And this is exactly why when democrats vote for the Bush gop conseratvie agenda they pound more nails into to Democratic party coffin, even when the vote is appaently on minor issues.

We have to redefine everything we do in terms of our narrative and our values and show everyone how immpossible it is to go along with their policies, nominess and definitions.

Our side is afraid of being called obstructionists, but that can only be done when the democratic party has no expressed oppossing vision that it is offering that it is - as a unified party adhering to.

We have to replace the mythical Ozzie and Harriet vision of what America was and how we can go back there, with a new vision and a new narrative. As Bush has demonstrated, the vision and the narrative don't even have to be accurate or truthful, as long as they are compelling.

Ben P

No, the number to look at here is the 30%! of this country that simply doesn't know where the Democrats want to take the country.  These are persuadable and/or disaffected voters who can be had -- if we can present a positive, forward-looking direction for the nation.  We have to transcend just being against what the GOP is for, and develop a platform, a positioning, of being for something.  

I suggest fiscal responsibility, clean government and the removal of corporate/media/government corruption.  A Perot-like positioning, but with Democratic values and policies.  But whatever it is, we have to start being for something.

Better yet, what should our narrative be to address the cultural values that is not a repetition of or renunciation of the conservative ideological doctrine?  Just to say we are not.... or we agree but... leads us into the doctrinal trap that has been set  for progressives.

My thoughts on this lead me to the notion of what is the purpose of government? To govern minimally, have less taxes, etc.  as the conservatives argue; Or do we want to have a government that is socially supportive so as to create a level playing field where we can compete and get ahead by our own wits and have some type of security net should we stumble an fall.  

In my arguements with conservatives, I have experimented with using this theme of community support (government being a larger community than their church) and seem to be making inroads on their 'less government' mantra.  How can this or something additional be expanded to become part of the needed new progressive narrative?  Complete with concrete examples, much like how the issues above frame the conservative narrative.

This is where I'm having a hard time on how to express a progressive narrative.

We are faced with two separate issues; what should that agenda be and what narrative will best advance that agenda without being too far removed from reality as to not be credible to a sufficient number of people.  We need to start with the narrative and then prioritize the progressive agenda to fit the narrative.  And we need to rebuild the progressive narrative from the ground up the same way we need to rebuild the party structure under Howard Dean.

Dean has progressive credentials despite being opposed to gun control unlike many left-of-center types.  We should also be capable of dropping issues like gun control if they don't fit the new progressive narrative (and I think it is problematic if civil liberties are a part of that narrative) and we need to examine honestly every bit of our agenda, be it abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action.  Sure, we are unlikely to dump anything major, but we need to be open-minded as part of some brutally frank self-examination.

One key problem that many people thought John Kerry faced in 2004 was that he didn't really seem to be for anything and was merely anti-Bush.  The worst thing would be for a progressive narrative to have a similar tone.  It can't just be anti-conservative.  That just leads to a shrill messianic complex in which leftists cast themselves as the saviors of humanity standing firm like Roland against the cultural barbarians of conservatism. And that's pretty much the most off-putting attitude that one can have for swing voters who don't drink our Kool-Aid. (I don't mean to sound demeaning, but I understand the nature of ideology and a progressive ideology will have its versions of Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, and dittoheads.  I fully accept that necessary part of reality.)  A progressive narrative can't be an explanation of what is wrong with America, it has to be an explanation of what can go right with America.

In a list of a bunch of problematic issues, how many different people are bothered by one each, and how many by a bunch of them?  And how many  care about that issue?  

If this is all the same third of the population, and the rest of the population prefers other stands, what is the issue?  You at least need the contrary question, namely what fraction of the population will not consider voting for a Republican because the Republican on horseback, with his "forward to the 16th century" banner, is a Republican progressive sitting to look over the front of his horse.

The fact that someone differs on, say, foreign relations with Lichtenstein does not mean that it will change their vote; conversely, the issue you think is trivial may be vote deciding to someone else.  Were these issues deal makers for these people, or were they unlikely to support you anyhow?

This is why I especially disagree with the idea that we should "move to the middle" or change on issue X or Y.  Because this feeds the narrative that we are just flailing around for a winning combination of issues.

To me, it starts with asserting "I am a liberal."  I mean, Democrats actually resist that label.

The plain truth in general elections is that it's whoever draws the most moderate votes to their side wins. So those stats if true are significant.

Dems need to learn to steal the issues from the republicans and reframe them like Bubba was so good at. That leaves them pissing in the wind with no issues to call their own.

But enough is enough. The gays were voted
down everywhere, and they're a non-issue.
What is the cultural narrative that works?

A 'fighting liberalism' is the cultural narrative
that works. Rosie the riveter. Uncle Sam rolling up his sleeves and taking on Bin Laden.
America unified. Liberalism? "Buy War Bonds".
How about attacking the Chinese Industrial
complex, while we're at it? No labour
union in the world can compete with
1.00 a day labour. Are they evil? Who cares?
They're destroying our industrial capability.
Enough is enough! And what about those
obese, arrogant, stupid kids !! We
should be identified as the party that
rolls up his sleeves, gets those fat,
soft, ignorant children into lean,
mean, learning machines!

Flaming gay pink sweatered faggots
are precisely the counter image
- so DOH they chose it!

The media that belongs most, is
the military blogosphere. They were
out here before you, Chris.
And they're the heart of the grassroots
that is powering the GOP.

And nothing will matter, by the way,
if America loses the war. Nothing.
We're going to live our lives
every day in terror just like
the Israelis. We have to win. Period.

Seeing as most Republicans are bought and paid for by the wealthy elite of this country, it might make sense to make an issue out of this. They call us "anti-family" because we support the right of any loving adult couple to get married? We should throw it right back at them for being in bed with the banks that are robbing families blind and the multinational corporations that are crushing small businesses at home and forcing families around the world to live in slave-like conditions. Republicans have supported the most destructive elements of our society, and we need to get our hands on some mass media and start making an issue of this. Democrats can be the real party of family values, defending America from the War On Families.

Unfortunately, so many Democrats have been complicit in the war on families that it makes them relucant to bring attention to these issues. They tend to talk around them - they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them!

So for Democrats to emerge as a genuine alternative to the Republicans again we need to get some leaders who are straight-shooters. Howard Dean may be the first one to rise to prominace, but we need more, and soon. The more straight-talking Democrats we get out there, the better.

Voters can smell the bullshit, and they thought both Bush and Kerry stank of it last year, IMO. Bush is a better lier and comes off as a straight-shooter because he believes his own lies (as George Costanza once said, "its not a lie if you believe it"). Republicans are better liers than Democrats in general. A Dem who's in big money's pocket can't look working families in the eye and tell them that he's on their side without reeking a little - unless he lies like a Republican.

So, what do we need? We need more Democratic politicians who are clean, or at least relativly clean (like Dean, IMO). We need Dems who have integrity, and will stand up for unpopular positions by wearing their heart on their sleeve (like Bush snookered people in to believing he was doing with Iraq). Politicians who are minimally comprimised will make better candidates and do a better job in office. And with netroots financing, its easier than ever for politicians to avoid selling their souls for the big checks.

when i think about our narrative, i think about, literally, a story of certain individuals which illustrates what's right with this country as we see it.  the story is "Such-and-such happened to Mr. X because liberals faught fo A, B and C.  This is what's right with this country.  We need D, E, and F to make things even better."

my current is that X = Obama.  i know that a whole narrative can't be constructed on one person's story, but i believe this is as good a place as any to start.

the narrative, as i see it, goes as follows:

In the early part of the 20th century, Americans were divided by race, class, and gender.  We lived in dirty cities and our economy was in danger of collapsing.  Our way of life was threatened by fascists in Europe.  Liberals solved these problems by giving everyone equal rights, by building strong labor unions which gave everyone a decent standard of living, and by protecting the environment.  Liberals fought fascism both intellectually and militarily.  Today, we are all safer and better off because of the hard work of 20th century liberals.  But there are new dangers on the horizon, and liberals must continue their work of expanding opportunity, broadening prosperity, building healthy communities and curing the cancer of fanaticism.

thoughts?

Somewhere along the line we have failed to effectively communicate what choice means to Democrats.  

Choice is not about legalized abortion per se, it is about women having the right to pursue medical treatment that is available only to women (yes, one day maybe men will have babies but in the meantime only women can physically produce children).  Lawrence Tribe wrote a wonderful book in the 1980's called the Battle of Absolutes which is a history of abortion.  Abortion is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, known surgical procedures recorded in history.  The debate about whether women have the right to have an abortion is almost as old as the procedure itself.  

I think what is key to understand is that the debate about abortion is really about what rights women have.  The ability to control one's reproduction is a means of leveling the playing field between men and women.  When abortions are illegal and difficult to obtain women are less in control of their lives.  

The Democratic Platform does not advocate that women should have abortions, or that even abortions are "okay."  The Platform merely recognizes that women will have abortions if they so choose and we should support access to safe and legal procedures.  The choice women make when they choose to abort a pregnancy, regardless of the reason, is never easy.  

For those who may not know, or remember, Roe v. Wade was one of a series of cases that addressed women's rights to control their reproductive lives.  During the same period of Roe, the court addressed the availability of oral contraception to a married couple(Griswold v. Connecticut: A Connecticut statute makes it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception), to a single woman (Eisenstadt v. Baird: A Massachusetts law that makes it a felony for anyone to give away a drug, medicine, instrument, or article for the prevention of conception except in the case of (1) a registered physician administering or prescribing it for a married person or (2) an active registered pharmacist furnishing it to a married person presenting a registered physician's prescription.).  

Just my thoughts... please read Professor Tribe's book for a much more eloquent discussion of the underlying issues.  I just hope the Democratic party chooses to frame the choice debate in positive proactive terms rather than respond to attacks in a defensive manner.  

MHO 2006

Please repeat,repeat,repeat,repeat...

There's a neurological set point that's has to be disengaged.

Go, boy!

First, I took time out from class to look
walk down to a train track. There I put
my head on the track and I saw the train
coming. I just lay my head their on the track,
I wanted to see a train up close. Then I rolled
away, like Ty Cobb. And that train started
slowing down, air brakes. But only after
I had moved. I lay there, unable to get
farther away as the cars roared by.
But they were slowing, and it made me
sad.  I knew it takes alot of gas
in the air to make the train go again,
I didn't want the world to end by global warming.

Then I was in a room. The teacher was asked -
what is the mystery of our faith.

I said - Christ was born, christ died
and christ rose up to be born again.

The room stopped and the instructor
nodded yes.

Finally I just woke up. The arc lamps
of Atlanta, far off - lit the sky orange
even though it was 4 am. There was a fog.

And I logged on just to say this, then
I get to work (I'm a ceo).

Liberalism means fighting for your country,
loving your country so much, you would
give your very life for it.

Conservatism is blond haired, blu eyed
children in uruguay that can recite
the german alphabet. Conservatism
was a shade on that train that passed us
by. And we saw it. It was a train filled
not with steel rails heading to a factory.
There were people there.

Liberalism means being smart enough to
fight and to be a fool for christ. We should
never be afraid of that.

Want a real war? Try this one: who will
get confirmed as Supreme court Justice.

All the bloody sunshine in the world,
you can just pound that right up your ass -
Scalia is as much a lock on chief justice
right now as Dean is on the DNC chair.
If that doesn't mean the end of the party -
what does?

And not that the Democratic party being over,
forever, is a bad thing. But its end the
hands of a man who thinks clearly now,
at least. Someones favorite uncle, something
like that.

Whoop de doo.

I will fight for my company and my god
and my country. You fight for the party.
I feel like someone is trying to get away
with murder.

Liberalism. Good freaking luck.

Yet we are united in purpose and united in the goal of improving the common good. We are united in improving the lives of each and every person. We believe that no country can truly be great unless everyone has what they need to live, the tools and education to achieve their dreams, and the freedom to pursue them.

THIS is the narrative that is needed to oppose the intolerance and divisiveness coming from the right.