Democratic (Party) Direction

I found the assertion that raising the minimum wage or giving college tuition credits would be rallying policy points for the Democratic Party laughable (not that they're bad ideas - I support both - just that they are not BIG MORAL ISSUES that Dems can use to build a new identity)

I believe that there are some substantive differences between self-identified liberals and self-identified moderates and conservatives- there's more going on here than the changing image of a word. There's a school of thought that says that Dems don't need to change any of their positions - they just need to change how they talk about them (ie., the Lakoff school). However, I think that there's a limit to how far you can go with this, unless you are going to come out and lie. People want to hear you talk the right talk, but they are also interested in what you say you are going to do, and they have a high aversion to any perceived phoniness. I think the successful candidate will have to combine the right language with some substantive policy proposals that show it's more than a matter of language.

once again, show me the secret cadre of liberals who are our key to electoral success.

the Dems don't offer a set menu of policy options. Its all garbled. Just look at Kerry's campaign, it was a mess of contradictions and half-steps. More importantly, the Dems don't back up the policies they do occasionally trumpet with anything like a coherent philosophy or framework.

UH

Republicans don't believe in nuance and coalitions?

the Dems could find a Tony Blair, and they may well have in Hillary Clinton, or in an age where workers fear for their jobs and an aging population fears the cost of healthcare they could wave the banner of FDR and talk about socialised medicine, globalised employement rights, lowering domestic fuel costs through energy efficiency.

You never know, Hillary may, with a democratic congress, be able to fix medical care in the US but she seems to be too polarising a figure to get that congress, even if she is a bankable centrist.

The distillation is the important bit here, taking the central core that all the various factions on the left grow out of(green folks, union folks, health care folks, sustainable energy folks, public-agencies-should-actually-be-competent folks, etc).

maybe what it has stood for in the past 20 years simply isn't popular. Or, in a more palatable format for liberals to accept, maybe what the left stood for was too easily spun as failure by the right. Since, you know, voters are simply willfully ignorant of reality and all.

We have to change that idea at the level of intutition. I don't care about liberalism and centrism. The Democrats have to capture people's imagination and dominate the national consciousness. Learning how to speak people's language carries more political currency than policy.

I mean, universal health care (not necessarily single payer, but possibly so) could become just as centrist as Social Security.

If Democrats can't find a way to make people feel differently about Democrats, it doesn't matter how radically centrist they become or how well-calculated their policy proposals are.

We already are a centrist party. How do you change that feeling?

yeah, the mass of the voting public immediately saw right thru that "saddam = 9/11" schtick that most of 2002 consisted of..

xpost: exactly, Ed, that's what Lakoff's been talking about for 10 years.

you could go back and forth whether that advances the cause of progressivism, but i'll say it again, PROGRESSIVES DO NOT EQUAL THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ALONE DOES NOT SUFFICE FOR A MAJORITY

Democratic centrism has been around for well over a decade. I think the debate between liberalism and centrism is a false choice.

I agree with with gabbneb's math, too. But I think the Democratic party has been very mainstream for a very long time. How come we aren't winning?

How does one behave culturally centrist?

The Dems vcan keep fighting the ghost of McGovern, but I don't think that's going to cut it.

health care's been the most consistent traction gainer for dems for awhile now - since wofford in 91 really right? - with 'balancing the budget' (what were the odds) being the second probably. the public trusts dems with the economy now though how much is consistent longterm trend (ie. they're the 'economy' party) and how much is just temporary the public's somewhat sick of the gop (cf. the dem's advantage on immigration go figure wtf)(it'll be interesting to see if talk radio and the blogosphere's trumpeting 'schumer and kennedy are demanding amnesty!' will impact those numbers or if it'll take an actual deal for that issue to trend for repubs) is tough to say. in any case i voted 'balance the budget' #2 on that moveon 'whuts our priorities?' poll (#1 the WAR obv). both of these play well into 'the party of competency/the party of grownups' stance. the gop trumps how they're the 'party of ideas' now? - fine, let them tie themselves to every crazy buttfuck doomed and unpopular (and - most important - going against inertia: the most powerful force in govt) idea they have be it privatizing social security, doing away with dnr orders, passing a national sales tax, or ignoring the powell doctrine. let the dems be the party that actually knows how to govern and can actually get something done.

i actually think one reason the dems have had problems winning politically is cuz 'they' have won so totally and completely culturally for the past thirty some odd years, although i'm sure frank goes into all that better than i would.

25-30%? You're talking about pretty much everyone who self-identifies as conservative as being a crazy, deluded nut. I don't think that any national party can afford to completely write off such a large group. The crucial swing voters that Dems have lost over the years, as the New Yorker article notes, are those socially conservative blue-collar Catholics who think that the Dems have just gotten too out-of-touch with their big-city, elitist, bicoastal, latte-swilling, godless hedonism. The Dems need to find out a way, if not to appease these voters, then at least to assure them that electing a Dem will not be the embodiment of all their worst fantasies come true.