when you chop wood, you aim *past* the wood, not at it.

[ulysses]

We should take the same view with respect to the next midterms and 2008.

What I mean by that is not that we should write off the next election cycle by any means, but that our clear focus should be on attaining a lot more than we can attain in one or two elections. The hairsplitting that brings us focus groups and breathlessness about the legions who can't make up their damned minds isn't winning elections but it is killing the party.

We need to dispense with the wonkery and the idiot consultants. We need to articulate a large vision (not to be confused with a vision of a necessarily large government, mind you), learn to defend it and then attack with it, and aim toward it, relentlessly. We need to aim toward dominance with our values, not a slim win in the next election with a half-baked version of theirs.

We may or may not win in 2008, but the only way we'll win in 2012 - or 2020 - is by defining ourselves now, and clearly. Not by compromising with a foe that has no intention of compromising his own goals.

[Crowdance]

1. Same with martial arts-intend for the hand to go THROUGH the obstacle

and out the other side. You are absolutely right and an inspiration. We need to look at the long view, and develop a strategy that will serve for the generations.

[ulysses]

5. right - same idea.

Baseball swings follow it too. :)

I just hope the party can find the bravery to do it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I never knew that about wood chopping. Have an axe phobia that

keeps me from picking one up and removing my foot from my leg.

But anyway, very interesting post. :)

----------------------------------------------------------
Help expose the election 2004 voter fraud!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[scrantonlib17]

3. ?

Need some wood?

HA HA

Bush is an absolute moron!

[ulysses]

8. heh.

I'm no Paul Bunyan myself. :)

[scrantonlib17]

9. yeah!

Yeah! You better watch them, man.

[ibegurpard]

4. Good strategy. Now some implementation questions:

What kind of values-reinforcing social networks do liberals and progressives have in place that can compete with the fundie churches? The kind of groups that give people a sense of belonging and that they are part of a greater purpose for good? (They're misled but their organizations deliver the goods for the Republicans). In my opinion, these are the kinds of things we are going to have to start working on to bear long-term fruit.

[ulysses]

6. that's a fair point.

We have a lot of different agendas, some of which are easily triangulated at times (labor and fair traders, for instance). We need that kind of social cohesiveness, and I'm not sure how we get there. Great point - if anyone has any ideas...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. I'd say that the Dems need to organize their precincts as social groups to

offer an alternative to the fundie churches, especially in the bleak and faceless suburbs full of people who don't know one another and have no natural gathering spots.

[ReadTomPaine]

15. Excellent idea.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

16. My Ward

My ward in suburban Cincinnati has 49 precincts. Our ward club meeting is tonight, and I expect about a dozen or so Kerry volunteers (who have never been involved before) to be present. One idea we're kicking around is a "Roosevelt Day" dinner at a local restaurant. We've never done anything like this before, but I think that it's important to celebrate our heroes and to create a Democratic identity.

One thing that I've noticed in the past is that if you ask a conservative and a liberal about their party affiliation, you'll get the following --

Liberal: "I usually vote Democratic"
Conservative: "I'm a Republican"

There's a world of difference in those two responses. The conservative has internalized the philosophy of the Republican Party, while the Liberal sees himself as a "consumer" of a product (i.e., candidates) offered by the Democrats. We need to build an identify where our voters see themselves as part of a group -- as members of something greater than themselves. As part of a movement. Republicans have perfected this approach, and we need to get cracking on it ourselves.

[ReadTomPaine]

17. I am especially fond of your last paragraph...

"There's a world of difference in those two responses. The conservative has internalized the philosophy of the Republican Party, while the Liberal sees himself as a "consumer" of a product (i.e., candidates) offered by the Democrats. We need to build an identify where our voters see themselves as part of a group -- as members of something greater than themselves. As part of a movement. Republicans have perfected this approach, and we need to get cracking on it ourselves."

This is a key point, and it's the result of the failure of the Democratic party as much as the GOP attack machine.

Thanks for this post and best of luck at your meeting.

RTP

[scrantonlib17]

7. The Dems

I agree with Carville on this, you can't go listing everything you are going to do. You must speak of a broad vision that the Democrats will take this country. I don't understand it but a lot of people seem to be 'feel good people,' they go with whatever makes them feel good. We can't entirely rely on the Republican's mistakes (the long list it is). Another thing that is we must break their image. They play the image game well and the Democrats have to break it. But once again they have to build there own or else you'll just have lots of broken glass!

[ulysses]

10. .

:kick:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. You're right as usual, ulysses

All these "who should run in '08" and "we should have run so-and-so" threads are typical of the mushy middle approach.

The Republicanites pick their candidate and MAKE the electorate want him through clever manipulation of ideas. (I just caught the last part of the Frontline doc about Republican persuaders.)

We need a vision to present to the American people, something beyond the cult of personality and a list of programs. We haven't had a nominee who offered a vision since Johnson's War on Poverty.

[ulysses]

14. yup.

We need a vision to present to the American people, something beyond the cult of personality and a list of programs. We haven't had a nominee who offered a vision since Johnson's War on Poverty.

Almost no one is talking about the fact that all we've offered voters for the last couple of decades are these piddling splinter issues, focus-grouped well beyond the point at which they stopped being meaningful ideas. To paraphrase John Gardner, there's nothing wrong with studying the hairs on an elephant's trunk, but it's immoral to do so while the elephant is standing on a baby.

[chaska]

13. Hell, Yes. No more "me too", pug-lite shit. Win as real Dems or...

go down swingin'.

[xequals]

18. Dems have been "living from paycheck to paycheck", so to speak.

Triangulation is only a temporary fix, not a replacement for a real political ideology. Clinton's coalition was a fragile one; pet constituencies like the '90s "soccer moms" only get you so far, until they're voting for the other party and calling themselves "security moms".

Dems need to come up with something bold and long term, so that when the news and events turn against them, they still have something to stand on.

[ulysses]

19. exactly so.

pet constituencies like the '90s "soccer moms" only get you so far, until they're voting for the other party and calling themselves "security moms".

Nicely put. :thumbsup:

[Mike L]

20. Sure, keep saying, "fuck you", to middle America's cultural values.

That should work.

[ulysses]

22. to which values, exactly, am I proposing that we say "fuck you"?

Do tell.

[Mike L]

23. weren't you paying attention this election?

What were the "moral values" that were the #1 voter concern?

[ulysses]

24. yes, I was. now answer the damned question.

To what values am I proposing that we say "fuck you"?

[Mike L]

26. I prefer the Socratic method.

What do YOU think were the social/moral/cultural values that middle America endorsed this election? You know, the values that 22% of voters said were their top concern.

[sonicx]

27. why don't you answer his question?

[ulysses]

28. oh, lord...

I'm the slave boy? Please, son.

Just answer the question.

[Mike L]

29. he he

"I'm the slave boy?" Stop. Your're making me hot:-)

If you find the answer yourself, you will not doubt it's truth.

[ulysses]

30. so...are you going to answer the question?

Avoidance is not the Socratic method, btw.

[ulysses]

31. should I just assume at this point

that you won't be answering the question? You seemed so certain...

[Mike L]

32. Discover the answer yourself, my friend.

You will be enlightened.

[ulysses]

33. too bad.

I had such hopes that you might actually have a point.

Ah well.

[sonicx]

34. in other words, you're trolling

[LightTheMatch]

35. you mean the part where we're supposed to be haters?

Hatin' brown people and gay people ain't the Democratic Party way, bud. Think again.

[sonicx]

25. i dunno. you tell us...

most of america is pro-choice and for some sort of gay rights.

please look at the exit polls to see why we lost.

[Obviousman]

21. Need some wood?!

sorry, i just couldn't resist