About "values"

[CWebster]

Why is it that the Right champions "values", and when voters polled site values as most important, Democratic politicians frame values according to the Right, but scoff at Democratic values and those who champion them as "purists"?

Certainly, it doesn't champion the Democratic cause.

[xchrom]

1. i agrre -- some what on your through the looking glass

reasoning.

there's no such thing as a ''purist'' and dem moderates know that.

it's active ''attempt'' by politicians{and others} in the democratic party to isolate those who would fight the hardest against the corporate staus quo.

the democracy has been handed over to phizer, haliburton, general electric, etc -- and there's some notion within ''moderates'' that these few individuals have ideas and goals that are more worthy than that of the average citizen.

and that's the biggest lie in the world.

[CWebster]

3. True, but I want to address how it is used

as a broad brush to dismiss any relevance of the issues or to shut down debate entirely. For example, the fact that the majority of Democrats opposed the Iraq war, including Kerry's delegates, but it was not represented in Kerry's campaign. To make an issue of it would leave one open to charges of demanding "purity" although it was the overwhelming majority position.

[xchrom]

5. well, we present the lie first, don't we?

i.e. democracy = free market.
i mean it's very subtle -- but here i'm already set up to protect at the ballot box those who have a greater say so in my making my way in this world than they should.

i.e. mbna and the bankruptcy bill, haliburton and the country defending itself{here democrats vote for the war and fatten the walltes of those with more than their fair share already}, etc.

maybe i'm wrong -- but as long as centrist politicians get to define their own actions{as well as conservatives} -- they have us ''purists'' boxed in.

[CWebster]

6. What is so objectionable then

are rank and file Democrats who, perhaps unknowingly, automatically pick up the jargon with their marching orders.

Talk about working against your own best interests.

[radfringe]

2. Ask anyone if they are for or against "VALUES"....

Values is a warm-fuzzy word. Makes people feel good. Who would be against "values"?

Use of the word has the same impact as a cute kitten --- makes you feel all warm-fuzzy and cuddly inside... awwwwww




The key is to define "values" - what are they? Repugs don't say. Nor do they show how they really value values. Dems haven't grasped the concept of defining those values nor have they called on repugs to define them.

[CWebster]

4. That's right

It leaves the field wide open.


And Hillary tackles video games.

[BOSSHOG]

7. Convolution - Me thinks the right protests too much!

Who is most likely a closeted homosexual? He who rails about the sins of homosexuality. Which group of citizens don't practice "values" when no one is looking? The religiously insane; the one's who scream the most about having "values." Divorce rates, spousal abuse rates, incest rates, drug abuse, teen pregnancy - all hallmarks of red states. bush's base is basically ignorant. If a person can be put into a position to believe that if he/she votes republican and others say he/she has values, then wala! The ignorance of the republican/conservative base makes it so much easier for that party to succeed.

[CWebster]

8. You are right of course

Too bad so few Democrats challenge it and instead find religion and rally against immorality in the pop culture.

Too bad they play to it rather than expose it, and instead call Democratic values--economic fairness, constitutional protections, class issues--demands for "purity".

[charlie]

9. Republicans play to win

Democrats play not to lose, always fighting a rearguard action. A generalization, of course, but there it is. You won't catch Republicans approaching a deal with a triangulated "win" in mind. The DLC longs for the halcyon days of the 90s, when the Republican lament was "he's stealing our issues!"

[CWebster]

10. Yeah and they are still using the same play

even when they have nothing to gain.

[BOSSHOG]

11. Conservative values? - See attached

The latest in a never ending news stories about conservatives and their values comes from Miami:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000999325

Former Republican City Commissioner, story says involved in drug traffic, bribery, extortion, sex with multiple mistresses and male prostitutes.

What does the fine upstanding, life valuing member of george bush's party do about it? He kills himself.

[tmorelli415]

12. Conveying emotional messages = values

I think the word 'values' is associated with religion (and Fundies in particular in this case) by many liberals/progressives who hear the term. Naturally, they're suspicious - but often it is misunderstood. This is not to be mixed up with religious 'values' - were talking about 'values' as PR tools.

By 'values', thowe who are proposing that Democrats speak in these terms are not asking that you change your convictions or stand on the issues. The problem is that speaking to specific issues makes it difficult to a) leave an impression, and b) speak with a unified voice.

Now, this does not mean that we *never* talk about the details of policy. I'm talking about the way we communicate with voters as we change minds and drive the progressive majority to our cause.

The 'values' are the subjective 'wrappers' (STRATEGIES) under which we rationalize the objective policies (TACTICS). It's sort of like buckets (values) that we toss similar items into (policy). What we need to do is identify the values that we will convey, because we already have our action items (e.g., pro-choice, anti-CAFTA, energy independence, etc.).

The values are usually statements that are emotive - they illicit emotions in the listener, and are meaningful to the deliverer. They can be things like:

* Democrats believe in that each and every American has the abolute right to privacy, and freedom from government intrusion in their personal life.
* Democrats believe that every American has a responsibility to put in an honest, hard days' work, and in return has the right to expect a living wage and fair benefits.

(Those are just examples)

Communicating this way is designed to provide information in the normal way a person assimilates it. We know that emotional connections to concepts are made first, and if you skip that stage whatever that comes after it is nott 'allowed in' as easily by the listener. Emotions are powerful things and when they resonate, they recall the other associated items (the policy details that wouuld fall under the values one established - for example, the first one could include 'pro-choice, separation of religiion/government, minority rights, healthcare decisions, etc.).

The next benefit is this is that in any political movement, we all need to be saying the same things over and over again to get our point across. Our values become our 'hymnsheet'. We all sing from the same page, and it is makes a clear and memorable song. Otherwise, it is just a bunch of noise.

This is not 'newspeak' or ploys with voters. There is sometimes a tendency to feel that it is being 'sneaky' or is incompatible with liberal ideas - but it is simply marketing. It is just more effective delivery of our story, and is very important. Thisis nothing new, but Dems haven't done a very good job of it for a very long time.

There are other more complex, or simplified ways of doing this. I've explained it in way that I hope makes sense because I've heard a lot of rejection to using an approach like this on here. I think it would be a mistake. I have been a corporate PR consultant for more than 12 years, and I can tell you that this is one of the things that Dems need to get right or we'll continue having difficulty reaching that progressive majority. We have to connect and not just talk about the legislative details of policy.

[CWebster]

13. Absolutely

but then there is this knee-jerk reaction which sabotages our own ability to frame the issues as values that resonate when we refer to them as demands for purity. It is part of the centrist game plan because we resist or oppose the Right's monopolization of consensus - due to our own party reinforcing it.

It would seem that not only does Centrist leadership take their cues from the Right in framing the issues, but they also triangulate attack strategy Right towards Left.

[charlie]

14. Yeah, we're talking about two different groups here

There's the Lakoff crowd who advocate changes in communication, much like tmorelli415 does above, then there's the bunch like the ones who popped up in unison here last November, each with a pet issue that was "killing" Democratic fortunes that needed to be compromised or chucked overboard. And natch, resistance was just obstinate "purism".