Is this Statement True: "The Democrats need to move to the Left."

[tom_paine]

Let me first say, I wholly this, despite my being a moderate, for reasons of political soundness and the Constitutional Model requiring a vigorous Left Side to counterbalance the Right and steer down the middle.

As the Left ameliorates it's positions, the "middle" of the road drifts further right.

This is not the news to most anyone who has been watching. What is new is Phil Agre's take on it. Here is the article link

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html

Down near the bottom, after much is explained from a fresh viewpoint about all the issues, Media, Punditocracy, Party Sub-Media, etc. The viewpoint, and feel free to read it for yourself and not take my word, is that the Orwellian Marketing and PR Strategies the Busheviks have put in place unopposed are the problem more so than the specific positions they refute.

The quote I am referring to:

Now, many liberals argue that the Democratic Party would magically start winning again if it would only move to the left. This is lazy nonsense. The Democratic Party has moved to the right for the simple reason that liberals do not have a language that wins elections. To take over the Democratic Party, liberals need to replace the left-wing policies that do not work and, for the policies that do work, get a language that moves 51% of likely voters to vote Democratic.

Now, as I said above, I and so many disagree with this but when the practicality of moving left is discussed, the way we say it when discussing the feasibility or unfeasability of moving back Left is "The Bushevik Lie Machine would have a field day with that."

But only because the tactics of psycholinguistic manipulation, distrotion and theft are so far advcanced and have been almost unopposed at it's root, at least according to Mr. Agre.

I am NOT saying this one article has caused me to reverse my position totally, but it IS a very unique, interesting, well-bolstered and scholarly view that says we literally don't have the words anymore (they have been stolen and redefined by Busheviks Psychomanipulators/PR people) to do so...move Left.

I find it intriguing and more than a little true.

Thought, criticisms, flames?

[AntiCoup2K4]

1. Yes, it's absolutely true!

Why the Hell is this party so obsessed with the 10% in the middle while completely ignoring the 50% who either don't show up to vote at all, or throw their votes away on Nader, Greens, Socialists, or whatever. They KNOW none of those guys can win, but they can't in good conscience vote for a Democratic party which panders to the right.

If people are stupid enough to vote for Bush after everything he's done to fuck up this country, then fuck 'em. It makes far more sense to expend a little effort on those who are actually opposed to these goddamned fascists.

[tom_paine]

10. As I said, I generally agree, but what about the idea of taking back the

language as prerequisite to doing so.

In other words, how can we successfully move to the Left if the language has been so Sovietized that we "lack the necessary words to do so" to paraphrase Agre.

THAT is the quetsion, and THAT is in the final analysis what pushed us to the right in the first plce, this ceding of language again and again and AGAIN!

I share your anger and contempt for the Imperial Subjects of Amerika, but the question is a practical nuts-and bolts issue.

Given that the Democratic Party should move to the Left,the answer is HOW, given modern media Orwellianism and Bushevik PR-isms?

[Old and In the Way]

2. Yes-

After the election. Bush campaigned as a moderate and governed as RW radical. Why shouldn't we cut Kerry the same slack to get elected?

[DeadHead67]

5. Way back in the sixties. . . . . .

. . .before even Goldwater, this nasty old right-wing broad(Phyliss Schlafly) from my neighborhood(St.Louis),wrote a book called 'A Choice,not and Echo'. In this book her premise was that in order for the republican party to gain the majority and rule, they must offer a CLEAR CHOICE easily discernible and therefore CLEARLY TO THE RIGHT of the Democratic Party and a good part of what was then the republican party. The takeover of said republican party began with Goldwater, although I still feel he was more of a libertarian than fascist like those who supported him. None the less, by the time of Reagan, they had accomplished their goal and made it possible to welcome a republican liberal like Nelson Rockefeller with boos and catcalls at national convention. My point? The far far right offered a CLEAR alternative; something you could STAND FOR! So, let's stop apologizing for what we believe and get to work to make it real! ON YOUR FEET OR ON YOUR KNEES!!!!:kick:

[Old and In the Way]

14. And you remember the LW radicalism of the late 60's too, right?

You remember George McGovern's 72 campaign? Perhaps, since we don't have the corporate media giving us political oxygen anymore, we need to consider how our message can get distorted and used against us? Or more recently, how could the 2000 election, given Clinton's economic performance in 1990's not have given Gore an overwhelming mandate? That election was delivered to the Republicans by the corporate media...and their 3-1/2 year bias in giving Bush a break on every criminal action created by this administration only underscores their continued alleigence to the Republican Party.

In today's political environment, how many more votes are available to Kerry on the Left? Pandering to our natural instincts might feel damn good, but that won't add anymore votes to our column. For all intensive purposes, 2000 shows us that the voting electorate was split down the middle. I know that Kerry will maintain 100% of the Democratic vote, but it's the other 50% that Kerry needs to set his sites on. I'll cut Kerry whatever slack he needs to bring this segment of people into our column. The larger the mandate in this election, the better the odds that we can change the majority composition of Congress and give Kerry the mandate to drive in this country's political agenda.

[tom_paine]

16. But again this begs Agre's implied question

Can we move to the Left with parasitized media and language which we essentially allowed to happen by not comprehending what was going on?

Or must the media be restored to Journalistic Integrity (or allowed to split into Left, Right, and Center, without any pretense of allegience to the dying or dead journalistic ethics of post-WWII Amerika?

Can we move to left Left only AFTER the "media problem" has been resolved?

Or will moving to the Left give us a mandate (in spite of the Mighty Weight of Bushevik Propaganda which will be mobilized against it) that we need to reform the media?

I don't know, what are your thoughts?

[EST]

24. You have the proper slant on it.

The analogy may not be terribly deft, but you can't move the world with one mighty shove; you'll bust it. It has to be moved one rock (vote) at a time.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[jerryvov]

4. Move to the left...

I don't think we have to move to the left as we are clear about the things we believe in. What we do need to do, in my opinion, is redefine what the word Liberal stands for. I think we need to take it apart issue by issue and show how the right has pulled the wool over voters' eyes by attaching a pejorative connotation to the word.

How, for instance, does the Liberal's embrace of the concept of Tolerance equate to "a bad thing". Why does the Liberal's willingness to share with and assist the less fortunate make him/her an object of scorn? How is it that so many voters who rely on Social Security and Medicare denigrate the Liberals who fought to create those programs and embrace the Right Wing which fought tooth and nail to prevent them from coming into existence?

The answer is, of course: because the right wing succeeded in making it so by use of a corporate and political marketing effort that has been very successful in attaching negative spin to the Liberal philosophy using the same "Big Lie" techniques so effectively employed by one Joseph Goebbels some sixty years ago when the Nazi regime set out to persuade the world that they too were "compassionate conservatives".

We sat back then for a long time and nearly let it happen, and more recently we have been too complacent about responding to the latest barrage of right wing lies. We need to make our views clear and we need to be aggressive in doing so. In more direct terms, we need to seperate the bullshit from the buckwheat.

[DeadHead67]

7. Bullshit from Buckwheat : AMEN !!!

[EST]

25. AMEN!

n/t

[murray hill farm]

6. Todays realities require moderation

But tomorrow...yes....move left and left and left.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

37. "Todays realities require moderation"

That has been the stance of the Democratic party for the last 36 years.

I think it is time to STOP playing that game.

The fearful "moderates" need to get some backbone and actively oppose the RW nutbags.

[tom_paine]

39. As a non-fearful True Moderate, I couldn't agree more

There should be a Party on my Left and a Party on my Right.

Should be...but isn't.

And suddenly, belief in capitalism, albeit regulated capitalism (for the same reason football games have referees), is now akin to being a raving Stalinist wishing for property confiscation.

Crazy, Orwellian, but there you have it.

[tlcandie]

8. If you read, which I know you do, you will find that the rethugs have

not come up with anything new. They only steal what others come up with or create and then twist it into their definition and make it work for them!

I say move left, but call it something else and come up with NEW terms! Have a brain storming session and find new words, new descriptions and make it a new day in America with a new meaning and a new phrase.

* came up with compassionate conservative and now we know, 4 years later, that it means jack!

I say move it or loose it! And I am talking about loosing our country!

[Cats Against Frist]

9. We need to ditch the identity politics

This is a common critique of the Democrats, and I'd say that I stick with it. Though I support the fact that, of course, everyone should be equal, the focus should first be on removing corporate control of the government, support for unions and upping minimum wage laws. I think tax breaks should correlate to corporations that pay above the minimum wage.

"Moving to the left," can mean a lot of different things. Economically, yes. Socially -- I think we're going at about the right speed. I wouldn't push it any further, while working on the first thing -- it creates those "wedge" issues that the GOP uses to drive people apart.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. "Political Realism" = "Compassionate Conservatism" - both lies.

Under the rubric of being "realistic" politically, the DLC has moved the party so far to the right that it has become little more than the moderate wing of the Republican party. To the point that our presidential candidate ignores the issues surrounding race, women's rights, the environment, and even defends the invasion and subjugation of Iraq, and focuses on such erstwhile Republican agenda items as "tax-cuts for the middle class", "strong national defense", and "support" for the Israeli/Palestinian apartheid wall.

Should the Democrats move to the left? If they want to be something other than a pale imitation of the republicans, they damned well should.

As Harry Truman said, "If you run a Republican(R) against a Republican(D), you get a Republican."

[Kanary]

23. To the left, young man! ^_^ While simultaneously working on issues

I hadn't heard that quote by truman before...... that is great, and certainly what we have witnessed for many years now.

I guess I just don't see this as an all or nothing proposition........ move the party left WHILE working on all these other isseues.

Is there some group now, such as a Democratic think tank, making recipes for changing the language, and forumulating our own "marketing strategy"?

If not, then that is definitely in order, and post haste!

There needs to be a group working on regaining the media.

There needs to be a group working on gathering information about how more enlightened countries are operating with social democracies, options of how it could be implemented here, and working on how to start education among the general population tto counteract the RW spinning of the last several generations.

It certainly occurs to me that if we can have a group of dedicated and knowledgeable people who can take one issue, BBV, and doggedly pursue it to make changes, with the support and help of the general help of DUers, then why can't we do likewise with some of these other issues and segments of the problem?

I think the *first* priority is to figure out a way to mobilize people right here on this forum to organize around issues, and start taking action, rather than wasting so much time with some of the arguments that go no where, and keep spinning our wheels.

Just my .02, but I'm sticking with it. :)

Kanary

[EST]

27. While I agree with you,

to the radical right wing, everything else is radical left. The reason the repug thing is now coming apart is that they tried to do too much, too soon.(IMHO)

[Kanary]

30. well, yes........ *everything* IS left to the extreme RW

That's the point.

What the Dems have been doing is to keep going right to "pacify" them, so they go that much further right. If that's what you're advocating, then it's what the DLC is doing, and why the Dem party is now the moderate wing of the Rep party.

Since it's a foregone conclusion that *anything* we do is going to be labeled "radical left", then might as well go for it, and at least speak to those who *are* left, and those who *could* be left if they had it explained to them.

Kanary

[Zorra]

12. IMO, any significant moves toward egalitarianism can only take place if

the media is radically demonopolized and subjected to an unbiased public monitoring system to insure that special interests, particularly self serving right wing corporate monopolies, do not disseminate information in a controlled biased manner that is not in the best interests of the public and true freedom of the press.

A deliberately misinformed populace can be fairly easily manipulated into thinking and voting against its own interests.

Our country has already been subject to a long term sustained effort, similar to methods used in corporate advertising and marketing, by RW corporate interests to manipulate public thought and opinion toward unconstructive conservative bias favorable to RW corporate control of government.

It will take considerable time to overhaul the media system and insure that it is truly balanced, and then even more time to undo the corporate RW propagandization of the general public consciousness.

IMO, at this time we have to start from a liberal moderate position and work our way toward a more egalitarian populist society.

It will take time for a general public that has been convinced that the sky is not really blue on an uncloudy day to once again look up at the sky and make their own judgements based on undistorted factual information.

[tom_paine]

13. Agreed, and that is what Agre says, too

Which comes first, though, Move Left or Media Reform?

[Old and In the Way]

15. Media reform.

And that doesn't happen until we take over the reins of power.

[Zorra]

17. IMO, if a move toward populism is too radical it will be rejected by a

significant portion of the population. This segment of the population has been deliberately nudged towards conservatism over time by media misinformation, it may take a while before the brainwashing begins to wear off, because it has become somewhat culturally instilled.

I think we need to start by getting John Kerry in the WH and controlling at least one branch of Congress before we can begin overhauling the media. It appears to me that, right now, Democrats are more united and driven than ever before, due to our recognition of the PNAC/Bu$h threat to our democracy.

If we can maintain this unity and drive after the election, form a cordial alliance with the Greens in order to pursue common goals, and keep ourselves from becoming apathetic, we may be able to put enough pressure on Democratic legislators and the government in general to enact significant populist reforms.

I suggest that we maintain focus after the election and use all the organizations and internet media tools, etc., that have sprung up in our fight against Bu$h, and build a massive focused movement for real democratic populist change, with an immediate focus on overhauling the media.

Maybe this can be our organizational base:

New Organization, "Progressive Democrats of America" Emerges After Democratic Convention
Joe Libertelli
www.opednews.com

Far from the razor-wire capped protest prison in the shadow of the flag-bedecked Boston Fleet Center, progressive activists shared center stage with their Democratic Party champions before a crowd of 1,000 at the Roxbury Community College Gymnasium.

The occasion was a founding conference for a new organization, the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) (www.pdamerica.org) which vows to build a sustained movement to transform the Democratic Party into a force for social justice and environmental sanity.

http://opednews.com/libertelli_080104_new_org.htm

http://www.pdamerica.org/about.php

[Nordic]

18. The terms are completely different now for both sides

Right now we have a supposedly "right wing" administration that's doing very un-conservative things like growing the federal government in a rather massive way and also giving us massive debt like we've never seen before.

These are not your daddy's conservatives.

We have people like Howard Dean who has the absolute and utter gall to actually speak the freaking truth and was labelled a "leftist" by the media and pretty much everybody else because of it, even though he was, in fact, for things like balanced budgets and a lot of other sheerly practical non-idealistic policies.

Everything has gone completely topsy turvy, we're living in bizarro world, it's like some freaky alternate universe to the one in which I grew up.

Yes, the repubs have taken over the language of politics and they've done it extremely well. They are the current masters of political and media propaganda.

It doesn't hurt that they've managed to buy the media lock stock and barrel.

The Democrats need to take back the language, they need to set the terms of the debate (something they're miserably horrible at, even now, Kerry included) and they need to buy back the goddamn media so they can start getting the truth out.

It's not about right or left anymore, it's about lying vs. truth.

It's down to that.

We're living behind a new iron curtain in America, and it's a creation of the media. It is the media.

Hell, just look at the so-called coverage of the Olympics by NBC. You'd think America was the only country in the world.

[tom_paine]

20. The Televised Curtain of Imperial Amerika

That's what I call it and so far as I know, I am the sole inventor of that saying...

(not that it wouldn't surprise me if someone came up with it independantly of me)

Yes, and it isn't about Left and Right andymore, I would frame it as Tyranny vs. Liberty or Totalitarianism vs. small 'd' Democracy.

I agree with what you say.

And yes, the situation is quite dire regardless of whether the Left was up to this kind of bullshit or the Right which IS the primary carrier (currently) of the "Virus of Tyranny".

[EST]

28. AMEN!

Again.

[sandnsea]

19. Note: Welfare Reform

This is exactly what Clinton did. While I don't like the time limits in it, I've said repeatedly that alot of what is in there is exactly what women in the 80's were saying they wanted. Health care for their kids not tied to AFDC, child care assistance, education and job training, transportation, better housing. There certainly isn't enough assistance, but the move to helping people with the basics so they can move towards self-sufficiency is better than leaving them with the choice of welfare OR a crap job with no help at all. That's what we had before welfare reform. Clinton just framed it in a way that made mainstream voters think we were taking things away from those welfare queens. We actually gave them MORE help than they had before. Not that we don't have to fully fund this assistance, we do. If we did, welfare reform would be much more successful.

[tom_paine]

21. That's kind of the point. Clinton was forced to their rhetorical turf

because of the Orwellian redfinitions of language used as a Pravda tool by the Bush Party-Loyal Sub-Media.

[JHBowden]

22. False.

The Democratic Party needs to hold smart, ethical positions. Such positions should be well argued and not held for the sake of ideology.

Consider two Democrats. One is intelligent, sharp, and has mad skills for putting foot to GOP ass but is moderate on economic and foreign policy. Another is ideologically pure, but can't articulate their positions, doesn't understand policy nuance, and looks like an invertebrate in debate settings.

I'd rather have Democrat #1 on my team.

[w4rma]

26. The Democratic Party must move left enough to neuter big media who

is opposing us at every turn, imho.

I think that requirements on ownership need to be looked at. As in, a media outlet must be a buisness in and of itself, not a subsidiary of another larger buisness which the outlet must be more loyal to than to our country and itself.

or something along those lines. The Roosevelts took alot of anti-trust actions against corporations who acted the same way the big corporations of today are acting. This must be done, imho, or Dems will be out of power very quickly if we're able to get past the media filter and into power at all.

imho.

[EST]

29. Are you saying

a few million of us need to contribute a thousand dollars each and buy CNN?

[Guy Fawkes]

31. I truly believe that the democratic party needs to move to the left

And they need to do it soon!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. The "radical left" and it's issues.

The following were all considered "too radical" by the politicians:

The abolition of slavery.
The 8 hour work day.
Unions
Birth control of any kind
Abortion
Affirmative Action
Social Security
Opposition to the war in Vietnam
Eliminating the draft
Progressive taxation
Reconstruction

And, the American Revolution

Among others. All of the above were opposed by "moderates" who decried the "dangerous radicals" who would lose the support of the "middle".

[tom_paine]

33. That is true, which is why I support a principled move to the Left

even if it means they will be moving to the Left of me, which though I migth disagree, is how it should be.

But of course, with the Orwellian language Twisting now hardwired into the laughable "National Dialogue", is that even possible without being crushed for it by CNNMSRNCFAUXABCCBS?

[SeekerofTruth]

34. Define 'Move to the Left'

Move to the left scares some people as much as moving to the right scare others.

We need to define what 'Move to the left' means with bullet items or a 10 ten list. Keep it short and simple so it can't be distorted. Here's the start of my list:
Create a real financial safety net for people when times are bad.
Create a healthcare system that covers everybody, utilizing the strenghts of government and the marketplace.
Allow individuals to live their lives without government interference as long as it doesn't harm other people. (i.e. abortion, gay marriage,etc)
Create auditing rules for business and government that keeps them both fiscally responsible.

Also, we need to create a rule of what the role of the government is. If you ask 10 people what the role of the government is, odds are you will get 10 different answers.

[tom_paine]

36. Good point. But this thread is not about specific policy

rather it is about the "corrupted language issue" that Agre brings up as outlined by my bolded, italicized comment above which seemingly makes such a move, regardless of the specifics, almost inconceivable by current Democratic Leadership for the reasons Agre put forth so eloquently in his article.

[donkeyotay]

40. re: the question of how

How do we take on the "corrupted language issue?" First, this RW takeover of language didn't happen over night, so it will take time to counteract it. But people don't like being fooled, and when they suddenly perceive they are being manipulated, it inoculates them if you will.

I use as my model the motto that "snipers can't snipe if snipers can't hide." (This came from a workshop on dealing with "difficult" people. I think the RW meets that description.)The idea is that instead of reponding to a sniper's attack, you respond to the fact that it is an attack.

Although I can't think of a specific example at the moment, I am thinking of several times recently when democratic presidential candidates didn't respond directly to a media whore's question, but instead responded in a meta sense - that is backed up and questioned the question. I hope this makes sense; let me give a fake example:

The media repeatedly demanded of Kerry what he would do about Iraq, almost as if it had been his idea. They put him on the defensive, demanding to know what he would do. Kerry responded directly to the questions. Now, he could have backed it up and said, "That is so interesting that CNN, or whoever, is asking me those questions when I haven't heard you ask the president hard questions." Then he can go ahead and respond to the question if he thinks he should.

This isn't a very good example, but the idea anyway is to keep drawing people's attention to the meta-communication, to make the public more aware of the content of the questions and the embedded agenda. Certainly the same can be done with language, when, for example, the word "liberal" is assumed to be negative. A democrat can respond to that assumption instead of the question asked.

That's how we take it back: by outing the right's manipulation one issue, one question, one word at a time, because once you get a light bulb to turn on in one head, on one issue, it will start to spill over into other areas, other issues.

When people figure out how badly they've been manipulated, they are going to be pissed.

[Alpha Wolf]

35. The Party needs to move left... way left.

It's repug-lite at this point in time.

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Q]

41. The problem with both major political parties...

...is that winning has become everything. We constantly hear the tired rhetoric about doing whatever it takes to win...even if it includes lying to the people or adopting policies that hurt people.

- It's not the language or the 'words' that we need to find in order to win. It's honesty, integrity and ethics.

[tom_paine]

43. But how can you begin to strive towards that goal if the meanings of

those words can be corrupted.

When "honesty" refers to anything said by a supporter of THE PARTY.

When "integrity" becomes descriptive of ANY ACTION, no matter how criminal or fraudulent, of THE PARTY.

When "ethics" refers to any action taken by any member of THE PARTY.

(and of course, all the converse also become implicitly true about NON-PARTY MEMBERS)

In other words, Q, what to do when those words have no meaning due to a concerted multi-billion-dollar, multi-decade effort to 'redefine' those words to Orwellian meaninglessness?

Read Phil Agre's article linked above, Q. I think you'll find it most enlightening.

I think, given the coordinated assault on Orwellian Psycholinguistics, part of finding our way back to honesty, integrity and ethics is taking back the battlefield of language.

And yes, it is grotesque to think of language as a battlefield, but we simply have to stop bringing boxing gloves to a gunfight, rhetorically speaking.

I am not saying that's ALL we have to do, but your answer is an oversimplification.

You don't usually do that sort of thing, Q.

read the Agre article linked in my thread-starting post...

[Q]

55. What's complicated about honesty?

- We've rationalized ourselves to death. It's 'okay' to lie and deceive for the 'greater good'. But that's exactly what the Bush* fascists tell themselves as they recreate America in THEIR image.

- I read the article. But 'words' mean nothing when everyone agrees that lies and deceit are acceptable for the greater good. It's okay for Kerry to 'lie' because the greater good is defeating Bush*. Bush* supporters KNOW that every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie...but they don't care because to them winning is more important than honesty.

- While it may be true that RWingers own the language of politics in America...both parties participate in the Big Lie that we're still a democracy and that we have a representative government.

[tom_paine]

63. You're missing the point. Not about how easy or hard it is to be honest

The point is that, by and large, the Democrats have allowed ourselves to be literally chased off of supporting our issues, for many reasons.

But one of them is the persistent Orwellianiazation that the Repugs have been purposefully doing for two decades.

The question is not whether we can be honest, as much as it is about can we take back the language to the point where honesty about moving left isn't suicidal.

As long as the words Mr. Agre speaks of mean the opposite of what they originally meant, the language isn't there, it's been stolen, in a way.

If you thought that Agre or I was counseling Repug dishonesty, you are mistaken I believe.

Yes, I think most Democratic campaigns are run on that principle currently, a pale mirror of the Repugs.

But both Mr. Agre and I are railing AGAINST that, not for it. Taking back the language, stripping bare the lie of the Bushevik Fanstasy Bubble, is quite the opposite of dishonesty.

[Guaranteed]

42. The guy is contradicting himself.

First he says that we don't have a "language" to win elections with- then he says we have to change our policies. Those two things seem to me to be totally different.

I actually agree with his first statement. It's true that we don't have the right language. But that's the problem we need to fix. What this all really comes down to is language and aggressiveness. Our policies DO need to move left, but what really needs to happen is we just need to start fighting.

[tom_paine]

44. Not different...one follows the other

In order to move left, the Democrats need to fight back (on these we agree TOTALLY) with the Orwellian language re-definition as the Repugs practice it. We need to shine light on it and openly confront it, like, YESTERDAY.

It is one thing to say "just start fighting", it is another to propsoe specifics and to recognize what hampers that fight.

And Orwellian Psychomaniuplative Relabelling is one BIG aspect which hampers rational discussion.

Which is what it is designed to do.

[Guaranteed]

46. Right, totally agreed but...

Let me just clarify...is he saying we need to change and move left, or change and move right?

I thought he meant move to the center.

In any case, what you're saying is right on. It's all about the language and the connotations of our diction.

On edit: I say we start calling these fuckers what they are: fascists.

[ContinentalOp]

48. I agree that his message was contradictory.

To me his statement actually highlights the ridiculous errors of language that the left makes. By saying that we must abandon the left policies that don't work he plays right into a right-wing stereotype of "failed liberal policies". This is absolutely counter to the issue of language he is supposedly talking about. Look at the republicans who are still selling us one of the biggest policy failures of all time: supply-side economics. Can you imagine a republican talking about eliminating any of their failed policies? The point about their use of language is that framing the debate has allowed the right to do anything they want and get away with it!

[tom_paine]

64. He didn't specify, but it sounds like he wanted a move Left

And his article talks about how to make that move a reality.

I definitely DID NOT interpret his artcile as a desire to move further right, but to take back the language that has been stolen.

Not sure he really endorsed ANY specific policy moves other than taking back the language. The path he laid out for that suggested clearing a path to move back left.

[Comadreja]

45. Study emotional styles of MLK, Kennedy

The ascendancy of RW language domination was accomplished in large part because of the negative, bullying, angry emotional tone that it was delivered in. It picked up on the angry white male phenomenon that followed the liberal 60's. These voters are still the GOP's base. Not coincidentally, angry, judgmental, condemnatory pulpit pounding has been the style of the southern backwoods preachers since the colonies, which helps explain why the fundamentalists have been beguiled by the RW.
MLK and Kennedy were both highly popular liberals. MLK, in particular, used religiously loaded language but spoke in inspirational tones, using the liberal example of Jesus to reach the non-Fundy black church crowds and white thinking persons. RW screechers made no inroads on these folks. Kennedy's visionary style likewise appealed to the best in Americans. Rash Windbag et al have been speaking to their dark side. This gives us an opportunity. Perhaps that is what we Progressives need to study...how to appeal once again to the best in our fellow citizens. We can't do it just with rational arguments or by copying the RW. I don't think Gore's angry speech is the right tone, just the right words, perhaps.
Lastly, we can't afford to wait for media reform. We have to in a million small ways right now. Liberal think tanks are fine, but I for one want to be involved, not just waiting to see. We already have the tools we need.

[ContinentalOp]

47. Yes, it's completely about language and framing the issues.

Take an issue like universal health care for example. This can be labeled as (cue sinister music) "Socialism" and never get off of the ground. But at the same time you could probably talk to individuals about the specifics of the issue and find out that the vast majority are in favor of universal health care.

Your question about whether a "move to the left" has to happen before or after a reform of the media is an interesting question to ponder. But personally I believe that this shift in language and the way we sell our message must happen *whether or not* there EVER is media reform. Otherwise we're lost. That's what the lanuage and the selling of our ideals is all about. We have to work the media and learn to manipulate its strengths and weaknesses in our favor.

Of course, I guess the question then is one of strategy. Do we work the media by strengthening our message and selling our policies more effectively? Do we make the liberal message the winning, dominant point of view and proudly argue our ideals? Or do we play to the middle, conceal our true intentions and then veer to the left once in office? Personally I feel that the former approach is the only winning strategy in the long term. We must re-define liberalism and create a real, viable, proud progressive movement.

[ContinentalOp]

49. Some further thoughts on the topic...

The big problem when talking about "moving to the left" and going about it in any kind of strategic way is reaching a consensus on what the "left" issues are and what constitutes the accepted Democratic agenda. In my opinion, the right-wing agenda is very well defined and shaped by corporate elites (and yes, I'll call them fascists) who know exactly what they want to accomplish. Because of this they can obscure some of their true goals or use non-essential social or morality issues to manipulate voters. But behind the scenes they are all on the same page. There is no such organized, well financed, global force behind the Democratic party that allows for this kind of tricky strategy. Therefore all of the policy decisions, arguments, and issue battles take place out in the open.

[tlcandie]

50. Our current system of government is NOT working as it stands.

It's become something it was never meant to be and BOTH parties are responsible. One is just as dirty as the other because they both participate in the process.

The government is no longer for the people by the people. People, ordinary citizens, no longer give their voice to government because government does not listen. If for some odd reason they do listen, they don't make necessary changes according to what they heard from the people.

What laws lately have been enacted FOR the people? All has been for the rich or corporations. Who has been penalized for breaking laws? Ordinary citizens take the most beating while the rich, corporations, and connected get off without much ado.

Citizens have resulted in the "rude and crude" form of making political statements because they can't even get in to be seen, much less heard in our government. There are 20 committees to review over and over everything from how long a snail crosses from point A to point B to how many tissues it takes to thoroughly clean one's backside! They invent committees to review things they don't want to take a stand on and so that it eats up the normal person's time and money and they give up.

Without money or connections nothing will ever be changed for your betterment in this country the way it stands now.

The rethugs have learned the fine art of taking all the nice things that dems/liberals/progressives put into place for the betterment of the people and use them to go against the very nature of what the laws were meant to establish to begin with! It's outright robbery!

Chavez and those who backed him took the country back without the media. We can too, but we have to work at it from the people and grassroots efforts up! SERIOUSLY without ceasing! Knowing that if we ever loose faith or let off just a bit on pushing forward to taking back and righting this country that the hoary breaths of the rethugs will be there to take what belongs to the people away from them!

The progressive democratic movement looks good to me and is a great start! Rolling Thunder with Hightower going all over this country was another great start! So was Janet Reno whether you loved or hated her. This is what it will take and we have to find a new dialogue and a new motive and a new COMMON THEME, PLAN, NEW DEAL to work and proceed from!

Taking back the media is one of those and we need a group committed to JUST THAT. We need to take all of the areas we deem essential to a democracy and begin grassroots tours across the country to educate everyone from school age to old age about the TRUTH and the BETRAYAL of AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. We have to be willing to admit that the democrats have commited as many wrongs as the rethugs because they've become tainted by the very process that rules this country now and that isn't democracy!

There are no teeth in our laws anymore regarding the branches of government. Laws/rules are set then they are changed, moved back and forth until there is NO line drawn where people don't get away with murder. Just look at the environmental laws for an example!

Okay, I've ranted enough, but anyway that is just my humble opinion.

EDITED TO ADD: The ONE thing I've seen that democratic/liberals/ progressives, etc. ARE GREAT at and that is going to the people and rubbing elbows with them! Seeing them in every day situations. Call it reality politics! Get to the meat of the issue! Rethugs are not comfortable with being in and amongst the people... never have and never will because they want to USE them not help or lift them up. So, I say, yet again, it must start with grassroots efforts of mobile citizens going from town to town and re-educating the people and getting them involved and letting them know exactly WHAT IS AT STAKE and it is their country, their rights, their livings, etc. Saying freedom is too all encompassing...it must be broken down and made to have meaning! Hell, let the people of this country determine the language and not the politicians!

[OKNancy]

51. Need or want to

I would like it....but don't tell a soul. Not yet. Wait until after the election.

I feel like a bride-to-be who is nervous about her family. I just want to get the wedding done, and THEN, I'll introduce my husband to his new mother-in-law.

[wyldwolf]

52. Just suppose the Democratic party did move further left...

I think then it would be a concern that we were moving too far left.

[tlcandie]

53. Can't we come up with something besides left, right and center?

Personally, I am so sick of hearing those terms I could just scream! I've heard them so much that they are about to have no meaning at all because I see both parties double dipping and playing in the dirty waters.

Let's rise above and beyond left, right and center, please! It's a new day, a new century and time for a new language to bring us back to the true US.

Let's move towards the people while the rethugs move away from the people! Then there is no center! How about that?

[wyldwolf]

54. yes we can when people agree to...

My politics are a mix of left and center.

Some people will not accept my centrist politics.

People who are too rigid in their politics (far left and far right) have difficulty compromising.

Let's move towards the people while the rethugs move away from the people! Then there is no center! How about that?

Sounds good. How do you propose we do that?

[adamrsilva]

56. Language is the key, not a change of position

We need, as others have said, take back what "liberal" means and destroy the myths around it that Republicans have created.

I think moving to the right would lose the Democrats as many votes as moving to the left, it not more. Democrats should remain left-of-center, as the majority of the country is.

[wyldwolf]

59. I dunno...

It's pretty hard to define what the majority of the country is without first defining what "left of center" is.

[adamrsilva]

57. Language is the key, not a change of position

We need, as others have said, take back what "liberal" means and destroy the myths around it that Republicans have created.

I think moving to the right would lose the Democrats as many votes as moving to the left, it not more. Democrats should remain left-of-center, as the majority of the country is.

[tlcandie]

60. I think that we should being to associate ourselves in just those

terms and stop talking right, left and center for a start. I think the democrats need to once again be about moving towards helping and uplifting the people of this great country. At the same time let it be known that the rethugs are about moving away from the people as the power of this great nation while corporations and the rich would be the point from which all would devolve.

One is evolution and one is devolution. Someone linked here in GD to the progressive book club. What about taking something like Oprah's Book Club and making it the Democrat Book Club or even the People's Book Club and have people meeting up either in chats or in person and in the town meetings discussing all these great books about our country and what is happening!

We must educate everyone about what is happening and get input as to how to get this country back! Make them become involved and feel that it is once again their country and their opinions count!

I'm sure I'm over simplyfying because that is who I am, but maybe it could be a start?

EDIT: Democrats have lost their way because a lot of the reasons and/or organizations they supported are disappearing... example labor unions.

As individuals, hopefully if we are responsible beings, from time to time we stop and look inside examining who we are and where we are going in light of where we've been. I think that the dems need to do that and refocus instead of continuing in the way they have for years. It isn't working and they have done nothing but blur the line between them and the rethugs to where you can't hardly tell one from the other unless they are bold about their stance. They've both been tainted by this system.

In order to change they must change radically! They will lose some, they will gain some, but if their heart is in the right place and their goals it will work out for the better and they will be glad they spent the time and effort required to make the changes that begin from the inside and that mean the most!

[tom_paine]

65. Of course, that is only natural to Centrists

Be they Left-Centrist, Right-Centrist or serious Middle-of-the-Roaders.

Not a problem. Really, and ignoring Bushevik Criminal Activities, the Raygun 80s were kind of the natural workings of the Old Republic, even as it was dying.

Now, I am not entirely a Raygun fan...far from it, his bad FAR outweighed the good, but we did need some of the Shot in the Arm he gave our pride, which had been sort of driven too low by liberal guilt and liberal excess of over-relativism & analysis. The Warren Court DID lean a bit too far on the side of criminals, and there were other issues, too.

(I recognize I am likely to get a serious flaming for saying that, but so be it...there IS a grain of truth at the center of most Bushevik Lies...makes em easier to swallow)

Still, if you are a Moderate...left, center, or right, you want both sides on your "out of bounds" lines on either side (football is getting ready to start, eh?).

I'll take that chance, because right now the other alternative is MUCH worse...an unchecked One-Party Ultra-Shift to the Left.

[0rganism]

58. Democrats need to retake half of the Federal gov't before moving left

Otherwise, Democrats end up marginalizing themselves without having any way to enact policy.

Ideally, we could have a system of Instant Runoff Voting, which would enable minor parties to flourish for the fringe positions. Then the Democrats could remain comfortably in the center, with the republican, Constitution, Reform and Libertarian parties bickering over the rightwing vote and the Greens and Socialists holding the left flank.

[TankLV]

61. I would like it to be so, but unfortunately, not at this point in time.

We have to first capture the frog and get him into a pot of nice cool or room-temperature water before we can even think of gradually turning up the heat to cook him so he won't jump out!

I believe we have caught the frog and he is stepping into the water, while more are already in the pot.

We are not ready to turn-up the heat until we are certain we have enough frogs in the water.

[eridani]

62. They need to learn to SELL the left policies that most people favor

How the Democrats Were Betamaxed
By Laurie Spivak
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18395
April 13, 2004


Think of a "marketplace of ideas" where the products are policies, positions, and issues all competing for dominance. On the surface, this may seem like the stuff of dreams for "free market" conservatives, but it turns out it's a nightmare. You see, what we find is that in this marketplace, Democrats actually have the better product and Americans prefer the policies of Democrats by a wide margin to those of the GOP. In the realm of ideas, just as in any marketplace, the superior or preferred product usually wins out, but not always. An inferior product can dominate in the market when it has superior marketing, and this is precisely what we have seen come to pass in U.S. politics over the past two decades.