The CRUX of the move left/right argument- PLEASE READ.

[Guaranteed]

This is exactly it, right here, folks. It comes from Arianna Huffington's column that G_j posted a few minutes ago (sorry G_j, again):

"As cognitive psychologist George Lakoff told me: 'Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party's progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are.' It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side's positions are worth moving toward, while your side's positions are the ones to move away from. Plus every time you move to the center, the right just moves further to the right."

I've tried, but I couldn't say it better myself.

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20699

[kentuck]

1. Isn't that true ?

Subconsciously, that is the message sent. Our message is not as good as theirs. So let's move in their direction - because that is where the votes are located. That is exactly what our Party is saying. It's a matter of standing on your principles and fighting for what you believe.

[Guaranteed]

2. Yup.

I've been trying to say something just like that with the "Leadership, leadership, leadership" thing. But it just never came out as clearly as Lakoff- yes, Lakoff said this, believe it or not (that guy is a goddamned GENIUS)- just said it.

THANK YOU, Arianna Huffington and Lakoff.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. I suspect it isn't what our party is saying

I suspect it is what our party's current *leadership* is saying ..... and I oppose it.

[insane_cratic_gal]

3. Interesting

And I agree, it almost seems like politicans, no longer care about the ideals we stood for. Instead they are only worrying about stealing votes from the repugs?

It could be a tactic to assume control over congress?

I have no idea what is in their minds, but the fence sitters seem to be the moderates.

Can anyone answer me what is the difference between a Moderate democrate and a Moderate Rep?

are they the middle trying to unpolarize the left and right?

Is there stragey or just a whimper of no longer wanting to be beat?

[Guaranteed]

4. In their cowardice they're submitting to being losers.

And no one follows a LOSER.

It's not a strategy. It's just fear.

[cprise]

12. LOL, is that what DLC really stands for?

Democratic Losing Committee?

It would seem to fit. So far they seemed to produce only anti-leaders who care only about "bi-partisanship".

[G_j]

15. fear driven?

probably,
The Republicans control the 'country club'. It seems some are afraid they'll lose their percs.
It is worth noting the 'base' do not belong to the club and efforts to stay in the club have nothing to do with looking out for the interests of the people.

[blondeatlast]

7. Interesting question. I'm not sure how many people really qualify

as "moderate" on either side.

I used to consider myself a "moderate" Democrat, but now I see myself as pretty far left.

I don't think I've changed appreciably, but I think the national culture has taken such a hard swing to the right that I do seem far Left.

[Bouncy Ball]

24. Me, too.

Hey you over here on the far left with me!

Did you know in England we'd practically be considered Tories? (Dems, that is.)

Yep. Sad.

[Mist]

28. No lie!

I've always been left too, but I wonder if the country is as conservative as the MSM and the Rethugs would have us believe. Franken and Moore have both written that most people actually believe in our positions, and that THAT is the great truth the Rethugs and the MSM are trying to ignore and marginalize.

[blondeatlast]

5. That's the issue in a nutshell. CAN WE JUST PLEASE HIRE LAKOFF?

The man is a genius complete with ethics, unlike his slimy snakelike counterpart on the Radical Right, KKKarl Rove.

I would happily send the DNC a donation earmarked towards a salaray for Lakoff!

[G_j]

6. glad you posted

this paragraph with a compelling thread title. Lakoff makes some crucial observations here. (I completely agree with him also.)

[blondeatlast]

8. MUST READ--nominated for homepage.

Great site, too, I'd never seen it before! Thanks.

[rman]

9. Also note that moving to the right is not proposed by people's

organisations such as unions and progressive grass roots movements, but rather by organisations that represent corporate interests.

Of course the explanation for this put foreward by these corporatist organizations is that there are no unions or progressives to speak of; supposedly these are irrelevant special interest groups.

[Guaranteed]

10. We have to get these fucking

pieces of shit out of our party NOW.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. No, not out of the party .........

just out of the leadership. I for one, do NOT want to get anyone *out* of the party. I just don't want them *leading* the party.

I am sure no one in their right mind would say "No thanks, I don't want your vote."

Look, the DLC is hanging on for the sake of power, but they would likely not change party if we unseat them from our leadership. I also suspect no here doesn't want them in the party. We simply need a new direction, one they in which are unwilling to take us.

[cprise]

11. You're right, very well-put

However the Democratic Party is determined to survive by making itself a less-drastic version of the Republicans. This is the essence of DLC-style "triangulation" politics: Ideological leadership has been ceeded to the Republican Party, who are towing the Democrats in their wake. At the national level, the two function as a single larger party. This is not unlike the "two parties" written about by Orwell.

The underlying reasons for the Dem's behavior isn't all that clear. But I do believe it has much to do with the glaring difference between Democrats and major left parties in the other developed countries: They all explicitly acknowledge socialism.

The battle to reverse this trend is going to be more difficult than you ever imagined.

[blondeatlast]

13. Correction: The LEADERSHIP (in fact, only the DLC, IMHO) is determined

to do this. I think the grassroots base--the volunteers and contributors still fired up after working so hard only to see Black Tuesday, is ready for a re-commitment to the grassroots.

I've NEVER bothered to tell my precinct chair who the DNC Chair should be, but we are in an active dialog now.

I am TAKING my party back!

[cprise]

18. Agreed, but not necessarily because

...they want to run against our interests. If 97% of all Americans completely reject any form of socialism, even the mild and successful West European kind, and refuse to think that way.... then who is going to form the backbone of an economic left? When some Americans decide to borrow an idea from EU socialism like universal healthcare, what system of economic thought and perspective is going to effectively promote and defend that policy... mere liberalism?


"I am TAKING my party back!"

You are welcome to try, but that is no mindset to have when you want the party to champion collectivism.

[mrgorth]

21. Allowing universal healthcare to be called socialism

lets the thugs frame the debate as they are good at. We have to figure out a way to stand up for our values, even if some of them have socialist aspects, and frame the debate so that they don't SOUND like socialism.

[cprise]

31. In other words

... use doublespeak and lie. If you don't feel like learning about socialism and standing up for it, then you won't get socialized healthcare... simple as that.

Part of the problem with most Democrats is that the first (and tenth and twentieth) time they heard the word socialism, it was from the mouths of conservatives. Instead of confronting them about their opinions and version of history, Democrats try to supress the subject.

[Guaranteed]

14. Meanwhile, the party shrinks and the country turns fascist. nt

[blondeatlast]

17. Precisely; we are tending to feel we are powerless without

a majority in either chamber and without the presidency.

But the Democrats still have power if they would only engage the PEOPLE.

We need massive action alerts daily from the party.

Hell, my libertarian friends sent me a story yesterday about the Lib's disgust with the last minute bill submissions; the Libs are taking action, why the hell aren't the Dems?

Nothing could get me to go Lib, but I could be persuaded away from the Dems if things don't change soon. I'm a 4th gen Dem, too--it would be like betraying my family, but it could happen.

[Bouncy Ball]

25. I never thought anything

would pull me away from the Dems, either. The only reasons I don't go is:

1. I still believe in the core Democratic values and

2. Where would I go?

[MrBenchley]

16. Amen to that!!!

Grat column and right to the point.

[ecstatic]

19. We don't have to move left, and damn sure shouldn't move right

Instead of moving all over the place, we need to STAND STILL and support and fight for the issues that we hold dear to us *now.*

[Stinky The Clown]

26. So very true

Moving right is NO solution. If we move right we will, at some point, simply be subsumed by the Republicans and we will cease to be.

Moving to the left too much will cut us off from even the mainstream of our party.

We need to stay generally where we are ("we" being the people in the party, not the current leadership).

The trick is to find a candidate who can speak to the middle, much as Reagan did, but keep true to his own political compass.

As I see it, we need to get the large number of former Dems who became reliable Republican voters because of Reagan to come back home. I am in my gut certain they're the same people they always were. They went to the other side for matters of "vision" and "leadership" and other intangibles. In their hearts, they really prefer our way (not the DLC way). Our issues, however, have become muddied to irrelevance by the mixed messages they get from our side .... move left, move right, move to the middle, move up, move down .......

We've also been saddled with distracting issues. I am not saying our position in any of these are *wrong*. I am NOT saying that. I am NOT saying that ...... but, they saddle us.

The Dems have always been so inclusive and so worried about each special interest in our base that we tend to magnify the issue du jour in a way that makes it like a huge angry pimple on our noses. It is easy to see. It is right out in front. No one sees our real face because of that damned pimple.

Put some make-up on our pimples, okay? Don't change the position on any given issue, just package it correctly.

(I have been flamed before for using an issue as an example and framing it in a way to make a point. I am doing that here and want to make it clear I am NOT NOT NOT espousing a position on gay rights. I am 100% supportive of gay rights and gay marriage, but I will use that as an example here.)

We support gay marriage. I support gay marriage. You probably support gay marriage. So we put "GAY" marriage out there. Why didn't we bundle it with other family rights matters? Why would it have been wrong to package it as part of, say, a "Family Rights" plank in the platform? This gets the inflammatory "GAY MARRIAGE" thing out of the headlines.

Candy Crowley to John Kerry: "Senator, do you support GAY MARRIAGE?"

John Kerry in a wishy washy response: "Candy, thank you for that question. I support the notion that all Americans should have the right to equal protection under the ............ CIVIL UNIONS, not GAY MARRIAGE ..... blah blah ...... blah ........"

American Citizen: "ZZZZzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzz"
American Christian: "GAY MARRIAGE, GAY MARRIAGE, GAY MARRIAGE"
American Gay: "Fuck you John Kerry"

Better:

same question

John Kerry: "I am in favor of all issues that protect or promote the American Family. The rights of families to health care, to education for our children, to the provision of safe streets so our children can walk to neighborhood schools, so all our families have the right to a say in the care of their loved ones, etc., etc., etc."

American Citizen: "I like that"
American Christian: "I like that"
American Gay: I like that"
American Fundamentalist (now a splintered group of listeners): "Fuck You John Kerry, you lying gay lover. You're gunna make them get married aren't you. Hey people, do you see how John Kerry is lying to you? Do you see it? Huh? Do you?"

So yeah. Just find a fucking message and stick to it. As Carville said not long ago .... "stand for *something*". And that "something" should be what it has traditionally been for Dems - just better stated.

Lastly, I don't think the specifics of any particular position matters near as much as the message - the "feeling" ..... the "vibes" - we send. We have a habit of taking nuanced debate (such as this thread) and trying to do that when we publicly debate right wing speakers, while they stay with a simple message. Keep it equally simply in our speeches and in our story. Keep it simple in ALL our publicly facing communications.

No one gives a shit about hearing strategic, nuanced discussions. To the vast majority out there, it is nothing more than mental masturbation. Save that for internal discussions.

For our public face ... keep it simple.

Remember ... left is right and right is wrong.

[robbedvoter]

20. Explains the refusal to accept we won too - the eagerness to surrender

When I ask: what's the max Diebold can steal, what's a "close enough to steal" BS? the Vichy Dems say: "It was close, the polls say that"
To me it feels like some are happy they can finallt surrender....
I don't think we can convince them otherwise, we just need to disregard their joyous bendovers, and move along with our agenda.

[blondeatlast]

27. Time for an

:kick:in.'

[Zorra]

29. I keep reading that paragraph over and over because it feels so good.

We all knew it but never said it so succinctly. It is hard to think of a logical argument against it. I'm keeping it handy for every time someone keys that we need to move to the right.

"Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party's progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are. It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side's positions are worth moving toward, while your side's positions are the ones to move away from. Plus every time you move to the center, the right just moves further to the right." - George Lakoff

[janx]

30. That's why these markers and labels are so unhelpful.

Concrete goals are much better. Thanks for posting this, BGL.