Democratic (Party) Direction

it is funny how many "affluent" "property owners" are up to their necks in mortgages and high-interest loans. it's like that commercial where the rich white suburban lawnmower dude says "i'm in debt up to my eyeballs!"

In the vast swaths of country between the megapolises there are people raising families of 5 on $57,000 a year and doing it relatively painlessly. And yeah, economic issues don't mean a goddamned thing to them.

Wow, what an incredible insight. Very novel!

"Environics found social values moving away from the authority end of the scale, with its emphasis on responsibility, duty, and tradition, to a more atomized, rage-filled outlook that values consumption, sexual permissiveness, and xenophobia. The trend was toward values in the individuality quadrant."

I've long thought that if the Democratic party would focus their message on individualism (and the resulting freedom it implies) that they might get somewhere.

Today’s average American “worker” is, in short, very much on his or her own -- too prosperous to be eligible for most government assistance programs and, because of job laws that date back three quarters of a century, unable to unionize. Such isolation and atomization have not led to a new wave of social solidarity and economic populism, however. Instead, these changes have bred resentment toward those who do have outside aid, whether from government or from unions, and an escalating ethos of every man for himself. Against that ethos, voters have increasingly flocked to politicians who recognize that the combination of relative affluence and relative isolation has created an opening for cultural appeals.

"Every man for himself" has been an American credo for hundreds of years. It's the essence of competition, of capitalism, of industry. There's a bridge somewhere between individualism and community--is the Democratic party forcing people over a bridge or seeking one?

American voters have taken shelter under the various wings of conservative traditionalism because there has been no one on the Democratic side in recent years to defend traditional, sensible middle-class values against the onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows.

Maybe they're taking shelter because they don't think it's an economy that's pitting man against man, it's shelter from the resulting culture war. What are "traditional, sensible middle-class values" anyway? The only hint we get from this article is that candidates should talk about religion and that will mitigate their stance on the death penalty (in Virginia.)

I am happy to see the wasteland that is the Democratic Party looking inward. The Republicans wouldn't dare stare into their own dark abyss.

As for the "average American household" that makes $60K a year, it would have been more informative to see the median income, because the average is skewed upwards by those at the top of the scale - ie., less than 50% of Americans make the "average" income.

Lakoff's extensively written about the need for Democratic candidates and progressives in general to start explicitly talking about values. Also, for campaigns to work at creating more of an overall narrative for a candidate than just a laundry list of policies. It's only his work on the framing aspect that's received attention lately, not so much his work on defining the values systems that right/left folks tend to hold(e.g. "maintaining authority" vs "care & responsibility").

He's offered up Schwarzneggar's campaign as an example of a guy who ran entirely on narrative & perceived identity, and expressively refused to offer up any policy suggestions. Most folks don't have the time/energy/inclination to get into policy specifics, but if they trust your guy, they're trust him to take care of the details.

As he says,

"The pollsters didn’t understand it because they thought that people voted on the issues and on self-interest. Well, sometimes they do. But mostly they vote on their identity -- on persons that they trust to be like them, or to be like people they admire"

which connects to that aspirational bit that the article mentions.

Jim Wallis has talked about several of these same issues over the last year as well, especially with on the whole "onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows" bit.

Wallis has written about conversations his group has had with Frank Luntz and some other Repub pollsters who were quite open about their m.o. being to get voters so caught in such intense issues that they vote against their economic interest.

As other folks have pointed out, the Republicans have been better that bring the polls to them(gay marriage is the biggest thing you care about) vs the Democrats moving to where the polls now seem to be(well i guess we need to move rightward on gay marriage).

That's the thing, innit? If you build up an entire apparatus to both promote & reinforce certain narratives, people will believe them even if they have no basis in fact. George W. Bush is steadfast & strong, Kerry's a weak-willed flip-flopper, Republicans are all about a smaller government, supply-side economics works, etc

oh fuck yeah this is a major bit of it, too. But since when did we start promoting self-reflection and critical thought?

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

xpost

Please God, take Hilary quietly so she won't fuck up the party with a presidential campaign. WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE EVER.

Huh? He's only been going this stuff in the press for about two years. Second, there are plenty of other folks who have made the connection, but have gotten shit for coverage(not fitting in with "religious = rightwing conservative" media narrative?), even when they got arrested for it on the Capitol steps.

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

DLC-candidate-in-centrist-message shocker

very much otm. The change will come from the outside.

Re the direction of the party, past actions indicate the party will be quicker to line up behind someone with Clinton's politics as opposed to Tasini's. I'm not too hopeful when it comes to the future of the Dems.

do you think it's necessary for dems to use the religious right's language ("morals" and "values")? would a less-loaded word like "ethics" skew too liberal?

my question is, when do they not? unless a voter has completely descended into some cynical nihilism, of course.

i mean, yeah, "values" has come to signify a very specific set of values, which just goes to further show that democratic types do need to start talking about theirs.

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.

the phrase county mayor is killing me

Miami-Dade has one! Probably the state's most powerful Democrat.

my gf is in Dekalb County (Decatur) GA and they fucking call it the “CEO”. The goddam Dekalb County CEO. Makes me want to fly a plane into a building tbh

An interesting piece on institutional Democratic frustrations with Schumer.

Democratic frustration with Schumer goes far beyond Maine. To a previously unreported degree, the longtime Democratic leader, acting through the DSCC, has struggled to navigate a series of tumultuous primaries, beset by an angry base of voters, insurgent candidates and party officials who complain that he’s alternately done too little or too much to influence races.

The result has been the messiest collection of Democratic primaries in decades. The Senate minority leader faces another fraught primary in Michigan in August, where a Schumer-backed candidate is struggling to best lefty favorite Abdul El-Sayed. The DSCC tried and failed to hold off a third candidate, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, mirroring the scramble — and ultimately the failure — to shape the primary in Maine.

The tumult has amounted to a stunning rebuke of Schumer, who is seen by many Democrats as having controlled most primaries in battleground states with an iron grip for the last decade.

“The thing about iron is it rusts,” El-Sayed told NOTUS in a recent interview. “I’m proud to be the only candidate in my race that the Senate minority leader has said that he would not be OK with.”

I’m proud to be the only candidate in my race that the Senate minority leader has said that he would not be OK with.”

niiiiice, that’s the way to do it

that is pretty interesting stuff

yeah, I think at one point in time "Pelosi hates this candidate" might have been enough to tank a campaign, but "Schumer hates this candidate" is worth about +7 points these days.

schumers gotta be done right

I mean, Elissa Slotkin -- nobody's idea of a fire-breathing leftist -- basically implied the other day that Schumer and Jeffries have to go.

If the Democrats do win the House in November, I have to imagine there will at least be a challenge to Jeffries and not a coronation (even though I'd bet on him becoming speaker).

But Schumer, what I don't get is, aren't there other ambitious Democrats in the Senate? Some of them should start making moves.

the thing about senate dems is theyre the most apathetic people in the world thats why they love schumer he doesnt make them do anything

Minority Leader is kind of a shitty job. Majority Leader just a little less so.

the phrase county mayor is killing me

The backstory to this is kind of funny. In Tennessee they used to be called county executives, which is a better description of the job than mayor (they don't control schools or cops, they're mostly there to manage general services and put the budget together). Knox County where I live is the 3rd largest county in the state, and the largest with a Republican voting majority (the larger 2 being Nashville/Davidson and Memphis/Shelby). So Knox County is a logical launch pad for Republicans seeking state office, because they already start with a sizable base of voters and donors. And 25 years ago, we elected a Republican as county executive who really wanted to run for governor. And he thought it would sound much more impressive to his future gubernatorial campaign to have "mayor" on his resume. So he got Republicans in the Legislature to change the title of the position statewide, just to further his ambitions. Of course, that all fell flat when his county tenure ended in assorted scandals and he has had to make a living as a mildly disgraced lobbyist ever since. (Our current county mayor, the pro wrestler, is however the odds-on favorite to be our next senator after Marsha Blackburn gets appointed governor. He and Marsha seem to have a deal worked out where she'll appoint him to finish her term.)

Which is more than you want to know! But just an example of how much personal ambition tends to drive everything in politics.

that is pretty funny

Oops I meant after Blackburn gets elected governor, although for all that everyone assumes it as a given it might as well be an appointment.

why do leftists hate donors so much

― boners for bombs (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, July 1, 2026 7:21 AM (six hours ago)

because they have shit-tons of money and don't give us any

i will be frank and say that my attitude towards donors, as a leftist, is "fuck you, pay me". i understand this is a hard sell. i guess "replace all workers with AI slop" is an easier sell for the donor class?

...because the thing is i don't actually want them to give us tons of money, my radical leftism is about, like, _wanting a fucking job_. highest level of tzedekah. that's what i fuckin' want.

Kate, I was joking.

I mean

what was jeffries’ “legacy”?

and also, who would have been better, in the exact same timeline and history?

AND WHY

me, im cool

i’d vote for you

but first you have to move to south stl

well come on over! the arch turns out to be the 50th or 60th best thing about the city. you sure can see it though

i stayed in st louis for a couple days once i liked it cool old brick row houses and whatnot