The left is already seen as being too PC. Adding a provision for “word police” would only make it look worse. Concerning your original suggestion, it sounds interesting, but you need to put out an actual policy. What specifically do you propose to do to fix the problem?
No. It won’t.
I didn’t realize you only want to energize the base and get another 3-4%. I was more thinking “keep the base” and get more votes from the middle and even the right. I’m not saying you should ignore the base. But, certain groups like teachers unions and blacks will vote democrat no matter what. You can back off on support for everthing the corrupt teachers unions want. You can back off on support for unpopular programs like affirmative action. You can do this and still keep the support of these groups.
Your goal of winning elections is at odds with your goal of doing everything the base wants. IMO, the democrats are too tied to the whim of every group that makes up their base.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/oreilly091905.asp
Since people hate O’Reilly, here’s another cite:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm663.cfm
“Leave the hunters and the second ammenment alone.”
It’s interesting that after reading the Republican Contract With America, I find it hard to come up with a catchy slogan for this. The Contract was all about taking action. Doing something. Proposing laws and changes. My proposal here is more of damage control. I’m saying to stop acting in a way that’s hurting the party.
How about this:
THE GUN OWNERS RIGHTS ACT: A pro gun owners and hunters package including the right of law abiding gun owners to carry in all 50 states, and a ban on gun registries and databases of gun owners at all levels of government, protections for gun manufacturers against frivilous lawsuits, encouraging the openning of new land to hunting, and rights to self defense.
Some of this has already happened, others have not.
I’ll dig around for one in a bit. Certainly, you aren’t going to argue that most people are for AA, right? You must know that this is a loser of an issue for the Democrats. People hate AA, and not just conservatives. That’s why it always needs to be imposed by judges and can’t be on the ballot. People are against it.
I disagree. Some in the base might be rubbed the wrong way, but most wouldn’t. Many minorities actually don’t like AA. It’s insulting to them. I certainly would resent it.
I made some specifics already: Hold bad teachers accountable. Get rid of tenure, or at least weaken it by allowing tenured teachers to be fired through some process. Attract new people to teaching with tax breaks.
Moving goalposts. This hadn’t been said yet when I made my post.
In the OP you said “Think of this as a chance to brainstorm about a winning strategy for the Democratic party.” This isn’t the same thing as “energize the base, persuade 3-5% of fence-sitters”.
Energizing the base and winning a few fence sitters is one way to have a winning strategy, but certainly not the only way.
Health care.
You’ll never get elected promising universal health care in this country, but something like ‘affordable healthcare’ for all. Fix Medicare and Medicaid, supplement those with crappy plans. One long-term illness can ruin a family, easy.
Gad! How about guaranteed maternity/paternity leave? Base that on ‘family values.’ My wife, when we eventually have kids, will get to use her 10 days of sick leave for maternity leave and that’s it. A month. Something. Anything.
The last sentence in post 5, well before your first post, said this. The problem with your idea of taking teachers and blacks for granted is that:
- It assumes falsely that these two groups are monolithically and fanatically loyal to Democrats; and
- It ignores that an energized base performs vital “Get out the vote” functions. Without the energy, the base may stay home, and certainly won’t participate in fundraising activities, opinion-influencing activities, and voter registration activities.
Gingrich would not have won if he’d taken positions that alienated religious conservatives, on the principle that they’re not going to vote for a Democrat anyway. He needed the hard-core members of the party to stay energized in order to win.
This is a non-starter, I think.
Honestly, I was afraid the thread would turn into, “I’ve never voted for a Democrat, but I would if the Democrats would adopt these positions that I’d be lucky to get the Republican party to adopt.” With respect, Debaser, I think that bringing you into the Democratic party would be fatal to the party. Your vision of the country is not one that’s compatible with the Democratic Party. That’s perfectly fine: we don’t need all the fence-sitters, and we definitely don’t need all the people that consider themselves independent but that don’t currently even consider voting for a Democrat.
Daniel
Now that’s the kind of thing I’m talking about, and I can’t believe I forgot health care. What about this:
Daniel
Just hope Hillary isn’t the person selling it. 
Any proposal to increase spending has to be offset by either spending cuts or tax increase. Might as well get the “rescind the Bush tax cuts” proposal out there early.
From a PR perspective, this might be better off in the FAQ :).
Seriously, there are ways of phrasing this that aren’t so negative-sounding, and I think you’re right that it’ll be a necessary part of the proposal. I’d put it in the “fiscal responsibility” section, and talk about how the wealthiest Americans need to be paying their fair share of the nation’s costs. How do you think the best way to phrase it would be?
Daniel
Hm. I don’t think I should be allowed to play this game. I’d go a lot further than this, and end up making the Dems look like raving Commies.
I wasn’t proposing simple “PC” word policing, I was saying Democrats would regard an economy that grows without producing jobs or increasing wages as a recession, even if corporations and the wealthy are making out like bandits. And they would institute programs like the CCC in World War II, putting massive numbers of people to work on things like, I dunno, levee repair and renovating homes and businesses, to make them safer from hurricanes and flooding. The corporations that would do such work would have to pay its workers middle-class wages and offer health benefits, and keep hours down to 40 hours per week etc.
There’s plenty of work out there that needs doing. How about a program to give financial incentives to teachers who are capable of teaching kids to be scientists and engineers? How about a crash program to get oil out of our Western oil shale reserves without wrecking the ecology? Or to develop solar power and fuel cells that can power cars more efficiently? How about a crash program to develop safer cars that get great mileage? How about a program to manufacture enough body armor so every soldier in the armed services can have one if need be?
I know what you are thinking, John. You are thinking “Government boondoggle.” Well, sorry, John, but it’s not. Because at least with these programs, we’ll wind up with an improved infrastructure, less reliance on foreign oil, and a better overall energy situation. It’s not like we’re proposing needlessly invading foreign countries and pissing the money away on nothing.
Anyway, I DON’T think we should get too specific in our proposals. We should lay out the general principles and not let the Repubs argue us to death over the details, in which the devil resides. Let 'em argue once they’re out of power.
I actually don’t think there would be a problem, politically, with rescinding the Bush tax cuts-- on the wealthy. Keep the cuts for the middle class, and dump the cuts for the rich, and most people will be fine with it. Put it right up there on top of the list.
n.b.: I’m not saying I’d support this myself, but I think it would sell well in most of America.
I agree with this (except that I’d also support it), and I appreciate your input.
Aguecheek, I think that a key part of playing this game is recognizing that you’re not going to get everything you want. I’d love universal health care, a massive refocus of our transportation policy on mass transit, and a decimation of our military such that it’s only really good for defending our borders. However, I know that’s not going to work, just as I know that refocusing the Democratic party toward the Republican principles espoused by Debaser isn’t going to work.
The game is to figure out what positions would be within the Democratic tradition and would be able to win an election. This is going to mean giving up part of your ideal situation in order to achieve the possible.
Daniel
I think this IS a starter for the Dems – I don’t think most of us are all that passionate about gun control. We just don’t want felons, gangstas and the insane able to waltz into Wal-Mart and haul off guns to kill people with. And if somone DOES use a gun to kill people, we think it’s just ducky to be able to track them via the gun. But all the guys that wanna just go deer hunting, etc., or have a weapon at home for protection against felons, the insane, etc., who manage to get a weapon illegally, that’s fine with me and I bet most Dems, too. If we can get a meeting of the minds here, we should.
I do wonder about the ban on gun registries and databases, etc. Sounds like you’re removing methods of tracking guns used in crimes.
This is the part that I think most poisons the proposal. None of the rest of the proposals (increasing land open to hunting, imposing federal restrictions on states’ rights to enact gun control measures, preventing consumers from suing gun manufacturers) are either within the Democratic tradition or (IMO) wise from a PR or political perspective; but the elimination of databases is something that even the Republicans would be skeevy about touching. It’s definitely not something that is going to be feasible in the Democratic party.
Daniel
All righty then. Good enough for me. Thanks for the encouragement! From a Canadian perspective then, stuff that I see needs to be fixed:
- Kill pork - I like a line item veto.
- Severely limit industry/interest group lobbying - no gifts, no trips, no ‘sponsored’ seminars. Hell, limit industry contributions. Lobbyists should not be writing legislation.
- Campaign finance reform - give each party a specific amount that they are allowed to spend on campaigning. Elections should not be won by those who can yell the loudest.
- Education - Lose the standardized testing. Teach kids to think. Fund schools based on population and nothing but. That’ll even out the disparity in rich vs. poor districts. Don’t punish teachers/administration for poor results, raise standards for hiring teachers in the first place. Institute a national minimum wage for educators.
- Oh yeah - raise the minimum wage across the board.
That’s off the top of my head. I’ll gotta get some work done today, though, so I’ll be back later.
The first two are great. I honestly have no idea what good arguments can be raised against a line-item veto, and I think that at this point it’d be an extremely popular proposal across the political spectrum.
Campaign Finance Reform has a difficult road in the US, and I’m afraid that your proposal might run afoul of the First Amendment. I’m a big fan of it, but I’m not sure it’d be viable.
I love your education proposal, but you have to be very careful with standardized testing. Recent polls show that support for the level of standardized testing is dropping, with only a minority of folks supporting it now; but losing it altogether would terrify a lot of folks. I think the emphasis on raising standards is great, although it must be accompanied by incentives for teachers: right now, teaching is such a crummy profession in the US that it tends to attract only those who can’t get jobs elsewhere or those who are martyrically attracted to the idea of teaching. Across-the-board salary hikes would be a great proposal, although it’d need to be clear where we’re getting the funding for this.
A minimum wage hike? I think this could work, especially if it’s tied to cost-of-living increases. It could fall under the War on Poverty heading, with this as a way to improve the lives of the Working Poor. I think that improving the lives of the working poor would be a very popular position in the US.
Daniel
Registries wouldn’t be “removed” as much as simply “not created in the first place”. Only NY state has an actual registry of gun owners, IIRC. It costs millions of dollars and hasn’t stopped any actual crime. I don’t want to derail this thread with a gun control debate, but I really do think that this element fo the proposal isn’t that outlandish.
Gun owners view such databases as a logical first step to a gun ban. If you want to round up the guns, first you need to know where they all are.
The very fact that you guys here in this thread are talking about such databases favorably is an indication that you are anti-gun! I know that’s not your intention, but that’s how such a position is viewed by the pro-gun crowd. It’s this type of stuff that I’m addressing. You aren’t accomplishing anything with your position. Your base doesn’t care, and such databases are costly and ineffective anyway. But, you are firing up your opposition’s base without even realizing it.
Take my word for it. Leave the gun owners alone. I will not vote for an anti-gun candidate. Even if I agree 100% with them on every other issue, I will not cast a vote for an anti-gun candidate regardless of party. Being in favor of the creation of databases to track gun ownership is anti-gun.
Fair enough. I disagree, of course. 
Again: Far 'nuff. However, I don’t think my proposals are that out there. Kerry was your candidate in the last election and they had him out there duck hunting! Appealing to hunters and stepping back from the teachers unions are winning proposals IMO.
Admittedly, it would take a lot for me to vote democrat. The republicans are heading in a bad direction right now though. They’ve alienanted their base, and some of these votes are up for grabs. Coming around on some issues might not be easy, but it is the key to survival for the democrat party right now IMO.
I recognize that a lot of people (especially conservatives who are disenchanted with Republicans) believe that Democrats need to come around on some conservative issues in order to be viable. That’s defeinitely a defensible position.
However, I’d like to keep to the premise here that the Democratic party can win by emulating Gingrich’s 1994 strategy. That strategy didn’t involve adopting significant liberal positions; on the contrary, it involved adopting unapologetically conservative positions, phrased in a positive, hopeful fashion. Emulating this strategy, then, would entail adopting unapologetically progressive positions, phrased in a positive, hopeful fashion.
Kerry almost won last time despite not really having a strong, sexy phrasing of the Democratic issues: for the most part, he appeared to be arguing against Conservative issues instead of arguing in favor of progressive ones. My goal in this thread is to come up with those progressive positions for which we may argue unapologetically and positively, in order to demonstrate a different, distinct, and positive vision for our country.
Daniel
OK, specifics then.
[ul][li]The Democratic party believes that the huge and rising deficit is a mortgage on our children’s future. Accordingly, the first budget we submit for the President’s signature will reduce the total size of the deficit by not less than 33%. The second year’s budget will reduce it by a further33%. The third year’s budget will be balanced. [/li][li]We further commit ourselves to voting against any budget that is not in balance after that third year, unless the country is at war. (Iraq doesn’t count for being “at war”).[/li][]The Democratic party commits itself to zero-based budgeting as a method of reining in out-of-control government spending. []Discrimination based on race or gender is wrong. Not sometimes wrong, always wrong. Accordingly, the Democratic party commits itself to revoking all minority set-asides, “race norming” on tests, numerical quotas, and other forms of twenty-first century Jim Crow. []Partial-birth abortion is a horror and a deeply shameful abuse of a woman’s right to choose. All such abortions will be outlawed in the first 100 days of a Democratic Congress. []A civil suit ought to be the search for restitution for a wronged party, not a lottery for lawyers. Accordingly, all awards for pain and suffering will be capped at $300,000. And neither the plaintiff nor the plaintiff’s lawyers will be eligible to receive any portion of any punitive damages. All such damages will be paid into a fund administered by the several states, for the purpose of funding health care for the indigent.[/ul]
[QUOTE=Shodan]
OK, specifics then.
[ul][li]The Democratic party believes that the huge and rising deficit is a mortgage on our children’s future. Accordingly, the first budget we submit for the President’s signature will reduce the total size of the deficit by not less than 33%. The second year’s budget will reduce it by a further33%. The third year’s budget will be balanced. [/li][li]We further commit ourselves to voting against any budget that is not in balance after that third year, unless the country is at war. (Iraq doesn’t count for being “at war”).[/li][li]The Democratic party commits itself to zero-based budgeting as a method of reining in out-of-control government spending. []Discrimination based on race or gender is wrong. Not sometimes wrong, always wrong. Accordingly, the Democratic party commits itself to revoking all minority set-asides, “race norming” on tests, numerical quotas, and other forms of twenty-first century Jim Crow. []Partial-birth abortion is a horror and a deeply shameful abuse of a woman’s right to choose. All such abortions will be outlawed in the first 100 days of a Democratic Congress. A civil suit ought to be the search for restitution for a wronged party, not a lottery for lawyers. Accordingly, all awards for pain and suffering will be capped at $300,000. And neither the plaintiff nor the plaintiff’s lawyers will be eligible to receive any portion of any punitive damages. All such damages will be paid into a fund administered by the several states, for the purpose of funding health care for the indigent.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: And which of these positions do you think are unapologetically progressive positions?
Daniel