Democratic (Party) Direction

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.

"I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today."

"My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, 'What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead.'"

"I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday."

In retrospect, these don't sound too bad, but I think part of his image problem was the obvious strain that it put on Kerry just to talk about faith at all. He never sounded comfortable discussing it, and he seemed to fluctuate between sounding too defensive - as though faith were an embarrassing personal health condition - and too triumphalist - the holy roller thing.

To quote Thomas Sowell, "Some people say it is 'name-calling' if you refer to someone as a liberal. There is nothing inherently negative about the word 'liberal.' If it has acquired negative overtones, that is because of what liberals have done and the consequences that followed." The problem with the Democratic party is pushing liberal ideas without the masses knowing that that is what they are doing. Most of this thread just articulates that basic problem but calls it by other names or only alludes to it.

oh fucking horseshit. there was a deliberate effort carried out for at least two decades to demonize the word.

also, in regards to how conservate the american public actually is, somebody made the point earlier this year on the Alito Supreme Court thread that these guys controlled everything; they controlled the president who nominated him, the judiciary committee who held the hearings, and the majority in the senate who voted him in, and they STILL wouldn't/couldn't come right out and say, "yeah, we'll kill that Roe v Wade thing right quick."

Cunga, you're still only 18, right? Are you still living at home with the folks or are you off at school yet?

BINGO.

i'm more than willing to reach some sort of accomodation w/ real centrists. i'm just not convinced that supporting "bankruptcy reform," estate tax repeal, or yukking it up on the sunday blabathons is evidence of "moderation" as opposed to simple, craven money grubbing.

Good point, but notice I said, "the point is that the rhetoric is wonderful in getting non-liberals to think that the Left is all about Jesus as much as the next guy and in ways they correlate their religion with..."

"i mean if the american public is really not liberal how come in most polls..."

The American public may be 100% to the left on certain positions for all I know but the argument I was making was that many of the correlating assumptions found in socialism, like religious agnosticism or at least rejection of traditional Christianity, absence of national pride, etc. would still currently sink a politician's ship if he came out and said flat out that he shared them. The American public is not ready for real socialistic agnostic who finds religion and patriotism, etc to be foolish things and is open about it.

and i thought fdr really turned america into a socialist country back in the thirties.

Integrated all sorts of socialist policies (which Milton Friedman had a hand in btw), sure, but it didn't go as far as it could've with a lot of the aforementioned beliefs and policies associated with socialism.

I can't say I'm going to respond to arguments that are more or less evasions of the "you're another..." manner.

The American public may be 100% to the left on certain positions for all I know but the argument I was making was that many of the correlating assumptions found in socialism, like religious agnosticism or at least rejection of traditional Christianity, absence of national pride, etc. would still currently sink a politician's ship if he came out and said flat out that he shared them. The American public is not ready for real socialistic agnostic who finds religion and patriotism, etc to be foolish things and is open about it.

The American public may be 100% to the left on certain positions for all I know but the argument I was making was that many of the correlating assumptions found in socialism, like religious agnosticism or at least rejection of traditional Christianity, absence of national pride, etc. would still currently sink a politician's ship if he came out and said flat out that he shared them. The American public is not ready for real socialistic agnostic who finds religion and patriotism, etc to be foolish things and is open about it.

The American public may be 100% to the left on certain positions for all I know but the argument I was making was that many of the correlating assumptions found in socialism, like religious agnosticism or at least rejection of traditional Christianity, absence of national pride, etc. would still currently sink a politician's ship if he came out and said flat out that he shared them. The American public is not ready for real socialistic agnostic who finds religion and patriotism, etc to be foolish things and is open about it.

The American public may be 100% to the left on certain positions for all I know but the argument I was making was that many of the correlating assumptions found in socialism, like religious agnosticism or at least rejection of traditional Christianity, absence of national pride, etc. would still currently sink a politician's ship if he came out and said flat out that he shared them. The American public is not ready for real socialistic agnostic who finds religion and patriotism, etc to be foolish things and is open about it.

The American public may be 100% to the left on certain positions for all I know but the argument I was making was that many of the correlating assumptions found in socialism, like religious agnosticism or at least rejection of traditional Christianity, absence of national pride, etc. would still currently sink a politician's ship if he came out and said flat out that he shared them. The American public is not ready for real socialistic agnostic who finds religion and patriotism, etc to be foolish things and is open about it.

The American public may be 100% to the left on certain positions for all I know but the argument I was making was that many of the correlating assumptions found in socialism, like religious agnosticism or at least rejection of traditional Christianity, absence of national pride, etc. would still currently sink a politician's ship if he came out and said flat out that he shared them. The American public is not ready for real socialistic agnostic who finds religion and patriotism, etc to be foolish things and is open about it.

also:

seriously, give the culturally-conservative folks SOMETHING -- and by something, i mean some sense of economic well-being and security

give that to them how? who has it to give? Oh, but there's the rub.

that said, you're right that it would do a lot of good for the Democrats to focus on the economy--not by deliriously proclaming it damned, which doesn't pass the laugh test--but by presenting novel solutions to agreed upon problems. The deficit gambit is wide open for the taking once again, and it's very curious that Democrats have not united to declare Republicans budget busters. VERY curious. Beyond that, there is real opportunity for Democrats to take the lead as being a pro-growth party; education is NOT an economic issue to the general public and pointing to "free college for Bs" is too much conflation to gain any traction.

As for #3 in your list Blount, that's totally a waste of time campaign-wise.

"alternative energy" isn't doable for a campaign or strategy because it's too long term and has been exposed as the green version of Star Wars. Every form of alternative energy that has been proffered since the 70s oil crisis hasn't made it to the reality-based community. That doesn't mean that we should give up on it but once again, it's much more of a tactical solution. Jacking CAFE standards won't do it either. Or are you intimating that Dems should get friendly with nuclear power and start fostering serious natural gas exploration again? Those are two alternative fuels who have been basically blacklisted but present credible solutions to Middle Eastern oil.

okay, sure.

For your edification, but also because this captures so much about what I think is right about the Democratic party and where it should be going: Obama's 2004 convention speech.

Read it. Why did this move me so much?

(HInt it's not because, "People like Obama have mass support from the Left if only because they know how to "talk the talk" about believing in an "AWESOME GOD!" and they can (hopefully) fly leftist policy in under the radar when they are in power. Whether Obama is a devout Christian or not isn't the point, the point is that the rhetoric is wonderful in getting non-liberals to think that the Left is all about Jesus as much as the next guy and in ways they correlate their religion with. Why else would people who normally couldn't care less about mainstream American Christianity (if they don't already disdain it) gush over rhetoric like that?")