Democratic (Party) Direction

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.

even in that 25% even if they really care about abortion and such issues there is a large chunk who can be persuaded to vote for social issues. The message is stop the Rovian, PNAC get the voters to vote for us, issues becoming the issues. make the issues the ones that put a real divide between the dems and the GOP not the ones conjured up by Rove and his ancestors to make the dems look like their nuttiest (but probably most right on and progressive at the same time) proponents.

xpost

The Democratic party was more liberal in 1970 and 1980 than it was in 1990 and 2000. The Democrats don't know how to change their image, and running scared from liberalism isn't going to do it. When I see a Democratic centrist on TV complaining about Democratic liberals I wanna throw my hands up. The Democratic party is great at pointing at itself and shouting, "liberal!" I mean seriously, you know the perception of big city, elitist yadda yadda isn't going to go away because Al From wants to purge the "Michael Moore" wing of the party, or because Hillary Clinton is wishy-washy on abortion.

What is a winning proposition from an electoral perspective?

By most accounts, o nate, a single-payer (national) health care scheme in the US would cost US businesses and taxpayers LESS then today's HMO-based schemes do, because of economies of scale and removing the profit from many transactions.

(x-post)

But as long as this insipid left/center battle keeps raging in the party, I see little hope of effective electoral strategy.

1) protecting the health of the nation
2) freeing up money that was once spent lining HMOs' pockets to be used for other things
3) proving that they can take a stand on an issue that affects the life of every american, while republicans just give a lot of lip-service to the "culture of life" while helping their rich friends rake in the profits, a piece of spin which would have the added bonus of actually being true

But it isn't going to effect electoral victories because it's a centrist proposal.

It will only effect electoral politics if we can capture the popular imagination, and create a perception of Democratic seriousness about defense. Unfortunately, the biggest noise from the Democrats on the Iraq issue is still the "anti-war" Dems vs. the "stay the course" Dems.

We are not going to change public perception until we stop wringing our hands over liberals and start changing the dynamic of public perception.

9) Don't let the GOP change the subject to cultural issues like abortion, gay marriage, guns, etc. Keep statements on these topics brief and to the point. Refuse to get drawn into debates on finer points. Off the top of my head, I'd guess that workable answers would be: Abortion: "Personally against it, but don't think it should be banned." Gay marriage: "No reason for federal government to get involved. Leave it up to the states." Guns: "Ditto." Just be matter of fact, defuse the issue, and then get back to the bread and butter issues.

10) Don't go overboard with the "God" talk. If you're not actually religious, don't suddenly try to sound like a holy roller. You'll sound like a fake.