Democratic (Party) Direction

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.

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.

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