A dynamite article from MyDD: "Post-Election Strategy Memo, Part One"

[regnaD kciN]

As many books as we write about them, our enemy is not Bill O'Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh, or even George Bush. Further, as much griping as we may do about them over the next few months, our problem is not Terry McAuliffe, or Bob Shrum, or any of our candidates. Individuals are neither our enemy, nor our problem. Instead, our enemy and our problem is conservatism itself. Yesterday, John Kerry won among self-described Independents and "moderates" by greater margins than George Bush won among the nation as a whole. Yesterday, we improved on our 2000 vote by 10%, more than twice the 4.7% increase in the national population since 2000. Our activism kicked ass. Our ability to appeal to the center kicked ass. Our problem is that we are in the minority. Our mistake would be to start blaming individuals and creating scapegoats.

(..)

When conservatives are 33% of the electorate, and liberals are only 21%, we start twelve points down in every campaign. The solution to this problem is not to move to the center and take the left for granted. The solution to this problem is not to simply energize the base so completely that our activism and energy alone carry us over the top. Unfortunately, the debate we will see over the next few weeks and months will probably be framed by these two positions. In the end, both are unfortunately temporary and purely tactical. Also, both ignore the fact that we do an excellent job at both. However, even if one or the other occasionally works, they both fail to take account the difficulties of governing a country where we start twelve points down in every approval rating poll, and twelve points down in every legislative proposal we wish to pass.

The solution to our problems, the only solution that actually addresses our problems rather than criticizes us for not doing well at tasks where we actually excel, is to increase the number of liberals in this country at a more rapid pace than the number of conservatives are increasing. We must grow liberalism. Personally, I do not even like the term "liberal", as it has a connection to laissez-fare economic and trade policies that I find abhorrent. However, if that is the term we are stuck with, then so be it. It is a large and empty word anyway, but maybe it is something George Lakoff can work on over the next few years.

(..)

We have to define liberalism according to positive semiotic frames. We have to be willing to take these frames to every corner of the nation, and run candidates in every single race in every single district (preparation for which begins today). We have to be willing to spend tens of millions of dollars not to win elections, not to help "worthy causes," but simply to sell liberalism. We cannot be reconciliatory, since the conservative reactionaries never have been, and never will be. This has worked to their advantage. Being conservative must become a dirty word. We must become willing to insult people for being conservative. We must recognize that this struggle is permanent, and does not only happen in campaign years, and must not only be waged against specific individuals or policies. It is a permanent ideological war.

http://www.mydd.com/ (unfortunately, no direct link to the article)

[starroute]

1. A lot of people are not capable of thinking except in labels

They say to themselves: I don't like abrupt change or wild living, so I must be a conservative. Since I'm a conservative, I'll vote for the conservative candidate.

And their thought processes end there.

Surveys keep showing that when you ask people on an issue-by-issue basis, they agree with most of the liberal positions, on everything from Social Security to the environment. But they stubbornly keep thinking of themselves as conservatives -- and another recent survey showed that many of them thought wrongly that George Bush stood where thay did on these issues.

How do you get through that sort of closed-mindedness?

[regnaD kciN]

4. Well, for one thing, by not being ashamed of who you are...

By not running away from the "L-word" and describing yourself as "centrist," "moderate," or (with hushed voice) "progressive," when in fact the values and programs you support are liberal ones.

And, then, by all of us doing that together. And keep on doing that, even if it means we get ridiculed or disregarded at first. There's too much short-term thinking on the left...witness today's threads on "which Democrat will run in 2008?" If we only think toward the next presidential election, we're never going to get anywhere. (A short-term approach might have been defensable this time, because of the damage Bush could inflict. But, now, that ship has sailed. Do we really think it's going to be much worse in 2012 or 2016 than it will be in 2008?)

The thing is, I can remember when "conservative" was every bit as much a dirty word as "liberal" is now...from about 1960 on, conservatives were considered a marginal joke, and never more than after the Goldwater debacle of 1964. They turned the tables completely over the next twenty years. While I hope it doesn't take that long, we can do it, too -- as long as we don't continue to internalize the right's strategy of making "liberalism" a dirty word.

[Nite Owl]

2. Can't agree more with making the

word liberal the accepted way and making the cons cringe when you call them that. It should have been done years ago. It seems that the current group of dem leaders goes right along and won't even acknowledge that they are in deed a liberal. They hem and haw at the mention. How do we get them to grow a spine? The crew we got in there, McCauliff and crowd has got to get some walking papers. We need a team that will be proud and stop imitating the right.

[exJW]

3. I agree that he's pegged the problem, I'd tweak the solution..

... let's steal the word conservative from them, and let "liberal" fall by the wayside. The way we do this is by using the term "progressive" instead of liberal first, and then, when appropriate, slip "conservative" in front of it, ie. "well, I'm a progresive conservative, and therefore...."


The terms liberal and conservative are not opposed to each other, except in this perverse political arena.

[BamaGirl]

5. I think this is the way to go. nt

[regnaD kciN]

8. The problem with that apporach...

...is that it's just a continuation of what we've been trying for twenty-four years -- running away from the "liberal" label. It doesn't work.

We can call ourselves "progressive," "moderate," "centrist," or even "conservative." We can call ourselves "Rohrrim" or "Jedi Knights" if we wish! But, when it comes down to it, our opponents will simply counter "Cut the crap. You're liberal. Liberal, liberal, liberal." And, since it will have remained a "dirty word," un-rehabilitated because of our efforts to run away from it, it will remain effective as a slur against us. Even worse, it will also make us look deceptive (trying to hide the fact that we're liberal) and wimpy (agreeing with our opponents that to be liberal is a shameful thing).

The only way to prevent this is to stand up and reclaim liberalism's honor. Any other path will lead us to certain defeat, unless we not only adopt the "conservative" label but all of its goals, so that the "L-word" can't be used against us.

[exJW]

10. IMO

You cannot reclaim a word. Certainly not one that is already in steady use. Still I see your point. If that is the case, then we will STILL have to change the actual sound and usage of "liberal".

SOMETHING will HAVE to be changed about it. There is no way around it, "yeah, I'm a prog-lib, what about it? You probably are too if you think about it...."

[noamnety]

6. I said this before the election

Dems are allowing the pro-life issue to be framed in a way that is political suicide. We need a campaign to describe pro-life as conception to grave, as a practical approach. To reduce abortion not by removing the choice, but by removing the causes. I think we were close to this in the last week or two, we started to see the figures on abortions under Clinton going down, abortions under Bush on the rise. But it was too little too late, and we need to include seniors dying from cutting their medication in half in the pro-life argument. When we talk about health care for everyone, we need to refer to it as a pro-life policy.

And we need to tag the conservatives as living in a fantasy world. Kerry started to do it, but it needs to be a mantra for the next four years. The liberals have had the tag of being idealistic - but the reality has shifted 180 degrees.

The left: provide sex ed, provide birth control.
The right: let's just tell kids not to have sex, and then they won't!

The left: If we invade Iraq, we run the risk of inflaming an entire region.
The right: They will greet us with flowers.

The left: adjust minimum wage for inflation so the working poor can make ends meet.
The right: if rich people were richer, their money would magically get into the hands of poor people.

The left: We need to make some tough decisions and invest in new energy sources to avoid a global warming crisis.
The right: Global warming? Don't worry, it will all be okay. Look, it's 60 degrees out! Looks fine to me. There is no global warming.

[jdj]

7. Um, we don't own the media.

WE DON'T OWN THE MEDIA.

[regnaD kciN]

9. But we're making the first footholds in that area...

Air America is a great step, and I'll be greatly surprised if we don't expand that and form other similar networks, including some that cover television. Another major step is the organization David Brock has founded (can't remember its name), which is to mirror what the right did forty years ago by creating foundations and think-tanks devoted to pushing liberal ideas, creating "experts" that we then use pressure to get on the air. That was how the right got their foot in the door throughout the '70s. It will take some time, but I think we're moving in the proper direction there.

[starroute]

12. Owning the media isn't necessarily what counts

A - The media is either lazy or underfunded and will accept copy from almost anyone who hands it to them. That's mostly been the right-wing, but it could just as well be us.

B - To the extent media owners try to exercise control, it's over obvious hot-button issues, like abortion. If we start getting out our positions on common, quality-of-life issues, like schools and clean air and flu shots, we will be flying under their radar. Maybe we should try to get the liberal positions out there first, and only identify them as liberal after people are already comfortable with them.

Start small and build up.

[JPK]

11. "liberal"

I agree that the label, "liberal" has become anathema for many because the right wing press has successfully demonized it. I think we should call ourselves "Progressives". We are for progressive governmental policy and the one word states a position much in much the same way as "conservative" does. The contrast becomes sharper as well as having a more positive . We should start saying we are progressives......I kind of like that myself.