Sanders lost to Clinton who lost to Trump. Both are well admired, well qualified, strongly progressive candidates who lost. Instead of the primary being relitigated constantly, let us concede that both candidates were flawed and both failed at their respective goals.
How do we as a movement move past a candidate driven model and towards an issues driven model like the religious right and economic right have? How do we create a generation of activists excited about issues and working towards candidates that advance those issues? What should those issues be and which voters should they target? How do we do this in all 50 states? How do we do this in our own state and community which is too frequently Democratic in Name Only or Liberal Except Where it Affects My Bottom Line?
I’m not sure we’ll ever have either the money of the economic right or the fervor of the religious right. We need to gather everyone together annually like CPAC does for the other side so people can network and also get coverage. We need to do more work in the off years registering Dems and running ads highlighting our issues. I really am just brainstorming here. When I think of what the right has done, so much of it I feel like either we’d never be able to do or would not want to do.
I co-hosted a radio show with a Republican friend in college who is now a political consultant. He had YAF, CPAC, two conventions and a much stronger College Republicans organization to have access to good internships and campaign experiences. We don’t really have that on our side of the fence and we ought to.
Similarly, a woman we know who got fired up and radicalized by the pro-life movement became a down the line Republican because of that single salient issue. We don’t do that, we have laundry lists and interest groups but we don’t have compelling causes people dedicate their lives to that makes them loyal volunteers and workers, not just loyal voters.
BLM might be a great entry point to recruit more candidates of color and women, and I think it’s also an issue that galvanizes millennials alongside LGBTQA rights.
…the specific ideas I had I think we should do.
There’s a remarkable and very strange reluctance of the Democratic Party apparatus to politicize stuff.
The Democratic apparatus also seems to have decided never, ever to play defense. I suspect that playing defense always causes an initial drop in polling. For example, a clear defense of the ACA (aka Obamacare) or the Clinton Foundation might focus attention on something unpopular leading to a temporary polling dip. But this is crazy if Republican claims about either go unanswered. Republican propaganda claims that Obamacare has failed and that the Clinton Foundation is a well of corruption; it goes answered; people tend to believe the accusers — or, at least people who don’t spend a half an hour every day curled up with the Washington Post or New York Times will tend to believe the accusers.
I’ve missed your commentary.
around an economic and social justice platform within the Democratic Party ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
There’s plenty about the “Tea Party” I would not want to emulate, definitely the hate and the lies, but even the purity police aspect would make me uncomfortable.
ourrevolution.com headed by Jeff Weaver If not your cup of tea(does not refer to tea party), then
brandnewcongress.org that is lining up progressive candidates from its members, now 25,000 going for 50,000 so can directly support those vetted in various races on all levels of government
That seemed so sad at the time…like progressives couldn’t think up their own name, but had to be derivative.
I used to get MeetUp things for that – is it still in existence? For that matter, is MeetUp?
It was an idea that never really got off the ground. I think MeetUp does still exist.
I hear you on derivatives names though. They’re a bummer.
founded on progressive principles. No hate, lies or purity.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
n/t
#1: Advocate for what people already have and don’t want to lose. E.g. Medicare, aspects of the Affordable Care Act, other government programs. This is the key psychological area to hit, since people fear losses of things they already own more than they fear losing things that they might gain in the future. This also has the best chance of turning the Trump coalition against him.
#2: Attack elite corporations in effective ways. This will include seemingly small-bore issues that most liberals generally don’t care about, like limiting how much interest payday lenders can charge (as voters in South Dakota, of all places, voted overwhelmingly to do in this election). That matters much more than railing against “corporate influence in elections” or “reinstating Glass-Steagall,” which no one really cares about. Fighting for a stronger minimum wage is also effective.
#3: Much more effective voter registration efforts. Focus on getting voters registered, especially in non-presidential years. The Democratic Party simply hasn’t devoted enough resources to this effort. Tell people they need to register to vote or else they will lose public benefits. That’s the key way to get people motivated. Crap about “do this for the good of the country” or “Trump is horrible” will get nowhere.
#4: Apart from stressing the material benefits, as mentioned above, keep hitting the moral/social issues. “We’re the party of civil rights” has worked well with millennials, and will continue to do so for as long as the other side remains regressive. Note how Gov. Pat “Bathroom Bill” McCory lost even as Trump was carrying his state. This is “identity politics” than can win, especially if all Dems get behind a message of “inclusion” and fighting against conservative views of control of personal choices.
Voter turnout for a 2020 POTUS election now is foolish. The very people who are least likely to be registered in November 2016 are the ones who aren’t likely to live in the same place in November 2020.
My town’s next election isn’t November 2018. It isn’t the primary in September 2018 either. It isn’t likely to be a special election. No, my town’s next election is May 2019. Loads of towns (not cities) in Massachusetts have springtime elections. Why aren’t the Democrats lining up Democratic voters and Democratic-leaning unenrolled voters to vote in the springtime elections? Between now and the next POTUS election my town will have at least eight other elections (4 town, 2018 primary, 2018 general, 2020 presidential primary, 2020 primary). Why not work our asses off toward getting voters to vote in those elections, thereby moving them from non-voting to infrequent voting, from infrequent voting to regular voting, from regular voting to frequent voting, or from frequent voting to never-miss-voting?
I recognize that my town has more elections than most cities and towns, but the point remains the same. Voter registration is necessary but insufficient. We need to drive Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters to the polls on the other elections so that we’ve got more actual voters voting by habit come 2020.
I believe you meant that if people don’t register and then vote certain ways we could end up collectively losing public benefits. When I first read that line I first interpreted it as if you don’t personally register, your own benefits will be taken from them.
and it is not necessary to introduce this meme for constructive barnstorming. Leave it out, and develop realistic strategy that tunes into the body politic where losses occurred. There has to be an enthusiastic base, and if primaries are to be a true reflection of those who choose to vote Democratically, the rules needed spiffing up, something that has already been done. I also think there should be an inventory of strengths, and what basic issues to run with. Message has to have more universal appeal engendering enthusiasm for a candidate. It wouldn’t hurt to fill lower positions with candidates with a notion for change that fits a modern world.
But this follows on nicely from my point above. “More candidates” should mean we take more chances, whether it’s “Democratic Socialists” or some people who seem a little rough around the edges like whats-his-name who wanted what turned out to be Sherrod Brown’s seat.
Our household became a big fan of his since he used to guest host the Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz shows. But he has the Jim Webb problem. Lefty populist on foreign policy and economics but socially conservative on guns and affirmative action. I agree I want a tent big enough for those folks, since it’s how we can regain our majority, but a lot of the wider party would not.
… Any and all “flaws”, real or perceived, of the Democratic candidates, who lost, were magnified a thousandfold in the Republican candidate, who won. The election did not turn on the ‘flaws’ of the candidates.
Bill Clinton said it best in, I think, 2004 (I’m paraphrasing because I don’t have time to find the full quote): “when we get people to think, we win. And the other side is real good at getting people not to think.” There was a lot of lies and disinformation in this campaign (and, any unwillingness to “religitate” notwithstanding, Bernie Sanders did his part with disinformation…). Many of the lies in the GOP primary and in the general election were outrageous and implausible. Many of the lies were pointed out time and again. There was a great deal of lying and there was, on the part of the media, a great deal of pointing out the lies. But Donald Trump is the raging, unthinking, id of the American electorate and the lies were just ego gratification to indulge the id: a tissue-thin substitution for the thinking he (Trump) and they (Trump voters) know they ought to do.
There is no engineering in politics. There isn’t a ‘winning’ set of issues. There is no special combination of buttons, knobs and levers the sequence of which is guaranteed to output what we want. There is only people who think and people who do not think. The people who do not think are those most susceptible to fear and smear. There is no other way to explain President-elect Trump. People have to think. That’s the long and the short of it.
In fact, using broadcast media to manipulate viewer opinion absolutely IS engineering, and Donald Trump does it masterfully.
Corporate America would not pay what it pays if media technology of behavior manipulation were not absolutely well-understood, well-executed, and effective.
A key part of this is to recognize that among the ways to make people not think are to manipulate the information they receive, tell them what their neighbors are thinking (peer pressure is very persuasive whether we like it or not), and remind them of the consequences when a member of the tribe falls away.
I suggest that it is impossible to understand the rise of Donald Trump without understanding the explicit engineering of public opinion through mass media.
That’s media. Yeah, the two intersect but what drives me nuts about the ‘money is speech’ argument is the same thing that drives me nuts about this: it’s a conspicuous and arrant fraud.
Here’s the quote from Bill Clinton again: “when we get people to think, we win. And the other side is real good at getting people not to think.”
(again, paraphrasing because, again, no time to look it up…) You’ve underlined the second part of the quote and have specified the mechanism used to get people not to think. You’ve not said anything about politics or policy.
I’ll say it again: There is no engineering in politics. Yes, there is manipulation, but that’s secondary. In engineering, the same techniques and forces that will build a stable bridge here will build a stable bridge there. In manipulation, the same formula does not hold, else we’d be looking at president-Elect Jeb Bush.
But politics… the asking of a vote, the proffering of a solution in response to the identification of a problem and the implementation of solutions and/or compromises… does not have knobs and levers guaranteed to provide the outcome. It’s not a jigsaw puzzle to be figured out. That’s exactly why it is so hard and so frustrating.
Oh, I grant you this.
Still, what does “politics” mean when someone controls what you want? This is what Mr. Skinner meant when he coined the phrase “beyond freedom and dignity”. He demonstrated, rather effectively I think, that those concepts are meaningless when the desires of the subject are controlled by a third-party.
I enthusiastically agree that there is no engineering in politics, as we are defining the term “politics”. At the same time, this use of politics nevertheless entails a dialog with a voter. It entails finding a way to influence that voter to cast his or her vote in a way that we desire.
That voter’s decision is a choice, and it is a choice made in the framework of what that voter wants. When that framework is controlled by technology that is sold to the highest bidder, then I argue we ignore the influence of that control to our extreme peril.
Millions of voters were programmed to ignore the failings of Donald Trump and to exaggerate the failings of Hillary Clinton. Had those twin factors not been present, a significantly different amount and kind of “politics” would have been needed.
Not really..
Republicans are good at getting people to think that tax cuts to the wealthy and free markets will eventually help out the common laborer, aka “Trickle Down” while Democrats are good at getting people to think that more education and job training will eventually lead to higher wages for the common laborer…..aka Tickle Down? Either way, both parties are or were so tied to the .1% that they scramble to find a way to make Joe 6 Pack think that he is in their hearts and that “some day soon”, things will be better.
News Flash: Trump is not going to deliver on his promise of higher pay for common laborers.
What do we have to follow that? Please tell me it’s not “job training and education.”…
Job training and education coupled with a greater emphasis on public job creation via public works projects and incentives to have more companies hire workers domestically. We also need to have dramatic wealth distribution from the top 1% back to the 99% by restoring Eisenhower levels of corporate taxation in exchange for Eisenhower levels of corporate regulation, particularly at the small business level. Then we can fund our guns and our butter alike.
The defense industry is one area that has to have domestic production and a lot of those jobs are local to New England. Many here will disagree with me, it we do need to update our nuclear arsenal and build a more nimble and rapidly deployable military.
The growing drone and robotics industry will also have civilian applications and there’s no reason those jobs can’t be here. Same with turbines which Tim Ryan points out require more parts than a pickup truck. We can have coal country and the rust belt build the power plants of the future instead of depending on the power and industry of the past.
West Virginia and Kentucky already have a cottage industry of bogus SsD applications, their counties being the highest rates of SSD in the country. We might as well cut out the middle men country lawyers and replace them with direct cash transfers to people dislocated by trade or market oriented deindustrialization.
If like similar experiments in Manitoba in the 70s; crime rates, drug abuse, spousal abuse and divorce rates go down while education and health care rates go up; then we can have the data to justify a wider expansion.
The story goes that a woman was once so impressed with a speech of his that she approached him afterwards to give effusive praise and said, “Surely every thinking person will vote for you.” Stevenson replied, “That’s not enough ma’am – I need a majority!:)”
That’s what campaigning is after all. You really believe that we should just put up wonky, pie charting liberals every time and just hope the electorate realizes how smart they are? That’s not a winning electoral strategy.
Obama ran on “change”. Change from the Clinton and Bush era alike. Trump continued that same trajectory besting Jeb and other Dubya clones in the primary and besting Clinton in the general.
Obama beat Romney by turning his greatest asset against him, making his business strength a liability. Bush did this to Kerry by making the latters military experience a liability.
The internals on my last campaign had us losing 51-49 with three weeks to go. I rapidly changed our media strategy to ditch the ten point explanations in our literature and focus like a laser on funding parks. Yes on 5 became Yes for Parks, that’s what the new literature and mailing focused on and what my volunteers doorknocked and chanted in the streets. We won 67-33%.
You gotta dumb it down into digestible bits for the average voter to understand. It’s not that their stupid, it’s that citizenship and being politically engaged is way down on their priority list after finding a sitter, taking time off to vote, and coordinating which shift they will make up. We have to revive civic education on the front end, and I hope to do that as a teacher, but in the back end as a campaign you gotta dumb it down.
Not “dumb it down”.
“Simplify.”
Particularly since a BMGer rightly pointed out the contradiction between my call for better civics education and dumbing it down in the same post. Simplify is what I meant to say, and link it to concepts relevant to their lives.
Please, the Clintons were not even remotely as progressive as Sanders and to ignore her historically high negative ratings makes my head spin.
But that aside….
Simple: A platform and candidates who push for for the working class with NO modifiers. Did you see Senator Warren’s presentation at the last Massachusetts Democratic Party State Convention? If not, you should. I think it’s on You Tube. It’s all working class versus big money. It’s that simple. And again, it’s not watered down by any balkanization of the working class. Anyone can join, regardless of their skin color, genitalia, where they go or don’t go to pray, or where their ancestors came from.
Senator Warren goes straight to the point with real hard numbers and easy to understand graphics that illustrate very simply where the money comes from, where it goes, who gets it and who does not.
It’s that simple.
But I find issue with the premise. Even if the issues are well-defined and motivate a core group, you still need the messenger to motivate that base (which HRC didn’t do well enough), and motivate independents who may not agree with all of the well-defined issues (ditto). That brings me to my next point. We did not have good enough candidates in the Democratic primary to position us well for the general election. I take issue with calling HRC “strongly progressive.” If she’s progressive, it’s reluctantly so; and, on foreign policy, I don’t think she’s progressive at all. Bernie certainly tapped into a vein both inside the party and outside, but, again, he hasn’t been a Democrat very long, if at all. I think we “anoint” nominees at our own peril. You need the issues and the candidate, both.
I think our recent Democratic presidents were distanced from their Democratic identity in a way the FDR-Johnson administrations were not. All of those candidates subscribed to a similar mid century liberal ideology that was largely supported by the Congressional and gubernatorial wings as well. Reagan-Bush was a similar ideological continuity and vision at all levels of government.
Carter, Clinton and to a lesser extent Obama ran against their parties mainstream ideology as much as they ran with them. Trump found success in the same way. Obama was a great president, but he was largely a reactionary rather than a visionary leader. Trump is both, and both his reactions and visions will take his party to dark in chartered waters.
Our party has to take the lead in opposing America following its new president into the darkness while simultaneously creating a bold and bright alternative. I am not sure what we have stood for beyond opposing the GOP and social liberalism. We need a more pronounced vision on foreign policy, beyond “don’t do stupid stuff” or “don’t do what Trump does”. We need a bolder and concise vision on economic policy that empowers Main Street and disempowers Wall Street.
So if we build a compelling party and message, the better candidates will come attracted to a cohesive force that will elect them and validate their own aspirations and goals.
Barack Obama, like Deval Patrick, ran campaigns that were far more visionary than the administrations they presided over after election. The campaign message of Barack Obama was fine and inspiring. It completely fell apart once he took office.
See, I still think we’re dancing around an inescapable truth. The American electorate has become less, rather than more, progressive over the past thirty years. Barack Obama faced opposition from his own party because our party organizations were more interested in claiming a majority than in running candidates that reflect our values and priorities.
We must change America. As we change America, our candidates will follow.
The American electorate has not become less progressive. Look at the ballot questions that won and lost in various states. Americans love progressive policies and vote for them almost every time. What they don’t like is a Democratic party that campaigns on watered down progressive policies and then governs for the benefit of big business.
Donald Trump didn’t win because Americans want conservative policies. He won because people feel like the government is working to help the rich and powerful, so people want change. The exchange where Trump won the debates was when he said that he hadn’t paid taxes for years because Clinton hadn’t made him. People are more upset about the politicians that won’t do anything about the loopholes that let rich people pay almost nothing in taxes than they are about the rich people exploiting the rules. And most people don’t have enough time to bother figuring out that the Republicans are more in favor of those loopholes than the Democrats are. They just know that a Democratic president didn’t do anything about it and that Clinton was in the government for 20+ years and done nothing about it.
Once people see the Republican agenda, they will want change again, and even more than they did this year. I’m currently expecting the Democrats to win the House in 2018, and possibly the Senate (although that will be very hard given which seats are up in 2018). But that will only happen if the Democrats speak out loudly about everything the Republicans do and what the Democrats would be doing differently. Elizabeth Warren does a good job of this, but a lot of Democrats do not.
…to make the actual electorate resemble the VAP. When that happens Dems will cruise to victory almost every time.
How about we focus on making Massachusetts a model for the country?
We are currently a microcosm of the country. We have a booming wealthy coastal area, with significant pockets of rural and urban poverty – areas as hopeless as the heartland which propelled Trump to victory. Look at the city/town presidential results and realize that although overall MA was a blue state, much of that was propelled by its “coasts” – Boston and the Berkshires. The middle looks awfully Red – Trump voters in a state that is supposed to be one of the most liberal in the country.
We have massive wealth inequality in our state. We have incredible economic segregation between our school systems. On average, we are doing very well as a state, but when you dig down deeper, you will see that the average is clouding the real picture – we have people and areas doing really, really well, and we have people and areas doing really, really bad.
We have the power to do things in this state to make it better. We could start our own infrastructure program – we have the wealth to do this. We could do it the liberal way, with old-fashioned public works projects instead of allowing private companies to purchase and own the infrastructure.
We could focus our attention on our urban areas and try to solve problems with a statewide version of “CDBG” money to redevelop and support poor areas.
Instead of trying to punish our urban schools by putting them on the “Level 4” list and then allowing a receiver to take them over, how about devoting more resources to them to both make them better and to make them more attractive?
How about we take the opportunity In this era of a Republican-controlled nation to zag while the country zigs? Use a little of the “states rights” philosophy to solve problems in a liberal way? Figure out a way to make it easier for workers to organize on the state level. Raise our own minimum wage.
Because if we are not willing to do this ourselves, then how can we believe this should be done on a national level?
As you observe, we have extreme wealth inequality.
We could start by recapturing that extreme wealth and using the resulting revenue to fund the things you describe, especially in our gateway cities and western MA.
we don’t have to abandon our New Deal / Great Society principles. We just have to adapt them to 21st century realities.
Fred Rich LaRiccia