Democratic (Party) Direction

I don't think it's necessarily too liberal, but it definitely lacks the primal grip of "values"

I mean, we all value things, right? We value ethics, for example, since honesty, fairness, & justice are core principles.

not necessarily, but quite possibly, and yes, respectively.

name one

I don't think they need to use the words "morals" or "values" at all, but on the other hand I don't think "ethics" is necesarily what we're talking about either. "Ethics" to me connotes a branch of philosophy - ie., sterile debates which have little to do with people's daily lives. What they need to communicate is that they are decent people who voters would admire/like/agree with. If the voters think you're a good person, then they will gloss over lots of little policy details. If they don't think you're a good person, you can promise them the moon, but they won't believe you. Unfortunately, things like abortion and gay rights have become a short-hand for some voters on figuring out whether a candidate has values. That is probably a moral fundamentalist fringe whose votes the Dems will not be able to win and probably shouldn't even want to win. But they do need to capture the votes of more moderate voters who worry about rampant sex on TV and loose values among their childrens' friends.

also, we should probably clarify who we're talking about here. "Dems" includes everybody from DLC types like Clinton & Biden to guys like Feingold...

Also, it seems like we're only limiting this to talking about a very specific range of national politics(akin to referring to states as "red" or "blue"), but this doesn't address the other aspects, like state elections(e.g. Montana electing a Democratic governor and Democratic State House & Senate)

There was some major (spring?) 2005 poll all the progressive press was reporting on that found Americans favor Canada-style healthcare, taxing the rich, full domestic rights for gays, etc. Was it Quinnipiac? Can't find it...

It's pretty simple - the population is much more interested in pulling troops out asap. The Dem leadership is not - in fact, many still appear to be trying to out tough Republicans. You know things are odd when it's people like Murtha who are the furthest left on an issue like the war.

yeah, exactly. I think these things just get talked about in some simplified media narrative(again, "your state is RED," etc), and this narrowing just plays into the hands of guys like Rove who are pretty good at taking advantage of such limitations.

OTMFM

Yes, OTM.
I read an article to the effect that Dean is putting most of his effort & resources into rebuilding the party at the local level, precinct level basically, which seems urgent and key. Karl Rove has prob always been a right wing ideologue but he started out doing direct mail, not working on message or on policy. I am not a huge fan of Dean whenever he opens his mouth but if he's getting stuff done at the ground level, it's about time.

I'm not sure which one this was either, but there have been numerous similar studies going back years that support this. In fact the point made upthread about the Dems latching on to movements like civil rights, women's rights, etc supports this as well.

to be really reductive, perhaps unfairly, Lakoff is essentially arguing that Democrats should reframe their most liberal policy positions in a secular language of values and presto change-o, they win. the people in Ruta's article are arguing that Democrats shouldn't just give passionless names to their values, they should talk about where those values come from - family, community, place, country, religion, work, as relevant.

tombot's observation is most otm. while i don't think the work discussed in the piece is free from problems or contradictions, the key takeaway is that there are lots of potential Dem voters who aren't voting Dem because they really believe in the myth that Dems are hedonists, or at least permissiveness freaks, found most often in your big bad cities or somewhere else where people act in ways that folks like you don't (or can't). the Tim Kaine example suggests that if you show them upfront that their stereotype doesn't apply, they will revert to their better nature and vote for you, which they kinda sorta want to do.

xxpost

yeah, i think that what needs to be mentioned that since the rightwingers are really good at controlling media discussion and promoting complete bullshit, Democrats seem to be responding to that, as opposed to what their voters actally think.

Example: Dick Durbin's thing last year, where the rightwing noize machine drummed up so much shit that he felt the need to apologize for a statement he never actually made(calling u.s. troops nazis, as opposed to a comment on Gitmo treatment)

This is probably the party's only hope. Nothing gave me greater pleasure than renouncing my Democratic affiliation on my voter registration card a few years ago. It's ridiculous to me that positions and the discussion of positions trumps philosophy, i.e. "I'm a Democrat cuz I'm pro-choice, support gay rights, against the death penalty..." Millions of Americans like this kind of reductive thinking and good for them; it makes me queasy because, at the end of the day, positions are stupid when expert politicans like FDR, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton get elected and make a hash out of your precious positions.

Maybe this goes to the "values" issue = Feingold perceived (accurately?) as someone with an independent streak who votes what he thinks is right and doesn't stick to the party line.

this defeatist, victimized myopia that the Republicans are somehow playing by a different set of rules (or tactics) has got to end.

did you read the article i linked? it says that the drift is not on policy, but on attitudes. people are voting attitudes first, and the Dems are still running on policy.

Regarding that poll, I ask whether it polled "adults" (I'm betting) or "Registered Voters". I'm sure most Americans do support taxing the rich. Guess what? We already do that, and changing the progressivity of the tax code more than marginally has always been a non-starter. I think it's quite conceivable that most Americans do support nationalized healthcare (though it would be interesting to see how the question was phrased and how much support drops off if you say some call it 'socialized medicine'), and accordingly there have always been Dems who push for that. Clinton sought to take baby steps toward it, in Clintonian style, and Dems got gunshy for years after given the political fallout. But its time is coming back. As for full domestic rights for gays, that doesn't surprise me either, because it doesn't say "gay marriage," which many Americans support, but not most. But most Americans, afaik, would go for civil unions.

In your summary, it still sounds like both of these approaches are only dealing with the way Dems talk about the issues - rather than their actual policy ideas. I think Dems do need to change the way they talk about issues, but I also think they need some new policy ideas which will crystallize this identity shift in a way that speaks to voters. Clinton in '92 didn't just talk about issues in a different way - he had some new ideas, like welfare reform, that split open the old left-right dichotomy.

dude, that's what he talks about. that's what his last book was about. The entire point was to make folks on the left cognizant that they had a concrete set of values every bit as valid and cohesive and fitting in with American history as those trumpeted on the right. He's taken pains to point out that what he goes on about is more than just the magic spin words that will ensure the right folks get elected.

He also has gone on at length that part of the problem is that there is a paucity of new ideas coming from Dem leaders, and that even with his newfound fame, those leaders aren't listening to what he's saying. There's a bit in that NYT piece about Pelosi & others only wanting "the three magic words" and everything would be fine, which is more Frank Luntz/spin territory.

I also think they need some new policy ideas which will crystallize this identity shift in a way that speaks to voters.

exactly.

exactly. building a storyline around your guy is far more powerful than just a laundry list of attractive programs

people are willing to be on our side, but aren't voting for us, because they think we're not on theirs. to the extent issues come into play, we have to, not 'frame' the issues better, but explain why we take the sides we do. and there are a few issues on which we're going to have to recognize that people really aren't on our side. and we're going to have to decide whether we're going to be more accommodating on them, or better at explaining to people why they're wrong. guns are the first one.

The entire point was to make folks on the left cognizant that they had a concrete set of values every bit as valid and cohesive and fitting in with American history as those trumpeted on the right.

yes, i know that. the thing is he's talking about "folks on the left", not the Democratic party. the people we're going after DON'T SHARE the values of folks on the left, so we'll be talking past each other. they do share the more centrist, diffuse values of the party writ large.

My wording might have been a little too strong (at least the asap part), but even the newest Gallup has 50% saying set a timetable regardless of the situation on the ground. That number seems to grow with every poll I see. And Clinton meanwhile, but not just her, still entertain the notion that we should send more troops. What Murtha has to say here is pretty interesting (and this link also contains some poll info). One possible irony is that the Republicans will turn on the war before the Dems are able to in attempt to retain control in the upcoming elections.

people are willing to be on our side, but aren't voting for us, because they think we're not on theirs

exactly. It's one of the main reasons I have trouble considering voting for a Democrat.

But while the Republicans are farther up the tree, look what they're doing. You can craft your message and sell yourself or your ideas or whatever, but your actions must validate your message somehow.

I'm not sure if the Dems talking about "who they are" is really going to solve anything. Yes, maybe in a predominantly Christian state, it helps to say that you're Christian - but have we ever had a Democratic presidential candidate who didn't say they were Christian? Kerry made many references throughout the campaign to his faith. In the end, it didn't seem to help. I think the voters saw someone who was trying to have it both ways on Iraq, they bought the GOP's flip-flopper accusations and absorbed the Swift Boat propaganda, and that kind of settled it, as far as Kerry's moral fiber was concerned. Unfortunately, Kerry was not able to convey any overarching message about values. His proposal to roll back tax cuts on the top income bracket was given no moral context - it came across as the crudest sort of class warfare.

Yeah, I'm not making any sort of point here about timetables (yes, they're nebulous) other than to say it's a pretty clear sign that the general populace is willing to listen (WANTS to listen) to talk about withdrawal. Polls, however, use that word so the answer given is limited by the question.

kerry's an interesting specimen b/c he's half jewish -- something he's always been forthcoming about but not something he ever brought up in debates about religion/morality. he was raised catholic, and it's fair to say that what you're raised as is your religion, but it would be interesting to find out what fundie voters concerned with lineage think about kerry's none-too-distant heritage.

I kind of doubt that was an issue or that many people were even aware of it. In any case, I don't remember hearing much about it during the campaign.

mostly defensively. the point of this article is that you have to define yourself from the beginning. also, making many references does not equal getting the message across. did he do it in tv commercials? in ways that would cross over to free media (i.e. making it the message of the day/week)? and do you think he was believable (whether or not you believed him) to a skeptic?

I don't think the point is that the broad mainstream of voters is not interested in economic issues, it's that they're more interested in cultural ones. Cultural issues does not mean (only) abortion, teh gays, etc., though, it means community, family, time, stress, and culture in the consumer sense. These are issues that resonate with both the middle class and the "working class." To the extent that the working class has more pressing concerns, they're already on our side. The anti-poverty message is a good one, but it appeals mostly to upper-middle and upper-class (Democratic primary) voters. The middle-middle class searches elsewhere for meaning that the Dems just aren't giving them.

Yes, it's true that these people don't respond to messages about the preferential treatment of the wealthy, because they perceive themselves (sometimes correctly, adjusted for community standards) as wealthy, or wealthy enough, but they might respond to messages about the corruption of the wealthy (which is happening right now), or even the ways in which the wealthy use them. But telling people that they're fools, even if true, is a more desperate move that I'm not sure we're ready for in tone or substance.

Those are good issues, and I could see the Dems seeking some advantage on that ground, but I think they'll need more than just talk to be convincing - they'll need some new ideas. If a Dem candidate comes out and says, "I'm pro-family and I want you to have more time to spend with your family", then I think that's a great message. But they need to convince voters they can make this a reality - and not just by providing government aid to the neediest - this has to be something that makes a difference to the middle class.

Sippin Ace of Spades, I do
Got the K Street everywhere I go