Read Josh Marshall, talkingpointsmemo.com on the Democrats' problem...

[flpoljunkie]

I think he hits the nail on the head...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_04_17.php#005458

For starters, you may have seen this AP story that ran over the weekend, which read: "House Democrats have decided to quit emphasizing that they will not negotiate changes to Social Security until President Bush drops his idea for private accounts. The switch in strategy comes after Democrats learned from focus groups that people frown on the lawmakers for being obstinate."

Where to start?

The problem Democrats have is not bad tactics or bad strategies or poor framing. The problem is an over-reliance, even an addiction, to tactics and strategies.

For years I've argued that the Democrats' problem on national security issues is not so much that they aren't 'tough enough' or that they lack new ideas. The problem is a now-deeply-ingrained habit of approaching national security issues not so much as policy questions to be wrestled with but as a political problem to be dealt with and moved on from.

That has a host of damaging consequences, the most serious of which is that if you chart your policy course so as to avoid political damage, always casting about for the sweet spot of political safety, you tend to lack any greater programmatic consistency. And that tells voters (as it probably should) that you’re inconstant and unserious. It also muddles effective communication by confusing the communicators themselves about just what it is they are trying to say or accomplish.

What the last year has taught me -- both in good ways and bad -- is that this malady isn't limited to the national security domain but applies to Democrats pretty much across the board.

more...

[radwriter0555]

1. Honey, we're battling the new americanazis. There is little to nothing you

can do, no strategies, no talking points, no memos that can bring about a safe and peaceful resolution to the thugs and criminals who've hijacked our white house.

The ONLY solution is to NOT run any more democratic candidates in any national race.

Let them hang themselves.

[mattclearing]

3. Sounds like you've already hung yourself. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

4. Who you calling "Honey?" Your answer is not serious. Solution is to run

"real" Democrats who stand up for economic justice and do not sell out to the special interests, i.e., banks and credit card companies.

[radwriter0555]

6. The Democrats ran Senator John Kerry, and there isn't a man in office with

a better record of serving his nation and his constituency, in the entire USA... He ran a good campaign and was simply eviscerated by the thugs in the white house with a brilliant and well funded plan of lies, corruption and personal destruction.

John Kerry is a freaking BOY SCOUT, he was the virgin at the foot of the cross, a man with an un-impunable record running with John Edwards who practically has a HALO on his head, and yet, the nazis in the white house STILL managed to make you and everyone else believe they're satan incarnate.

You can't beat these people.

I'm saying the only way to win is to withdraw from the game and let them hang themselves. It will happen a lot quicker that way and with less bloodletting.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dave Sund]

11. Kerry ran away from himself...

"I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Kerry ran a poor campaign with equivocations abound. And they jumped on it. I respect John Kerry greatly, and I badly wanted him to win. But he fell into exactly the trap Josh is talking about here.

Your other contention, that the only way to beat them is to let them win, is outrageous. Have you known any one-party state to just self destruct?

[radwriter0555]

19. I LOVE how you repeat the lies of the GOP. Thanks for making my

point!

[flpoljunkie]

13. What do you mean "manage to make you & everyone believe JK was Satan?"

Speak for yourself.

I think you can "beat these people" if you stand for something--something the Democrats have failed to do. The "thing to stand for" is economic justice.

If the Democrats cannot do this, and continue to fail to distinguish themselves from the Rethugs, I agree. We are screwed!

[radwriter0555]

20. See post #19 and learn how to think for yourself instead of repeating the

GOP nazi talking points, okay?

You're doing the propoganda for them. Congratulations.

[flpoljunkie]

22. Giving up is not an option. Dems will win when they act like Dems.

Have no idea what you are referring to with the phrase "GOP nazi talking points."

I posted this article to stimulate discussion and because I agree with his central points about Democrats' failures. I also appreciate the fact that Marshall sponsored the bankruptcy blog that was linked on his website, and which, by the way, will continue it's work to fight for the middle class, led by Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren.

[KharmaTrain]

17. OK Square This One...

One I'm currently having a problem with...

Our congressperson...a woman I worked for, donated money and all but adopted into my family, vote in favor of the bankruptcy bill. Unfortunately she didn't bother to let anyone know in advance and just cast the vote and ran into the night. Very disturbing.

Now here's the rub. I can go on for hours of my loathing of banks and credit card companies...the games they play and how evil this bill is to the most vulnerable...but I also know why she voted the way she did. Again, just looking objectively here and still sorting it out in my own mind...

She knows that she's on the GOOP radar next year. We took the district from a lame incumbent and now this district is on the priority list for 2006...this is the first time they've lost this area in over 50 years. The challengers and money are starting to flow in already and it's going to cost more money to hold the seat than it was to take it. Reality sucks. The biggest contributors to her campaign were banks and donors with banking interests. Sadly, these are the folks who can cut the $2,000 checks and not blink and do so with regularity. A no vote could mean a loss of critical dollars that could buy TV commercials or another thousand yard signs next year.

Again...I'm evaluating here and just curious how you'd react.

[flpoljunkie]

21. How I would react? By no longer supporting Jim Davis for FL Governor.

Voting for the bankruptcy bill is a compromise too far for me. I say let those who voted for this bill rely totally on the banks and credit card companies for their campaign contributions and campaign workers.

If Democrats cannot stand up for economic justice, they do not deserve to call themselves Democrats.

[KharmaTrain]

24. So You'd Let This Seat Go To A Repugnican?

BTW...this isn't Florida, it's Illinois.

So on principal, I should not vote for this person when she runs for re-election next year since I so strongly oppose this legislation. Now she's on record as being against the invasion (a major issue for me), against any screwing with SSI (another biggie) and for increased health care and education funding for the area. Now should I sit on my hands or work for another candidate because of this?

Again, I'm just curious how others would react.

[flpoljunkie]

25. No, I would not.

You need to write to your representative and let her know how disappointed you are in her vote for the bankruptcy bill, and that you are counting on the Democrats to bring legislation to the floor to try to ameliorate its worst aspects.

[mattclearing]

2. This is inarguably true.

So many times I've seen the Democratic leadership take the path of least resistance over the path of righteousness, from the Iraq War to anything involving corporate governance, to Bush's nominees.

You shouldn't have to beg the Democratic Party to not be Republicans, but there is a severe lack of adherence to principles.

Republicans try to paint Democrats as wishy-washy on principle, and it's not a hard sell.

[Larkspur]

5. Marshall is right about Dem's addiction to tactics and strategies

By relying overtly on tactics and strategies, Democrats may win some battles but they are losing the War. The War in this nation is between conflicting ideologies and beliefs -- Radical Right + Conservatives vs Progressives + Moderates + Democrats.

The purpose of Lakoff's reframing theory is that Democrats and Progressives communicate consistantly and assertively their core beliefs through their a Democratic or Progressive viewpoint -- Nurturing Parent allegory for Dems and Progressives vs Strict (or Abusive) Father allegory for conservatives and Republicans. Lakoff's reframing theory isn't just about rewording Democratic slogans, but rethinking what our core beliefs are and then assertively promoting them in a consistant manner.

[earthside]

7. It's Just So True ...

I saw that article this weekend, too. Was I surprised. No.

The Wasington, D.C., inside the beltway, elite Democrats are only slightly less bought-off by corporate PAC campaign contributions than the Republicans. This has had the effect of making them almost completely afraid of taking any political risks.

The Democrats may have great ideals and principles on paper, in their platform, but when it comes time to vote, they make sure that the corporations get what they want. The bankruptcy bill is a perfect example. The only thing keeping the Democratic Party alive today is their attachment to the grassroots revulsion at the Bushites and the radical Christian clerics.

One of these days, the elitist Democrats like the DLC, and Congressional leadership are going to finally slip and let the cat out of the bag. It may be on Social Security. If they start acting on the results of these focus groups and begin saying that they will negotiate, they will compromise, they will meet Bush half way -- then Bush will win, again, and the Democrats and the people will lose, again.

Perhaps then (if it's not too late and the country is totally gone), progressives and liberals will demand complete reform of the Democratic Party or join the Greens or start a new, invigorated party to take back America.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flpoljunkie]

15. Perhaps the term "purist" refers to the likes of someone like Ralph Nader.

[flpoljunkie]

16. His central and important point is the Dems spinelessness and timidity.

"That has a host of damaging consequences, the most serious of which is that if you chart your policy course so as to avoid political damage, always casting about for the sweet spot of political safety, you tend to lack any greater programmatic consistency. And that tells voters (as it probably should) that you’re inconstant and unserious. It also muddles effective communication by confusing the communicators themselves about just what it is they are trying to say or accomplish."

____________

I think we can all agree on this point--that the Democrats need to stand and to stand up for something--for me, that is economic justice.

This cannot be said too much.

[Boo Boo]

9. Josh, Josh, Josh...

The problem is not that one will lack "programmatic consistency," the problem is that people will think that you are a

Bullshitting Weasel !!!

[Stevepol]

10. The only problem the Dems have is the voting machines.

Count the votes fairly and the Dems will almost every election, especially now.

[flpoljunkie]

23. Not the only problem, but without election reform, we are screwed in '06.

[kodi]

12. funny words,"programmatic consistency." how about using "principles lived"

in general, the democrats do not raise enough hell when it comes to defending their positions.

its like monty hall bit them in the neck and they all want to make a deal.

those who don't, like howard dean or dennis kucinich are marginalized by the media and opinion makers.

[flpoljunkie]

14. Absolutely. We have not seen a united front except for Social Security.

And perhaps the "nuclear option."

That ain't gonna cut it. The Democrats need to decide if they are the party of the people or like the Rethugs-- the party of the special interests, i.e., banks and credit card companies.

Will there be any attempt to amend the oone-sided bankruptcy bill and will it be successful. The Democrats need to know that this vote was not a free vote, and that we are watching them and expect a whole lot more from them.

[meg]

18. Thanks for the info

I don't like to visit Josh's website - too full of himself and too male-identified. But, he does have something interesting to say on occasion.