Demo strategy in the coming boom? Tell truths we ignored in the 90's.

[Armstead]

Let's face it. The Democratic strategy of counting on a bad economy is doomed to failure in 04. The perception of a new boom, fueled by the GOP and the ho media, will take hold as long as the numbers improve and things do get better in terms of GDP, number of jobs created, etc.

Therefore, the core of the standard Democratic message will be gone. Bush will not even have to say anything to counter the usual centrist Democrat charges, except to say: "Oh yeah? Just look at the numbers."

So what can the Democrats do? Start planning for 08 instead, and hope we survive that long?

IMO what is the best shot -- both politically and in the best interests of the nation -- is to start telling the truths that Democrats avoided admitting during the boom of the 1990's.

Or, to paraphrase James Carville, "It's STILL the economy stupid. " But this time we have to make it real. And start telling the truth. It's not the mere fact of growth and jobs. It's the nature of that growth and the kind of jobs. And, more fundamentally, whether we want to live in a Corporate State or a Democracy.

That means addressing the real issues that have been festering and building since the 1970's. The increasing concentration of wealth and power and monopoly capital. The theft of democracy by corporations. The erosion of the position of the middle and working classes. The failure of Corporate Free Trade policies. The perils of deregulation and privatization. The scandal of private healthcare. The concentration of media.

This will be criticized by the Democrat Centrists, the GOP and the Corporate media as becoming "too left" and as a "negative" measage. The Corporate Democrats will say it is a return to the failed strategies of the past, and bring up McGovern. Blah, blah,blah.

But IMO that is the only political and economic message the Democrats will have next year. It's also the sorry truth, as it was in the 90's.

That doen't mean bashing business or capitalism. In fact, much of what has happened has been bad for real free enterprise, bad for many businesses who are not "in the club" and is a distorted form of capitalism.

It also can be a positive message, if an honest critique is paired with real answers and solutions. That can be very hopeful and uplifting. REegan did it in the opposite direction in the 80's. He criticized, but he also offered a different vision. And he turned the tide in their favor.

What do you think?

[BJ]

1. Why don't you ask the Louisville, Ky Pepisco workers?

Frito-Lay is closing its Louisville potato- and corn-chip plant as part of a nationwide cost-cutting strategy that will cost 326 local employees their jobs.

Frito-Lay, a unit of PepsiCo, said it plans to close the plant Jan. 7. PepsiCo announced the move as part of an effort to streamline its operations and cut 750 jobs.

Employees at the 41-year-old southwest Louisville plant, one of the company's oldest, were given a paid day off yesterday after being informed of the decision. They will return to work today.

While many employees quietly streamed to their cars after hearing the news, others gathered in small groups of emotion-filled conversations, exchanging occasional wisecracks of "Merry Christmas."
(-snip-)
Link to Louisville Courier-Journal

Bush's economy's looking bright for them!

[Armstead]

6. That was going on in the 90's too

Those kind of things rae not new. Throughoput the 80's and 90's similar things were happening in communities across the countries.

But the media soma that caused that to be ignored was dispensed by Democrats as much as by Republicans. This is a bi-partisan mess we're in.

Democrats ought to becoem part of the solution, instead of being part of the problem by enabling and supporting the GOP corporate message.

[BJ]

12. I can't disagree with you there.

Since the Seventies, maybe even before, many Democratic politicians have become the handmaidens of big business as much as the Repugs, a certain senator from Connecticut who's running for president for example.

As I see it, both big business and big labor (and this is hard for me to admit something such as this as I'm a union man) have been in the business of propping up what I call "buggy-whip industries."

Other than the home computer, that we're all communicating on at this minute, has there really been any great technological advance that's fundamentally altered our daily lives? Oh, sure you can point to cell phones and so on but those are only new applications of existing technology.

[La_Serpiente]

2. Ahhh

we should say what NOT has been told yet. These meager spouts in job growth is pathetic in relation to the last few years.

Also, we have the emphasize the debt and what will happen to the social programs. Gore had a booming economy and still had a hard time campaigning. We can talk about Health Care costs as well.

[Armstead]

4. A lot hasn't been told

That's the problem. Say we recover the 3 million (?) lost jobs. Won't do much good if they are all McJobs, or good jobs at crappy wages.

Love your Jow bumper sticker by the way.

[La_Serpiente]

8. thankz for the

praise about the sig line :-)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

3. Good, except for one thing

The Democratic party IS the Corporate Party, and IS the American Imperialism party, and always has been. I agree it could be a good campaign, and a winning one, except that the Democrats SUPPORT privatization, deregulation, and the growing chasm between the rich and the poor.

[Armstead]

5. The upper echlons do but...

the rank and file do not support those things. (Although the imperialism part is a little more complicated).

Without the grassroots, the upper echlon will lose their cushy positions. So even in their own self-interests they would at least go along with something that is more actively progressive than what we've had for 15 years.

[NewGuy]

15. A very good point...

and if Soros and a few others in A.C.T. are allowed to take over the party this will be even more true. We will have sold out completely to big business and the billionaires.


:(

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. I agree

There's a widespread dissatisfaction with the way the economy works these days, even if it's in the form of a vague unease, rather than a clearly articulated critique of economic policy.

Even the elderly Republican activist ladies in my former apartment building were disgusted with the way their favorite department store had changed after being bought out by a conglomerate.

With the Republicans writing their messages in block letters with gaudy crayons, it will be hard to get complex economic messages across, but the electorate would be receptive if someone could state the structural problems in easily understood terms (without coming across like Professor Gore or Professor Kerry--and I say this being a former college professor) and propose practical solutions.

[Armstead]

9. "Special interests"

The GOP pollster Frank Luntz actually mader a good point in Hardball the otehr day, noting the reaction to the phrase "special interests" by a group of people who viewed the debate.

I think something like "It's the Special Interests, Stupid" sums it up pretty well...Of course, the GOp uses that phrase to tag people like unions and teachers. But I think it's a good key message if we turn it around on them and identify it as economic special interests,like big corps and the wealthy elite.

[reachout]

10. Long-trem Strategy

I think the problem lies in long-term versus short-term strategy. I see so many people (here and in real life) who seem to be pinning all their hopes on the 04 presidential election. Anyone who fails to recognize that a sitting president with the biggest reelection fund in history has a better-than-average chance of winning is engaging in magical thinking.

Certainly this election needs to be worked on, and worked on hard, but I forsee a lot of people just throwing up their hands if Bush wins next November. We (left, progressive, centerist, whatever) need to work on the long-term goal of redfining the national dialogue. Conservatives spent decades doing just that and they are now reaping the rewards.

As long as we think of politics only in term of defeat or victory in a particular election, we are doomed to failure. The right has a cohesive long-term strategy.

[Armstead]

30. I agree

IMO 2004 is going to be a gamble, whatever approach is taken. Maybe there'll be enough discontent with GW that a cautious centrist approach could eke out victory...Or maybe it will just cause peope to choose GW because all they see in the Dems is a pale imitation.

Likewise, a strong and honest populist liberal message could beat Bush...But it could also backfire.

But since it's a gamble, I agree that we should see it in the long-term. Even if the US isn't ready for a clear alternative to Corporate Politics in 2004, eventually they will be, and Democrats can build on that so they are in a possition to win when in the long run.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. What "coming boom" are you talking about? Have you been drinking...

...the NeoCon Koolaid?

Look around you...do you see ANY sign of a "coming boom" anywhere?? Where are the jobs they claim are being created? Why are certain retail chains starting to close stores due to disappointing sales? Why isn't the stock market jumping out through the roof?

[Armstead]

18. I haven' been drinking thge Koolaid, but a lot of people have

and that's my point. The Democrats have to stop drinking the Kool Aid too -- regardless of whether it's a "Clinton boom" or a Bush boom" in terms of public perception.

It doesn't matter what the reality on the ground is, if the media and the GOp spinmeisters keep hammering away at how striong the "recovery" is, enough people will believe it to re-elect Bush.

It's not that different than the 90's, when the "indicators" showed growth and prosperity, but underlyiung forces were eating away at the real economy and the quality of life.

[RichM]

13. Try to imagine what would happen if the Democrats even tried to

address one of the core issues you mentioned - say, "increasing concentration of wealth and power and monopoly capital," or of the media. They would immediately be tagged as being "commies." Their corporate sponsors would shriek in horror & instantly vanish, & they would be crushed again.

Very understandably, you would like to see the Democratic Party talk, think & act like Bernie & Dennis. You want it to truly be the "party of the people." But it can never be that. It is a historical entity whose roots & relationships are fundamentally opposed to that kind of role. Aside from the New Deal era -- which was a special case most properly understood as a period of reform needed to rescue capitalism from itself -- the Democratic Party is simply the more timid & less aggressive faction of "The American Big Business Party." It is not going to stop being that.

It would be great to have a party consisting of all Bernies and Dennises. But the Democrats are not capable of being that party. In fact, they would far sooner act to destroy the Bernies & Dennises, should the latter ever miraculously threaten to assume real influence.

[Armstead]

19. Um, Howard Dean

I hate to mention him, because I'm trying to keep on reality and avoid a "candidate boosting or bashing" thread. Also, I know all of the realisties about Dean, about how he is a centrist in populists clothing, etc.

But IMO he is at least moving in the direction of challenging the entrenched interests in his message. In terms of substance he isn't Dennis the K, but at least he's pushing things more in that direction.

As to your larger point about the Democrats historic role, it's what we've differed on before. It's the 1/2 a loaf theory, I guess. I don't want to see totally unchallenged Republican Hegemony become the status quo. That's a real formula for disaster. (And it will lead to 1984, not to any great revolution.)

I don't see any Socialisty Utopia Party becming strong enough to make any difference within my lifetime, if ever. So I believe we at least should have one party that tends to also stand for fairness within the existing system.

Also, the Democratic Party is ultimately accountable to people. And so it will less of a Big Biz Party,if those with different interests assert themselves.

[CWebster]

21. We can at least shoot for purgatory

Instead of accepting hell.

:hi:

[Armstead]

29. Intersting way of putting it

and probably quite accurate.

[rucky]

14. Distribution of wealth

the top 10% can turn on and off the faucet any time they want.

This should be our issue.

[NewGuy]

27. How will we make that our issue...

when the (soft) money to fund the campaigns is going to come from a small group of very wealthy individuals? Between A.C.T. which is, right now at least, a wholly owned subsidiary of two wealthy financiers and the money that MoveOn.org and others are trying to raise from wealthy donors the wealthy will own the party. Do you think they will contribute to a party that openly advocates the redistribution of wealth from them to me and you.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul will usually get you Paul's support but it will very rarely get you Peter's. My guess would be that Peter will balk at funding an ad campaign for such a plan.

[Armstead]

31. Need to wean ourselves

We have to get away from relying so totally on the wealthy, but in the meantime, it's also possible to use that.

Not all of the wealthy are against positive change. They know the score, and they have a sense of fair play. And some of them realize that their own wealth becomes meaningless past a certain point. So the money they provide does not have to have strings attached.

[HFishbine]

16. Agreed, but...

We need to find a way to put things into terms that ressonate on a personal level. When one talks of fighting crime, whether the solution is more prisons or midnight basketball, one doesn't have to explain the importance of the issue. People know right away: "I don't want my car stolen. I don't want to get mugged." The consequences of crime are understood. One could stand in front of Wal-Mart and hand out a flyer for a candidate and say, "Rankin for congreess. He wants to fight crime." Enough said. People don't wonder, is crime bad?

The same is not true for the problems you would like to rectify. Stand in front of Wal-Mart and try to pitch, "Rankin for congress. He wants to reduce the concentration of wealth and capital," and people will either blankly stare or suspect you're a communist. What's wrong with people being wealthy, they'll wonder.

The same goes for the deliterious effects of media conglomeration, the effects of free trade and the other issues you mention.

I understand your point, that if people understood just how these issues really affect them, they would be concerned and motivated. What we need is a way to make these issues ressonate with a word or a phrase.

[CWebster]

20. References to Enron and the corporate scandals

that never amounted to anything is something short and sweet and everyone knows what it represents and who suffered the losses.

[CWebster]

17. I think

you should forward your thoughts to the campaigns.

[kentuck]

22. Whatever positives we now see in this economy have been paid for...

with massive deficit spending. It is doomed to failure. Whatever upticks in the employment rate or GDP that we see will be short-lived. We have tried this "voodoo economics" before and it didn't work then either. It crashed during the Bush41 years. To still cling to the myth of Reaganomics is totally out of touch with reality. They have been forewarned.

[CWebster]

23. Sort of like the same deception

they mislead the nation to war in Iraq. The cold light of reality sort of makes it harder and harder to spin those numbers. Iraqis rejoicing in the streets equals prosperity right around the corner for American workers.

[Skittles]

24. hey Kentuck

I know what you say is true, but how long do you think this "short-lived uptick" will last ? It's obviously designed to fool the people - just like Reagan did - but how long will it last?

[kentuck]

26. Probably past the election but not beyond a second term....

God forbid! But Reagan was different from Bush. He saw the danger in the huge deficits and agreed to numerous tax increases, although his supporters would never admit that. I doubt that Dubya would ever bend with his stubborn faith in the "markets". The shit will have to hit the fan with full force before it will get his attention.

[RichM]

25. Reagonomics actually DOES work very well. This is because its real

purpose is simply to transfer wealth upwards -- not to "lift everyone's boat." The strategy is to loudly claim that everyone's boat will be lifted -- as a cynical ploy for gaining public acceptance. The overall reality is just as you say. But as a strategy for achieving the upwards transfer of wealth, Reagonomics is formidably effective.

[kentuck]

28. Yes, it succeeds at transferring the wealth....but it fails in other areas

It cannot keep the interest rates down, therefore it cannot keep the economy from slowing down, therefore it can't keep companies from laying off more workers, therefore it can't keep the deficits down because there has to be more spending on unemployment and social programs...It succeeds in the short-term but unless there is a new technology to revive the economy, as with the computer technology of the 90s,then we continue to sink until we are in a depression. That is the success of "Reaganomics". It worked the same way in the 1920's.