OT - So, You're The Democratic Party
 

So, You’re the Democratic Party…

Amidst the conversation about the close presidential election and whatever glimmer of hope there might be of a reversal, we are left with another major fallout from the 2004 election: Democrats are in big trouble. Story after story sees southern states, longtime bastions of Democrats at least in name, now resoundingly electing Republicans to the US Senate. The House of Representatives looks irretrievably lost. The party, face it, is in a state of crisis – and if it isn’t, it should be.


Like it or not, the Republican party is speaking to Americans with one voice fairy effectively. A given candidate for a given office can, if he chooses, sculpt that as need be to suit his own beliefs or political convenience, but if you run as a Republican, you have a variety of presumptions that are in your favor just with the letter R:

-You will fight for lower taxes
-You will fight for less government
-You will look favorably upon “family values”
-You will look favorably on issues favorable to the religious community
-You will oppose abortion, either aggressively or subtly
-You will be “tough on crime” by some measure
-You will focus more on “opportunity” than on “handouts”
-You will generally oppose “special treatment” for specific classes of people

I’m not trying to make the case that these are necessarily good or bad things, but generally speaking, in most of the country, there are an awful lot of people who respond pretty favorably to that particular menu of political positions. Plenty of them might be, for example, “pro-choice” but still have enough reservations about abortion that they are willing to support candidates who nominally disagree with them on that issue. (As a side issue, I think the presumed pro-choice majority in this country tends to be wide but shallow) This slate of basic positions, by itself, gives you a real shot to compete in many political races in this country.

It is also clear that the attractiveness of these collective positions are gaining in appeal. Why this is so is a matter of speculation beyond the scope of this piece, but it is almost undeniably so. And thus, we see Republican candidates who say (in many cases) almost nothing more than the generic positions above garnering majority returns in state after state, race after race in this country.


So, you’re the Democratic Party. What platform, what collective group of positions, do you run on? Can you simply reverse any of the above super-simple position planks and say you are for the opposite? Are you for higher taxes? More government? Do you want there to be more abortions? Are you aggressively “soft on crime” instead?

The Democratic party, for a variety of reasons, basically depends on (to re-use the description used for Mr Kerry’s positions) more nuanced positions. It’s not that the traditional democrat favors big government… but perhaps that the democrat sees the value of a particular government program in helping people in a particular way, and would judge that spending of public funds to be in the public’s best interest. (See, it’s actually possible to describe funding for governmental functions without using words like “greedy” and “hogs” and the like) It’s not that the traditional democrat is “soft on crime,” but perhaps that she doesn’t agree that locking everyone up is the only solution to crime problems. The point is – generally speaking, these policy positions take longer to explain and describe than the super-simplified versions from above.

Without trying to take a position whether one party’s vision is inherently better than the other’s (and in the interests of disclosure, I myself am not a loyal voter within either party), I am consistently struck about how effective the GOP has been at communicating that their party “stands for something” and how ineffective the Democrats have been at doing the same thing.


Surely, there are areas where some liberal values still prevail, and other areas where socioeconomic and/or racial demographics create democratic strongholds. We know in many areas, the real “race” is for the Democratic primary win. But by and large, those areas are shrinking – our inner cities represent smaller and smaller shares of the total population, and the affluent suburban areas which used to be blue-collar democratic territory are know increasingly responding to the GOP message.

The Democratic party is in big, big trouble. As more and more minority communities and religious communities, former party strongholds, are siding with the GOP message, the democrats are left to wonder what to do. Of course, they don’t act with one mind, so a simple, coherent, solution is not really likely – but the elements of leadership in the party, who ever they are, ought to be thinking about what the party should be doing after this year’s absolutely disgraceful result.

(And make no mistake about it – despite the fact that this presidential race was extremely close, any reasoned view of the electorate’s opinions about the current state of the country and the administration simply affirms that this election was in the Democrats’ hands for the taking, and they were simply unable to do it.)


Is there an issue out there that the Democratic party ought to be wrapping itself in? They have made half-hearted attempts to do so with health care – but they seem stuck. It’s pretty clear that (for whatever reasons) the American public is not tantalized by a single-payer system to provide health care access for all Americans. So, the Dems are stuck with advocating a variety of patchwork plans and partial solutions – none of which sound all that sexy, to be candid. If a candidate went around like Oprah handing out cars and said “YOU get health care! … YOU get health care!… YOU get health care!” they might actually motivate some people on the issue – but the best that can offer is a multi-tiered, complicated plan of offsetting incentives and new coverage systems (the details of which have to be buried on some web page somewhere) that sounds suspiciously like “more of the same.” Even those who felt that Mr Kerry was better on this issue would be hard pressed to describe exactly what he was talking about.

So, what? Social Security and Medicare? There’s a double edge here – the current entitlement system is slated for financial ruin, but the political weight of today’s seniors makes systemic adjustments a political third rail. The Democrats have sometimes tried (with varying degrees of success) to use this as a scare tactic – usually claiming that the GOP will cut benefits, raise the retirement age, or perhaps the mysteriously-bad-sounding “privatize” Social Security. (All of which are perfectly sound public policy arguments to reasoned minds, but are politically idiotic to espouse, and therefore not worthy of meaningful consideration) So, the current Democratic argument is to “stay the course” (sound familiar) and to insinuate that the real issue is “privatization” – which while sounding a bit sinister to some voters, is not concrete enough to motivate anyone to vot differently.

What’s left? The environment? I have heard people in this community claim that the current administration has the very worst environmental record in American history. I can’t support nor dispute that claim, in part because – despite the selective claims to the contrary – the environment simply isn’t a major motivating issue in political campaigns. At least not yet. Young people seem to care about the environment, but they also show a resounding unwillingness to actually bother voting – and until they demonstrate that they are going to matter to the electoral process (cf. the comments about seniors from above) sensible politicians are wise to largely pay then nothing more than lip service.

What about “fiscal responsibility?” Superficially (and I unequivocally emphasize that context for all these claims) the Democrats have the edge on this issue right now – with their last President leaving office with record budget surpluses and the succeeding Republican racking up record deficits – the largest budgetary nosedive in the nation’s history by leaps and bounds. The democrats, though, are in trouble here – because they are not interested in recklessly cutting government programs (a sentiment shared by much of their political base) they are reluctant to really stand for anything here, like a budget-balancing amendment to the Constitution? So what, then? The current path seems to be to simply complain about the bad results from the other guys, praise the good results from their own guys, and hope that the electorate concludes that there is some inherent skill involved, which the Dems possess more of. I don’t think that has worked too well.


Where does all this leave the Democratic party? Hopelessly lost? History says otherwise – the two-party system tends toward balance. But reacquiring some sort of balance means adjustments.

We saw, in some Senate races this year, candidates running as Democrats who were politically somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan. Adopting extremely conservative positions (in many cases contrary to staple positions of the Democratic party) might be one way for the party to regain its lost numbers – but at what cost? If the Democratic Senate candidate had been called on to support Dianne Feinstein or Charles Schumer as minority leader in the US Senate, would that have worked? That guy probably wouldn’t agree with Schumer on anything – does the party need more Zell Millers? Can that really be the answer.


I don’t claim to have any answers to all this. As many of you know, I have harped on this for some time now – I think the party has a real struggle on it hands, and last night’s results (especially as you peel one layer past the onion skin) absolutely confirmed this.

And, on a certain level, I really don’t care all that much. I’m by no means a faithful Democratic party voter, and whether the US Senate is 53-47 one way or the other generally doesn’t change my life all that much. I do try to think through public policy issues a bit, and often am chagrinned when I see what I believe to be a well-conceived policy position get trumped by a well-honed sound byte. And it happens often, of course. But I do not subscribe to the “traditional Democrat” values in whole, so whether the party limps along or takes a turn for the better doesn’t really bother me all that much.

But my views aside, a healthy two-party system is a pretty important part of the government we expect. We expect a healthy debate on difficult issues, on confirmations of important appointments, and on divisive matters – and the party system, like it or not, serves us fairly well for those purposes. If every representative in this republic (not a democracy, remember) were left to vote his absolute conscience on every single matter, we’d almost certainly have an even worse political process than we do now. If the Democratic party continues to die on the vine, being held up only by the remaining bastions of certain demographics and the occasional individual with enough skills to rise above the party’s established mediocrity, then we’re in for some real changes in the way the country does business. And anyone who has any misgivings about elements of these Republican agendas should share this concern, at least a little bit.


So, enough with that horrid dump of frustration. I genuinely worry for the political process, and if the solution to my worries is that the Democratic party suddenly snap into a more intelligent, focuses, and effective bunch – I suspect I’ll be left wanting.

You see, all during the FOFC drought, those state-of-the-art microprocessors were still doing zillions of computations per second. And there were outputs. Such as this.

More seriously, this is a very interesting topic that deserves a more thoughtful response than I am capable of at the moment.

I think that the Dems have to start selling a more conservative economic approach while still standing moderate/liberal on social issues. I think they lose the middle on the economy more than anything else (the social issues help the Republicans strongly in the rural areas, but I think there are still moderate pockets in the Suburbs that could be picked up).

dola: Will they do it? No.

Fiscal Conservative, Social Liberal. I'd vote for it. Also, you must wield a big stick!

Exactly.

There are simply too many people in the US that are religious, don't like gay marriage, don't support partial birth abortion, want "under god" in the pledge and feel better with a candidate that has some consistent history of religious faith.

I don't think the problem with the democratic party is their economic policy. Instead, I think its problem is the party's decision to head down a very secular road on social policy. Most Americans don't like that and until they get back to the middle on issues like abortion, activist judges, gay marriage and religion in general, they will not have a chance in much of middle America.

Without middle America, the democrats need 90% of the black vote, 70% of latinos, huge majorities in every major urban area and a big gender gap to even compete. And, that's just not a realistic expectation in this current electorate.

The left can survive with its current economic policy, but not with its current social policy.

Quik-

Why did you put OT in the heading? Isn't this an FOFC on-topic? ;)

I think the problem with this approach is that the Dems have been trying it and it isn't perceived as credible. I'm not sure if it will ever be seen as credible.

I think the Dems have to take an entirely different approach. I think they need a unified "vision" of the world so that they have credibility on whatever those issues hold. I think the party should return to its approach of protecting civil liberties. It should turn into the party of small government and build a platform based on using government only in limited areas. These issues all fit under that umbrella:

Pro-choice
Anti-Patriot Act (and its likes)
Anti-taxation (something they could advocate if they had a real vision)
Social servies cutbacks (while expanding social regulation in areas like the environment and discimination)
Pro-guns
Anti-drug war (while this isn't initially popular, I think it can be reshaped over the course of time to be appealling to most people)

The problem that remains is foreign policy. I think most Americans are downright dumb when it comes to understanding the world. I have no idea how the democrats can succeed in that arena. It was a long time ago that they advocated humanitarian intervention (which is now coopted by the republications). I have no idea what they can carve out as a foreign policy vision because every view (even wholly contradictory ones) have been taken by the GOP.

Funny that some of the most popular TV shows and Movies are exactly the opposite of what people 'of faith' value.

All I can hear right now is that lady on the Simpson's...."WILL SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDERN!!"

I do not really see that they have been doing this, but they may have.

Whatever they were doing they were doing it VERY poorly. Nothing would succeed with how the democrates are doing things.

Major changes are needed.

EDIT: I can't resist. Is it time to ask, "Who is John Galt?" ;)

The US people voted over 51% for Bush, a margin of over 3.5 million. Yet, when was the last time you saw show/movie endorsing a conservative viewpoint/candidate in Hollywood?

I can name dozens of programs that support liberal causes/candidates (Day After Tomorrow, AI, American President, West Wing, Dave, ..).

I think the American people are able to separate politics from their entertainment. I certainly can and enjoyed seeing the Day After Tomorrow even though I completely disregard the premise.

The problem is that they won't recognize the need or change.

I look at the Democrats and think they basically need to do two things:

1. They need to stop apologizing for being liberals. They need to drive home the importance of advocating a more liberal social agenda. They really need to come out as fighting social liberals.

2. They need to be a little Bulworth about their liberal agenda. There are too many parasites on the government on both sides of the aisle. But the problem is that the Republicans can claim that orporate welfare helps people. The Democrats can't claim the same about their version.

They need to just bite the bullet and tell people that the gravy train has stopped in some places. I'm particularly talking about the schools and the seniors. The retirement age must be raised. Period. Social security wasn't designed for every beneficiary-- especially when 30% made no particular monetary contributions during their woking age years-- to live for wenty years. There will just be too many beneficiaries in ten years for the system to continue.

They also need to switch their position on school vouchers. But they need to challenge the Republicans to fund them to a level that would actually be of a benefit to the working class. They need to have serious incentives for charter schools that are succesful-- particularly in traditionally non or low-performing school districts.

As far as my gravy train comment, they need to start taking to task some of their partners when they go to far: the teahers unions and some of the groups for minority and female empowerment. They have very little credibility with normal people because of it.


On another level, they just need to stop picking wishy-washy guys to stand at the forefront of their party. Bush has got to be the weakest two-term president in history. He was defeatable in both of these elections. Had the Democrats been able to field anything resembling a serious candidate, he was ripe for the picking.

I think that they've done this twice in a row says something about their political machine overall. They seem to be unable to find and develop serious leaders. But beyond that the campaign leadership in the last two elections has not only been bad-- it's been atrocious.

I never make this kind of yahoo comment-- and this is slightly off-topic because I realize you're talking about the resonance the party has nationwide in state and local elections-- but I could have gotten Kerry elected and Gore as well.

Killin' terrorists seems to be a popular cause. At least in Texas.

How about every action or foreign policy based movie, every Horatio Alger retelling in different packages, and every individual against the masses tale. Right wing stories dominate certains genres - it isn't explict like F 9/11, but the effect in shaping America's views is probably much more significant (especially in foreign policy).

Just because more of America disagrees with your vision of what our foreign policy should be doesn't mean Americans are "downright dumb" on the issue.

I can just as easily say you, and the 48% that voted for Kerry, are "downright dumb" when it comes to family values.

Would that be correct?

Or can we just agree that we have a difference in opinion? At this point in time, one opinion won out. But not by much. A few years ago, Clintonian politics were all the rage, and it made my stomach turn, as I'm sure four more years with Bush does yours. That doesn't mean Americans have gotten smart or stupid in the last few years. It means times have changed, and the world has changed, and right now, more people want a more aggressive foreign policy, and more conservative family values.

Maybe someone should tell the President that.

Dems have been running on this platform since Clinton, and I agree that it's the proper approach, but it does not represent a change and is not the answer for the party now. Most voters who cited the economy as their top voting issue went for Kerry yesterday. They're winning on that front. Hell, the Dems enjoy majority support on most policy questions. But you can't win simply by having superior policy positions.

It's the social issues (religion and moral leadership) that are killing them. They need to reassert the basic principles and moral underpinnings on which their policies are based. And it would help to stop nominating jackasses...

I did not say that Americans are dumb because they disagree with me. I'm arguing that they are dumb because they are wholly uninformed when it comes to the rest of the world. That is true no matter what foreign policy is being pursued. Americans barely know where other countries are on the map, 99% never heard of Al Qaeda before 9/11, the names of world leaders are totally lost on them, and knowledge of significant issues around the globe are not talked about here. The result can be that presidents (including Bush and Kerry would have done the same) can make the public believe whatever they want about the rest of the world. It is American arrogance that makes it possible and it is a sad state of affairs.

And while I don't agree with people on "family values," I think most Americans are educated on those issues (significantly moreso than they are on foreign policy issues).

Amen to that. Democratic leadership is entrenched and is more concerned about protecting their own personal fiefdoms than what is in the best interests of the party... The upper echelon of the party needs to be gutted.

He's tryin', ain't he?

I mean, I sure am glad I don't live in Faluja!

That is exactly what I meant by my post. Sorry for the confusion.

That is the chief problem. More specifically, stop nominating old school liberals who try to pander to the right. If your entire history is one of the extreme left, it is no wonder no one believes you when you start playing to the middle.

Okay, I find this superficially appealilng. Not so much that I agree with the "liberal agenda," but I'd much rather have candidates who wouuld be willing to actually say what they believe in.

but let's try to put this into practice. Is there a significant issue today where the liberal viewpoint would have a chance of really prevailing, even with the culture that has ambraced so much of the GOP "checklist" from above?


At one point, I thought that the death penalty was that issue. For a while, there was some momentum with several states reviewing their death penalties and how they have been applied, and a lot of criticisms since the introduction of DNA evidence showing a number of death row convicts having been wrongly convicted. At one point, it looked like there was a shift underway, and that perhaps the tradition 1/3-2/3 split on that issue might reverse (and the lib eral antti-DP position might become a majority position). But it certainly seems to have subsided... but we've ssen other results even in a pretty D state like Maryland, we had a study showing by all accounts that the state's death penalty was inherently flawed and biased, the panel that studies it recommended that it be suspended until remedies were put into place. However, in our last election, our GOP Governor (whom I voted for, incidentally) rather quickly reinstated the death penalty and little has been heard on the issue since. Same goes for many other states -- it seems to have flickered and died. And now, if you suggest that maybe killing offenders isn't the way to go, plenty of people will rush to attack you for being "soft on crime." You're stuck.


So, in concept -- I like the idea of trying to overcome the smear on the word liberal. In practice, I fail to see where there's even a foothold to do so.

bingo..... those activist judges do a hell-of-alot more harm then good for the democratic party. Also, the 'voice' of the democrat's are freaking far far left-wingers and out of touch with most of america... Nacey Pelosi (a complete lunitic), John Kerry(most liberal senator in america, dispite what he trys to tell everyone), Ted Kennady(need i say more???), Hillary Clinton (she likes to 'act' like shes hawkish, but most people know the truth), etc etc etc....

Im a republican so im loving every second of this. We have Newt Gingrich and his 'contract with america' to thank for turning around our party. Also talk radio guys like ole Rush have alot to do with our party's turn around over the last 15 years.

Republican's now own the house by like 29 seats, the senate with 54 seats, and have a republican president. I'd say it sucks to be a democrat right now :)

I'll bite, what are the significant issues around the globe? Israel? The Kyoto Accords? The EU Constitution?

We live in the most powerful country in the world, and due to our geography are separated from most of the troublespots in the world. As such, we can be isolationist in attitude, and we have tended to be that way throughout our history.

Is this a bad thing? I think not, it is what it is. Several of the topics mentioned above, I happen to agree with our current policy. Kyoto is economic suicide for us. The EU Constitution does not directly affect us, but will down the road as a unified Europe will attempt to gain political clout by opposing us in a variety of areas. Israel was established by the UN in 1946, and was attacked by her Arab nations. She won the war, and occupied Palestine. The Arab nations would have occupied Israel had they won. My message to the Palestinians is get on with your life. A bit harsh, but if you quit attacking Israel, they might not be so touchy towards the rest of the Arab world.

I certainly hope so.

Some might include on that list an ongoing genocide of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, in northern Africa... but that's not really a snappy headline. As you were.

I would agree with QS's statement and add much more. There were numerous human rights situations far worse than Iraq, but most Americans are oblivious. Issues like American imperialism (even though it involves America!) are not understood by Americans. The situation in Chechnya only receives attention when there are school children involved. The understanding of the Korean conflict is laughable. Even in Iraq, Americans largely believed total non-truths (Saddam was personally involved in 9/11). Americans are a blank slate when it comes to foreign policy and that means whatever the administration and media say becomes "real" for them.

The overarching problem with this ignorance is that it builds on itself because of America's power. We believe we can remake the world without even bothering to understand it. Eventually, that system collapses and we have created a world nothing like what we imagined.

and the UN has done SSSSSOOOOO much to help those poor africans. While they sit around passing usless resolution after resolution, Africans are dying by the 10's of the thousands. Our military is a little tied up at the moment, you'd think that 'maybe, just maybe' someone else on this freaking planet could step-up and help these people out besides us. (like maybe the countrys that helped screw africa up so bad??)

UN = complete joke

Total non-sequitor.

And this is purely a problem with the 51% of the electorate which voted for Bush?

Again - I NEVER said it was - it is a problem throughout America (hence my statements that 99% of Americans hadn't heard of Al Qaeda and that Kerry would take advantage of ignorance as well).

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag.../epolls.0.html


For some interesting breakdowns.

Interesting linkage, thanks gi.

Well I think the first solution is to have the lead Democratic figure, a role played by Tom Dachle for much of the last four years, be from a solidly Democratic state. I think the inability of Daschle, for obvious political reasons, to be fully in opposition to Bush and Republicans has hurt the Democratic party. This means I prefer Christopher Dodd to Harry Reid as the new Senate Majority Leader, and thus defacto party leader. This nation is relatively evenly divided and I think the Democratic failure to clearly stand for something started with Dashle and was only made worse by the selecton of Kerry as the nominee.

I would suggest that a primary process which was not so condensed would have favored a more inspirational Democratic nominee, someone who stood for something, such as Wes Clark, or more likely, John Edwards.

I think a new populism, embodied best by Barack Ombama, can clearly be a message the resonates. Obama won many Republicans over with the way he talked about things despite being liberal. We need to assure the religious of this country that we understand faith and family values and in fact our policies, such as the belief in welfare, come from a faith and genuine desire to help mankind.

But it starts with having a clear message and that means having a messenger who makes no apoligies about being a Democrat.

I've been thinking about a similar question as posed by QS myself. This is what stands out to me the most:
Is there anyone who SERIOUSLY believes that Democrats are against family values, against religion, opposed to being tough on crime and want to give everyone "handouts" and not "opportunities?"

First, if you answered yes to that question, get out of here. You are not serious. You are a political pawn blinded by partisanship and are either too blind or too ignorant to see the truth. You're comments are not wanted nor especially helpful, since you are a flaming Republican who wouldn't vote for Democrat in a million years.

I have quite a few thoughts and observations so far on the results of the election, and I'll have more when I am done reading more of the data coming out of yesterday. But here are a couple of quick "top sheet" observations:

1) Democrats don't fight back. In generally, I think that Republicans far more effectively use labels to paint their opponents as being against things while Democrats try to portray themselves as being for things. As a stereotype, I'd take it one step farther and say that Republicans are good at cheating and playing dirty and Democrats are not. In that same vein, I'd say the roles have reserved -- 40 years ago, I think the Democrats were a lot better at playing dirty and cheating. The Chicago machine and LBJ have passed the mantle of bullying politics to a new generation, and they are Republican. Democrats will continue to struggle until they start to fight back and use the same tactics Republican candidates use so effectively.

2) Democrats need to reassess their bases of strength. The south is gone. Only a southerner at the top of the ticket will win you anything in the south, and even then not much. There is new fertile ground for Democrats in the West. If the Democrats had taken the energy and resources they put into trying to turn some Southern states and border states into western states, I think they can turn that section from red to blue. Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and others should be new Democratic strongholds. These areas are urbanizing, they have burgeoning minority and immigrant populations and are becoming more socially liberal. Kerry should have won those three states.

3) Screw the unions. I'm a pro-union guy. I think unions are important, but not everyone does. Unions are becoming more like the environmental lobby. They will not abandon the Democrat party, but that doesn't mean Democrats should drape their arm around labor. They need to focus on invigorating their base on issues rather than union membership. It's cynical, but if you slap the people to your left, it appeals to the people on the right.

4) Reach out to Soccer Mom. From a cursory glance at the exit polls, I'm convinced Soccer Mom won this election for Bush. Bush gained votes among women from 2000, and that gain largely accounted for the margin of victory. How do you reach out to Soccer Mom? I'm not real sure.

Tough to see how being pro-abortion jives with the traditional Christian view of "family values".

I will now proceed to "get out of here", as obviously that kind of viewpoint is not wanted nor deemed "acceptable".

The problem with the democrats is they have no internal indentity. That's why portraying them as "undecided" and "liberal" works so well. Certain parts of the democratic party run from the term "liberal" like it is the plague, while others completely embrace it. I challenge you to find one republican who doesn't want to be classified as "conservative".

Until the democratic party come up with an internal identity for their own party, they will continue to fall pray to this label problem.

I agree 100% with this. The most effective way to do this is to abandon their current path towards becoming a secular party. The only way to make enroads in the West and stand any prayer (sorry for the pun) of winning the South is to get back to a party that embraces a certain level of religion. They don't have to be anti-civil union and pro-life, but they do have to support banning partial birth abortions, be for gun rights, keeping "Under God" in the pledge and accept people that are against gay marriage. Without a more moderate religious acceptance in the democratic party, more and more people will simply join up with the republicans out of faith.

Look at the republicans - they had two social moderates (Arnold, Rudy) headline their convention. They understood that not everyone was pro-life and anti-gay marriage. So, they made a concerted effort to reach out to social moderates by this move. I can't remember the last time a staunch Pro-Life or anti-gay marriage democrat was ever given headline status for the democrats.

I think the democrats have gone this way. That's why Gephart didn't stand much of a chance. The problem is when unions are a big chunk of your voting block in key blue states, you can't just flush them down the toilet. Especially when many of the members are socially conservative.

I think they are now called "Security Moms" :p The way to get them is convince Americans that you can handle the terrorism issue. And I don't Kerry ever did that.

Overall, I think you hit the main issues on the head, we just may have a different idea on what needs to be done to get them back.

So I'm a flaming Republican?

Eh, who woulda thunk it?

-- My single largest campaign contribution was to a local Democrat.
One who, incidentally, I shared a hug & a few tears with last night as she cruised to the most dominating win of any candidate in the county. And here I was thinking I was blinded for a moment by the elation of her victory, and it turns out I was blinded my "partisanship".

-- Even with the past few years running heavily GOP, I've still voted for more Dems in my not-quite-20-years of voting

-- And, as already been pointed out, I sort of fail the family-values = GOP test pretty quickly.

Initially I was just gonna stop there but, y'know what chief? I don't think so.


What isn't "wanted nor especially helpful" are people like you who are too fucking stupid or too fucking blinded by bullshit or too far up on their fucking high horse to see reality in front of them or too fucking naive to recognize evil when they see it.

After reading yet another of your little essays, it seems like its gotten past time for somebody to strongly suggest that you get way the hell over yourself. So how about doing the entire nation a favor and either grabbing a clue or better yet, opening yourself a nice cold can of STFU?

Since you've conveniently defined the issue your own way, the answer is of course not. But the real issue is that most Democrats are seen, on the continuum of each of these issues, to be "less" or "more" (as it fits the issue) than is acceptable to a number of people. You don't have to be "against family values," but if you take positions that are not supported by traditional "family values supporters," you are less likely to gain their support. The question isn't whether the Democrats are "tough on crime," but how tough they are in comparison with another candidate.

Most of these are not yes or no issues (perhaps abortion is). Most are a matter of degree, or a position on a key "issue within an issue" (for instance, it appears gay marriage would constitute such an issue within the "family values" issue).

The truly sad thing is these "certain parts of the democratic party" are what's usually referred to as the Democratic Party Leadership.

The Republicans are more homogonous right now. Picture the 2004 Republican voter. Most of you have the same picture in your head right now. It is easier to be on message when your message can be more narrowly focused.

:p> :p>

The Democrats have too much under their umbrella. Strident civil rights advocates. Environmentalists. Homosexuals. Labor leaders. Welfare recipients. Abortion rights advocates. These are all people who fall under the Democratic umbrella, but they do not have much in common. Sometimes, they even work at cross purposes. To keep all of these groups appeased, while not pissing off too many of them, and appealing to the moderates and swing voters is a tough task.

:p> :p>

I don’t have much in the way of a solution other than to say it may be OK not to pander so much to groups that you know will hold their nose and vote for you anyway.

:p> :p>

In terms of potential action plans for the next 4-8 years?

:p> :p>

The Democrats need to get back the Christians.

:p> :p>

:p> :p>

Liberals believe that a woman’s right to choose is more important than the state’s right to forbid abortions.

:p> :p>

Liberals believe that the state should not impose a religious belief on others and/or coerce others into holding or not holding certain religious beliefs.

:p> :p>

These two positions—reasonable in themselves—have been spun very successfully by the right into Liberals kill babies and Liberals hate Christians (it, after all, is not statues of Buddha that the ACLU is trying to take out of town squares).

:p> :p>

One thing that they could do is help soften that message. Start talking about how horrible abortion is and how you are against it and how it saddens and sickens you that such a necessary reality exists. Get out the sound bite that “no one is for abortion.” Make it seem as if both parties are working to end it and just have a different idea how. If you are really good, you start to tie this into how the :place>United States:place> is the only modern industrialized nation without mandatory paid family leave. You try to demonstrate that you are working for a world where mothers and fathers have the time and money to raise their children. You start pimping adoption like it is going out of style. You’ll piss off the planned parenthood types something fierce, but they will still hold their nose and vote for you. But you have to do something. The other side is painting you as baby killers. That’s not good for votes.

:p> :p>

A more radical answer would be to remove an official pro-choice stance from the platform altogether, though I imagine that such a move is too difficult to pull off. Still, Roegives you some play. You can be as against abortion as you want and still not be able to stop it.:p>:p>

:p> :p>

You have to reframe the death penalty debate. Christ forgave the guys nailing his hands into the cross. He told the guy next to him (a capital criminal) that he would be with him in heaven that day. Meanwhile, :place>Texas:place> fights tooth and nail to keep using lethal injection drugs that it has decided are inhumane for animal euthanasia because of their potential for causing extreme pain before death. There is some play there—especially in the Catholic Church, which is officially against the death penalty. Heck, you can even frame it as who are we to take a man’s life before he has the chance to truly repent for his sins. If he needs 50 years in jail to respond to the Lord’s call, who are we to kill him in 5? He who is without sin and all that . . .

:p> :p>

What the ACLU does is important, but you have to blunt their anti-Christian image as much as possible. You have to disassociate yourself from it. You will piss off the hard core ACLU folks—but they will hold their nose and vote for you.

:p> :p>

You have to present stem cell research as something that will be done without using fetal tissue. You are not going to win votes with stem cell (the only people that really care about it are people with ill relatives and people who see it as slouching toward abortion), but you can at least blunt a bit of the damage it causes you.

:p> :p>

You have to try to make morality about something different than who puts his dick in whose butt. Rape of the environment. Rampant corporate corruption. Evil and selfish things are happening everyday that are making hundreds of thousands of people sick and unemployed. Real sins are being committed in board rooms across the nation with the blessing of a big business administration. And somehow, the “moral” issues are about private conduct between consenting adults. It will be hard, but you need to change that.

:p> :p>

Indeed, with the whole gay marriage thing—if you try to make it an issue of: we are the party that wants to keep it in the bedroom, and we don’t believe that the federal government should have a say in telling states what to do about it. I say still support homosexuality. In 50 years, we will look back on our treatment of homosexuals the way we now look back on segregation. You may as well be on the right side in this debate from the beginning. But, for the time being, indicate that your choice is based on the right of every human being to live free of the government looking over his head. Make it non-threatening. Explain to people that homosexuals actually don’t hang out in high school bathrooms looking to corrupt your children.

:p> :p>

Get back the Christians.

You know I love you gi, but as last night showed us, do polls mean anything?

Who is really "pro-abortion?" That is more rhetoric from the right. Maybe the pro-CHOICE people should learn from the right-wing and start referring to to anti-abortionists as "no-choice" or "no-rights"

Nobody is really "pro-abortion." You don't see people protesting outside hospitals or day care centers with signs that say "ABORTION NOW!!!"

In light of the increasingly wide gulf between the two political parties, and the obvious barriers to a viable third party, there is only one reasonable solution:

Secession Now!

Just another modest proposal.

Some interesting results from the exit polling (obviously after yesterday, these aren't exact, but show some trends.)

Policy toward Same-Sex Couples: Legally Marry (25%) 77-22 Kerry - Civil Unions (35%) 52-47 Bush - No Legal Recognition (37%) 70-29 Bush

Are you Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual? Yes (4%) 77-23 Kerry

Kind of surprising Bush got any votes in the legally marry, especially G/L/B part. Shows that gay marriage might not have been as big an issue at the polls as some are making it out to be.

Abortion should be: Always Legal (21%) 73-25 Kerry - Mostly Legal (34%) 61-38 Kerry - Mostly Illegal (26%) 73-26 Bush - Always Illegal (16%) 77-22 Bush

This could be your issue for standing as a liberal. Especially if Roe v. Wade gets overturned or drastically reduced. But it is essential you can convince voters you are coming from a Libertarian perspective - you are personally against them and believe they are wrong, but don't feel you should impose that morality on the entire nation.

Isn't God the one that is coming back to earth one day to send all the non believers to HELL for eternity to suffer? Please don't use god to be an example of forgiveness. (the christians out there will not like that sentence from me)

If that is all you think morality means to Christians, you must not know many christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight Indeed, with the whole gay marriage thing—if you try to make it an issue of: we are the party that wants to keep it in the bedroom, and we don’t believe that the federal government should have a say in telling states what to do about it. I say still support homosexuality. In 50 years, we will look back on our treatment of homosexuals the way we now look back on segregation. You may as well be on the right side in this debate from the beginning. But, for the time being, indicate that your choice is based on the right of every human being to live free of the government looking over his head. Make it non-threatening. Explain to people that homosexuals actually don’t hang out in high school bathrooms looking to corrupt your children.

So, as long as I feel something is "ok" I should be able to do it regardless of laws? Currently, laws make it such that marriage is the union of 1 man and 1 woman. Why do you think polygamists have to hide in the Utah desert? The same people that feel gay marraige is wrong also feel the same about polyagmy and that is heterosexual. I would give you the argument if the people felt one was ok but not the other, but they oppose BOTH. That is at least consistent.

I grew up with an ultra-christian mother and I understand the way she thinks. I don't agree with it all, but I understand it. She is very disappointed that I don't attend church and I don't believe in her God. But she loves the shit out of me regardless. But I digress.

If the democrats current situation is the result of true core beliefs, than I don't think any democrat should feel that there is need for change. Sounds like this thread is more of "what do we need to say/do to make people vote for us" vs. "this is who we are and if you don't vote for us, tough. But we are who we are."

Stick to your guns if that is what you believe.

I find it sad that someone as smart as Brillig has bought into the "wide gulf" myth. I would strongly argue that the two parties have more in common than not. Therefore, I wouldn't call it a wide gulf unless you want to perpetuate the bogus "two Americas" claim.

To put it simply (in my mind), the problem with the Dems is singular - too anti-capitalistic. From the local to the federal level, they are perceived to want to stop growth, penalize the wealthy, make it less rewarding to succeed, hurt businesses, reduce meritocracy, promote elitism, etc. Those goes directly against American history and human nature.