Do the Dems want to win in 2K4? They'd better take a lesson from DK!

[IrateCitizen]

This morning, I was reading my new copy of The Nation on the way to work. In it, there was an interesting article on the idea of providing free higher education to all who qualify written by Adolph Reed, Jr. and Mark Dudzic. Reed recently wrote a similar piece for The Progressive.

In it, however, they hit on some broader themes besides just higher education -- they discussed the issue in a broader, electoral context. They cited James Carville's comments on the 2002 elections when he said, "Democrats have to understand that people won't believe you'll fight for them if you won't fight for yourself." Now, as nice of a soundbite as that is, they go a bit deeper.

The authors identify how the Republicans are so adept at uncovering wedge issues and using them to divide the electorate, while Democrats still talk about policy in wonkish terms, straining to remain within the parameters of debate established by the Republicans. They cite the case of higher education as a prime example by comparing and contrasting the candidates platforms. The only one who presents a plan in simple terms that can be summed up in one sentence is... you guessed it, Dennis Kucinich. All the others describe their plans in such wonkish and convoluted terms that the average person's eyes will glaze over before they even get into the meat of the proposal.

Now, why is this relevant? Because the Democrats, if they want to be successful in the long term, must use wedge issues of their own to divide the electorate. By this, I am talking about focusing on issues that can tie into a larger social vision that divide the electorate between the have-more-than-they-could-ever-use's, and everybody else.

As an example of the Democrats' willingness to quickly abandon such tactics, they cite Al Gore's tepid foray into populism during the 2000 election. As soon as he began to even mention anything resembling populism, the whining chorus started from the right about his engaging in "class warfare". Now, rather than seizing on this potential wedge and its ability to actually unite a broad consituency, he backed off of it. In doing so, he was both harming his chances of success AND ceding the parameters of the debate to the right wing.

Now, I know that there are people who are going to say, "Well, if Dennis's ideas are so great, then why isn't he doing better in the polls?" My reply is that this isn't about Dennis. This is about the long-term success of the Democratic Party in helping to promote a better vision for America. Dennis is the one politician who is willing to lay out bold ideas that do tie into a definable overarching social vision. The majority of Democrats, however, have dedicated themselves only to cobbling together a bunch of individual issue stances presented in a framework dictated by the Right. They have also recoiled in intense fear of approaching anything defined by the right wing or the punditry crowd of the Op-Ed pages as a "wedge issue", while the Republicans continue to gleefully exploit their own to success after success.

Perhaps best describing that need for Democrats to promote their own wedge issues and how they are tied into their vision for a greater America is the next-to-last paragraph of the article:

And there's another lesson that is of equal importance. History has shown time and again that if progressives don't find a way to bring out the best in people by articulating their common dreams, then many will turn to the nightmare of reaction, divisiveness, racism and jingoism. This is the ugly dark side of wedge issues. It is a side that Karl Rove and company know only too well.

While the eventual nominee should, by all means, be able to put together what he believes in the best platform, from a strategy side, he should take a page from this playbook. Because, in the end analysis, it is the only playbook that will bring in several seasons of success rather than being just a fluke victory.

For those interested, you can read the article HERE. You may need a Nation subscription in order to access it.

[mhr]

1. If Billionaires And Millionaires Can Fight For More Money,

then so can everyone else.

If the rich are taxed too much and the poor taxed too little, then why has the income gap continued to grow.

Class warfare, you bet. Let the war begin!

Simple easy messages!

[no name no slogan]

2. "Keep It Simple, Stupid"

Words to live by. That is yet another reason why DK's message resonates with people, IMHO. For example, Edwards' policy statement is a 168-page document full of all sorts of wonk-speak, describing how we'd eventually get universal health care and a free year of university tuition, while DK's platform can be summed up on one page of letter-sized paper, front and back.

Most American people are so damned busy working two jobs that they don't have TIME to settle in for a night of reading public policy-- they want things in an easilty-digestable manner that tells them WHAT a candidate stands for, and HOW s/he'll do it.

[On the Road]

3. A Lesson from DK? Like This One?

"If we want to be a civilized nation, there are three qualities in which this country is woefully inadequate:"




:) Just for laughs. No slam intended -- I think it's a great pic.

[charlie]

4. You arguing with that?

I'm at the lanes every weekend, in the accordian mosh pit with a mustard-slathered schnitzel. How do think the guy got my vote? :)

[On the Road]

9. Hey, I Could Get Behind a Polka-Bowling-Kielbasa Platform!

that picture just tickles me. I think better of DK for allowing it to be taken.

[IrateCitizen]

6. I complimented you on the pic yesterday, goodhue!

Being from the Pittsburgh area originally, I can definitely recognize a call for affirming the influence of Polish culture when I see it!

I also remember the "Steelers Polka" from when I was a little boy!

[OhioStateProgressive]

19. I don't know

I think you would have to had grown up in a Polish community to really get the subtle joke (and truth) to that photo.

Also that photo is from a speech Dennis gave at the Polish Falcons club

[RichM]

5. on Letting Republicans establish the parameters of the debate --

This is something most Democrats just don't get. The consequences can't be overstated. For example, the Republicans made the war a question of whether Saddam had WMD, and whether he was evil. This rhetorical framework neatly excluded the less savory motivations of seizing Iraqi oil and using US military force to pursue the course of global domination.

The Democrats went for it hook, line & sinker. They never challenged (and still don't) this "WMD/Saddam" framework -- except for Dennis Kucinich, who is the only Dem to have pronounced the word "oil" in the debates, in his statement that the US must relinquish control of the oil.

Every time a Democrat opens his mouth to opine whether or not "Saddam was a threat," it represents a Republican victory, because the entire discussion is proceeding within limits established by the rightwing.

[Armstead]

13. It's amazing to me (though not surprising) that....

most Democrats are not jumpiong on the basic paradox that the US wants to "free Iraq" while at the same time laying the groundwork for the corproate sector to take over their economy.

[redqueen]

16. By 'not suprising'

are you alluding to the corporate influence in the party?

[mrgorth]

7. Great post

you might want to hop into BigTree's "The Left and elections" thread.

[IrateCitizen]

8. Been there, done that...

And it's like arguing with a brick wall. :eyes:

[IrateCitizen]

10. KICK!

The way this thread is dropping, I wonder if I should beg for forgiveness for actually deigning to talk about issues or strategy!?!?

:kick:

[Armstead]

11. I agree with that

However, it's got to be done right or it's meaningless. It's a tricky balance, because empty slogans are in abundent supply.

How to tread between empty slogans and a real agenda is difficult. It probably requires a mix of simple intuition and more careful thought. That is one thing the Republicans have been very successful at. Prosenting a "whitebread agenda" that is connected with a real set of goals and related policies. Unbfortunately, much of that is a con job that hides their real agenda.

"We'll get government off your back, unlike those liberal Democrats" was a stroke of genius by the GOP, for example. Everyone wants the government off their backs, including most liberals and progressives. By using that to paint liberals/progressives/Democrats as the "put government on your back" side, the conservatives simultaneously aligned themselves with a popular libertarian-stylegoal, while sticking the left with the label as the supporters of big abusive government.

By doing so, they have been able to sell an equally unpopular concept -- totally unregulated big-money monopolistic elitism -- and disguised it with a populist covering that made people support things that are not in their best interests.

Likewise with healthcare. Most everyone has frustratons with the current healthcare system -- to say the least. Most people know it's not working and is inhenertly unfair and corrupt. But the GOP has managed to tar universal healthcare as "socialism." So it has that image.

That's one of the main problems I have with so-called "centrist" Democrats. Instead of offering a counter message, they use the same trms. And unfortunately, many Democrats have bought the GOP/Corporate snakeoil too....So any real differences are blurred and seen as merely "partisan sniping."

In contrast, the core of the modern progressive movement (Wellstone, Sanders, Kucinich, etc.) is actually a break from the straightjackets of "right" and "left." Many aspects -- grassroots economics, participatory democracy, diversaity, community -- are actually conservative in a traditional, positive sense. They represent a way to fuse old-style libralism with modern realities and mainstream values.

IMO, the policies to accomplish goals are inherently complicated. However, they can be boiled down into soundbites and plain talk too. For example, as a counterpoint to "Get government off your back" is to "get big business off your back." ....(Of course, one has to actually mean it.)

There have to be specific ideas for doing that, but the concept is a "wedge issue" that can win many over, I believe.

Kucinich as a presidential candidate is not a very good messenger for this. When he gets up in a dabate and talks about his "healing hands" it's a bit off-putting for the average person (and even some of us who agree with him)....However, in intervies and otehr settings where he calms down and has a chance to actually speak, his positions make perfect sense. And they would make perfect sense to many average "mainstream" people, if they ever had a chance to hear them.

It isn;t easy to shift paradigms. But the first steps are actually very simple. Start tellig the truth. Most people (except the determined blockheads) already know the truth, but have tuned out because they feel that no one represents it politically. That's where Democrats and the left COULD both become stronger politically and move the country in a batter direction.

I'm beginning to ramble here. In a nutshell, the short answer is yes, I totally agree that a Kucinich message can be a winning one, if the Democrats actually got behind it.

[pop goes the weasel]

23. beautifully put n/t

[IrateCitizen]

24. This is the big question, Armstead:

It isn;t easy to shift paradigms. But the first steps are actually very simple. Start tellig the truth. Most people (except the determined blockheads) already know the truth, but have tuned out because they feel that no one represents it politically. That's where Democrats and the left COULD both become stronger politically and move the country in a batter direction.

Does the Democratic Party have the courage to try and force this paradigm change?

I think that this is a VERY serious question right now, because there seems to be such an overwhelming national FEAR right now -- just looking at the reason a lot of people are voting for Kerry in the primaries, you hear so much of, "Well, I like (insert other candidate here) -- but Kerry just seems like the one who can beat Bush."

Come the GE, things will only get WORSE in that regard. So, in this climate of overwhelming fear, will anyone have the courage to actually stand up for themselves and the people of the country, and try to not just win a single election but reinvigorate the Democratic Party? Or will they become so consumed with "trying not to lose" that they will actually make the overall party WORSE off even if they win this year?

[redqueen]

12. Entirely correct

Kucinich was right to avoid falling into the republican trap of debating what to do about WMDs. He consistently requested proof of the threat. He was right.

I think this also shows when he answers detractors. He always seems to handle it with grace and speed. Never any 'well you see, i... uh... what that was, was... um... hang on a minute' coming out of his mouth.

[Armstead]

14. Kick

For a Kerry-scandle free thread

[Iverson]

15. some thoughts

As far as I can tell, this is your argumentative thesis: "(T)he Democrats, if they want to be successful in the long term, must use wedge issues of their own to divide the electorate..."

That's an odd way of putting it, but as you elaborate, it's clear that you're really talking about reframing the political debate in sane terms. RichM summarizes the problem neatly in response #5.

This is actually not so hard. Think of it, though, not as building a better wedge but as articulating a better vision.

The hard part is getting the mainstream to listen. Don't expect the news media - print or broadcast - to be fair or receptive. Legally, they don't have to be. Don't expect either mainstream political party in their current incarnations to be receptive either. The awfulness of the Republicans is extreme, and the controlling corporate wing of the Democrats has unabashedly compared Kucinich to Rumsfeld over Iraq.

This leaves the long, hard work of grassroots organizing. It does work sometimes, though. Otherwise, protests against things like the IMF and WTO couldn't happen.

As with anti-war sentiment and ceasing to give Bush a free pass, the mainstream is slow to respond and only covers it when it is safe to do so and they can act like they invented it. Still, as you see, it does happen.

This means that you and I and each of us need to be able to tell our neighbors or coworkers calmly that a better world is possible, and we need to be secure in our reasons for saying so. It will be up to the Democrats whether they want a piece of that or no.

[miltonjk]

17. "wedge issue" for GOP= kerry affair

John Kerry is now officially unelectable. We cannot afford to risk going through this nightmare again; not during an election.
We know that he'll be eaten alive for this. He got the woman to leave the country???? This is actually really bad.

Edwards/Dean ticket??

[Iverson]

20. follow-up

Hi, miltonjk, and welcome to DU!
Were you replying to something in my note or to the original note of the thread?

[Robbien]

22. That poster is new to DU posting the exact same post in several threads

I guess he wants us to get hot and bothered by a non issue Drudge is spreading. Three posts so far and same message in each one.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

18. The simple reason - Democrats won't say anything that offends RICH PEOPLE

The class divide is the ULTIMATE wedge issue that will destroy the GOP for a generation. Why won't the Democrats use it? That question will be left as an exercise for the reader.

[redqueen]

21. That's an exercise?

About as much exercise as typing d-u-h. :)

[enki23]

25. we need a party that has three things, i think:

1. the willingness to fight a class war. both democrats and republicans are already in on this.

2. the willingness to fight a class war on the side of the *lower* classes. neither major party has anything to do with this.

3. inflence on par with a "major party." no party which endorses 1, and 2, has this.

i still don't think it's going to happen in the political arena. i think direct action will be necessary to accomplish virtually everything that needs to be accomplished. the entire legislative apparatus is under the heavy thumb of big money, and big business, and will mostly be opposed to any real attempt by the lower classes to beome a force in the political system. every major political party in the united states always has been, after all. james madison said it, the constitution--designed primarily by madison--was founded on it, and most everyone in power here, of both major parties, still believes it: the goal of government was "to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority." he wanted to "put power in the hands of wealthy, capable men." john jay, another member of the constitutional convention, said it like this: "the people who own the country, ought to govern it."

almost every bit of progress toward a fairer, more equitable social order, has been done in spite of fierce opposition by all in power. and it's always been a fairly bipartisan opposition.