(CNN) Sen. Bernie Sanders : 'Democratic brand is pretty bad'

[KTM]

250. You speak as if under attack, but I dont see it the same.

Last edited Thu Jun 29, 2017, 01:15 AM - Edit history (1)

I find myself in agreement with many of the things you say here, but I guess we disagree in places because I hear the arguments from the Sanders side through a different filter.

"I do not happen to believe that messaging and image--brand--is more important than policy. I do not favor the Republican approach to politics, that sees tax cuts as more essential that basic healthcare and survival. I do not believe trashing the EPA and Paris Climate Change agreement is worse than environmental conservation and research into sustainable, green energy. I happen to support the notion that government can do good, that its function is not to redistribute a trillion plus from the poor to the wealthy... I do not favor the Republican approach to politics, that sees tax cuts as more essential that basic healthcare and survival."

I 100% agree with you here, and would wager that Senator Sanders would as well.

I dont think the Democratic party is in any way - with regard to the values and policies and morals we support - worse than Trump or Republicans. Period, end of story. I dont think we need to reach out to the "white male $100K plus a year voters who voted for Trump" either, at least not by changing any of our social policies or compromising our beliefs.

When I hear people say "our brand is bad," I think of it like the makers of Tylenol must have in 1982... "We have the best product on the market, with a long history of respect and admiration, that has taken a major hit lately due to some dirtbag doing something we never thought people would do to each other. We need to point that out, make some improvements to prevent fucking tampering with our product, then go out there and change the way people *think* about us in this moment."

That is to say, I think we need to add some items to our platform, then very vocally and strenuously focus on emphasizing how our product is and has been the best for the widest market for a very long time. I think that Senator Sanders has some things he thinks should be added, and he and others think we need to agressively sell our party to the vast group of voters who are apathetic and disafffected who simply do not vote or vote based on some divisive factor that is oversold by our opponents.

He is not saying our product is bad, he is saying we have failed to connect in the way we sell it; people have been sold a false narrative about what our product is for a very long time, some people never hear about all the things we do well, and we have allowed circumstance and some dirtbags doing shitty unthinkable things to create an entirely false image of who and what we are. He argues that we need to articulate our ideas in a different way and remind the world that we stand for *most* of them. That we can't be afraid to loudly show support for economic policies that might frighten the rich or the upper class, that we need to be seen as fighters for ALL of the economically downtrodden, and that simply by changing the emphasis of our message - not our policies - that we can win more often. That we reframe the narrative in a way that resonates.

I do not see an argument being made that white male Republican voters are insufficiently catered to - I hear a message that says those voters think of us in terms that are incorrect or incomplete, and if we added emphasis in our messaging on all the ways we do help them, if we changed how they see us, they would be easily swayed. If they hear us fighting for all of the things they agree with, instead of letting ourselves be defined in terms of things our opponents emphasize, they might see that we offer far more than the other team. He argues that when sold only things that divide us, they base their desicions on base "otherness," but strong marketing towards economic policies that they and we largely agree with would stop them voting against their own self interest as they do now, even if they disagree with our social issue stances.

I dont hear an argument being made to change our stance on reproductive rights, on diversity, on gun rights... I hear an argument being made that we emphasize infrsatructure, education, health care, and pocketbook issues on which the vast majority of Americans agree in our messaging, *without* giving up any of our diverse beliefs. That "we" is being misdefined. I dont think any ideas espoused by Sanders intend to or would reduce any member of our coalition to second class citizens, nor do I think they percieve you or intend for you to feel that you or your beliefs and ideals are inferior. I think the intent is that the focus of our messaging needs to be modified so that on balance, voters see and hear more of us that they agree with than disagree. We dont need to change any of our policies nor throw anyone under the bus.

We have been "othered" by our opponents. We have been defined by them as "other" as a whole, made up of every kind of subset of "other." They have tainted our brand so that it is easy to define us as one form of "other" or another, at every level. They appeal to all of the fear of every "other" that we are made of, and prey on that fear. I hear, "We are an eclectic bunch of others with whom you may disagree, but you are much more like us than them. We actually agree on so much more than we disagree, on issues that impact all of us."

I do care more about policy than any individual. I defend Bernie here because I believe he is correct and prescient in many ways, and I think he has been demonized and dimissed here unfairly, for various reasons. I don't think he or his supporters are willing to remove planks from our party to appease other groups at all, I think they want us to be bold and fight for big causes that, in the current time, are more achieveable now than ever, and upon which most Americans agree. I agree with him that emphasis in messaging on economic policy is our path to success, while also believing that requires no sacrifice of any of our social policies. I think many here are reflexively dismissing many of the things he says when they mostly agree, and think many feel they are under attack when they are not.