It is time to reach out to the ‘uncertain middle’ voters.

[Stinky The Clown]

I really wanted to use the term ‘swing voters’ but couldn’t because the popular definition of who swing voters are is not who I am discussing here.

The ‘uncertain middle’ are, essentially, the ‘Reagan Democrats’. In very broad terms, these are voters who are working class, middle class, white, suburban, mildly racist (or perhaps better stated – ‘raciphobic’, a term I just invented), and strong on national defense. Many were union members. Joe Sixpacks, if you will. And I don’t mean that in any way to be a putdown. These are salt-of-the-Earth types and they’re a natural Democratic constituency.

I think this Wikipedia entry is pretty much right on the money.

The term Reagan Democrat is used by political commentators to describe traditionally Democratic voters, especially white working-class ones, who defected their party to support President Ronald Reagan, either in the 1980 election, or, more commonly, the 1984 one.

The classic study of Reagan Democrats is probably the work of Stan Greenberg. Greenberg analyzed white ethnic voters (largely unionized auto workers) in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. In addition, Reagan Democrats were very pleased with the Reagan economic boom following the "malaise" of the Carter Administration, and agreed with Reagan's strong stance on national security issues.

It is unknown what political path these voters took after the end of the Reagan administration.

On what are we to appeal to these voters? Do they favor a woman’s right to choose? Do they favor gay marriage? Do they favor racial equality? Do they favor gun control? On the surface, of those four issues, I suspect they only favor a woman’s right to choose. On the other three issues, I suspect they range from apathy to mild disapproval. But I also think, if they had to make a firm choice, they’d be with us on every one of them, except, perhaps, gay marriage. And even there, I’d bet they could accept civil unions.

So, back to the question. How do we appeal to them and still not compromise in any big way on our core values? To me, it seems far more a matter of perception and attitude rather than changing anything.

Let’s look at a few issues.

Taxes: I think we can enlist them four square on our side if we start a class war. That’s what life has always been, so why not use it to our advantage? Adopt a stance whereby we cut or eliminate taxes from the top of the middle class on down. And raise taxes on anyone above that level. Raise them to very high levels on the top earners. Similarly, lower or eliminate taxes on the smallest of businesses and then raise them (largely through enforcement of the best parts of the tax code) on a sliding scale up to heavy taxation on the big businesses – you know – the ones traded on stock exchanges, not the ones owned by Joe Sixpack’s wife or son.

National Security: There’s no lack of desire to keep our country safe and secure among Democrats. Indeed, it is mostly Democrats (or those who **should be* Democrats) who actually serve and have served in the past. Guys like Jack Murtha are the perfect spokesmen for our side. Feature our military vets and give them a spotlight. This is VERY MUCH a matter of perception being reality, Facts and philosophy and foreign policy fine points will not win this issue. Perception and ‘cool talk’ will. Coulter played this game to perfection just the other day when she said “Murtha is the kind of guy fragging was invented for.” The sentiment was pure hate, but use of the word ‘fragging’ gave her the creds. Its an insider term to which the intended audience can relate. Our side needs to talk like that (not the hate, but the use of words), or if the speaker wouldn’t be credible doing so, get a credible surrogate to carry that message.

Gun control: Back off the issue this go-round. It’s a loser for us and isn’t on anyone’s radar right now. And we sure have more than enough gun owners in our midst to change the perception if we have to. In the end, however, we need to find a reasonable position on the issue – like various levels of control based on geography. It ought not be a federal issue except for extreme matters like assault weapons. And maybe the background checks. This is not an issue in which I have a deep knowledge, so forgive my examples. But you get my point.

Immigration: tie it to the greatest extent to national security. Our only stated policy ought to be heavy duty, huge, punishing fines for those companies who employ undocumented workers. And make it clear that security from terrorists, specifically, is not put at any huge risk by poor Mexicans coming into the country.

Choice: Just use this line in every campaign speech. Point to your opponent and say loud and clear: “He will take away a woman’s right to make her own health care choices. I will not.” Draw a deep, wide line in the sand. This issue is a winner for us, the screaming religiously insane notwithstanding.

Race and gay issues: Frame the whole thing in terms of family values. When asked about the hot button du jour - gay marriage - say whatever you think is right. This remains an uncertain issue in the national discourse. I honestly think we can win with a stand in favor of civil unions, but that’s a halfway measure. Is it enough to satisfy the gay community, at least as a good faith first measure? I don’t know. I do know that I favor gay marriage, but I’m not being asked. Make sure that any issue discussed is discussed in terms of what it means to the average citizen, not some ‘special class’ of citizen. Get a believable rap going and stay with it. Do NOT get baited into talking specifically about ‘gay marriage’. Answer the question you want to answer, not the question asked. Not to deflect or deceive, but to get your message out. Remember: we have NO sympathetic questioners in the media.

Anyway, this can go on and on. But the essential point is to appeal to our former voters in ways they can relate and with issues they can accept and presented in ways that appeal. There is no need whatever to change one iota of our core values or our agenda. We already have far more in common with the 'Reagan Democrats' than do the Republicans. We need only to remind them of that.

But to underscore one point ....... make it a class war. The Republicans are completely unarmed for it.

[blondeatlast]

1. Brilliant as usual. This year, let's make THEM go after the Reagan Dems.

And yes, I'm perfectly willing to accept the RDs for this CRUCIAL election.

[mike_c]

2. it is a class war-- it has always been a class war....

I think you are spot on correct about that. Unfortunately, the lower middle class, the "Joe Sixpack" bloc-- and that's my background, more or less-- is the easiest to convince to vote against its own best interests, every damned time. They're too close to the economic edge to NOT vote like money is the most important thing in the world, but too easily convinced that the candidates and policies they support have THEIR financial interests at heart. They don't understand that they are more important as a political resource than as a constituency in corporate and finance dominated politics.

[NI4NI]

5. class warfare should be the wedge issue!

and as far as port security and protecting the borders, revoking corporate tax exemptions, plus tax cuts for the top 1% should foot the bill.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. mike, that's kinda my background, too.

Very middle class, very blue collar. Fortunately neither of parents were Reagan Dems, but I know many of their generation - and mine- who are. And not to get this thread off track, but we had plenty of them back before the blow job. That one stupid indiscretion that should have been meaningless took on a life all out of proportion to its true import. And it kept those who were wavering just before the 2000 vote to go hard back to the right. I recall so very clearly visiting my mother and her telling me, in advance of seeing a good number of her friends at an event, to not discuss politics cuz they pissed her off and she knew I'd get even more pissed off at their stupid intractability.

I sense all that has changed thanks to Il Dunce's reign of terror on our bedrock citizenry.

[carl_pwccaman]

17. Bull

The problem is that the working class can easily be bigoted, unjust, immoral, wrong, and plain stupid. There is nothing inherently sacred about the working class.

Now, injustice is something worth fighting against.

You can make a moral case that there is corruption of corporations, corruption of the Bush Administration, etc., injustice against poor families as rich corporations, etc. get breaks, you can argue that on justice or morality.

But frankly, if all you want to do is appeal to greed, a lot of working people are to moral to stoop to that, they are willing to vote against something they see as a bribe.

So if working people see the Democrats as pandering/bribing workers, that will be bad news for Dems.

If working people see the Republicans as corrupt, unjust, unethical, reckless and greedy bastards, then that can be good news for Dems.

[checks-n-balances]

23. Let's get this straight: REPUBLICANS started "CLASS WARFARE" long ago

and - in case you hadn't noticed - they use those 2 words any time someone brings up the fact that the uber-rich are ripping off lower & middle income people. The warfare that THEY started leaves us fighting amongst ourselves, instead of fighting them, for the resources that are left over after they have grabbed and stolen them away. It's partly a projection of what they're actually doing themselves, and partly a politcal ploy to take the focus off of their own misdeeds; if you will, just a portion of their "two-word culture":

"frivolous lawsuits"
"brutal dictator"
"limousine liberals"
"loony left"
"godless communists"
"welfare cheats"
"CLASS WARFARE"
etc.

They have been doing this FOR DECADES - it's just come to a head during this administration!

Let's not ever forget:
THEY DECLARED WAR ON THE MIDDLE CLASS A LONG TIME AGO. WE JUST NEED TO POINT THAT OUT, OVER & OVER AGAIN!!!

[pnwmom]

47. What about a campaign to "save the middle class"?

The data show that the middle class are shrinking. The effects are everywhere. Would that sort of focus appeal to your relatives?

[Armstead]

3. Great Post....But can I add something?

Go beyond the tax aspect, and truly embrace a progressive populist agenda on the economy overall.

That is attack the tendency over the last 30 years for the economy to become concentrated into fewer and fewer hands and bring back anti-trust and anti-monopolistic policies and regulation. The Reagan Democrats may distrust Big Government, but they also distrust Big Business -- especially when Big Business kicks them directly.

Also, as an extension of that, become the party of Broad Based Prosperity Economics as a contrast to the Winner Take All income polarization of CONswervatives. That includes using carrots and sticks and persuasion to directly go after and replace the Profit Uber Alles values that have led to so many problems. If you tie that to people's jobs, working conditions and the health of their hometowns, that could do a lot to address the widespread dissatisfaction many people have today about the economy.

Listen to Bernie Sanders. He knows exactly how to make the broader issues into bread-and-butter issues that most moderates can relate to.

[democrank]

6. Armstead....

You are so right about Bernie Sanders` ability to frame the issues. When he has one of his frequent "Town Hall" meetings here in Vermont, supporters come from far and wide. The thread that binds them together, regardless of political affiliation? Class issues.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. I'm right with you ..... and my bit about the taxes .....

..... was only the tip of my own iceberg, The danger - and make no mistake, it is a HUGE danger - is to be seen as wantting to redistribute wealth. Indeed, that is **exactly** what needs to be done. But keep in mind ... these Regan Dems are staunch anticommunists, and welth redistribution skirts pretty damned close to 'socialist' and socialist is a hair breadth away from communism. Here, we can't talk about the end game, only the strategy: We're going to lower **your** taxes and **raise** his.

[Armstead]

13. Wealth is already being redistributed,. though

It's being redistributed upward.

POssibly the actual word "redistribution" is too loaded. Maybe "We are being ripped off" by the rich might make the same point.

[democrank]

4. Lots to think about here.

Democrats have a potentially huge "natural" constituency if we could only figure out how to appeal to them. We aren`t going to win them over using "Senate Speak" or carefully scripted catch phrases designed by Beltway consultants.

The folks I come into contact with nearly every single day have remarkably similar observations about social, economic and foreign policy issues, regardless of their political (if any) affiliation. Here`s what they`re talking about, in no particular order:

Ending the war in Iraq
Affordable health care
Government intrusion in personal lives
Influence of money and corporations in government
Ever-growing chasm between The Haves and The Have-Nots
Affordable housing
Poverty
High cost of student loans

John Edwards and Wes Clark deserve a lot of credit for raising the "Two Americas" issues. Howard Dean also speaks of this frequently. The Democratic base has appealing and principled positions on class issues, in line with the teachings of many, many mainstream churches. We should raise our voices and push these issues front and center.

[Odin2005]

10. I totally agree, we MUST concentrate on economic issues.

We too often have a bad habit of obsessing over social issues and identity politics, two things that drove this demographic into the hands of the Pukes. One of the reasons the New Deal coalition fell apart is because we alienated socially conservative working-class people who would vote for us on economic issues but were scared away by the insistance on ideological purity on social issues.

[Zhade]

50. Um, you do realize who you just described as being "alienated", right?

The racists who jumped ship when equality was enshrined into law.

They used to be called Dixiecrats.

Are those the type of people that we WANT in the Dem party? People who opposed equality so badly that they turned traitor and became Republicans because their racism held sway over their principles (or was one of those principles)?

[Meldread]

9. I agree with you, but the key is...

...framing things in such a way for Joe Sixpack to understand. The problem with this type of voter is that he doesn't pay attention to politics, and his main source of information is the nightly news - and perhaps even then only occasionally.

Democrats in general need to be on the offensive, start shooting down Republicans before they can shoot us down. You know what they say, the best defense is a good offensive and this is especially true in politics, because the first person to go on the offensive is who is framing the debate.

On the issue of gay marriage I believe it is a serious misconception that this is some huge issue that Joe Sixpack cares about. Does Joe Sixpack like gays? No, most likely not, but he isn't giving much thought to gays either. He is more or less apathetic on the issue, and the only people who REALLY care about gay issues is the far left (us), gay people, and the fundamentalist right (who aren't voting for Democrats anyway).

One of our main goals should be to just make gay marriage legal as soon as possible, just to take the wedge away from Republicans. Every place that gay marriage has passed has demonstrated that roughly one year after gay marriage became legal the majority of the public began to support it. It became a non-issue that only bothered the fundamentalists - who basically lose their voice. Passing it via legislation would be better for us than forcing the Supreme Court to do it, simply because we'll end up in the same arena as the abortion debate. (The old: "The peoples elected leaders didn't get a chance to decide! Activist Judges are making law!") What's more it'd become a legal nightmare for the government to overturn gay marriage once it begins, so the Republicans will just be forced to accept it.

However, the sad fact of the matter is everything listed here in my post and in this thread is just a pipe dream. The Democratic Party has lost its sense of direction and is just floundering at this point. They are trapped in their Washington D.C. bubble and are out of touch with the majority of the American people.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. I agree on all but your last paragraph ... and even with that there's some

agreement.

I do think that some of our DC leaders have lost their way. But I also think we have a huge resource we've only started to tap .... the non DC Dems. In 06, for example, look at who's out there challenging the ossified incumbents. There's real new blood out there and its damned encouraging. A good part of the flows from Dean's 50 state strategy.

[carl_pwccaman]

18. Patronize joe six pack and then push gay marriage? Bull again

Joe six pack might be smarter than you, for one.

He might even be better informed on some things. Maybe not on things that you think matter, but better informed on some things nonetheless.

Joe six pack understands, he may simply not want gay marriage, he may simply not want to be defenseless against militant Islam, he may simply not trust Democrats to be sensible on key issues that have to do with how his kids are going to do in the future.

So instead of being patronizing and talking about marriage strategies as if that was more important than oh, life or death and the over-all economy for example, why not help the Democratic Party be more clear on life and death issues and over-all economy problems.

Our main goals should be to generally help protect the country, build up the economy, and build up better schools, and make sure there's a better safety net for everyone who is vulnerable, that's the first priority.

If anyone thinks gay marriage or abortion or affirmative action are more important than those thing's, they aren't helping the Democratic Party for one, and their priorities are screwed up, for two.

And I say that as part of the gay community, as someone who really doesn't mind affirmative action, as someone who doesn't want to get the state into regulating/outlawing abortion.

If I think you are missing the big picture a little bit, as a fellow democrat who's sympathetic, let me GUARANTEE YOU joe six pack will think you are just way off.

[bvar22]

12. Here you go:

This is where America lives.
This should be the Democratic Party Platform:

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."


http://alternet.org/story/29788/

[Gregorian]

14. They favor the truth, told with conviction.

Reagan spoke from his heart. Or at least he was good at sounding like it. Ronald Reagan won, AND was reelected because Americans weren't aware they were being lied to. Reagan sounded totally committed and honest. Right down to that one word- "Well". And people believed him.

Times have changed. And people don't believe. The know they've been lied to. We tell the truth, and we tell it with simplicity. That undecided middle voter just sat down on their couch with their third beer. It's 2006, and patience isn't a virtue. We make it quick, simple, honest, forceful.

So we know the facts now. It's time to evaporate and condense the message into an abbreviated soundbite, if you will.

Things like- Did your vote count in the last election? Can you be sure? Would you leave an ATM without knowing your money was actually deposited? Did you know that nearly all electronic voting errors favored Republicans. What does that say about the Republican party? Did you know that universal health care is cheaper than none at all? When we stay healthy through prevention, we can prevent the high cost of being sick later. We all want health care.

That might be the wrong stuff for an election. The specific subjects, we already know. It's refining them into commercial messages that we need to do now. And now is the time to do it. Gore had lousy advisors. He should have blown away * in a landslide. It is simple, sharp, memorable soundbites that will work.

We have to approach this just as though we were creating a commercial. Americans respond to that. And that's just what Ronald Reagan did best. Commercials. It's so obvious. So let's do it. We buy the best commercial producers money can buy.

[Patchuli]

15. KICKED! recommended and applauded! Thank you!

:applause:

Edited for typo!

[femrap]

16. As I was canvassing this past Saturday in 90 degree

temperatures, I started to think how I could best change the mind of a pug. All I had to say to that pug was, 'I used to be a republican (NEVER was...at least in this lifetime) until......then just fill in the blank.

How damn simple is that? What a nice way to get my foot in the door. I could ask a couple of questions and then just take it from there.

Yep, I used to be a republican until I realized how these Washington folks twisted God's words into something I didn't recognize.

Yep, I used to be a republican until my daughter was date-raped and got pregnant.

Yep, I used to be a republican until I lost my healthcare insurance at work.

Yep, I used to be a republican until I realized that the president only cared about his rich buddies...I wish I hadn't been used by those rich bastards...but I was.

Yep, I used to be a republican until my son came back from Iraq and told me about what is happening over there.

Anyway....I don't think it's going to be very difficult to get most pugs to see the 'light' in '06. I'm more afraid about who is counting the votes.

[carl_pwccaman]

19. So you NEVER were a 'pug' and lied to 'pugs' to get the foot in the door

Unethical rhetorical garbage.

You aren't helping.

[carl_pwccaman]

20. As long as they are 'pugs' to you, you don't get it.

Fake respect goes a long way with who, exactly?

[femrap]

27. Are you a bit too literal?

I was speaking figuratively on 'getting my foot in the door.' I was speaking in the sense of opening up a dialogue. And I was a pug in a past life....a-hole. You got something against Hinduism?

Go be righteously judgmental with someone else.

Working for that Netadvocate bunch, are ya?

[Dr Fate]

21. I actually like it-who is going to implement this approach?

?

[Stinky The Clown]

24. "who is going to implement this approach?"

Ah ... and therein lies the rub, good doctor.

[struggle4progress]

22. Electoral politics ain't about issues so much as it's about bein organized

When we have effective grassroots organizations out in the trenches, working on issues that people care about, BETWEEN ELECTIONS -- and when those activists show up early in the season to HELP WITH ELECTIONS -- then we win, because we know what people care about and we know how to work towards it.

[mrgorth]

25. Great post

IMO:
Taxes:I thought Kerry did a good job talking about taxes in 04 but I might be wrong. I think his approach was a lot like the one you propose.

National Security: I think that this is our biggest problem because we need to get out of Iraq but the GOP is great at painting us like wimps for that. More, I don't think there's any right answer on Iraq. One thing I think we need to do better is bluster. We never sound as tough as they do. Why can't one of our guys say something like "I'll level every mountain in Afghanistan if it means catching Bin Laden". That kind of talk goes a long way with Joe Sixpack.

Gun Control: Agreed. We need to back off. There simply is not much of a gun problem in rural areas and a lot of Joe Sixpacks want guns so they can shoot minorities who are going to break into their house. Cities need to solve their gun problems not the DNC.

Immigration: I'm for the wall. We could win every branch if we called for this.

Choice: We really just need to frame this right. "Safe, legal and rare" was great. How about "I don't want another abortion to happen in the US but I think we need to accomplish this with contraception, abstinence and education not a law that will kill mothers in back alleys".

race and gay issues: Is there still a race issue? Even though Joe Sixpack is still mildly racist he knows that there shouldn't be any laws reflecting that. I think that Dean had the gay issue properly framed in 04. Say that you don't understand it but that the government should stay out of people's bedrooms and that you're for equal rights under the law.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. I strongly agree with what you said about 'talking tough'

That does, indeed, appeal. And not just on security. We need to talk tough about **everything** we believe in.

[welshTerrier2]

28. the "political spectrum" does not exist

i'm afraid the focus of this post may not be as directly responsive as it should be ... i guess the whole problem is my skepticism about identifying where any particular group of voters is CURRENTLY at and then developing a political strategy to target them ...

on the surface, and perhaps even with a short-term, election-focused view, that may well be exactly the right thing to do ... i'm deeply troubled by this kind of thinking though ... maybe my view of the right strategy is too long-term or not even politically viable ... still, it seems to me the only road to the truth, the only path to peace, and, ultimately, the only way to truly regain a sustainable political majority ...

so, what is this great, long-term vision?

it starts with an essential belief that the "political spectrum" does not exist at all ... it's bullshit ... if you use the wrong model to reflect reality, your proposed strategies will not likely be useful ... too many have come to view the "political spectrum" as a straight-line continuum from right to left ...

based on this, many political strategies focus on the "flexible" block of voters in the political center ... picture a great tug of war ... republicans anchored on the right; democrats anchored on the left ... a line is drawn perpendicular to the rope across the middle ... if your team can increase its pull just a little bit more, perhaps you can pull those on the other team closest to the middle across the center line to your side ...

implicit in this tug of war for the center strategy is the idea that either you can give up on a few of your beliefs to attract moderate republicans and/or you can try to reframe some of these issues to make them more palatable to moderate republicans ...

frankly, this whole strategy is bullshit to me ... it's not that the strategy might not bring about some small gains in the center; it's that it is little more than politically calculated tokenism ...

so, what's the alternative?

your assessment of Reagan Democrats demanding a strong posture on national defense is absolutely correct ... but what if you could show them, with convincing evidence, that virtually all US foreign policy has spent America's blood and treasure fighting wars for corporate gain ... what if you could educate them about what's really been going on? what if you, too, stood for a very strong national defense but showed them that's not the real reason we've been sending troops all over the world and building excessive, wasteful weapons systems ... what if you could teach them that selling mega-defense industry weapons systems to just about anybody, like Saddam for example, has put the country at greater risk?

America should have all the defense it can possibly need; it should NOT have wasteful, excessive defense that weakens the country ...

but Democrats, wanting to appeal to Reagan Democrats, just refuse to tell the truth ... they just can't say the words that what's been done is based on un-American corruption ... the military-industrial complex is NOT some left-wing gibberish; it's very real and it's very bad for the country ... but Democrats are afraid to stand up and tell the truth ... they're worried any whiff of "anti-defense" will be seen as being like the anti-Vietname hippie peace movement ... they're worried they'll be labeled as "hating America" ...

what an absurd situation the Party has accepted ... they can't do the right thing because they foolishly believe it would be politically damaging ... in the meantime, the country is being devoured by corporate greed ...

so, appealing to ill-informed Reagan Democrats can be done in one of two ways ... one way sees them as moderate conservatives and tries to coddle them just an inch or two over the center line; the other way says that we too are for a stronger America but that what is being done now is never going to get us there ... i opt for telling them the truth ... the Democratic Party has apparently opted otherwise ...

[Stinky The Clown]

34. Once again .....

..... it seems we find ourselves in agreement. I should have somehow tied this to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. To be sure, there are Dems who see things as you postulate (Mil/Ind complex is good). I also think these people are on their way out in favor of real Dems (witness Lieberman's problems in CT). I think the more sane Dems are right where you are - if they had a Democratic majority. What we see is as much or more consultant advice on how to 'win' as it is any underlyhing, honestly held philosophy. As an example of the flip side, in the 04 primaries, I am pretty sure Clark said something or other to the effect that he knew what the MIComplex was and he knew how to wean off of it. He said this in the context of redirecting government money to social programs, but nonetheless it implies no particular love for the MIC. He and Kunich were most clear on this, but others stepped up to the line, too.

Now, before we can effect change, we need to get some power. Once we have that and the bully pulpit that comes with it, we can start on the road to change. But we *must* have some power first or we'll be singing in the wilderness until the wilderness is dark with some form of 'nuclear winter'.

Your notion that the political spectrum is not a straight line is for another thread. Almost no one is pure anything. Those Reagan Dems were one thing back in 80 and 84. Twenty years later, they're something quite different, in many cases. I would expect that once they switched, they got so full of Kool Aid they started to change in odd ways, their inner core saying one thing and their external influences pushing against that core.

[welshTerrier2]

39. "before we can effect change, we need to get some power"

i can't begin to tell you how deeply this "common wisdom" concerns me ...

to be sure, having the bully pulpit is a huge and important advantage ... perhaps it is correct to say that we cannot "effect change" because we lack the power to do so ...

but, i would quickly raise the "chicken or the egg" conundrum ... my concern is that we will not regain majority status if we are unable to "be" the changes and unable to articulate the changes we wish to see ... some here have said to me "yeah, yeah, we all agree with you but we shouldn't talk about all that stuff until we're back in power" ... i am truly stunned by this kind of reasoning ... if they actually do agree with me, wouldn't it make sense to hammer on these important themes as part of our political strategy ... it sounds to me like they're playing the old trojan horse game ... "let's trick all those stupid voters and then, once we have power, swoosh!!!" that's kinda crazy, isn't it??

the change we seek has to begin with educating the voters about our beliefs ... i believe voters have voted against Democrats NOT because they would have disagreed with us had they been given the proper understanding of the issues as we see them but because we failed to educate them ... so, taking a simple point of a wasteful defense budget as an example, Reagan Democrats would be inclined to vote against you if you called for substantial cuts in the defense budget ... you might say, based on what they know, they would disagree with your position if you called for those cuts ... HOWEVER, if you made the case that excessive, wasteful spending weakens the country and lines the pockets of companies with thousands of paid lobbyists (and that you support "all the defense we require but no more"), they might agree with you ...

thus, the question becomes, if one were to push substantial reductions in the defense budget as a theme, should this be argued during, or only after, an election? should we conclude the best way to win Reagan Democrats is "not to go there" at this time? my take is that there's no time like the present for good old truth-telling ... job one is education ... elections should be about what we believe in; they should not be about political gimmicks ... i have no faith the Party's elite agree with me ...

[Stinky The Clown]

40. I think where we differ is a matter em-PHA-sis vs EM-pha-sis .......

... not on fundamentals.

Up in my OP I opined that RDs are much more interested in broad themes rather than underlying philosophy. Obviously that's a broad brush and won't apply in all cases. But let's assume it to be true for the majority, at least for the sake of this discussion.

There are, again for the sake of this discussion, two possible broad themes.

One is 'strong security/defense'.

The other is 'all the defense we require but no more'

I **absolutely** agree that the first can, indeed, imply a blank check military budget. But I also think the second implies the diametric opposite; a piker's budget. I actually agree with you that we need to stop spending like drunken sailors on stupid stuff that, in some cases, not even the friggin' **penatgram** wants!

(Parenthetically, though, it is harder to argue against Star Wars when that stupid monkey in North Korea is hell bent to launch a missle. You know the launch, in and of itself, is pretty much meaningless and I know it is. But its tough nonetheless to argue against Star Wars so long as he and Iran and a few others are percieved as threats. Again, we both know there *are* effective counters, but they're too subtle for use in a campaign.)

Anyway, back to the point ..... I'm sure you remember our discussion of trust in a candidate. There are some I would trust to say 'strong security' and know still be confident that it meant 'only as much as we need'. This really comes down to framing and marketing and image - assuming we have the right person saying it.

Let me also add ..... I am just plain opposed to campaigning on lies or deception. That's way too short term a view and is a recipe for disaster. I am, however, in favor of proper emphasis.

So that reduces our discussion to one of strategy, I think. In the context of this thread (RDs), what do you think is the most effective way to make our views known and appealling?

[welshTerrier2]

42. tinkering at the margins ...

i've sort of made up some of my own jargon around "framing" ... there's what i call "level one" arguments versus "level two" arguments ...

level one is just plain, simple talk ... for example, "Democrats stand for a strong defense in this dangerous world we live in" ... these's no bobbing; there's no weaving ... there's no subtlety; there's no nuance ... the problem is, the complex problems confronting us coupled with the incorrect "common wisdom" often cannot be reduced to level one arguments ... at least not when you're seeking to change the common wisdom ...

republicans, given the current situation and "common wisdom", have it easy ... that's why they win ... the case is a lie but it's easy to make ... they say "we're tough; we're for more, more and more defense spending and more, more and more warfare to catch the bad guys" ... it's sharp; it's clear; it's straight-forward - it's level one ...

and it's really bad for the country ... defense spending is way out of control and bush's perpetual war will likely be the final nail in the American empire's coffin if global warming doesn't destroy us first ...

so, where does that leave the Democratic Party? ... to answer your question, "what do you think is the most effective way to make our views known and appealling?", what should Democrats say and do?

unfortunately, there are a few political realities to deal with ... first, the "common wisdom" is against us ... the "common wisdom" says that more defense spending is better ... the fact that it makes the US economically LESS COMPETITIVE and deprives funds for critical programs like education and infrastructure development runs against the "common wisdom" and becomes a level two argument ...

the case is difficult to make because our message is no longer "more is better" but rather "too much is harmful but we support a very strong defense" ... the "but phrase" makes it a level two argument ... it's much tougher politically than the republican case ... we're not fighting on a level playing field if we're fighting against the common wisdom and fighting for change ...

so, it seems to me, the real work of the Democratic Party, if we actually care about the country and the impact of our policies and not just about winning elections, is that a voter education campaign is critically needed ... i believe the voters are ready to hear a message of change ... i believe that Democrats should see themselves as "change agents" and not as political hacks trying to figure out how to sell their product to an ill-informed audience ... to directly answer the question you raised, i believe our message will be very palatable to the American people when it has the truth to back it up and it's delivered with consistency and conviction ... when the truth is disclosed, it will mostly sell itself ... what won't sell is a message that is "crafted in Washington by political consultants" ... they smell bad; their ideas stink ... and the voters know it ...

the radical premise: tell the people the truth and they will drive the lying weasals out of their government ... but then i'm just one of those lefty extremists ... nobody in DC is listening to me ... we'll be lucky to win even a narrow victory this year ... in '08, 50-50 ... it shouldn't be this way ... but the cowards defining the political strategy refuse to take the bold actions necessary to bring about real change in the country ... all they're willing to do is a little tinkering at the margins ...

[Stinky The Clown]

43. Okay, you might be a self-described 'lefty extremist' but you ain't .....

dumb. I'd also argue that you're no extremist, either.

You said "... the "common wisdom" says that more defense spending is better ...". I'd argue that the common wisdom is that we can't and won't lose 'the Global War on Terror.' This leads to the profligate spending we see and serves as its justification.

We can more easily overcome this than if we were to go straight at the spending issue. We can talk about stupidity (sorry ... 'incompetence' ..... no .... 'stupidity' resonates more). We can also detach the War in Iraq from the larger terrorist issue. And *that*, for me, is the key. We all know Iraq is a nutty stunt that is NOT a true, legal, declared 'war'. In fact, we're not really fighting anyone on any conventional way. We're just high priced cops. Everyone knows that.

John Kerry had *exactly* the right message when he said terrorism was a police matter and it should be viewed as a serious nusance and not a *war*. Unfortunately, saying it as he did and, at the risk of raising the ire of his supporters, being the messenger he was, it all got turned to shit by the Great Wurlitzer. But the underlying message was absolutely right. And implicit in all this is greatly reduced military spending. In the right mouth, the message will be delivered and recieved.

Also .... what about some of the other issues? Choice? Class war? Whatever?

[welshTerrier2]

44. other issues and whatever ...

oops ... other issues? hmmmmm ... guilty as charged ...

i wrote a fairly detailed post on what i think our values are or our platform should be ... here's a link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2678558&mesg_id=2688274

but let me offer this ... fundamentally, what the Democratic Party is doing wrong ON EVERY ISSUE is treating the electorate like a prize to be captured ... they have failed and will continue to fail because once you start with the "maybe if we say it like this or say more of this to this group and less of that to that group", you are phonies and the voters know it ... so, before addressing specific issues, the overarching problem is political tinkerers with too much power ... we need to have a message that is based on our core values and beliefs; not on what these soulless critters think will sell ...

so, to address a couple of the specific issues you raised, i.e. choice and class war, here are my values ...

Democrats should stand for freedom ... this includes freedom of choice ... we need to teach Americans that Democrats believe that there's a difference between making policy based on your personal values versus making policy based on allowing others their values ... it really is OK for people to be totally against abortion; it is NOT OK to impose this set of values on everyone else ... nor is it OK to allow the majority to rule ... our commitment should be to maximum possible freedom ... many will not accept this but i think it's the "umbrella" that needs to be taught and fought for ... the same "umbrella" would apply to issues like gay marriage ... it's fine you don't approve of it; we believe each American should have the freedom to live their own lives as they choose ... let's call it a libertarian perspective ...

and class warfare is near and dear to my heart ... as you know, i frequently write about the abuse of big money and how it poisons our democracy ... i would hate to have jargon like "class warfare" to denote a rich-versus poor conflict ... many who are wealthy are also enlightened and we should welcome them to our ranks ... wealth is not inherently evil ...

i think that rather than using such cliches as class warfare, we should talk about the specific abuses of big money on our institutions ... without elaborating, we should talk about big money in our campaigns, big money in our legislative process, big money in our foreign policy ... we also should talk about finding the right balance between policies that favor capital versus policies that favor workers ... i guess the big picture is that we shouldn't focus on the wealthy; we should focus on those who abuse our institutions and fail to serve the best interests of the public ... while most of them may indeed be wealthy, or even super-wealthy, many who are wealthy are also progressives ...

one of the most critical issues facing the country, and i'm afraid i hear very little from Democrats about real solutions, is our massive debt and budget deficits ... yeah, everyone says they're against it but where are the specific proposal to remedy the problem? it's nonsense to say you support a social safety net and massive defense expenditures ... the spending is totally out of control with no end in sight ... Democrats like to beat up the republicans on their stewardship of the economy and point to Clinton's surpluses ... well, that's fine ... it's also history ... what will today's Democrats do today to turn things in the right direction? the "roll back the tax cut" is fine but it will NOT solve the problems we face ... again, it sounds like politics and sound bites looking for real solutions ...

[ItNerd4life]

29. I was a RD, once....You missed the most important point

RD's mostly voted for Reagan for 2 things: To get the economy under control and to keep government spending in control.

If you put more focus on keeping government spending in control, not just lowering and raising taxes, Democrats will win by a landslide.

Don't make it a class warefare issue! People want to become wealthy and don't want to be punished if they make it.

Money talks, it's too bad politicians and policy makers don't take it seriously.

It's hard for people to worry about gay marriage, abortion, etc when they are trying to keep their homes, cars, and send their kids to college. Focus on the most important and basic need, that is MONEY. Once Democrats are in power, they can take care of the other policies.

[Stinky The Clown]

36. My post clearly stated that what was mentioned were but a few

examples of current issues cast in a way that might appeal to our former party members. It wasn't exhaustive.

As to the class warfare, that's been going on longer than forever. The classes in the war as we frame it need to be the 98% who are not superrich against the 2% who are. If some Joe Sixpack can honestly say he has a serious chance to get all the way up there, we'll never get him anyway.

[Sapere aude]

30. Here again we have to trade a bird in the hand for one in the bush.

No pun intended.
Until the Reagan Democrats want to be Democrats again I say to hell with them. They left the party so why should the party now make the same change they did to back Reagan? I want us to go more left not more right. If you want to be a repub light why not just vote for a real repub light?

I never get this kind of thinking. You want to win so bad you are willing to throw away gays and women by not really saying what you mean. We must support equal rights for all and not partial rights in order to get more votes.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. I'm not going to reply until you read the post completely .......

..... and answer it based on what it means ... not what you *choose* to take away from it.

Not being pissy ... just not interested in debating with a false premise.

[Mountainman]

33. I read it completely and I think you are afraid to say the Democratic

Party supports equal rights for all people including the right of gays to be married and are afraid to say the Democratic party supports a woman's right to an abortion because it will offend those you want to court. Where am I wrong?

[Stinky The Clown]

35. On all points

perhaps you could quote where you think I said that.

[Sapere aude]

37. here you go

gay marriage - say whatever you think is right. This remains an uncertain issue in the national discourse. I honestly think we can win with a stand in favor of civil unions, but that’s a halfway measure. Is it enough to satisfy the gay community, at least as a good faith first measure? I don’t know. I do know that I favor gay marriage, but I’m not being asked. Make sure that any issue discussed is discussed in terms of what it means to the average citizen, not some ‘special class’ of citizen.

I don't see here, "the Democratic Party is in favor of the rights of gay people to marry." I guess gays are just some 'special class' of citizen.

Choice: Just use this line in every campaign speech. Point to your opponent and say loud and clear: “He will take away a woman’s right to make her own health care choices. I will not.” Draw a deep, wide line in the sand. This issue is a winner for us, the screaming religiously insane notwithstanding.

That is not saying, "the Democratic Party is in favor of a woman's right to an abortion." You could conclude that a choice for an abortion is not a health care issue.

You get close but you still don't really come out and say it so someone could infer that you don't really mean it.

See I think we should be either for something or not. We are for peace not the Iraq war. We are for universal health care not affordable health care. We are for social justice not what ever wins us the most votes.

[Stinky The Clown]

38. Have a nice day

I'm not going to engage you in the debate you want to have. You know you're being disingenuous and baiting.

[closeupready]

41. Well, it was worth a try, huh?

I think that last sentence was where you lost him. ;) :D

[inthebrain]

32. Tie this issue to a matter of justice

<<<<<<<<<Immigration: tie it to the greatest extent to national security. Our only stated policy ought to be heavy duty, huge, punishing fines for those companies who employ undocumented workers. And make it clear that security from terrorists, specifically, is not put at any huge risk by poor Mexicans coming into the country.>>>>>>>>>

Tying Immigration to matter of security is still going to round out to fear mongering.

Perhaps as a matter of justice and whether out immigration policies are just might be a better way to go. I agree that we should punish people for exploitation. We must do so in a matter that results in justice for all working people.

Immigrants are mothers and fathers coming here trying to feed their kids. We need to not only look at our laws but our economic system so that everybody is rewarded for their labor. Immigration as an issue right now is nothing more than a straw dog distraction meant to scapegoat powerless and voiceless people.

Our legisaltors are at fault for the current state of the economy. They have offered way to much power to corporate swine.

[pnwmom]

46. That won't work with people who think their jobs are threatened.

[pnwmom]

45. Another way to frame abortion and gay rights --

link them up with the Terry Schiavo case and other privacy issues:

"They want to interfere in our private lives."

This ties together abortion, gay rights, Terry Schiavo, and government eavesdropping into one big ball.

[Stinky The Clown]

48. Thank you .... that's kinda what I was I was suggesting in the OP .....

.... you said it way better than I did.

[benEzra]

49. Dammit, you just illustrated part of the problem...not your fault, though

Gun control: Back off the issue this go-round. It’s a loser for us and isn’t on anyone’s radar right now. And we sure have more than enough gun owners in our midst to change the perception if we have to. In the end, however, we need to find a reasonable position on the issue – like various levels of control based on geography. It ought not be a federal issue except for extreme matters like assault weapons. And maybe the background checks. This is not an issue in which I have a deep knowledge, so forgive my examples. But you get my point.

This illustrates perfectly how the gun prohibitionists play to the gullibility of those who aren't very familiar with guns or Federal gun law.

An "assault weapon" is, by the prohibitionists' definition, a civilian rifle with a handgrip that sticks out. Straight wooden stock, not an "assault weapon." Same rifle, same stock, except for a handgrip that sticks out--"assault weapon."

All rifles combined account for only 2.8% of homicides, according to the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_20-22.html. In 2004, IIRC only two police officers out of 122 (IIRC, I have the figures on my computer at work) were murdered using rifles of ANY type.

Attempting to ban non-automatic civilian rifles (including the most popular target rifle in America) proved to gun owners that the anti-gun lobby is NOT interested in gun crime. It is US they are after, and going after rifles (which are almost never used in violent crimes) proves it.

For a more in-depth look at the gun issue, please see this DU thread: Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[Stinky The Clown]

51. On that specific issue I already said I am uninformed.

For what its worth, the term 'gun prohibitionist' sounds a bit antagonistic, though, doesn't it?

[benEzra]

52. Perhaps...

though I believe it is accurate. The Bradyites and their crusade are the idealogical and tactical descendants of Carrie Nation (Down With Demon Rum), Harry Anslinger ("Reefer Madness"), Fredrick Wertham (Seduction of the Innocents - comic books cause juvenile delinquency), Edward D. Wood (The Sinister Urge - magazines cause sex crime), and their ilk. Different item, same idealogy.

My allusion to alcohol prohibition is deliberate. The parallels between the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch and the 18th Amendment/Volkstead Act bait-and-switch are rather striking, actually.

[derby378]

53. You might be interested in this as well

Top 10 Myths about Semi-Automatic Firearms and the 1994 Ban