Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What Democrats can learn from what GOP does and bad advice they give

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 11:57 AM
Original message
What Democrats can learn from what GOP does and bad advice they give
Whenever someone says Democrats should learn a few things from how the GOP works, people howl that it would be dishonest, immoral, thuggish, fascist, and possibly accelerate global warming.

If we did EXACTLY what they do, that would be true. But if we even if we restrict ourselves from lying or personal attacks, we could borrow enough to win since we have better ideas.




Democrats fail to learn how to fight from GOP


While a lot of what the GOP is doing is illegal and immoral, there are a lot of valuable lessons our elected officials could easily be learning from them.

These fall into two broad categories, what the right does themselves and what they tell democrats NOT to do.

What they do themselves:


  • They treat communication as a primary tool, not an afterthought or a way to reward loyal flunkies with a job (that's what the GOP thinks FEMA is for. Unfortunately, I can't think of a job Democrats hold in an equal level of contempt).

  • they have a few simple, understandable talking points/ goals.

  • The goals are concrete enough that any idiot could see how they would be translated into actions.

  • there are coherent principles under their talking points:

    Business is good and needs to be unchained.

    In fact, you can tell what they care about by applying their own principles:


    If you love it, set it free. If you hate it, regulate it to death.

    If you love it, give it money
    (budget funding, tax breaks, subsidies, or contracts). If you hate it, starve it of money (Norquist's 'starve the beast').

    Therefore, they love oil companies and hate education. (but they don't ever say this)

  • they repeat them ad nauseum for DECADES until they become conventional wisdom.

    One of their biggest successes at this was the 'Social Security isn't going to be there when you retire' meme. They repeated this so often that people under 40 actually believe it, which is why the Bushies had some hope of passing their privatization scam. If they try it again after everyone old enough to remember the Great Depression is dead, they will succeed.


  • they actually work toward these as goals (with the glaring exception of balancing the budget)

  • they scream loudly when they suffer a setback on these goals.

  • They do not fear public, even emotional, conflict in pursuit of these goals.

    Conflict is what makes people pay attention and get emotionally involved.

    If you just say something nice in a nice way, you make about as much of an impression as that Hallmark birthday card your grandma sends you with calligraphy and a water color duck pond on the front--none.

    If the opposition starts to complain or criticize, that means you have done something right, not wrong.

  • They do not pre-compromise.

    They start with what they actually want and make the other side demand that they water it down. Then they compromise only grudgingly. Democrats often start with a compromise position and by the time negotiations are over, nothing is left.

  • They understand that EVERY vote communicates their values

    Even if you are going to lose, you should vote your core values. Even if the other side complains about it, they are doing you a favor by telling voters what you will fight for.

  • They figure out where their opposition is getting support and destroy that financial base.

    Grover Norquist has said this explicitly. Making lawsuits more difficult not only does business a direct, obvious favor, but it starves trials lawyers of funds and trial lawyers give money to democrats. Anti-labor laws and the complimentary DLC effort to shed union money from the Democrats has a similar effect; with that money gone, the Democrats either shrivel or turn to corporate donors who they then become beholden to.

    Democrats should do the same. An ethical way to do this is with public funding of campaigns, and requiring TV to carry a set number of campaign commercials for free in exchange for their broadcast licenses. This would choke corporate money out of the GOP, and leave them with just the religious right (who would actually agree with us on a lot of economic issues like trade).

    If there was a GOP equivalent of Bob Shrum who ran the kind of shitty, dickless, forgetable commercials and gave the advice to a Republican he gave to John Kerry, we would not know his name because he wouldn't have made it to the presidential level. He would be the janitor at GOP headquarters.

  • They energize their base.

    We saw this most clearly in Kerry v. Bush. Kerry was aiming for the middle, to pick up undecided votes, and Bush was aiming to excite his base to get them out to the polls. While Kerry may have won some the middle, his base went to the polls more to vote against Bush than for him. If he had a less obviously dangerous opponent like Papa Bush, the base would have stayed home.

    The GOP does this with hot button issues like abortion or gay marriage, and put them on the ballot when they want people to show up at the polls. The Democrats could easily find a couple of substantive issues to drive people to the polls too, like raising the minimum wage or anti-corruption initiatives.

    If there was a 'No More Dick Cheney/Halliburton style cronyism' propositon ont he ballot, I'm going to the polls, and I'd probably vote for the Democrat too, no matter how bland or weak-kneed.

  • they talk about morals

    It is immoral to let people die so drug companies and insurance companies can make greater profits.

    It is immoral that a smart kid takes ten years to get through college because he has to flip burgers full time to pay for it, or go to Iraq and get a leg blown off to qualify for government assistance to pay for school.

    It is immoral to invade other countries to give the oil to corporations as we did in Iraq, or try to over-throw fairly elected presidents to give the oil to corporations as we tried to do in Venezuela.

    It is immoral that corporations that send our jobs overseas often pay no taxes and get subsidies.

    It is immoral for elected officials to go to work for businesses they should have been policing when they were in office, or letting corporations pick the heads of the agencies that regulate them.

    It is immoral to take from the poor and middle class and give to the rich.


The other category where Democrats fail to learn from the GOP is the advice they give us, or at least Democrats learn the wrong lesson--they actually take it as sincere advice. We should do the opposite in nearly every case.

When they say:


  • 'Don't be seen as obstructionist,' we should be obstructionist. Think about it. You are out of power and don't control the media. If you do nothing, it sends the message that you agree with what's going on, or worse, that you don't even exist.

    If you consistently opposed the other side, even when that other side is popular, you have at least established a recognizable brand. People would know what you stand for and when they get sick of the party in power, they already know what you would do.

    The current 'rope a dope' strategy at best sends the message that Democrats would be less obviously corrupt. It also plays into the GOP meme that we are weak on defense. If you don't fight for your ideas, why should I believe you will fight for our safety?

    The GOP meme of the Dems being the 'mommy party' is largely reinforced, and the 'daddy party' is a nasty drunk and wife beater. If you run to mom for protection a couple of times and she just gets the belt for dad, you stop going to her and either kiss up to dad or just hide.

    That's why the right feared Howard Dean so much--he fought back and didn't look like a coward.

  • Don't engage in class warfare. Rush Limbaugh says this so loudly and at the slightest provocation that it should be a clue that it's an achilles heel for the right. Even Bush himself asked Cheney if they needed to give the rich ANOTHER tax cut.

    It is possible to say the right is pandering to the rich without being anti-wealth and success. We are simply asking them to make a fair contribution and play by the same rules as the rest of us.

  • Don't be partisan. This is just asinine. When someone says this, repeat the core values you are fighting for, and ask the public if you want someone to fight for those or not, then don't address it again.

  • Don't go too far left. Remember Paul Wellstone, the most liberal member of the Senate? This would have been Paul Wellstone’s final election ad:


    "I don’t represent the big oil companies. I don’t represent the big pharmaceutical companies. I don’t represent the Enrons of this world. But you know what? They already have great representation in Washington. It’s the rest of the people that need it.”

    http://www.ourfuture.org/onmessage/borosage/borosage_oct30_02.cfm


    That was such a losing message that the only way he was removed from office was a plane crash.

    He not only had a distinctly different message than the GOP, it was simple, obvious, and right.

    That’s what they are afraid of, and why they are laughing at us when we put up half-assed DLC candidates—because even if the DLCers win, we lose and nothing changes.

There are probably more that I’m forgetting. Feel free to add them.


http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/01/democrats-fail-to-learn-how-to-fight.html


I wrote this back in January, and since then, the Democrats have been stirring to life and showing some spine. They still have a ways to go toward having a consistent, digestible, measurable agenda. Frankly, Howard Dean and Paul Hackett should run a boot camp for candidates where they bitch slap and yell at them until they stop talking like insurance salesmen and undertakers, and begin to sound like human beings.

I would add an additional piece of advice here: instead of doing a Clinton Sista Soljah attack on part of OUR base, pick a powerful constituency of the GOP to scapegoat. After six years of oil executives in the White House, some Democrats are figuring out that patron can be an albatross to the GOP, but they have not gone far enough:

Bush gave big oil Iraq. What did they give us back?

To simply ask that question and inject it into the public debate and maybe somehow get a Republican to be forced to answer in a debate or by a local reporter who doesn't know the "rules" yet would draw a bright line of distinction between the Democrats and Republicans:

"Oh, those are the people who spend our tax money and sent my son to die so their donors can get richer."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ms liberty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. This is excellent advice for the DC Dems
Unfortunately, they probably won't take it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. too busy serving Chamber of Commerce and trying to package it for voters
It's hard to have a coherent message when you're the lawyer for both a rape victim AND her rapist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. Right now, only one RULE needed.. . .
Edited on Fri Sep-22-06 12:24 PM by pat_k
. . .carry out their sworn duty to support and defend. Choose duty, not complicity and appeasement.

Fighting on principle, win or lose, shows strength and conviction -- Strength and conviction are qualities that the Democratic Party desperately needs to demonstrate.

There is no fight more critical than exposing the crimes against our constitutional democracy that have been committed by the fascists in this administration. Every candidate who takes up the fight for impeachment challenges the perception of "weak Democrats" and by so doing gives the entire party a boost.

Standing on principle always benefits the leader who does so.

As President Clinton says, people will always choose "strong and wrong" over "weak and right." It's certainly no secret that of what legitimate support Bush gets, much of it is simply based on a, carefully crafted, "strong leader" perception.

Should the Democratic Party finally recognize that they have a duty to take up the fight for impeachment, even if it turns out to be a "charge of the light brigade," it would not be surprising to see them garner an additional 5-7% of the white male vote, simply for showing the fortitude that demographic respects.

The most serious problem members of the Democratic Party face is the perception that they are weak

Contrary to what many Democratic strategists believe, the perception of weakness has NOTHING to do with stance on national security.

It is rooted in their tendency to refrain from fighting the good fights for "practical" or "strategic" reasons. Members of the Democratic Party may believe they are "picking fights wisely," but to observers, it appears they spend all their time predicting defeat and "saving their energy" for fights they can win. Outsiders looking in do not see "wise selection," they see cowardice. When the rare "winnable fight" does materialize, it is often for some incremental step or practical end that inspires no one.

Bottom line: You can't fight terrorism if you can't fight Bush. How can members of the Democratic Party expect Americans to believe they can stand up to terrorists, if they can't stand up to the man who terrorized Americans into war with threats of "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Clinton did this when Newt threatened to shut down gov't: he let him
He stared Newt down instead of compromising, and the public sided with him.

It's something Democrats needed to do more of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC