorizing Democratic Progressives, particularly on economics. Well their policy initiatives have showed themselves to be proven failures. Cutting taxes doesn't increase revenues. Raising taxes on the wealthy doesn't inhibit growth. Because we have a twenty year record proving the opposite.

FDRs Labor Secretary had more balls than the entire male leadership of the Democratic Party today. And she didn't actually have any physical ones:

"Frances Perkins was secretary of labor for the 12 years of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency and the first woman to hold a Cabinet post. She brought to her office a deep commitment to improving the lives of workers and creating a legitimate role for labor unions in American society, succeeding admirably on both counts. Always a consummate politician, Perkins profoundly influenced the political agenda of her day, moving it closer to the values she embraced: economic justice and security for all Americans."

I feel a William Shatner Priceline moment coming on "economic justice and security for all Americans!"

Here's a program for Democrats: Unleash your inner FDR. And while you're at it bring on board those remaining Republicans who will bring Teddy's big Trust-Busting stick.

PollKatz: Bush Approval in 15 polls

by Bruce Webb on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 09:25:05 AM EST

Re: Embrace our inner FDR (none / 0)

Bruce Webb gets it.

-- Seeing the Forest

by davej on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 11:55:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The POWER of Language (3.00 / 1)

* The Myth of Language holds that the problem with the Democratic Party is not what it advocates, but rather how it speaks.

This is absolutely false -- how a politician speaks is THE CRITICAL FACTOR in whether or not they can effectively connect and communicate with the voters.

People DO NOT vote on the issues; they vote on their EMOTIONAL RESPONSE to the issues.

That is the secret of Frank Luntz' success as the communications guru of the GOP -- he identifies words that are emotional hot buttons for the voters, and the GOP employs them without regard to reality or the issues. The Democrats discuss the issues in ways that ignore both the emotional content and context -- and get their heads handed to them time and again.

People say they want fuel efficient cars, but go out and buy SUV's. Why? SUV's evoke the emotions of strength, power, and security; fuel efficient cars = small and wimpy. Of course, pain in the wallet is beginning to turn this around -- but even now, mini-SUV's are the hot new product.

In politics, the simple emotional connection ALWAYS trumps the complex argument -- and no one was better at this than FDR. Consider these sound bites:

The New Deal (evoking memories of TR's Square Deal)
We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Malefactors of Great Wealth.
Arsenal of Democracy -- Lend Lease (I don't want $15 - I want my garden hose back after the fire is over.)
December 7th, 1941 -- A Day that will live in Infamy.

The list goes on, but these are good examples. FDR understood the power of language: simple, clear, and direct are the keys to effective communication.

The success of the GOP is based on their emulation of the FDR style -- the Democrats have failed because they embraced institutionalized bureaucracy, while forgetting FDR's politics.

The First Law of Politics: Whoever Has The Simplest Sound Bite -- Wins.

by ck on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 12:57:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The POWER of Language (none / 0)

I could't agree more. The Democrats explain things in 5000 words or more, while the Republicans steal the vote with their 10 second sound bite.

Memo to neocons: I respect your right to have an opinion, but I just don't want to hear it anymore.

by blogus on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 01:23:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Language Paradox (none / 0)

The number of words you use to explain your position is inversely proportional to your effectiveness in communicating your ideas.

In other words: Keep It Simple.

John Kerry lost because he was incapable of thinking or speaking with short declarative sentences. The more weasel words and prepositional qualifiers he used, the less people trusted him.

He had the wind at his back after the debates, but immediately threw it away by returning to his interminable beltway-speak. On the other hand, Bush came back with crisp self assurance, and won going away.

by ck on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 01:45:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Embrace our inner FDR (none / 0)

Well said Bruce. Well said.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 08:44:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

11th amendment (3.00 / 1)

I have long been advocating an 11th amendment. However, no one seemed to have listened to me. Seems that you agree on that.

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 09:40:15 AM EST

Re: 11th amendment (3.00 / 1)

Well... I think we might have a different view of what the 11th commandment for Democrats should be. It's impossible for Democrats not to challenge each other -- what would our primaries look like?

However, it is important that no one picks out part of the Democratic coalition and constantly target them as the root of all the party's problems. This is why I don't hate the DLC, per se. I might not agree with their positions, but I recognize that they do bring something to the table. But their constant criticism of the liberal and populist wings of the party has to stop.

We need to work on finding common ground as Democrats rather than tearing down our allies in an effort to enforce our personal agendas on the party as a whole.

by Scott Shields on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 11:52:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 11th amendment (3.00 / 1)

We should still have primaries.

The "far-left" should not call moderate Dems "GOP-lite." It's not my fault that I live in McConnell country!

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 12:50:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I Don't Call the Montana Dems 'GOP Lite' (none / 0)

So the geographic excuse doesn't work with me.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 02:14:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Don't Call the Montana Dems 'GOP Lite' (none / 0)

I didn't. If I did, I apologize.

I don't call any dems GOP-lite. It's wrong.

That said, I can't stand anyone who promises party officials that they won't deflect and then they make a big announcement with Mitch McConnell at their side saying their changing parties.

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 02:45:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Don't Call the Montana Dems 'GOP Lite' (none / 0)

What I'm pretty sure Paul was saying that Montana is also supposed to be a red state, but is controlled top to bottom by progressive populist Democrats. This disproves the notion that you need to be a centrist to win in supposedly 'enemy' territory.

by Scott Shields on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 05:43:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Don't Call the Montana Dems 'GOP Lite' (none / 0)

Having lived in the racist state known as Montana as an Indian-American, I can safely say that Montana is NOT a progressive state.

It is the most racist state that I have ever lived in. And I currently live in Texas, so that says a lot.

by v2aggie2 on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 06:24:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're Just Reinforcing My Point (none / 0)

The worse Montana looks as a whole, the more remarkable it is what progressive populist Dems have done. You don't change the whole culture of a state overnight. You tap into the positive veins, and draw on them to strike dominant themes, which then help to change the whole climate of opinion.

It wasn't that long ago that California passed some pretty harsh anti-immigrant initiatives. That's turned around remarkably in the past 10 years. We're far from perfection, but a definite change has taken place. I have high hopes that Montana Dems can accopmlish something similar.

Just to be clear, I'm not recommending you move back anytime soon. This is about how we make progress in challenging situations.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 08:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're Just Reinforcing My Point (none / 0)

Maybe.

But when I lived in Montana, both US Senators, the Governor, and my US Congressman were all Democrats.

So this isn't exactly new.

I am happy for Montana Democrats.
I wish them luck.
And you're general point is a good one.

I lived in California as well when Prop. 187 was passed, which quite frankly exposed the hypocrisy that existed in the state ("Yes, we are open-minded, but only when convenient").

by v2aggie2 on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 08:36:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm Not Saying All Democrats Are Progressive (none / 0)

Baucus certainly is not. He's a corporate tool of the first order. What I am saying is that states as political cultures are not monolithic, and that progressive forces can express themselves through the electoral process even in states with long histories of racism.

This certainly is the case in California, whose history of anti-Asian and anti-Mexican racism dates back to the 19th Century, and whose anti-Native American racism dates back to the earliest Spanish settlements here.

This is why I think your characterization of California ("Yes, we are open-minded, but only when convenient") is inaccurate, btw. It assumes that California is a monolith. In fact, Prop 187 had majority Latino support at one point early in the campaign. Many of the Latinos who originally supported it undoubtedly thought that their position was the open-minded one, compared to the position of "knee-jerk" rejection.

Colorblind racism is a tricky beast. While denial is always at the heart of any form of racism (denying our common humanity, for one thing, denying our own undesireable qualities that we project onto the other, for another), it is more complex, more subtle, and more all-pervasive in colorblind racism. Oppressed minorities can buy partway into it with even less awareness of what they are doing than with earlier forms, simply because it is much more subtle, and more heavily and complexely permeated with pseudo-egalitarian denial.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 08:37:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Not Saying All Democrats Are Progressive (none / 0)

I don't think it was an inaccurate statement.

When I lived in California, there were a lot of people who would claim that they were open-minded and chastise those who they did not feel were "open-minded", but their actions reflected otherwise.

Prop. 187 was passed overwhelmingly.
I would suspect that there was a decent sized group of "liberals" who supported this.

The difference between California racism and red-state racism. In the red states, you know pretty quickly who the racists are. In California, it is much more subtle, and you have to be more careful.

by v2aggie2 on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 12:28:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Too Simplistic (none / 0)

First you talked about a state as if it has a monolithic outlook, and can be treated as if it were a single individual.

When challenged, you then say, "I don't think it was an inaccurate statement," and defend it by making another statement about "a lot of people," which is a far cry from a whole state, thus admitting my point, without admitting it, clarifying your point, perhaps, but muddying the dialogue.

You then compound matters with another sweeping simplistic claim, utterly devoid of any empirical foundation:

The difference between California racism and red-state racism. In the red states, you know pretty quickly who the racists are. In California, it is much more subtle, and you have to be more careful.

It would sure be nice if you would (1) define the terms "racism" and "racist" and (2) provide some sort of empirical evidence for the claims you make.

Because as it stands, the more I hear from you, the more I hear sweeping group generalizations that are not all that different in kind from the ways in which racist discourse is presented. I'm not saying you're a racist. Not by a long shot. To the contrary, I'm pointing out that the sort of way you're presenting your arguments is quite commonplace, taken for granted, even. And because that's so, it makes it quite easy for subtley racist ideas and arguments to be advanced, and accepted, without people even being aware of what they're doing.

For example, was your statement I just box-quoted meant to say that Latinos who supported Prop 187 in California were subtle racists, but that like-minded Latinos in Texas were not? Or that they were easy to spot in Texas, but not in California?

My bottom line here is not that I'm trying to attack or antagonize you. I'm trying to say that things are often a whole lot more complex and subtle than you give them credit for. Which is all the more reason for us to be as clear as possible in our critiques. Racism always thrives on denial, and confusion is one of the chief byproducts of denial. Cutting through that confusion requires a good deal of clarity on our part. Failing to recognize the degrees of difference and nuance in the people and arguments we encounter makes it that much harder for us to make progress in the struggle.

A lot of "kind people" have been racists in the past. Indeed, I think it's fair to say that racism has almost always depended on "kind people" for its survival. The challenge has often been to get them to see beyond the social setting and assumptions that they have blindly and unthinkingly accepted, to see the unkindness in the world they have accepted as given.

It's not the people as individuals who are the problem. It's social structures, institutions, shared assumptions, etc. But people are the solution in the sense that it takes conscious effort on their part to rise up and overcome the social setting that they have grown up accepting. And this applies to internalized racism, acceptance and self-hatred in minorities as well.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 06:03:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too Simplistic (none / 0)

Well, I live in Texas and a lot of posts treat this state as monolithic.

If California is not monolithic, than neither is Texas. Texas will soon be a majority-minority state like California. Yet you never hear about this

___

"The difference between California racism and red-state racism. In the red states, you know pretty quickly who the racists are. In California, it is much more subtle, and you have to be more careful."
____

A lot of times, a person is considered racist simply because they yell slurs or commit hate crimes, etc. This is very valid.

But discrimination in the workplace or in general society is typically not that obvious. And it can often be more dangerous because the motives are not completely clear. At least in the above case, I know what I am dealing with.

Prop 187 was a way for Californians to have a scapegoat for the sluggish economy. And whom better than poor Mexicans? Remember, even in Texas, such a proposal was never put to the voters or the legislature. People have no problem reaping the benefit of migrant workers (i.e agriculture). They also have no problem targeting them as scapegoats when convenient. After all, they're just poor Mexicans

The OJ Simpson trial is a perfect example. For the record, I believe he was guilty. But the trial became a national fascination not just because of celebrity but also because he was a black man who had married a white woman and was accused of killing her. The Frontline special last week revealed a lot of these issues. I imagine a lot of the "open-minded" folks couldn't understand the fuss among blacks.

Well now they hopefully know

by v2aggie2 on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 06:47:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See, I Have The Feeling... (none / 0)

we see things fairly similarly. I agree with pretty much everything you've written in this comment. But your earlier ways of expressing yourself raised all sorts of alarm bells.

Of course Texas isn't monolithic. No state is. Heck, no neighborhood is.

As for OJ, well, I live in LA. Even trying to ignore it, I couldn't avoid it completely. From what I couldn't avoid, it seemed pretty clear that they framed a guilty man... but not well enough to meet the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt." So I think the verdict was correct, even though I think he definitely did it.

This isn't a very comlicated position to take. But it's just the sort of slightly nuanced view that rarely gets much of a hearing. We need that nuance in order to accomodate different viewpoints that can be compatible. But without that nuance, they tend to solidify in opposition to one another.

In my view, there's a difference here between racially conditioned views--which we certainly have in this case--and racist views. If we want to get beyond the racially conditioned views, we need to make an effort to find more nuanced ways of thinking to create points of understanding and agreement. Otherwise, there's a strong tendency for the racially conditioned views to harden.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Oct 09, 2005 at 01:56:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See, I Have The Feeling... (none / 0)

I believe that we do see things similarly.
There are typically no absolutes in this world, and it is important to listen to each other and understand each other.

I have enjoyed the conversation, Paul. Thanks!

by v2aggie2 on Sun Oct 09, 2005 at 01:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]