I’m not sure I agree. Most of the Northern migrants to Atlanta seem to be professionals who move into the suburbs and vote Republican, electing people like Newt Gingrich (himself a Northern transplant) and Bob Barr.
The Democrats just need to modify their social liberalism. The people are wary of activist judges, and they’re wary of having society-wide changes to their social structures imposed on them (i.e. national Gay marriage, which is a political loser).
The Dems should move towards a more classically liberal social policy. States’ rights is a good way to move their agenda forward. Make the argument that states should be allowed to set their own rules. Frame it in terms of liberty. Start scaling back the influence of the federal government. Slam Republicans who use the Federal government as a big hammer to force the social changes THEY want. This is the path towards gay marriage, drug legalization, etc. Just get the federal government out of it.
Economically, they should champion Bill Clinton. Keep repeating, “What’s not to like about 8 years of growth and budget surpluses? Democrats know how to restrain spending, but to do so with a human face”. Something like that.
“Economic populism” is a phrase that sets off some alarm bells over here to the right of y’all.
I really think your best bet - if you are serious about changing your appeal, not just rephrasing it - is to concentrate on fiscal responsibility.
It’s no good telling us that Clinton balanced the budget, unless you show us that you are going to do the same. And I suspect that responding to questions on how exactly you are going to balance the budget by talking about all the big, expensive new programs you are going to implement is not what is going to make you sound like the party of fiscal responsibility.
You can’t beat something with nothing. You missed an opportunity in 2004 by running as “anybody but Bush”. You missed an opportunity on Social Security by simply attacking Bush without offering a credible alternative. Maybe you defeated his plan. Is that all you wanted - to preserve the status quo on Social Security?
I don’t know how often y’all are going to repost “tax and spend is a winning strategy if we can just sell it better”.
Divide the electorate into economic quintiles. You don’t need to appeal to the bottom 20% - most of them either don’t vote, or vote Democratic already. The next quintile up you might do better, but only for those who don’t see themselves as on the way to the top. “Soak the rich” is a policy with only limited appeal to people who hope to be rich themselves one day. The top 60% you have to come up with some reason to get them to support you even if it means raising their taxes. They already have health care, so universal government funded health care has limited appeal (especially if they are over 65 already).
Which leaves you with security issues, which I don’t think will work for Dems, or an actual appeal to their sense of responsibility. And you need credibility for that.
Regards,
Shodan
The social issues are the ones that matter most to me. If the Dems abandon those. I’ll start voting Green or Libertarian. Winning is irrelevant, it’s being right that counts.
What the Dems really need to do is go frontal on the religious right. They need to really start calling the theocrats on how insane and stupid they are. The problem isn’t that the issues are losers, the problem is that the dems are afraid to address them aggressively. They can’t be namby-pamby and “moderate” on gay marriage. The real 'phobes are not going to vote for them no matter what, so there’s no point in trying to stake out a 'safe" position. They should realize that the strongest thing going for SSM is that it’s the RIGHT position and that all opposition is substantively vacant. If the Dems were able to launch a substantive debate on the issue, rather than just reacting defensively to overcooked, emotional Bible banging, they’d win easy. There simply is no genuine, rational argument against SSM and if the Dems would just start pointing that out, they’d find themselves with a lot more support.
Think about it, how would Rick Santorum fare in a SSM debate on this message board? He’d get his ass handed to him. So would DeLay or Frist or any of those idiots. When it comes down to the substance of the debates, the Dems have all the cards. They just need to learn to start playing them.
Most importantly of all, the Dems need to distance themselves from the likes of Michael Moore and Al Sharpton. Making a huge fuss about Dean’s comments about guys with rebel flag stickers on their pickups was definitely not a good idea either.
You know what I mean–show us white working class types some respect, that’s all.
Are you serious? You think white people are somehow victims of Michael Moore and Howard Dean? How so? How have “white working class types” (of which I am one) been disrespected by the Dems?
Frankly, I think “Respect us white guys” is a message conservatives might want to shy away from. It lacks both resonance and validity.
Well, I think you already know my stance on this, but if not I’ll just say I probably radically go against the grain on this issue. I’m an ‘open borders’ kind of guy myself (yeah, probably because of my own past). I think one of the great strengths of the US is that we have (in the past) allowed so many diverse people into our nation from all over the world. I’m certainly in favor of what you are saying with ‘racially and culturally neutral’. Were it me I’d probably throw open the door, though I can see the other side of the arguement too. I certainly don’t see this as a cornerstone issue for the Dems to focus on though. As I’ve already said, if I were the Dems I’d become the party of true fiscal responsibility, try and get back to what Clinton started by focusing not on all the shinny new programs you intend to bring out but on how YOU will balance the budget while still maintaining some kind of line on new taxes (yes, new taxes will be needed, but NOT for shinny new European style programs but to balance the budget and reduce the deficit).
No one will touch it because doing so is touching one of the third rails in American politics…its not popular and its a good way to get fried. I don’t see this as a viable way for Dems to regain power…in fact, were they to try to come right out with what they have been code wording for decades (not like most folks don’t see the code, but its easier to mask if you don’t come right out and say it), you’ll essentially be handing the nation over completely to the Republicans…and you might just spark the rise of one of the third parties (if one could ever get its shit together) to challenge you for the number two spot. Its happened before after all…thats where the Republicans came from in the first place.
-XT
Diogenes, I couldn’t disagree more. A Democratic presidential candidate wouldn’t even survive the first couple of primaries with an aggressive stand in support of gay marriage. I believe you may be projecting if you think America is ready for that approach to the issue. You need look no further than the results in the various states which voted on anti-gay-marriage proposals in the last election.
I simply don’t understand this notion that the Dems need to “moderate” their liberal social agenda. It’s already about as moderate as it can get without being indistinguishable from that of the Republicans. The only difference between Kerry and Bush on gay marriage is Bush supported an amendment to the US Constitution banning it, and Kerry did not. I mean, what do you want, for people like Kerry to start fellating the religious right as well? Hell, most Republican Congressmen didn’t really want the amendment. They support state rights on Gay marriage, which is precisely what Kerry said he supported. It’s the Republican leadership that’s being activist, in this regard, if you ask me, only its more like “Executive activism”. Only one state in the union has legal gay marriage, and a handful of others have civil unions. In the reddest of the red states, Gay marriage has been outlawed, as well as civil unions. How could Dems, on a national level, be more hands-off on the subject? They didn’t even have anything to do with gay marriage in MA! They tried to propose civil union laws similar to what is found in other states, and the MASJC threw it back at them. The reason the courts decision stands is because there’s apparently no will among the electorate to ban gay marriage via a constitutional amendment. If this had happened in virtually any other state but here in the People’s Republic of Pinkocommistan, you would have a gay marriage ban in two years by referendum. It’s a complete non-issue as far as the Democratic leadership is concerned. They already treat it like a hot potato.
What else is there for them to give up on? Teaching actual science in schools? Abortion? Seriously, what part of the Dem. leadership’s “social agenda” can they sacrifice at this point without being a complete non-entity from a sociological standpoint? How are they not already bending over backwards to moderate?
Oh baloney. Why do you think middle class taxpayers will rise to the defense of the wealthy? Envy is a fundamental human emotion, and tax-the-wealthy appeals have a long tradition of success in American politics. If the average American taxpayer realizes that the wealthiest of the wealthy are not carrying their fair share of the load, that average taxpayer will respond with a mix of envy and anger.
The Democrats’ problem is that they have been unable or unwilling to make this case in clear terms. They resort to platitudes and sound bites without taking the time to show voters exactly how the wealthy are gaming the system.
I don’t agree that there is NO argument against SSM. There are two arguments here - one is the moral, god-fearing, religious right argument, which I agree is wrong-headed and should be attacked (it’s also vulnerable).
But there’s another argument, and that is simply that marriage is such a fundamental institution to this society that mucking about with it is dangerous. This is the ‘unintended consequences’ argument, and it basically says, “tread lightly where the consequences are not fully understood”. I’m sympathetic to this, even though I support full rights for gays (and was photographer at a wedding for two lesbian friends - enthusiastically).
There are also arguments that say that gay marriage opens up a whole new can of issues that have yet to be resolved. For example, if a man and a woman live together for a certain period of time, they can be declared ‘married’ in a legally binding sense in terms of splitting up income and property and caring for children should they move apart. If marriage is defined as any set of vows between any two people, how do you resolve this? If two men live together for a few years, are they bound together in common law? How about my two aunts who moved together after their husbands died young? Should they be ‘married’? If not, isn’t it discriminatory to only apply common-law to men and women who live with the opposite sex?
How many straight people who live together will declare themselves ‘married’ to get tax benefits? Or for that matter, what about the people who refuse to get married today because one is on social assistance and being married would cause them to lose it? Currently, if a man and a woman are declared to be married in common law, I believe the state can refuse benefits if the household income is above a certain level. Do we now apply this to all roommates? Where are the lines drawn?
These last arguments, I believe, are the source of most of the opposition to gay marriage. When you read that opposition to gay marriage is running 70-80%, and even in the bluest states a majority often oppose it, you have to look at reasons other than fundie gay-hatred. The good news is that there are strategies for solving the second argument. I would favor the ‘civil union’ route - leave the word ‘marriage’ out of it, and create a second category for people who want to be married in a civil union - not just gays, either. This could be the category for all sorts of non-traditional relationship contracts. It must have all of the economic and legal benefits of ‘traditional marriage’, but just call it something else. I would prefer getting the state out of the marriage game entirely. Marriage should be nothing more than A) a vow taken before god if you so believe, and B) a set of legal contracts willingly entered into. Whether gays can ‘marry’ within a church should be up to that church, but entering into a contract should be automatic.
The second strategy would be to get the federal government out of this entirely, and let the states decide. That not only works against the Republicans who are pushing a federal marriage amendment, but it appeals to libertarians and ‘states rights’ conservatives who are wary of federal power. It also addresses the concerns of the ‘don’t mess with critical institutions’ crowd, because going state-by-state limits the immediate impact, and gives us a way to gradually ease in to the notion without making a sweeping society-wide change first.
Converting what amounts to a deceptive & poorly financed federal pension plan into a welfare program won’t sell - no matter how well intentioned or many times the word progressive is bandied about. FDR knew that & crafted the program accordingly. The Social Security Act passed in 1935, at a time when conservatism was a considered an antiquated & extinct philosophy.
I’m not saying anyone would rise up in defense of the rich if there were increased taxes across the board. Fair is fair, and American’s are fair about that kind of thing. The question is ‘soak the rich’, i.e. raise taxes on JUST the rich heavily for a bunch of shinny new social programs of dubious worth.
‘Oh baloney’ back at ya. The Dems have been code wording for this for decades and in case you’ve failed to notice they haven’t exactly been getting much traction on this issue since the peanut man was in office. Perhaps you missed the about face Clinton did on this issue? And how successful he was (well, on the fiscal level…he DID manage to not only get elected but to get re-elected to office which is fairly unusual for Democrats recently at the presidential level) for doing so? Or the defeats the Dems have suffered since the 70’s when they’ve tried to run with this, especially on the national level? Again, you seem to think its just a matter of packaging it better, that the people REALLY do want to stick it to the rich and really do want all those shinny new programs. I’ve yet to see any evidence that the main stream American really thinks this way.
-XT
I will agree with you that “fairness” is exactly the way to frame the issue.
Look at the tax proposals the Republicans have been pushing in recent years:
- Elimination of the estate tax.
- Elimination of taxes on dividends.
- Elimination (eventually) of the capital gains tax
- Elimination of tax on interest income
Now let’s imagine a hypothetical heir who inherits $100 million. He spends the rest of his life living off of dividends, interest, and sale of assets. Let’s say by the end of his life he has parlayed this initial fortune into $1 billion, which he now intends to pass along to his only son, who will live the same lifestyle.
The Republican approach would mean that both the super-wealthy heir and his super-duper-wealthy son could live their entire lives without paying one penny in federal taxes.
I don’t think you’d have a hard time selling the public on taxing these folks.
We’ve debated these issues once before, by the way.
The way to present it to the American people is to argue (as I think you could) that Republican policies are creating a permanent class of the super-wealthy, an American aristocracy of sorts. Americans have a cultural distaste for that sort of thing.
Could have been worse, they could have advocated killing Americans:
But gay marriage lost worse than Kerry did. Insofar as the Dems were identified with a liberal position on gay marriage at all, it was a net loser for them.
ISTM that the social issue you need to hit on would be “right to die” issues. The Republican leadership was pretty far out of step with the majority on the Schiavvo case. Maybe they were pandering to the religious Right there - if your position on the left is so iron-clad there, why not hit them there?
If the Democrats need a gauntlet, why not pick that one up? If they can’t gain ground on that, they have no chance at all on gay marriage or any other of their core social issues.
I personally see someone like Schwarzenegger to be the future of politics in America - not necessarily him personally, but someone like him. A fiscal conservative, and a sort of laissez-faire on social issues like gay marriage or whatever.
On the other hand, I heard a ton about how vulnerable Bush was before the election. See how that worked out?
It’s not like there aren’t any issues for the Dems to work - but they don’t seem to have their finger on anyone’s pulse besides fringers like Dean and Moore.
Regards,
Shodan
Where exactly was Coulter seated at the Republican Convention again?
That was an excellent post, Sam. I hope it’s listened to.
That was an excellent post, Sam. I hope it’s listened to.
I think it’s “unwilling.” The most prominent leaders and elected officials of both parties belong to the same overclass.