If we focus on just one goal, can we effect change?

[Klukie]

Do you think if we started a campaign for one issue and one issue only that we would have the ability to force change? Something truly from the people...no agendas. Recently a rally was held by John Stewart and the origin of that rally began with requests from the people that a rally be held to counter act the Glenn Beck Rally. The crowd was 200,000 plus and that was for no particular issue. Imagine if we could rally the support of someone with that much clout to get behind just one particular issue..like campaign finance reform or something that is completely broken in our system. What tools do the people have that could really effect change?

[CTyankee]

1. Perhaps when the country is really on its ass the way it was during the Great Depression

we'll get another FDR willing to fight like hell to get change and the people will be so down and out that there will be nothing left to do but to fight...

I dunno. I'm depressed about the political situation here more than I've ever been. It seems like those of us on the Left have tried to persuade with reason but so many of the electorate just votes for ideas that are not in their own best interest...I can't figure it out. Nothing we do seems to really help this situation. Yes, we had all those new, energized voters in 2008 but they just evaporated as voters last Tuesday. Why can't we sustain our momentum? Why can't we do anything?

[Klukie]

2. I think we can't do anything because we try to do it all at once...

One issue...one issue worth fighting for and hammer the shit out of it. I really think it could work, but we need someone with vocal passion and the ability to get a message heard to rally behind....someone with some clout.

[sabrina 1]

4. I think you're right. There is so much to be upset about and the left

is not organized the way the right is.

Focusing in on a few issues, with people assigned to each of them, IS a good idea.

Eg, we must do something about the media. The lack of a free press caused many of the problems we now have.

First allowing just a few Corporations to buy up all the media, should be prohibited. I think it used to be.

We the people need lobbyists in DC. And if we did choose a few issues, issues that effect everything else, that would definitely work. But it requires organization and some funding.

[CTyankee]

8. I'm thinking that's hopeless. We had poll after poll tell us during thehealth care debate

that people overwhelmingly favored Medicare for all. And what happened? Remember how we were all so excited when that happened? We said "the people are on our side after all, see!" That idea was killed, with a stake driven into its heart. And the people who had said they were for it are now AGAINST it because it would be "big government"? Wow, what a conversion! I'm sick and tired of the stupidity...as long as we're mindless bots just farting around cluelessly as a people we aren't going anywhere but down...it's depressing as hell...

[Klukie]

9. What happened was that we had ELECTED politicians who

made deals that went against what the people wanted. The stake was driven by many politicians and the people became confused by all of the disinformation.

[CTyankee]

11. Yes, and that's what has defeated us. Whether we lost to "disinformation" or not,

we lost the "hearts and minds" because that's what people vote. They make a bid on their future every time they vote. It's a trust issue. They didn't trust us. I'm tired of asking why...why are they so misinformed, why are they so stupid, why why why...enough!

Sorry...I am in post-election grief process right now and I think "anger" is my level...I mean no animosity to any good soul here on DU...

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. I'll explain this to you

and it is not something people in leadership want to hear.

The electorate is a box of rocks.

They WILL respond to fear messages like these ones:

Republicans want you to die.

In fact, the Rs used that message during the health care "debate."

Democrats want to kill grandma. Democrats will run Death Panels, remember those?

That is what this box of rocks responds to. And as long as democrats appeal to reason... it ain't gonna change. Lattes and college degrees ain't gonna work with the electorate, and we've gotta figure out group dynamics FAST

So ready to put some bumper stickers?

Republicans LOVE corporations.

Republicans want YOU to die

Republicans hate Social Security

Republicans will privatize Medicare.

Republicans hate the middle class

Republicans are in bed with the Banks.

But this would be unseemly to the "leaders" in DC. I mean this is about framing, Lakoff has been at this for years, but he is just a kookie professor, never mind Luntz does this EVERY fucking day.

[CTyankee]

15. Ya know what, YOU ARE RIGHT! We are so screwed...and we don't even know it!

That's why I said we'd have to be flat on our asses before we did anything, because there was no place to go BUT to fight...now I'm wondering if people will even do THAT.

Lakoff had this lovely idea and liberals loved it. I worked with people who loved it. All liberals at a nonprofit where we placated ourselves with Lakoff's soothing words about "framing."

forget it. They ain't buying it. We get screwed again and again and we come up scratching our heads and wondering why. I'll tell you why. Just as you said, they got Luntz doing this every effn day and we got fuzzy headed Lakoff, making us feel better about our sorry asses...

Excuse me, but we're stuck in second gear and I really don't know when we're getting out of it...

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Actually lakoff has said we need to do this

Frames is exactly this. And Lakoff has been marginalized and ignored by the elite that finds this ahem not what gentle people do. Lakoff told them essentially go to war, and they said SHUT OFF! More cookies? Some coffee? Kumbaya?

Oh and we need to respect the voter... Really.

If you are gonna blame somebody blame DC.

[CTyankee]

19. True, Lakoff did say we needed to do more than just frame. But the nonprofit I worked for

assumed it was already doing it (and they were right in that belief), but that "framing" was the big problem. So we "frame" away, from our position in a low crouch.

I'm not letting D.C. off the hook. But "voices crying in the wilderness" somehow find themselves out of office either pretty fast or eventually (see Russ Feingold). "Go along to get along" seems to be the slogan...it's true in most work places and it's true in D.C., sad to say.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Not quite, he said the democrats needed to start

framing, and to go to war. Stop the nuance, essentially... Oh SHUT UP, we don't do that... we respect the electorate...

The problem with the democrats is that they don't even want to frame.

The republicans use reptile brain frames, messages, whatever you want to call them.

We use Nuance.

Well, nuance don't work with the electorate, fear does.

You want to feel better? This is not the US electorate, it is group dynamics... but until the leadership in DC figures this out...

Me will look at actually producing some of those bumper stickers. I am willing to go to war.

Sadly I don't 'xpect leadership to do this. They are still trying to invite the other side to crumpets and tea, while the other side has declared open warfare. I am sorry but you do not do tea and behave like civilized when the other side is shooting at you... tea don't go well with a flying wall of lead... it just helps to EMPHASIZE the frame that Democrats are wimps.

And you know what? THEY ARE.

[CTyankee]

23. That's good! I'm seeing a Conservative on Wednesday at a meeting.

I'm thinking of telling her what I think of her reptile brain. I'll let you know how that goes...

[MineralMan]

3. Depends on who you mean by "we."

And it depends on the action that "we" carries out. For the most part, a single demonstration has little effect on national politics, no matter how many people show up for it. 200,000 is about .06% of the population. That's 6/100 of 1 percent. Not a very impressive number, when you consider the entire country, I'm afraid.

Now, if that many people keep showing up over and over again, over the same issue, and more groups supporting that issue start showing up in every major city, then it might have an impact.

Elections, however, have a much larger impact. If we can turn out a majority of, say 60% of voters, then we can change everything. Now, that's something that can definitely be done, but we sure didn't do it this year. People stayed home in numbers too large to ignore, and the House ended up in Republican hands. Apparently more people turned out in support of them in a number of places. They had an impact.

In this country, only voting has that kind of impact. And that's where our energies should be aimed. At the elections. Can we do that? I think we can, if we really decide to do that. If we don't, though, we won't change anything.

[Klukie]

5. Elections are not enough....

because the system is broken. We are using a broken system that is bought and paid for to put people in place that may or may not have the intentions of the voters at heart. The people are not driving the legislation and we need to find some way to make that happen. If we start with an issue that most Americans can get behind such as campaign finance reform and we are relentless in our demand for action, maybe we will get some.

[sabrina 1]

7. Exactly, well said!

[sabrina 1]

6. Elections matter, but when the choices are 'evil' and 'lesser evil'

and the people generally feel they are not being represented, then something else is needed.

The Big Corps don't just let elections happen, they pay for them. They have armies of lobbyists in DC influencing OUR Representatives. WE don't get to choose who runs for office, money does that.

So, clearly to just sit back and say 'let's all hold our noses and vote' is not the answer now that we know what goes on in DC.

A completely free and professional News Media would go a long way to educating people and producing MORE and more informed voters.

Until we have that, things will go on as they are. The reason people don't vote in such large numbers is because they have been turned off the process, believing that it doesn't matter who wins, no one in DC cares about them anyhow.

I agree about getting more people to vote. But with the willingness to accept the 'lesser evil' strategy, more voters will still result in the status quo. The whole system needs changing. Money needs to be taken out of the process but that won't happen as long as the media is owned by big Business.

Local level politics can create a base of good candidates. But when they get to DC they need millions to run again. So in the end, we only get candidates who have lots of money, a carpenter or fireman will never make to elected office in the current climate, unless they are to compromise some of their principles.

[CTyankee]

10. Who is "we"? Let me ask you something: have you ever tried to argue with

a reasonably well educated conservative? Or someone who characterizes themselves as a "conservative Democrat"? Well, I have. And I got nowhere. Every time. Even when they "agreed" with me on the facts, they would not budge on their position or on who was going to get their vote. Look, not everybody who showed up at the polls to vote last Tuesday were Tea Partiers. In fact, I don't think there ARE that many REAL tea partiers. But they got people -- just ordinary Americans -- to see it their way in this election and that's what counted. We didn't, simple fact.

We are going nowhere with our message to the "people." All our clever bumper sticker ideas, all of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's satire and brilliant comedy, all our impassioned arguments invoking FDR -- and we're still whacked on election day. AFAIC, we lost our really meaningful battle the day the public option on health care reform died in the Senate -- it was our "wedge" to prove that government can work, which is really our core issue, and we lost it long before last Tuesday. The day it went down and we got the watered down bill that was so easily attacked and vilified, that's the day we lost.

[sabrina 1]

12. I definitely agree with this:

AFAIC, we lost our really meaningful battle the day the public option on health care reform died in the Senate -- it was our "wedge" to prove that government can work, which is really our core issue, and we lost it long before last Tuesday. The day it went down and we got the watered down bill that was so easily attacked and vilified, that's the day we lost.

The support for that was huge among the American people, it crossed all party lines. It was madness to not take advantage of that support.

Another issue that incensed people was the Henry Paulson arrival in Congress, looking like a desperate, spoiled child, who had screwed things up so bad, they had to run to the tax-payers to help them save their toys.

Instantly, the people were infuriated, again, across party lines. Congress did get the message and voted against the bailouts.

But once again, what the people wanted, was completely ignored. Congress was threatened with visions of Martial Law if they did not return and vote 'yes'.

You know what? If things were that bad, then the banks should have been nationalized, saved but the perpetrators fired and prosecutors where necessary. The truth should have been told to the American people about what they had done, and what Democrats were doing to try to rescue the country from their corruption.

That would have made heroes out of Dems and made it impossible to forget who got us into the mess, at least for the past eight years.

But again, Dems appear to want to commit political suicide by cowering before King Henry and Repubs, who no doubt wanted the bailouts for their buddies, got to stand back and do nothing and let Dems take the blame. If Dems had said 'no' and we're going to nationalize the banks, the country has been brought to the brink of collapse by Wall St and the Bush admin, Republicans WOULD have been the ones screaming to give Henry what he wanted.

But yes, health care was a disastrous mess, and now the Repubs who probably love it anyhow, will use it against Obama, but never really do anything about it except for the good parts.

[CTyankee]

13. Our problem is not how to change the minds of the actual voters but to get our voters out to vote.

We are not changing the minds of the voters. When are we going to wake up to that fact? We are NOT changing minds! Either we have a weak argument or the other side has a better argument. So which is it? I see post after post here on DU laughing at conservatives beliefs. I laugh at them too. But here we go. We get all upset when we lose because we can't understand why they are accepted by the voters. We seem to be in a national electorate psychosis, believing one thing when the reality is something else. And I am one liberal who is at a loss to understand why we can't counteract this psychosis. Telling crazy people they are crazy doesn't work. Well, does it? Really? So, please, tell me what we are to do. I don't have any answers at this point, I admit...

[bobbolink]

17. Let me guess.... there is ZERO chance that one issue would be poor folk, right?

Once again, thrown under the bus, right?

What would it take for us to be a priority for you?

[donco6]

18. Well, it's sure not gonna be gay people.

But yeah, you and me are both on the cutting room floor with this idea.

[CTyankee]

20. Here's the problem as I see it: Nobody wants to be thought of as "poor" in this country.

So there is no sympathy, and often real hatred, toward the poor. If they're black or undocumented, all the worse. Someone once said "It's a crime to be poor in America," and he wasn't being snarky to the poor, he was being realistic.

But here's what's interesting: more and more "middle" class people are falling into poverty. Particularly what we used to call "working class" folks. At one time unions were the firewall that kept the workers from utter servitude and dismal poverty. The Right realized this and launched furious attacks on unions, largely successful. Now nothing stands between the working poor and the abject poor. When many, many more people become part of the "poor" will they then wake up and make common cause with the poorer people they once despised and force change? That's the question, IMO...

[bobbolink]

21. We are fully aware that we are demonized. What are "progressives" doing to change that?

ALL the media is full of stories about the middleclass and its woes. I just don't understand why that is continually repeated is, as if it is something we are not aware of, and more so, that *I* am not aware of.

The question remains... what are all of you going to start doing about it?

Apparently, from what you are saying, the answer is, "Nothing." You are content to wait for more suffering and more deaths.

How very........"progressive".

[CTyankee]

24. Hey, don't aim at me, I'm on your side!

I've worked all my professional life for nonprofits whose heart and soul have been concentrated on relieving the suffering and death to which you refer. It's not enough, but it's not nothing. I vote for change and volunteer for candidates who will bring that change.

Hope you understand that I was just a messenger here...don't shoot me...