The discussion we should be having: Center & Left Dems

[TayTay]

Go now and read the whole OpEd from E.J. Dionne in today's WaPo. It is excellent. It explains, more than anything I have read recently why DU is boiling with anger these days and why it's not likely to end any time soon. Like it or not, the left is going to have to understand that being purely a l'efty liberal' and being right about the issues is not going to, by itself, result in electoral change.

But the party's problems are structural and can be explained by three numbers: 21, 34 and 45. According to the network exit polls, 21 percent of the voters who cast ballots in 2004 called themselves liberal, 34 percent said they were conservative and 45 percent called themselves moderate.

Those numbers mean that liberal-leaning Democrats are far more dependent than conservatively inclined Republicans on alliances with the political center. Democrats second-guess themselves because they have to.

Consider that in 2004 Democrat John Kerry won 85 percent of the liberal vote and defeated Bush by a healthy 54 percent to 45 percent among moderates. But Bush prevailed because he won 84 percent of a conservative vote that constitutes more than a third of the electorate.

Or consider the lay of the land for the 2006 congressional elections. It takes 218 seats to form a majority in the House of Representatives. Kerry carried only 180 congressional districts, according to the Almanac of American Politics. Put another way, Democrats, according to the Almanac, now hold and have to defend 41 House districts that Bush carried. Republicans are defending only 18 districts that Kerry carried.

Democrats in Disarray

This is an excellent analysis. Pleae read it in it's entirety. It gives us ooodles and oodles of things to discuss.

[TayTay]

1. Also, apropos to above, there is this piece in the BGlobe

For many politicians, middle ground is a refuge from the abortion wars
By Peter Canellos, Globe Columnist | September 27, 2005

PROVIDENCE --The students and professors who had come to hear Senator John F. Kerry last week at Brown University were mostly unabashed liberals who wanted to pay tribute to their 2004 standard bearer.

But when one student lobbed the softball question -- "What can we do to protect a woman's right to choose?" -- Kerry tried to challenge his audience by deviating a bit from liberal orthodoxy.

He urged the crowd -- and the country -- to consider abortion in less divisive terms.

"I've never met anyone who's in favor of abortion," Kerry said. In the 2004 presidential debates, Kerry said, abortion came up only once. (Actually, it was broached twice).

He said he believes there should have been a whole debate just on that issue, because it dominates so many people's political views.

But as Kerry went on, mentioning the need for "education" (presumably sex education) and adoption as an alternative to abortion, the crowd grew ominously quiet. When Kerry finally restated his bottom line --that he would always defend the rights of women to make decisions about their own bodies -- the crowd erupted in applause, as if everything Kerry had said earlier had served only to clear his throat.

Peter Canellos

This is the DU lefty/center split in action. Libs don't want to discuss deviations from lib orthodoxy. We have a right to ask for a person to stick to principle and to 'stand' for something. But we also have to consider whether or not that stand is what is impeding getting the actual work done. Is there a way to stand for principle and yet appeal to the middle by emphasizing different views in a more palatable way for the vast middle? Boy, does that ever resonate for DU readers.

What say you?

[whometense]

2. Wow.

Really, two great pieces. Dionne really put his finger on the causes of DU turmoil. It felt really good to read such a cool analysis of what's happening.

In the Canellos piece I liked this bit:

But what Kerry and Clinton may really be searching for is not middle ground, but a vernacular that can signal to political independents that they are willing to rise above partisanship -- that they are not unmindful of the other side. This is not so much a position on abortion as a position on the abortion debate, decrying the polarization, and hoping to lead people to the Valhalla of consensus, even if there is no consensus. (It is the hoping that counts.)

I really believe that this is what it's all about. I don't for an instant think that Kerry would ever sell out a woman's right to do as she sees fit with her own body and life. He is the father of two beloved daughters, for one thing. For another, I have no problem at all reconciling his personal (Catholic) views on abortion with his political beliefs. I think he's sincerely trying to lower the temperature of the discussion. If we can get it out of the realm where people are lined up across from each other and yelling in each others' faces, and into a place where they can sit down and discuss it rationally, that would be a huge step forward, and a big political advantage to democrats. There are always going to be abortion loons, but if we are going to speak to the groups Dionne identifies we have to get the subject away from kneejerk reactions. I think that's what Kerry is trying to do.

[Mass]

3. Interesting column, but I think Dionne is missing a component

I think the fight withing the party is not between the left and the center, but between the left. the center, and the right.

On DU, we mainly see the left and their inflexibility on all issues. However, the center is also rebuked quite often by conservative democrats that tend to call them liberals. I tend to agree with Kerry when he says that we do not need a second republican party.

The Democrats must remain faithful in what they believe, but they need also to decide what they want to put at the center of their agenda: either values that are common to all people of good will or divisive issues (poverty or abortion, healthcare or gay marriage, energy and education issues or faith-based initiatives). It does not mean that we have to abandon any of our beliefs, just that we do not have to accept the premises of the others.

In the same direction, we have to avoid focusing on issues that are not that important to people just to show that we are not that liberal (out-of-wedlock children, for example, is NOT the main issue of poverty, poor education and poor wages are, family values is not about abstinence only programs, it is about giving families the means (financial and otherwise) to raise their children according to their choices).

Also, it depends who you call the left and the center. I have seen some democrats say that Kerry or Durbin or Feingold or people like them are at the left of the party. I tend to disagree, but it would have been nice if Dionne had defined the terms. There is no concensus on that, unfortunately.

[TayTay]

4. This goes back to a debate in another thread: What is center

The abortion debate favors, under the present conditions, the Rethugs. They will always bring it up because it makes their base turn out on election day. But that is because the lines drawn are absolutes. There really is a middle ground. Clinton, to his credit, used the phrase, "safe, legal and rare." This is a good line to run on. It says that abortion should remain available and safe to those who need it, and that it should be legally available nationwide. But the most important word is rare. We need programs, such as what you wrote above, that make the need for abortion go away.

[Mass]

5. I agree - this goes to agreeing the basis of the Repubs for this debate

They say: "women are wrong to want abortion". Rather than saying "they are right", we should be saying what you said: "why do they need abortion and what can we do to avoid them".

To their credit, NARAL has changed their focus recently to include prevention programs and ask for programs that would make abortion rare. It is the right that tries to prevent this to happen by blocking useful measures like planB, or sexual education, or healthcare and daycare for kids.

[TayTay]

6. The right is disengenuous, at best

They merely want the discussion to be 'abortion is morally and religiously wrong.' They make noises during debates and such about trying to lessen the need, but all their argument devolve into personal responsibility arguments. And they are re-iterative to a maddening degree:

Abortion is wrong. We should not allow this to happen.
-- But what about women who cannot, for various reasons, have babies at this moment in their lives?
They should have thought of that before they got pregnant.
-- What about medical reasons? What about extreme poverty or about parents who are not supportive?
They should have thought of that before they had sex.
-- Women need education programs, WIC programs and social support in order to raise these children that you are demanding the have. What do you offer in the way of aid?
-- Churches offer aid. And they should assume personal responsibility for their choices. And the state cannot raise 'welfare' children. There is always adoption. And women shouldn't have sex outside of a marriage whose circumstances and structure would preclude the need for abortion.
But this is not a perfect world. Stuff happens. Who supports people when things go wrong and help is needed.
-- They should have thought of that before they had sex. We are not responsbile for people who will not be responsible for themselves. No abortions, no government aid and no help for people who have wanton sex and disregard the consequences.

We, in a way, can't talk to each other. But we can talk to the middle who see both sides. The center wants less abortions and wants people to take responsibility for their actions. But it also, as we saw during Katrina, wants there to be a safety net for all Americans. Abortion can be that safety net. It is not the first thing that should be done to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But it should be there as the case of last resort. There is middle ground.

[TayTay]

7. And yet another story to through into the mix

SFGate Article

Yet another view that wants to end the polarization. (Not as serious as the above mentioned articles though.)

And look at the story in this thread about Iraq and the polling of America. Americans are torn on what to do in Iraq. The vast middle wants to bring freedom and democracy to the poor IRaqis, but also wants to get out before the IRaq war consumes us and our treasury. Sigh! Find the middle ground here and let me know what it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1808654

[Mass]

8. I like the SF article a lot and particularly the end

I don't think the Democratic Party should be another talking-points-generating engine, as the Republican Party is. Democrats are always going to disagree; it's a good thing. But please, let us disagree about real things, about real policies and real ideas and real solutions. And, seriously, the Democrats really should find a candidate who's a uniter, not a divider. That job is definitely still open.

[TayTay]

9. I have been saying this for a while.

The circular firing squad, as maddening and not-fun as it is, serves a real purpose for the fractious Dem Party. We really hash out our differences, in full, at the top of our voices and with gusto. The Rethugs get a message from the top and are obliged to argue it. They have some bottom-up stuff, particularly when they are in political trouble, but they are very corporate in their structure.

The Dems are not. They are and have always been more unstructured in their decision making process. (And their White Houses. The funniest part of John McCain's book about being a maverick is his annoyance at Bill Clinton for having an open schedule. He likes the Rethugs who book Pres appointments down to the minute. "You will see the Prez at 9:41 and leave at 9:48." Never gonna happen with Dems. We are more fluid and chaotic. Always have been.)

But, when the Dems get it right, they have formed consensus. That is what we are aiming at. We will nearly kill each other before we get there, but we do have an aim. And the issue will be fully, and completely and exhaustively aired out. It's the Dem way.

[whometense]

10. That's a really positive way to

look at the blood in the streets that passes for GD these days. :D

I like it.

[rockymountaindem]

11. Geez, that's depressing.

I tell ya, the good days are coming, but they're far away.

I'm waiting 'till the day that my generation takes over.

[TayTay]

12. I don't see it as depressing as much as

knowing what you are up against. You know it better than me, you being in Colorado Springs and me being in MA. This should sharpen Dems to know that they have to take a bigger bite out of the middle. (We will NEVER get the conservatives. Not going to happen unless something totally awful happens, like another Depression. And even in that case, we can pick off 10%.)

This is the list of issues the DNC are pushing:
Keeping America Safe at Home
Strength Overseas
Honoring Our Troops, Veterans, and Their Families
A Strong Economy
Education
Retirement Security
Affordable Health Care
Honest Government
Election Reform
Protecting Our Environment
Civil Rights

We lead, in some cases by margins over 70% on most of these issues. We didn't get, by a wide margin, the safety issues last time. Then came Katrina.

We will never pick up everyone. But we can pick up 5-10% more of the vital center. And, baring election fraud, is what we need. 5-10%. Honest-to-Gawd. And that's why I have hope.

Also, read this: http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Democracy_Corps_March_2005_Catholic_Analysis.pdf

Much wisdom here on how to 'get them back.' It can be done.

[rockymountaindem]

13. I just came from another thread where someone was trying to claim

that Howard Dean has called for preemptive attacks on Iran and North Korea!

I realize that when we push for moderate voters, we risk losing the base; but seriously, sometimes I think the moderates are way more sane. It's a real see-saw, and it's not easy.

Here is the view I operate upon, having spent all my life in Colorado Springs. Please tell me if I'm wrong...

The default setting for an American is Republican. If people see a Democrat and a Republican, and know nothing about either candidate, they will vote for the Republican, because they believe that is the "American" thing to do. They believe Republicans will defend America, and keep things relatively the same. While people may not be 100% satisfied with their lives, they would rather conserve what they have, than risk (as they see it) things on the chance to make it better. Therefore, Democrats always start out in the hole, because we have to convince voters why they should a) go against their instinct to vote for Republicans and b) "risk" making a change. It's like starting a football game down 10-0.

I guess if I'd grown up in San Fransisco or Chicago or Washington D.C. I might see things the other way. It just seems to me that most Americans have fallen not so much for Republican ideas, but for branding. This is in the sense that the Republican party has successfully promoted an image of itself. It reminds me of a TV show I watched on the the history of the cola wars. After WWII, veterans who drank only Coke during the war were so emotionally attached to the product that they simply refused to drink Pepsi. So Pepsi decided to market to baby boomers who didn't have the preconcieved notion that Coke was the same as mom, apple pie, and fireworks on the 4th of July.

I think that's the problem facing our party today. A lot of the people who lived through Vietnam, the 80s etc. just think the the Republicans will act tough, keep America strong and literally put money in their pockets. All that is wrong, because the Republicans have done more to overextend the US and deplete our economy than these people realize. But it's all about the branding. I think a lot of these folks just tune out Democratic platforms and ideas just like the vets would never pay attention to a Pepsi commercial.

I don't know if this makes any sense, but that's why I'm waiting for my generation, which doesn't have a lot of baggage and missed out on the Republican branding revolution to take over power. I mean, the Republicans are really screwing themselves at the beginning of the new century. The young people will realize this and vote Democratic their whole lives. We're doing a good job now, but that won't overcome a lifetime of Republican programming that a lot of baby boomers and Gen-Xers have undergone.

[TayTay]

14. Let me respond when I am home tonight.

This is fascinating. However, let me muddy the waters a bit.

What happens in America if China calls our debt. Say China has to deal with a severe and devastating outbreak of plague (either avaian flue or an explosion in their already horrible AIDS rate.) The US defaults on the loans.

Or Ridayh collapses and we can't get any more Middle Eastern oil. Or any of a dozen other possible scenarios that would result in a new depression.

That would change the equation. It is events like this that HAVE in fact changed the equation in the past.

And it is also possible that America has been engaged in a 'silent' civil war for the past 25 years and the field is being redrawn. It is one thing to be a Repub in a world in which wages and productivity are going up and there are good union jobs and life is nice as a 'Master of the Universe.' It is quite another when the mortage is due and you can't pay it. You've got a crappy job with little chance of advancement, you can't afford college for your kids, you can't pay for heating your home in the winter and you have no health care and your parents are retiring and are moving in with you to save money.

That is the kind of thing that changes the equation.

[rockymountaindem]

19. What you say is true, however

I would rather win without having to rely on major problems. It would be nice to have a nice peaceful transition back to Democratic control without an oil shortage or other economic calamity. Besides, those things might happen, and they might not. In fact, if you asked me if I would prefer America to remain a strong country for the next 50 years, but under Republican rule for the next 15; or a weak country in 50 years but have the Dems. swept in in '06 and '08 as a result of a catastrophe, I'd pick the first option.

Of course, the idea is to win in '06 and '08 while keeping the country in the same (relatively) advantageous position that we're in now. If the situation even improves somehow, I want the Dems to find a way to win. I think the message we need to send to the electorate is that Democrats also want America to be strong. Republicans have been effective in portraying us as the party that wants to subordinate our national interest to foreign demands such as the UN. What we need to point out is that 1) Democrats want to make sure America is still the most powerful country in the world in 50 years and 2) It is the Republicans themselves who have submitted America to an even more dangerous system of foreign manipulation through their system of bad trade agreements (CAFTA), selling of the debt to foreigners, and the maintenance of our dependence on oil imports. This is of course much more threatening to American interests than a heated debate at the UN.

But this is what I'm talking about; branding. The Republicans have everybody believing that the "new world order" that is supposedly supported by the left is just the UN and other alliances. In fact, it is something much more subtle, which is supported by the right (the things I listed above).

Here's the deal, as I see it. People know what they want. People want a strong and secure America, in which they can take care of their families and provide for the future. When it comes to specific policy issues, a majority of Americans (according to polls, check out polling report) support left-leaning/progressive policies. The problem is that they believe that the Republican party, not the Democratic party, supports these issues. That's where the branding comes in. It's not about policies or candidates. It's so much more than that. It's essential ideas about what each party and each side of the spectrum represents. This is branding and image promotion, and that's where Democrats have failed since the Vietnam days.

When I talk to older people in my town, their view of who Democrats are is very depressing. When you say "Democrat", they think of long haired hippies with no jobs, "whiny" liberals, nerdy chess players, ugly women (specifically Barbra Streisand and Hillary Clinton. Never mind if they're ugly or not, that's the stereotype) and "fags" (think Queer Eye for the Straight Guy). When you say Republican, they think of a farmer on his tractor, a preacher at his pulpit, a hunter with his gun, high school football on Friday night and so on.

This is why it's very important for all of us to maintain a good image. People who know me are often somewhat surprised to find out I'm a liberal. Since I can't just go around blabbing about my politics back home, people often don't learn I'm a proud Democrat until well after they've known me. Most people assume I'm a Republican based on the stereotype. I have a regular 'ol haircut, wear plain old jeans and button-down shirts. No sandals. I drive a regular car with no bumper stickers. People in my area are surprised that someone be a liberal and still be "a man". This is also a result of branding. Yes, folks. I go camping, I root for the Broncos, I love to ski, and I'm a Democrat. Surprise surprise. I don't sit around all day getting high and having sex with a man. Sorry to disappoint you and wreck your stereotypes.

When you ask young people about the parties, things are different. I know many liberal people of my generation (high school class of 2003) with very conservative parents. I know two girls who wanted to watch the Democratic convention on TV, but were forced to change their channel by their dads. They come to me with confused looks on their faces and fear in their voices and ask why it's so bad to be liberal. I feel sorry for them. Yet, they refuse to go over to the other side. I'm proud of them. I'm also proud of my friend who came out as gay. I'm proud that he didn't lose his mind in a high school where my whole ceramics class applauded after a homosexual freshman was called a fag during an argument over clay. I'm proud of my friends. I'm proud of my parents, and of my late grandparents.

And yes, I'm a Democrat. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Dobson.

[CBHagman]

15. I wouldn't wait, because there are other factors at play here.

I can certainly appreciate that you have tremendous hope for your generation's leadership qualities and values, but no one can afford to put off working for justice until some good time in the future. There's never a good time, and people need help now, today, this minute.

Also, there are always unforeseen factors. We didn't all know that the hippies and yippies could turn into Gordon Gekko wanna-bes (though certainly many of them did not), or that Bush would exploit the most tragic terrorist attack in U.S. history to secure his own position of nearly unchallenged power, literally for years.

What TayTay and others have so beautifully said above is true: succeeding is about creating alliances, not sloughing off party members and natural allies, and it is about facing down our problems and maybe having to restrategize.

We have to work with the world and the problems as they are, not as they someday might be.

[ginnyinWI]

23. who knew,

back in the Sixties, when just about everyone was against the Vietnam war, and we all felt we were at the dawn of a new era (the Age of Aquarius!), the era when our generation would change everything that was wrong with "The Establishment", that one day a bunch of neo-con chickenhawks from our very same generation would manage to take power and lead us where we didn't want to go--into another quagmire of a war.

And there will always be that danger in every generation. Young idealists don't always stay the same when they aquire money and power, and some of the young never have anything but cynicism and selfish lusts for power and prestige. And those are the ones to watch out for in any generation. Some never progress with the majority. (What young Republican 20-year-old is destined to become the next Karl Rove someday?)

[ginnyinWI]

22. I think you're right

The Repub "brand" says security, independence, "the American Way" whatever that is. It's the party of all the "haves", and if you want to be a "have" then you want to be Republican. The Democratic party is for all those welfare moms.

But the GOP has been shifting beneath everyones' feet in the last several decades. If any of them have bothered to look, they will find that their party is now a big government party, a deficit party, a war-mongering party. (The old Repub thinking was that it was the Democrats who always started the wars and spent a lot of money. That's what my grandpa always said, who was a WWI vet and anti-FDR. True or not that was the accepted wisdom.)

The best thing now would be that many GOP voters take a hard look at their party and change their thinking, and realize that the Democrats stand for what they stand for, and that it best represents the American way.

[TayTay]

16. And yet another thing to read (It's short)

Interesting new polling on the nation's view of Bush and the Repub Congress. Hmmmmmm. 45% are 'done with Bush.'

Dems are underperforming on picking up support for Congressional cnadidates. Hmmmmmm.

Tea LEaves anyone?

[ginnyinWI]

17. only 45%?

Is that among Repubs or the general voter population?

[TayTay]

18. General voters

But that's amazing. That is the percentage of people who have made up their minds that they are just done with Bush and nothing he says from here on out matters. Wow! He has really pissed off the country. That is an amazing number for a sitting PResident.

[karynnj]

20. In DU mode: We need an alternative agenda, why are none of

our leaders speaking out. Why don't we have a Democratic leader speaking out on several of the major issues - both identifying brilliantly and consisely what is wrong and promoting a vision for the future that "touches the country's soul" (something a visionary, poetic very tall leader might say) as well as suggest real practical solutions? <back to half way sane>

Seriously, I do think the problem is that the actual events and people's legitimate rage are what has eroded Bush's popularity. It was not just Kerry who was smeared last year, it was the whole Democratic party. Many people have lost faith in government, just as they are discovering they need it. After Iraq went back, many people who voted for Bush were in denial that he was not trustworthy, now they are angry - they were betrayed. Rebuilding that trust won't be easy.

People are not actively looking for alternatives to Bush, partially because of the chaos and partially because there's no election. While calling and canvasing in NJ, I'm shocked how often people are rejecting the 4 issues we list asking which is most important to say "corruption". (In NJ, this doesn't always mean Bush - our former Governor attempted to hire his male lover as security head (his qualification was he was Israeli) and had many "pay to play" conficts - and used his sexual prefernce as the reason he resigned in a very well written emotional speech - but it was corruption, not gayness that forced him out). Many people are fed up with all politicians.

But at different points, people will be looking for a way out - and we need to be out there with concrete alternatives. Some people are probably already looking, others will be in the angry or cynical period longer. Also, for those who really identified with Bush/Republicans, they need two processes - leave Bush, accept someone else. (who might be a Republican).

Meanwhile, our left wing probably answer the question of opinion of Democrats in Congress negatively, if their actions here are a guide. Not realizing that if they all magically turned positive, this shift might shift some basically liberal columnists to limit the snarkiness they write about Democrats, which could sift the independents. (Even if they are 5 % of the population, this would seem a nice shift if they went form no to yes.)

[TheDonkey]

21. The very sad truth

The left needs moderates. Rather than talking in shrill language and being anti-DLC blah blah blah it would be good if we reached out. They need us, we need them or else we end up with the right wing zealots.