Democratic Dos and Don’ts

The Bush Administration and Republican Congressional leaders have plenty of reason to be worried. Large majorities of Americans believe the country is going in the wrong direction, that Bush doesn’t share their priorities, that the war in Iraq wasn’t worth it, and that the President can’t be trusted. Most people can’t think of anything Congress has done except for intruding in the Terri Schiavo case, and almost everyone disapproved of that. Democrats in Congress, while still not earning high ratings, are ahead of the Republicans by the largest margin in recent times. And I haven’t heard anyone raving about what a genius Karl Rove is lately.

The turf is favorable, but we’ve been there before—in 2000 and 2004. What should progressives do as we approach the 2006 elections to capitalize on Americans’ sense of unease and discontent?

I suggest two "Don’ts" and three "Dos." First, progressives and Democrats don’t need an extreme makeover. Far from it. We do not need to rethink our values and principles, rewrite our agenda or move to the "center." Polls taken the day before the 2004 election as well as the day after tell us clearly that the Democrats are already where most Americans are on the issues and also on values. The post-election Zogby poll asked respondents to name the moral values most important to them. Two to one, they named "greed and materialism" and "poverty and economic justice" over "abortion" and "same sex marriage." They share our values. We do, in fact, represent the aspirations of the majority of Americans.

"Don’t" number two is our tendency to talk about our beliefs in terms of programs and policies. I have a ten-point health care plan. I have a housing policy. The right-wingers talk in terms of "right and wrong." Right and wrong trumps programs and policies every time.

My three "Dos": First, do what your mother said—or at least what my mother said—stand up straight. What people like least about progressives and Democrats is that they think we’re squishy. They think Bush is tough, knows what he believes and is willing to fight for it. Americans like tough, even when they don’t entirely agree with the substance. Voters like tough; voters don’t like tentative.

Standing up straight requires staying on the offensive. If we are playing defense, we are losing. The Republicans are providing us with a wealth of opportunities—unlimited examples of abuse of power, multiple examples of plain old corruption and greed, predatory economic policies, the quagmire in Iraq, threats to our Constitutional rights and devastating environmental policies.

Nothing should stop progressives from proudly and aggressively standing up in opposition to conservatives’ assault on fundamental, mainstream American values and sensibilities. Most Americans agree that it’s just plain wrong to give millionaires a $140,000 annual tax break, or eliminate the estate tax for 52,000 U.S. families at a cost of nearly $1 trillion over ten years, or reward companies that exchange good jobs at home for slave-wage jobs overseas, and at the same time starve education, Medicaid, veterans’ health care, and even homeland security. Most Americans resent being lied to about going to war and about outing undercover CIA agents. So many offenses, so little time.

The second "Do"—say it again. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Steve Chapman, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune observed that in math, 100 x 0 = 0. In politics, you say something a hundred times and it adds up to something. Consider the repeal of the estate tax, which is nothing more than a giveaway to (as my mother would say) the "filthy rich." The President calls it the death tax. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and right-wing talk radio call it the death tax. The Washington Times writes about the death tax. And before you know it, the New York Times writes about the death tax, and since everybody dies, the public starts asking for relief from the death tax. Republican repetition of the same talking points may irritate you, but it represents the level of discipline that we need if we ever expect average Americans to hear what we stand for and be able to articulate it in one declarative sentence.

For the final "Do," I borrow from Nike’s successful corporate slogan "Just Do It." Quite frankly, I am sick of conversations about how disadvantaged we are because they control so much of the media or how the right-wing has been building its infrastructure for decades—even if it is true. If I had a dollar for every time a progressive whined about this, there would be enough money to balance the federal budget and fix Social Security for another 70 years.

Actually, the campaign to save Social Security is a perfect example of progressives "just doing it," as well as standing up straight, and saying the same thing again and again. In my decades as an organizer, I have never participated in such an intentional and effective collaboration among diverse organizations and members of Congress. All the stakeholders have been brought to the table to craft a strategy that maximizes the strength of each. The President has not made a single stop on his journey to privatize and ultimately destroy Social Security that has not been greeted by an enthusiastic, disciplined and, often, huge group of protesters. Republicans are scrambling for cover, afraid to hold town meetings of their own. While it’s not over ’til it’s over, we are winning the battle to protect and preserve Social Security.

I am optimistic; history is on our side. Rather than the beginning of a right-wing shift, I believe we are enduring its last gasp. This is a moment of opportunity for progressives; change is in the air. The 2006 Congressional elections are just around the corner, and we can’t waste a minute. Stand up straight, say it again and just do it!
permalink email to a friend printer friendly subscribe
Reader Comments

Jan Schakowsky:

“. . . Democrats in Congress, while still not earning high ratings, are ahead of the Republicans by the largest margin in recent times. And I haven’t heard anyone raving about what a genius Karl Rove is lately.

The turf is favorable, but we’ve been there before-in 2000 and 2004. What should progressives do as we approach the 2006 elections to capitalize on Americans’ sense of unease and discontent? . . .”

Jan, the reason the majority of Americans agree with liberal policies, and still the GOP gained in 2000 and 2004 is because private corporations like Diebold, who openly support the GOP and Bush, have been contracted to take and count the votes, and helped the GOP to cheat. Until the vote is taken away from corporate crooks, like Diebold, the democrats can’t win.

“ . . . The Republicans are providing us with a wealth of opportunities-unlimited examples of abuse of power, multiple examples of plain old corruption and greed, predatory economic policies, the quagmire in Iraq, threats to our Constitutional rights and devastating environmental policies. . . .”

But, liberals can’t take full advantage, Jan, because the MSM has been taken over by giant corporations that support the GOP and Bush. Until a majority of Americans read www.mediamatters.org, GOP crimes just don’t matter.

“ . . . Actually, the campaign to save Social Security is a perfect example of progressives “just doing it,” as well as standing up straight, and saying the same thing again and again. . . .”

And it didn’t hurt that many GOPers also opposed the Bush plan to dismantle social security. As a result, the Turd Blossom couldn’t make a political fight out of it.
Posted by Lefty on July 22, 2005 at 7:11 PM

While I agree politically with Rep. Schakowsky, I do not believe the democratic leadership in Congress is as progressive as her. Joe Biden is still a firm believer in the Iraq War. As long as the Dems have Senators like Mary Landreiu, Ben Nelson, Herb Kohl, Joe Leiberman, Dianne Feinstein, and Evan Bayh, the party will always capitulate to the GOP like it has so many other times on issues like privacy and national security.
Contrary to the representative’s opinion, the Dems do need an ideological makeover. The party has essentially forsaken its commitment to universal healthcare and middle class protections. Look at all the senators who voted for the bankruptcy and tort reform bills. Quite frankly, the Democratic Party has a bunch of corporate sellouts in its rank and file.
True, the GOP is as vulnerable as its ever been, but as long as the media is complacent and unquestioning of conservative spin, the Democratic party will never gain political leverage out of it.
God Bless You Jan Schakowsky, you are a good American and I hope your determination and grit rubs off on your peers in Washington.
Posted by Liberal on July 22, 2005 at 8:03 PM

Jan, I agree with your advocacy of the social programs that used to be at the soul of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, the Democratic Leadership Council and Democratic establishment long ago abandoned working families. Real change will come when the core progressive constituencies have the courage to abandon the Democratic Party. The Nader campaign was a voice for reason in opposition to the Iraq war, in defiance of a corporate America, and to ensure equal rights for all. The Democratic establishment does not share progressive values. What is needed today is a new Progressive Party that will realize the “dream” of America’s promise to its citizens. Real change will come when progressives, like yourself, work to build that new Progressive movement. The Democratic Party will be forced either to reclaim their heritage or cease to exist.
Posted by Jim Paprocki on July 22, 2005 at 10:40 PM

The article seems to imply that the democratic party in general is progressive.
That’s a stretch for sure as the progressives within the party are few and far between. On the other hand so many in the so called republican party make Barry Goldwater a progressive.
Posted by merrill on July 23, 2005 at 11:15 AM

Like I’ve said before, until we Democrats craft a well-explained set of our goals and how they are to be achieved, something not unlike Gingrich’s “Contract with America”, people are left floundering for a leader.

Lots of people are obviously disenchanted with Bush Co., just look at his numbers. But where is the new Captain? I know Harry Reid is saying that they are floundering so badly that it’s to our advantage to let them sink their own ship, but I think we really must be more proactive than that.

If people could see a clear plan for a better way, they would sign on. And the family and financial security, including the universal healthcare that the GOP so deftly torpedoes during Clinton, must be the centerpieces. Look at all the layoffs in the news, Hewlett Packard, Ford, Kimberly Clark, etc. The reason they are giving for the layoffs is the cost of healthcare. Had the GOP worked on this back in the 90’s, we wouldn’t be here. But, oh no, anything to nuke Bill and Hillary, the American people be damned. And now we see the results of their “godly” perspective. They all worship at the alter of corporate power and the almighty dollar.
Posted by Susie Q on July 23, 2005 at 11:43 AM

A. The democrats could bring back the Sherman Anti Trust Act back to life. This might save a few good paying american jobs.

B. The democrats are playing politics with President Bush instead of telling him no on way too many issues. If the party wants to say NO get with the press and explain very loudly why?

C. The democrats are in far more trouble than they realize with their constituents because they do not offer anything significantly different from the immoral majority republican party. We only get another version of a immoral majority republican plan.

Democrats let’s talk about a taxpayer funded medical insurance plan which would be the best solution.

1.Number one it would drive economic growth as it would
provide incentive for new better paying employers especially at the small business level.

2. Number two it would reduce the cost of medical care

3. Number three additional savings would be realized due to reducing the paper work which typically adds about 30% to
cost.

How would this be achieved? Through an extension of medicare...a single pay system.

Also we must assume that the immoral majority republican party is reading this and might come out offering something of this nature or using the language to pull the wool over our eyes. This new party has a long history of lying...remember this everyday. The lying years came in with Reagan/Bush.
Posted by merrill on July 23, 2005 at 11:48 AM

Does the democrtaic party bother to read this?

Democrats it’s time to do away with computerized electronic voting. Why...because computers can be programmed to do any damn thing including lie to the voter on election day.

Democrats on voting lets get this into place and be revolutionary:

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) A Fairer Way to Conduct Single-Winner Elections

by the Center for Voting and Democracy

-------------

Most U.S. elections are held under plurality voting rules in which the candidate with the most votes wins. If three or more candidates run in the race, then the winner can have less than a majority of the vote. But the question always arises: was that winning candidate really preferred by most voters?

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is a sensible reform for elections where one person wins. Examples include elections for governors, mayors, legislatures using single-seat districts, and US president (for allocation of Electoral College electors). Instant Runoff Voting is better than plurality elections because:

*it ensures the election of the candidate preferred by most voters
*it eliminates the problem of spoiler candidates knocking off major candidates
*it frees communities of voters from splitting their vote among their own candidates
*it promotes coalition-building and more positive campaigning

IRV is also better than “two-round” runoff or primary elections, which often result in a change in voter turnout between the two rounds. IRV finishes the job with one election, which means that

*election officials and taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill for a second election
*candidates don’t have to raise money for two races, providing some campaign finance reform
*the decisive election occurs when voter turnout is highest

How IRV Works: Each voter has one vote, and ranks candidates in order of chd">Poour eyes.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article_rss/democratic_dos_and_donts