Democratic (Party) Direction

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (11201 of them)
We need to serve the people we see every day? I still don't get the lesson.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 1 June 2006 20:32 (twenty years ago)

sorry, i'm tired. the lesson isn't only that we have to serve these people. it's that we have to do that AND we aren't going to get anywhere by appealing to their care for their fellow man.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 1 June 2006 20:34 (twenty years ago)

I agree that we have to figure out ways to serve these people better, and I agree that we need to move this country in a different direction, but I think your calculus is broken.

Fluffy Bear (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Thursday, 1 June 2006 20:38 (twenty years ago)

concrete - more big talk about V chips and homeowner tax breaks while we marginally progressivize the economic balance under the radar via the tax code

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 1 June 2006 20:40 (twenty years ago)

It's perfectly logical. Circles begin to widen even if you argue that you only want to help people you know well (on the premise that those people also know people, etc). Besides, isn't this how most people vote? My parents don't give a damn about what voters in Alabama think; they want to know how, say, Bush's tax cuts affect THEM.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 1 June 2006 20:41 (twenty years ago)

But looking at all the earmarks on the latest appropriation bills, I'd venture to guess that there's a lot of federal government that could be limited. It's that shit that gives big government a bad name, so start there and make yourself the party of reformers.

okay, good, a concrete example. let's go with this.

two things:

1) fuck yeah, i completely agree, earmarks are fucked and example of what should be prohibited or at least greatly codified as to not be so abused

2.) specific examples are far better to talk about than just the empty monikers. so in this case, wasteful expenditure = BAD govt, right. no argument there.

i'm not trying to be antagonistic towards you(i try to hold that for two other posters and that new guy who's an asshole on ILG and dissed Fallout). I'm trying to get at why folks on here or elsewhere use nebulous language when talking about this kinda thing, that there's a difference between "big" government and "bad" government. it's a difference between realizing that government is a tool.

resonating on a local level than on a national level, and that many people feel the same way.

thing is, part of this is what i'm going on about, that we're currently living at the end result of a cycle where most of what wasn't immediate was ignored and left for others to do.

kingfish doesn't live here anymore (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 1 June 2006 20:42 (twenty years ago)

I must be dense today, but this lesson is still going over my head. I agree with your hypothesis that we may not get far by appealing to people's sympathy for their fellow man. But it matters whether or not the fellow man in question can vote or not. If the fellow man also can vote then they are the fellow man, so their interests do matter. The only "fellow man" whose interests don't count is the fellow man who can't vote: either because they're too young or because they're not citizens of this country. Last time I checked, poor people can still vote. And it's not just the poor who are being screwed by the tax code. The NY Times did a series last year where they found that under the current tax law, in a few years, someone with a $400K income would actually be paying a substantially higher tax rate than someone with a $4 million income.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 1 June 2006 20:44 (twenty years ago)

By 2015, those making between $80,000 and $400,000 will pay as much as 13.9 percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $400,000, assuming the tax cuts are made permanent.

- from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/opinion/07tues1.html

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 1 June 2006 20:47 (twenty years ago)

we aren't going to get anywhere by appealing to their care for their fellow man.

i'm not saying that we will, i'm saying that our culture is fucked because they don't and we don't.

civic life has been fucked in this country since the war ended and the automobile became the dominant part of how we started building housing.

i'm saying that humans beings(or rather, people in groups, not nec. individual humans) are fucking stupid and have to be fucked over before they learn a goddamn thing, only to forget it a generation or two later.

kingfish doesn't live here anymore (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 1 June 2006 20:49 (twenty years ago)

goddammit blount, where'd you go?

kingfish doesn't live here anymore (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 1 June 2006 20:50 (twenty years ago)

for pf: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/06/01/nyregion/01hillary.1.ready.html

youn (youn), Friday, 2 June 2006 22:19 (twenty years ago)

tanned, rested and ready!

gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 2 June 2006 22:30 (twenty years ago)

the color suits her. they look shy.

youn (youn), Friday, 2 June 2006 22:31 (twenty years ago)

that's one word I don't think applies to the Clintons

gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 2 June 2006 22:33 (twenty years ago)

"I Love This Game!!"

Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 2 June 2006 23:26 (twenty years ago)

"Boogity-boogity-boogity, let's go racing, boys!"

gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 2 June 2006 23:33 (twenty years ago)

This thread! Ooooh this thread! What the fuck is wrong with you guys

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/w1nt3rmut3/ep3605-kuni.jpg

Dan I. (Dan I.), Sunday, 4 June 2006 07:32 (twenty years ago)

Apparently, three of the five House seats in Connecticut are competitive this year, but not the one in my district. My goal is to read up on local and state issues and candidates before the election.

youn (youn), Sunday, 11 June 2006 18:23 (twenty years ago)

two weeks pass...
how's this for a press release?

"...People who live in glass dude ranches should not question the patriotism of real soldiers who fought and bled for this country on a real battlefield.�

kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 28 June 2006 21:37 (twenty years ago)

haha! That is... pretty badass.

Incidentally, (apropos of nothing and not really related to this thread) did anyone see the report that one of the aggro recruiters in Fahrenheit
9/11 was uh, just killed by a bomb in Iraq?

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 28 June 2006 21:47 (twenty years ago)

i knew i would find it here:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005458.htm

lf (lfam), Wednesday, 28 June 2006 22:06 (twenty years ago)

one month passes...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html

it'd be nice if the Democratic Party could get a little ahead of the curve here (Lamont upset notwithstanding)

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 15:35 (nineteen years ago)

uh, the majority of the Democratic party *does* "oppose" the Iraq war (whatever that means now) and want at least "some" troops out by the end of the year

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 15:58 (nineteen years ago)

I think even Lieberman might have wanted "some" troops out by the end of the year

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 15:59 (nineteen years ago)

and once again, these are "adult Americans," not Registered Voters

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 16:00 (nineteen years ago)

and only 26% favor withdrawal of all troops.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 16:02 (nineteen years ago)

Democratic (Party) Direction: take a left right. BYO$

Maria :D (Maria D.), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

uh, only 6 senators recently voted to withdraw troops excepting those "critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces." That's not a "majority" of the Democratic party, its not even a majority of the Democrats in the Senate. We had a discussion of this vote on another thread... (where blount also handily misinterpreted my position once again by assuming that opposition to the war = "bring all the troops home right now!", which is not the case; obviously there are degrees to which troops should be withdrawn, and questions over what the precise timetable should be. But I don't see any real Democratic push to force the issue at all - where is the arguing for the establishment of said timetable, why did Dems actively distance themselves from Murtha when he made his public statements, etc.?)

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 16:08 (nineteen years ago)

"Democratic party *does* "oppose" the Iraq war (whatever that means now) "

I would think that its not being clear what opposition means, even to a well-informed party pol like yrself, is a problem for the Democrats. They should be staking out oppositional territory now, to get the jump on the Republicans - frame the issue before the right does.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 16:12 (nineteen years ago)

39 Dem Senators (but not, you're right, Lieberman) voted to begin pullout on 12/31/06. 13 voted for a complete pullout by 12/31/07.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 16:17 (nineteen years ago)

whoops, that second date should be 7/1/07

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 16:18 (nineteen years ago)

(and Jeffords is included in the Dem tallies)

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 16:19 (nineteen years ago)

"39 Dem Senators (but not, you're right, Lieberman) voted to begin pullout on 12/31/06. "

wait, what? are you talking about this vote? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13477664/. 39 Democrats opposed a counter-proposal for troop withdrawal with no date specified, but only 13 voted for Kerry's proposal of a complete withdrawwal by July 1, 2007. The previous proposal for a complete withdrawal by 12/31/06 was the one only 6 senators voted for.

"Senate Rejects Dems' Pullout Plan

By a decisive 86-13 vote, the U.S. Senate today rejected John Kerry's proposal for a complete withdrawal from Iraq by July 1 of next year--a completely arbitrary date that replaced the equally arbitrary date in Kerry's last proposal, December 31, 2006.

More Democrats supported the leadership's odd alternative, which called for troop withdrawals to begin but specified no end date. Since the administration is already reducing troop levels and will continue to do so, it isn't clear how, exactly, this measure would represent a change in policy. The Senate rejected it in a 60-39 vote. Lincoln Chafee voted with the Democrats, and six Democrats--Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, Joe Lieberman, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson and Mark Dayton--voted with the Republicans."

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 16:27 (nineteen years ago)

I think saying 39 senators voted for a troop pullout by 12/31/06 is a misrepresentation, since that specific proposal was only voted for by 6... what the 38 really voted for was no change from the status quo! If I'm misreading something here please elaborate.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 16:29 (nineteen years ago)

(argh 38 = 39, fuck)

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 16:30 (nineteen years ago)

I think saying 39 senators voted for a troop pullout by 12/31/06 is a misrepresentation

perhaps you can refer back to my actual words which clearly do not say that 39 senators voted for a complete withdrawal by 12/31/06

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 16:58 (nineteen years ago)

"39 Dem Senators (but not, you're right, Lieberman) voted to begin pullout on 12/31/06."

b-b-but this is not true! The 39 voted to withdraw troops with no timetable...

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 16:59 (nineteen years ago)

withdrawing troops is beginning a pullout

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 17:05 (nineteen years ago)

then why did you stick the 12/31/06 date in your post? That date is not in the bill they voted for.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 17:07 (nineteen years ago)

the Amendment, proposed June 21, 2006, contained the following text expressing the Sense of the Senate that "the President should ... [inter alia] after consultation with the Government of Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq this year"

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 17:19 (nineteen years ago)

but, as noted, that phased redeployment is already going on - and "begin this year" /= "beginning pullout on 12/31/06."

its weird that you won't admit you're wrong here. it's okay, it's not that big a deal.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 17:24 (nineteen years ago)

I actually LOL'd at that. "begin this year" = beginning pullout on any date this year, the last of which (and I left out the clause calling for a complete withdrawal timetable submission by the end of the year), i.e. the deadline, is, y'know, 12/31.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 17:28 (nineteen years ago)

riiiiiiiight

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 17:29 (nineteen years ago)

Cockburn & St Clair (I know, yr favorites) on what HASN'T changed:


"the question remains whether there is any home in the Democratic Party for a true progressive. Lamont’s victory in the primary certainly doesn’t answer that question. On most issues he’s almost indistinguishable from Lieberman. On Tuesday you had only to travel down I-95 to Georgia to see what happens to real progressives, where the Democratic Party conspired with Fox News and the rest of the press to try to destroy Cynthia McKinney’s political career. For the second time.

The Democratic Party won’t tolerate any outspoken dissent. It is a cheerleader for Israel’s destruction of Lebanon...."


http://counterpunch.org/editors08092006.html


Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 18:36 (nineteen years ago)

four weeks pass...
those corporate whores at the DLC

gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 8 September 2006 14:11 (nineteen years ago)

I suppose an Iowan is allowed to spell McEntee's name wrong, but hopefully that will change soon.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 8 September 2006 14:15 (nineteen years ago)

this thing about the direction of the Republicans seems highly unlikely, but is very interesting

gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 8 September 2006 14:23 (nineteen years ago)

a joint Progressive-New Democrat economic plan

gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 02:06 (nineteen years ago)

Thinking Points, the new handbook from Lakoff's Rockridge Institute is being released, chapter by chapter.

The email they sent out announcing this:(this is a little long)

In this preview of the new book, Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and Vision, A Progressive's Handbook by George Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute, we present twelve traps to avoid as we make our case to restore an America that is true to its best principles.


Twelve Traps to Avoid
(Excerpted from Chapter One of Thinking Points. The full chapter is available to download for free at http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/thinkingpoints.)

1. The Issue Trap

We hear it said all the time: Progressives won't unite behind any set of ideas. We all have different ideas and care about different issues. The truth is that progressives do agree at the level of values and that there is a real basis for progressive unity. Progressive values cut across issues. So do principles and forms of argument. Conservatives argue conservatism, no matter what the issue. Progressives should argue progressivism. We need to get out of issue silos that isolate arguments and keep us from the values and principles that define an overall progressive vision.

2. The Poll Trap

Many progressives slavishly follow polls. The job of leaders is to lead, not follow. Besides, contrary to popular belief, polls in themselves do not present accurate empirical evidence. Polls are only as accurate as the framing of their questions, which is often inadequate. Real leaders don't use polls to find out what positions to take; they lead people to new positions.

3. The Laundry List Trap

Progressives tend to believe that people vote on the basis of lists of programs and policies. In fact, people vote based on values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity.

4. The Rationalism Trap

There is a commonplace--and false--theory that reason is completely conscious, literal (applies directly to the objective world), logical, universal, and unemotional. Cognitive science has shown that every one of these assumptions is false. These assumptions lead progressives into other traps: assuming that hard facts will persuade voters, that voters are "rational" and vote in their self-interest and on the issues, and that negating a frame is an effective way to argue against it.

5. The No-Framing-Necessary Trap

Progressives often argue that "truth doesn't need to be framed" and that the "facts speak for themselves." People use frames--deep-seated mental structures about how the world works--to understand facts. Frames are in our brains and define our common sense. It is impossible to think or communicate without activating frames, and so which frame is activated is of crucial importance. Truths need to be framed appropriately to be seen as truths. Facts need a context.

6. The Policies-Are-Values Trap

Progressives regularly mistake policies with values, which are ethical ideas like empathy, responsibility, fairness, freedom, justice, and so on. Policies are not themselves values, though they are, or should be, based on values. Thus, Social Security and universal health insurance are not values; they are policies meant to reflect and codify the values of human dignity, the common good, fairness, and equality.

7. The Centrist Trap

There is a common belief that there is an ideological "center"--a large group of voters either with a consistent ideology of their own or lined up left to right on the issues or forming a "mainstream," all with the same positions on issues. In fact, the so-called center is actually made up of biconceptuals, people who are conservative in some aspects of life and progressive in others. Voters who self-identify as "conservative" often have significant progressive values in important areas of life. We should address these "partial progressive" biconceptuals through their progressive identities, which are often systematic and extensive.

A common mistaken ideology has convinced many progressives that they must "move to the right" to get more votes. In reality, this is counterproductive. By moving to the right, progressives actually help activate the right's values and give up on their own. In the process, they also alienate their base.

8. The "Misunderestimating" Trap

Too many progressives think that people who vote conservative are just stupid, especially those who vote against their economic self-interest. Progressives believe that we only have to tell them the real economic facts, and they will change the way they vote. The reality is that those who vote conservative have their reasons, and we had better understand them. Conservative populism is cultural--not economic--in nature. Conservative populists see themselves as oppressed by elitist liberals who look down their noses at them, when they are just ordinary, moral, right-thinking folks. They see liberals as trying to impose an immoral "political correctness" on them, and they are angry about it.

Progressives also paint conservative leaders as incompetent and not very smart, based on a misunderstanding of the conservative agenda. This results from looking at conservative goals through progressive values. Looking at conservative goals through conservative values yields insight and shows just how effective conservatives really are.

9. The Reactive Trap

For the most part, we have been letting conservatives frame the debate. Conservatives are taking the initiative on policy making and getting their ideas out to the public. When progressives react, we echo the conservative frames and values, so our message is not heard or, even worse, reinforces their ideas. Progressives need a collection of proactive policies and communication techniques to get our own values out on our own terms. "War rooms" and "truth squads" must change frames, not reinforce conservative frames. But even then, they are not nearly enough. Progressive leaders, outside of any party, must come together in an ongoing, long-term, organized national campaign that honestly conveys progressive values to the public--day after day, week after week, year after year, no matter what the specific issues of the day are.

10. The Spin Trap

Some progressives believe that winning elections or getting public support is a matter of clever spin and catchy slogans--what we call "surface framing." Surface framing is meaningless without deep framing--our deepest moral convictions and political principles. Framing, used honestly at both the deep and surface levels, is needed to make the truth visible and our values clear. Spin, on the other hand, is the dishonest use of surface linguistic frames to hide the truth. And progressive values and principles--the deep frames--must be in place before slogans can have an effect; slogans alone accomplish nothing. Conservative slogans work because they have been communicating their deep frames for decades.

11. The Policyspeak Trap

Progressives consistently use legislative jargon and bureaucratic solutions, like "Medicare prescription drug benefits," to speak to the public about their positions. Instead, progressives should speak in terms of the common concerns of voters--for instance, how a policy will let you send your daughter to college, or how it will let you launch your own business.

12. The Blame Game Trap

It is convenient to blame our problems on the media and on conservative lies. Yes, conservative leaders have regularly lied and used Orwellian language to distort the truth, and yes, the media have been lax, repeating the conservatives' frames. But we have little control over that. We can control only how we communicate. Simply correcting a lie with the truth is not enough. We must reframe from our moral perspective so that the truth can be understood. This reframing is needed to get our deep frames into public discourse. If enough people around the country honestly, effectively, and regularly express a progressive vision, the media will be much more likely to adopt our frames.

You can now download the complete chapter in which this excerpt appears (as well as the preface and introduction) at the Thinking Points section of the Rockridge Institute's website.

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 18 September 2006 22:59 (nineteen years ago)

Have Democrats convinced themselves they have an actual chance at retaking at least one house of Congress this November? The disappointment of Nov. 04 was offset by the reaction of Democrats who'd deluded themselves into believing Kerry might be allowed to win.

milo z (mlp), Monday, 18 September 2006 23:03 (nineteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.