Democrats need to think back to 1994 and an Agenda for America...

[kentuck]

Some political analysts have suggested that 2006 may be very similar to 1994, when the Repubs took over the House and Senate. But they didn't take it over by sitting on their hands. They came out with their "Contract for America", which was more of a "contract on America", but the people were looking for change and were willing to accept their "Contract" as proof that they were serious about changing the status quo. Perhaps Democrats need to think in a similar fashion, as far as offering an agenda in writing that is a clear alternative to what America is presently experiencing?

[emulatorloo]

1. Talking heads will say "I don't know what the Democrats stand for!"

"I mean I know they published a book, set up a website, and give press conferences daily, but I don't know what they stand for!"

At least that's what they did w Kerry in 04, despite web, speeches, position papers, etc etc.

How do we get past that? I seriously am trying to figure this out.

[kentuck]

2. My idea would be :

To get input from every Democrat in the House and Senate for an agenda they would like to see America adopt, then put it into a book form, which every Democrat would carry with them. And when they were asked what they stand for, pull out their book and say, "Read this!"

[chapel hill dem]

3. We need a three or four point agenda that we all can recite in our sleep

Reagan's "smaller government, lower taxes and rebuild the military" was easy to remember and was repeated by every republican in 1980 and 1984.

Also, we need to concentrate on BIG issues that appeal to the wavering, undecided 15% that swings the elections.

Suggestions?

[kentuck]

4. I think we could re-use the "rebuild the military"...

It will need to be rebuilt after this calamity.

[eallen]

5. How about "effective foreign policy"?

Bush's war, far from spreading Democracy in the mideast, has strengthened the conservatives in Iran.

[HootieMcBoob]

14. The GOP used TV Guide

That's right! They took their "contract with America" straight to the heart of the good ol' USA. It helps that TV Guide is owned by Newscorp (Rupert Murdoch) but you get the idea. TV Guide is, or at least was then, the magazine with the greatest subscription base in the country. More people read TV Guide each week than any other magazine or newspaper in the nation. It doesn't help to publish op-ed pieces in the NY Times or Washington Post. The people we need to reach don't read those papers! We need our TV Guide moment. I don't know what that is and it may be and probably should be different but that's what we need to do. We have to reach those people. Clark is doing his part by appearing on Fox but Democrats as a group need to reach out in a unique way - think outside the box.

[emulatorloo]

15. TV Guide, Reader's Digest, etc -- good idea, let's tell Howard

EOM

[punpirate]

6. I'd be happy to have a few people like...

John Conyers, Jr., Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters write that agenda. Not so sure I'd want to see Harry Reid, Evan Bayh and Joe Biden write it, though.

But, guess who would end up doing it? The get-along, go-alongs would be my guess. I won't make disparaging remarks about the DLC (none further are necessary), but I will say that the machine politics of the Democrats haven't helped them or us much.

My greatest fear in doing such is that the Democrats would develop a lot of lofty language that had no substance to it, because they wouldn't want to anger their largest contributors.

Think of how many votes they'd get (if people believed they were telling the truth) if they said, "we're going to return the tax system to a true progressive model, where the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share--not just for the sake of the budget, but for the sake of democracy. Ordinary people pay too much in taxes and the wealthy pay too little. FDR was right--we are in the midst of and controlled by the malefactors of great wealth."

If that were their only message, they'd gain votes. And, "we support the troops, too. We support them so much that we don't want them fighting foreign wars started with lies. We want them home, protecting us here."

Two absolute winners, in my view, if expressed that straightforwardly.
Is it likely to happen? Doubtful. The people who disagree with those messages have been voting for Republicans, anyway.

The real key to Democrats gaining a mandate again is not chasing the swing voters in the middle who can't make up their minds until staring at the voting machine and who tend to vote reactively. It's in bringing that vast reservoir of disenfranchised voters who don't vote (some 80 million of `em) back to the polls.

Cheers.

[chapel hill dem]

7. I would avoid words that cannot be objectively measured.

And, my opinion, to which I am entitled, is that discussing the individual tax code only opens a statistics war and allows the republicans to repeat their mantra of "tax and spend".

How about:

1. More and better jobs at home
2. Balance the budget (oooohh, this should sting...)
and
3. Develop an international plan to fight terrorism

Feedback, please.

[chapel hill dem]

8. Adjunct to point #2 in 7: Would it make sense to tax outsourcing? n/t

[hollowdweller]

9. Increase min wage, immanent domain protection, privacy issues

More workplace protection. Border security. Health Care. Pension protection, Soc. Sec.

[punpirate]

10. Guess what?

FDR's phrase "the malefactors of great wealth" resonated with the public. They elected him four times.

Bringing the troops home, out of a war based on lies, is pretty damned clear, too.

Fuck objective measurement. Declare a real policy, stand by it, and follow through. :)

Edit for detail.

Cheers.

[chapel hill dem]

11. I am an engineer. I like objective measurement. And it helps in

re-election years ( We promised X and delivered X, re-elect us and we will deliver Y )

"Bringing the troops home" is re-framed in the "development of an international solution to terrorism" point as well as a result of balancing the budget.

BTW, I had to look up "malefactor" and I was close, but not dead on the meaning. Oh, well, 206 college/grad credits on my transcript and only 6 in English...guess it shows...

[punpirate]

12. Well, I have two degrees...

... in English, and have spent virtually all my life in technical jobs (I aced college chemistry and math). Objective measurement is fine if you're designing something. It bores the shit out of the average voter.

Ask yourself if the Republicans have ever rested their reputations on an objective assessment of what they've actually done to the public. When they've passed legislation they've promised, they've said so. It was likely horrible legislation and damaging to the ordinary person, but they made an objective measurement of their intentions v. their accomplishments. They did just what they said they would do, but it's not really an objective assessment of the damage they did by doing so.

That's the danger in trying to see politics in cold, statistical (and superficial) terms.

Re-framing, to my mind, is likely to be the death of the Democrats (I've had many, many arguments with people here over the issue well before you arrived here), because it's depending upon talk alone. The real problem is that Democrats talk the talk, but don't walk the walk, and the voters know that. Democrats are already at a disadvantage because the media gives them less exposure, so they have to be plainer, more straightforward, promise the voter they will regain the voter some equity as a citizen and then follow through on that promise. Too many details ensure they'll never be heard.

"Get the troops out of a war made of lies." That's half of a nine-second soundbite. Clear as a bell. No mistaking the import of that--and it's true--the pretext for the Iraq war was a tissue of lies. Find me just five top leaders in the Democratic Party who said that as plainly as I just did during the 2004 campaign and you win a prize.

Walking the walk means doing the number-crunching and the policy development to accomplish the aims promised the voter in the campaign. Trying to lay that out for the voter during a ten-second campaign news spot is a hopeless, godforsaken task. The good politician says, "if you want the details of the plan, go to this website, and it's all explained for you. But, this is what we're going to do, very simply."

Democrats don't need to explain more. They need to stop kissing Citibank's ass and begging Lockheed Martin for contributions and just tell the voter, we getting back to basics--protecting your interests--and then do it.

Cheers.

[chapel hill dem]

13. Thanks for your reply. I will think about what you have said. The rest

of the day will be spent away from the computer, so it may be a while before I reconnect, assuming I have anything useful to say.
Enjoy the day.