I propose a DU THINK TANK to write a COMMON SENSE for the 21 Century

The Democratic Party is on the retreat. It has issues but no bold vision of where it wants to take this nation. I believe it suffers from intellectual stagnation. For example, in this last election Kerry worked ENTIRELY within the Right's framework of irresponsible fiscal policies. He did not challenge their assumptions or expose the Right's "strangle the beast" agenda. He did not educate the public on the shell game that is the federal budget. He did not educate the people on how the debt poses a risk to Social Security. Kerry did not even use the correct Bush deficit numbers! He did what he thought was politically expedient, yet his failure to challenge the big issues means the Right's framework becomes more entrenched.

If there’s no compelling Progressive vision that sells well to the average American, then 10-20-30 years from now the Progressive movement will STILL be on the retreat, relegated to tweaking a dysfunctional political and corporate system created by history and the Right instead of trying to reform it. Of course we could just hope the Right implodes but that doesn't solve the lack of vision problem.

So what are those ideas we WISH the Democratic Party would represent? What ideas are worthy of fighting for even if there's little to show for it in the next 5-10 years? What should the role of this forum be in helping creating that vision?

Currently DU is a place to rant or discuss events/ideas. It’s a place to network. The frantic pace at these forums prevents ideas from ever being fully developed. There's constant reinventing of the wheel and no conclusions are drawn.

I believe DU should aim higher… to harness our immense grassroots energy and talent to reshape if not reinvent the Democratic Party, American politics, America itself.

To work towards this goal I propose DU should become an on-line Progressive Think Tank... a place where ideas can be generated efficiently and not just lost in the shuffle of endless rediscussion… but a place that can have some structure focuses on creating a “product”. The DU Campaign Underground project is an example of such collective effort.

How do I envision this being accomplished? I propose three things. The first is the expansion of the topical forums to reflect issues not given priority here. The current forum structure tends to encourages discussion along traditional lines while ignoring the issues that REALLY shape our lives: constitutional reform, federalism, property rights, corporate rights, wealth distribution, taxation, markets, democracy, morality, US role in the world, etc. These are issues too important for the Democratic Party to ignore.... yet it does. Most other issues are merely subsets of the above.

Secondly, I propose adding a mechanism that can provide continuity in brainstorming. Many of you already heard of wiki…. essentially collective authorship. If not check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page It's a community encyclopedia. Anyone can edit it or return a page to a previous state. It seems chaotic but it does work. I think such a feature here connected to each forum could help in developing more focused strategies, talking points, ads, whatever. Those principles/mission statements could be collected for a new Progressive Manifesto... a Common Sense for the 21st Century…. a logically consistent paradigm that will serve as the bedrock of Progressive thought.

I have to add I STONGLY believe there has to be some structure to the project. The first stage would be to create forums/wiki space to discuss the basic values we believe in…. rights, freedoms, the purpose of government, democracy, inequality… etc. Statements would then be drawn up that crystallize each principle into a coherent argument. If you’re not sure just what I’m suggesting please read the Rights of Man… http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rightsof.htm In the second stage additional forums would have to be created based on a list the community draws up. Most of these forums already exist. They too would need a wiki component.

I have to add… that proposed this idea here a few weeks ago and it went nowhere. But another forum LOVED the idea then rushed to sabotaged it. Those who participate MUST BE WILLING TO LEAVE POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS BEHIND. This is not a proposal for Democratic Party politics. This would be an intellectual exercise to find or create core principles upon which we’d base a vision of the America we’d like to see in 20-50 years. I strongly believe that working with the basics first will be liberating and a source of great creativity. The process will point out contradictions in the Progressive message. Consider it political psychoanalysis. New ideas flow once we’re back in touch with basic values. If we REALLY believe in civic equality where all votes weigh the same then we have to abolish the EC. If we REALLY believe in that forgotten 9th amendment then we have to prevent lawmakers from exceeding legitimate intent.

I strongly urge such specific proposals and long-term strategies be left for a time AFTER the Manifesto.

Questions?

... content that will draw interested voters to our side, thanks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=252

Does this perhaps fill the bill as a starting point?

Looks like this forum was cerated on 11-20?

When this proposal got no interest the first few times here I went to my second choice site... CGCS... the refugees from the old Kerry forum. I've spent the past 5 days there.... first to see great excitement about the idea then to have the idea stolen and bastardized into oblivion. I strongly believe that the project needs to challenge ideological preconceptions not reinforce dysfunctional ones. They wanted to create an echo chamber for Democrats.

as well as new leaders. I am leaning more and more toward third party politics, especially after noting that only third party candidates are involved in the recounts.

Lets face it, we have a system that is absolutely rotten to the core.Politicos become beholden to those who write the largest checks, then become lobbyists for those self same interests thus the beat goes on.

I believe that only when a party like the Greens rise to a national level and begin to become pivotal in the decision making process can the stranglehold of big money be broken.

At the same time we need to keep and forge links with progressive democrats and keep the lines of dialog open with even the most conservative among them.

a MORAL vision, that places cooperation over competition, empathy over authority, and compassion over moral comdemnation

and I believe that this new vision willbe found within a new party, one that is not a slave to a coirrupt system, as are both "major" parties

I consider myself more a Green. I'm much too Progressive for the Democratic Party. I voted Kerry this time but that's it.

But for viable third parties to ever win offices there has to be some major reforms in the political system else they'll always be relegated to the fringes. If they get too big a big party steals one of their issues. I posted some ideas here http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/index.php?showtopic=5891

For this process to start, I believe Progressives have to undergo some values clarification.

"Those who participate MUST BE WILLING TO LEAVE POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS BEHIND."

Let's focus on the values and vision

I consider this an exercise in political values clarification. Political considerations in the early stages would interfere with the re-visitation of those basic values. If, for EXAMPLE, someone is of the opinion that the Constitution is a work of genius and we mere mortals must not tamper with it, then they will probably, perhaps unconsciously, try to direct discussions on basic values such as civic equality in directions that don't threaten that belief.

That's what I fear most.

Political considerations and strategies to sell these ideas can always come later.

I see it very simple, we do not need to re-invent anything as far as the Constitution, etc. We just need to move slightly toward the center where most of the voters are. Appear less radical/leftist and more mainstream. As we appear more mainstream we will get more support from the center and pull those voters away from the far right. The closer we appear to the center, the more extreme the far right republicans will appear.

I think maybe DU is looked at as a little too far left of center to be mainstream. It certainly is a good web site and has it's place, but the user interface is a little harsh as well as some of the language. We need Dem web sites that cover the spectrum. Some center, some slightly right and some far left, so that we are not seen as being one thing or the other. The majority of Dems just really want free Democracy and the right to vote IMO. We can't let single issue voters kill us like we have been doing. We need to look more at the big picture and aim for the center where to voters are.

or "moving to the left". I think Ultrax was thinking more about WHY we support the positions we do, and not how we need to change those positions, but I could be wrong.

OutsourceBush wrote: "I see it very simple, we do not need to re-invent anything as far as the Constitution, etc. We just need to move slightly toward the center where most of the voters are."

I regret that you're so determined to not engage in an open discussion of basic principles. That's exactly what you're doing by taking any critique of the Constitution off the table.

Too many Democrats still blame Nader and Florida for election 2000 when the REAL blame goes to the Electoral College. US and world history have been changed and who is to blame? An unaccountable, anti-democratic star chamber called the EC? Surely you agree that SOME provisions of the Constitution need to be changed. How about how some 4.5% of the US population in the 12 smallest states can now, in theory, prevent any new amendment from passing?

There's a huge spectrum of political thought in other industrial democracies not reflected in the US. Why should Progressives FURTHER compromise their beliefs just to appeal to the center of a nation already suffering ideological constipation?

The ONLY way to break out of this perennial dilemma is to find some values we TRULY believe in and rather than constantly compromise those values, we try to SELL them.

or you lose. As far as the electoral college, you think that tracking down voter fraud now is hard. Try tracking down voter fraud when you are dealing with a national count in 10's of thousands of counties. Maybe 100's of thousands of counties, who knows how many counties there are.

They could hide the votes in any county of any state. It would be even more of a needle in a hay stack to find those computer over-votes for Republicans.

Doing away with the Electoral college would be exactly what the republicans would love us to do. You really need to re-think your position on this considering the republican voting fraud that we have already seen lately.

Huh?

To pass an amendment to the Constitution it takes 3/4 of the states. But since states have different populations.... that 1/4 of the states.. should they be the smallest, contain about 4-5% of the US population.

The Constitution has NO provisions to insure the majority, even a super majority, can't be blocked by a super super minority. When it comes to amendments citizens do not count.... states do.

Yet it would take a Constitutional amendment to correct this.

Is this an issue ANY political party is talking about? No.. it's outside the range of permissible thought. Yet logically can we allow just 4-5% of the US population the power to block ALL reform?

I will take what you say on face value, since I do not want to research it for the next hour.

So let me get this straight. If you had your way Bush and the republicans would be able to change the constitution today with a simple majority? You want that!?!

You really need to look at both sides of these issues and understand how they can be used against you. We are very close to losing what ever is left of the Constitution to the christo-fascists and what you are proposing would just speed them along.

OutsourceBush wrote: "So let me get this straight. If you had your way Bush and the republicans would be able to change the constitution today with a simple majority? You want that!?!"

Is THAT what I said? Why do even Progressive Americans have problems rationally thinking about the Constitution?

There's a range of possibilities between allowing a simple majority to amend the Constitution and giving an ultra-small minority the power to block any reform. I think the better way is to based the amendment process on a percentage of the population... not on a percentage of the states. I don't mind a high bar... nor do I want the passion of the moment to be an issue. I'd like to see the process turned over to the public... not state legislatures. Perhaps a super majority over 2 election cycles.

we need to be a party of ideas. The GOP was such a one - but they have run out of gas, and now want Franco-style fascism: control of all the institutions of govt, abetted by the dominant religion, and a lot less killing than their cousins in Germany.

I don't think that talking about which Dem is good and which is bad is going to help us accomplish what you (and we) are seeking to do. I think we need to focus in on the values that support our political beliefs, without getting hung up on the relative merits of each variation. We need to avoid political debate.

Political considerations and strategies to sell these ideas can always come later.

I agree. I think we need to learn what we're about before we try to tell others what we hope to accomplish

Does this mean we agree on something for once? ;-)

if we're talking about principles and values

Last night, I started a thread in GD titled "What is morality?"

Take a look and let me know what you think

I'm in full agreement with you that we need to reflect on and define our core beliefs independent from the "political considerations and strategies" ... we need to start with the fundamentals without worrying about the corrupting influences of "political noise" ... so, on the major premise you've proposed, we agree ...

but i'm not really comfortable with the phrase that "the politics and strategy can come later" ... while we need to maintain an independent mind while we define exactly who we are and what we believe, we simultaneously must begin the development of an implementation strategy ... the implementation strategy must not constrain the definition of our identity, but we cannot wait to begin its development ...

the two aspects, definition and implementation, can be developed simultaneously without having one process corrupt the other ... in a political war, we just cannot afford the time to tackle one aspect at a time ... while we're busy planning the house's foundation, the realtors need to start developing the marketing strategy ... neither aspect can be finalized without an ultimate integration with the other, but a tremendous amount of preparatory work can be done simultaneously ...

welshTerrier2 wrote: "...... the two aspects, definition and implementation, can be developed simultaneously without having one process corrupt the other ... in a political war, we just cannot afford the time to tackle one aspect at a time ... while we're busy planning the house's foundation, the realtors need to start developing the marketing strategy ... neither aspect can be finalized without an ultimate integration with the other, but a tremendous amount of preparatory work can be done simultaneously ...

Realistically, how long would the first part of the process last? A couple of months?

My big concern is that what you're proposing WILL corrupt the process. I want to insulate the process as much as possible from the immense amount of ideological rigidity even most Progressives have. I can't overstate the importance of this. For instance... take the Democratic Party. It's pretty devoid of all democratic values... at least in the most fundamental sense, yet it comfortably lives with this contradiction. It's almost Orwellian. If we can't understand and dismantle such dysfunctional ideas in ourselves, how can we hope to dismantle them in the Right?

Take another example: Constitutional reform. Most are now loathe now to consider even common sense reforms.... and that goes for Progressives too. This is usually a matter of secular religion which trumps principle. It's going to hard enough to keep such ideological rigidity out of the values clarification process. Allowing it in will poison the process. Consciously or unconsciously many will have a tendency to shape the discussion to avoid confronting contradictions and sacred cows. Unless we over-compensate for this, the result is likely to not the search for those best ideas we believe in but a reaffirmation of same old dysfunctional values. I've already seen this poisonening of the process at work when I proposed this idea at CGCS.

There will be plenty of time to devise strategies to sell our convictions later.

I don't think we can control what people are going to say. Also, as someone who's profession requires me to regularly plan out large projects, I do think there is a need to think about the implementation WHILE getting the basics down too. I see the process as more tilted towards the basic values stuff at first (while still "allowing" discussion of implementation and tactics) and as time goes by, and the basic values stuff gets nailed down, the discussion tilts more and more towards strategy, tactics, and of course, politics.

I see the first step as dealing with basic values... core axiomatic truths. Yes discussions of policies will creep in but that should not be the emphasis. Hopefully this first stage will develop a coherent paradigm of progressive core values.

I see the second stage as following though to apply those core values to specific topics.... the social safety net, the military, whatever. In the process developing statements of principle for each subject upon which policy proposals can be based. I see this results of these first 2 stages as that Common Sense statement of principles.

I'm hoping that this bottom up approach will accomplish two things... first lead to a logically coherent paradigm and, second, insulate the process from being diverted from a search for that "vision"... those best ideas we're passionate about, to short term concerns about next week or next year. We have to break out of this mentality that the furthest we're plan for is the next election. The Right is 40 years into its plan. Without some vision Democrats and Progressives will be reduced to tinkering with a nation the Right has created instead of pushing its own agenda.

I envision a THIRD stage where these principles are used as a basis for policy proposals.

I think the differences between us on this are merely a matter of degree. ON the basics, we seem of one mind

both of you have made scholarly arguments to support your points of view ...

i'll take one last pass at this theme and then move on to other business ... many activist democrats were angry and energized before the election; if anything, they are even angrier and more energized now ... i believe it's critical to sustain this energy ... too many democrats have virtually no contact with the party at all ... that's just not OK ... it is my view that we need to increase the frequency of contact and visibility of the party to its membership ... this is a long slow process and needs to start NOW ... i also think democrats need their daily dose of red meat ... we need a much more combative media presence and it needs to start now ... we complain that the right-wing owns the media but when democrats do appear, they are almost always of the "milk dud" wing of the party ... we needed to take a much sharper line ... i guess the perspective I have of the process is that there are certain things that must be done now (like food, clothing, shelter) to keep the party alive ... you can't spend all your time designing a better pair of boxing gloves while you're getting your head beaten in ...

there was a famous Abbott and Costello routine where Costello was going around door-to-door way out in the country selling vacuum cleaners ... his pitch was to get a housewife to let him into her house, then dump dirt all over her living room rug and then plug in the vacuum and clean it all up ... one woman frantically tried to discourage him ... he kept piling on more and more dirt over her objections ... finally, he had emptied the whole bag of dirt on her expensive rug ... he then asked her where her nearest outlet was so he could plug in the vacuum ... she responded "that's what i've been trying to tell you ... we don't have any electricity in our house" ... the point of the story, and i hope you'll excuse the pun, is that planning should never take place in a vacuum ...

anyway, enough on that ... whatever differences we have on this issue are not as important as making a real start ... perhaps while we are defining our core values, others can start their own forum to discuss combat strategies ... and if both groups produce good results, a subsequent merger of the groups could potentially deliver the complete, integrated package ...

so, I have no substantial problem with your stated goals ... you have defined a long-term, ongoing process to define the core beliefs of the Democratic Party ... what could be more important than that?

so, let's do it ... what is the process to get a "Think Tank" forum and how do we define its charter ... clearly this process cannot take place, at least not initially, in either of the GD forums ...

what's the next step ??

Drafting a proposal and convincing Skinner et al.

The last version of the proposal being written for CGCS is here: http://www.seedwiki.com/page.cfm?doc=Democratic%20Futures&wikiid=8584&wpid= I'm sure much can be borrowed from it.

Previous versions here http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/Democratic%20Futures/VersionList.htm?olddoc=Democratic%20Futures the oldest being a third draft of the one I made at CGCS.

i read the proposal you cited ... if i might reiterate what i wrote in my first reply to this thread, the first step should probably be the creation of our own DU forum ...

a single forum could act as a gathering place for us to develop our charter and processes ... i'm concerned that going after WIKI software inside DU would be a larger hurdle and the idea of creating tons of "issue" groups would probably dilute our energies ...

my vote, as a first step, is to petition for the creation of a Democratic Party Think Tank forum ... with that in place, we can discuss among the participants the best way to proceed beyond that ...

I just proposed that we could move to the writing forum at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=216 to work on the proposal requesting DU to sponsor this project. We should petition DU for workspace, but DU may never move on this so I think that moving there would at least give us a place other than this thread. I'll post a draft proposal there.

you can read about Skinner's process for proposing a new DU forum right here ...

I think starting a request for new forum in the GD or GD-politics would probably make more sense than using the writing forum ... i think this would enable those who are interested, including those who haven't even seen this thread, to participate in the process ... it also would help us collect the ten members we need to start a new forum ...

Building a forum proposal seems inappropriate for the writing forum which is really geared to discussing issues of interests to writers and journalists ...

jmho ...

But it seems we would then need two proposals... one for the new forum and one for the project.... THEN if DU goes along, a mission statement. Can you coordinate pushing though the forum proposal?

I also set up a wiki page for the editing of the think tank proposal: http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/RETHINKING%20AMERICA/RETHINKING%20AMERICA.htm?wpid=

I set one up for writing the forum proposal
http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/DU%20FORUM%20PROPOSAL/DU%20FORUM%20PROPOSAL.htm?wpid=

i asked Skinner for a little "process help" in the Ask the Admins forum ... here's the link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=120x25726

what would you think of calling the forum something like: Core Values Think Tank or Democratic Values Think Tank ???

if we just call it THINK TANK, we may attract posts that get bogged down in candidate preferences, campaign strategies, etc ... i'm worried that the title is too generic ...

I'll follow up with you (either in this thread or via a PM) when I hear back from Skinner ...

How about "we hold these truths......"

Nah, it's been used before somewhere.

Actually that was the name I proposed at CGCS... but Rethinking or Reinventing America might do.

Use the example of the German Green Party, which struggled to make headway and is now a major player in German politics.

The advent of third party politics may not be a new idea but, hereto for, they were splinter parties. The Green Party is no such animal.

subversion, fifth columnists, shit disturbers...any volunteers?

Now let's just make sure we don't design some arcanely complex intellectual straight jacket. Having said that, what you suggest is what is exactly needed.

Having just come out of a bruising fight over this concept at CGCS... what I'm most concerned about is not the structure of the project... that can adapt.... but the interference of ideologically intolerant who's underlying agenda is to insure none of their sacred cows is questioned.

The LAST thing I want is an echo chamber where such vacuous ideologues, ya the Dems have them too, come away feeling reaffirmed. Such attitudes are at the heart of the intellectual stagnation of the Democratic Party.

Dems don't need Scaife-like funding to come up with ideas! We have all the brainpower and diversity of backgrounds right here that we could need!

:bounce:

....but lack the direction and structure.

Forums may be structured with topics but there's usually no structure to stop all the random reinventing of the wheel. That's where having some goals and a community workspace is important.

so we have a head start on it.

George Mason... though I hope the results are never such that I'd prefer to to chop off my right hand than sign on to LOL

There is a lot of competition in the Democrat web space for the relatively small on-line Democrat user base it seems.

http://www.BigTentDemocrats.com

Above is my new site, I can easily ad Wiki, but the trick is to get users.

Last spring DU had some 45k members. I wonder what it is these days?

I'm in on your project, ulTRAX. I don't want to be a Dem mouthpiece, I want to create a new paradigm.

but it is very small relatively speaking. The population of the US is somewhere around 300 million. We (Dems) don't currently have much of a reach into those millions, or even the majority of on-line users for that matter. It's often said that we need a Dem equiv to Drudge in order to reach more mainstream Internet users. But I don't want to get off topic so let's not go off in that direction. :-)

There's no reason why the wiki site can't be linked to from DU. The only problem I forsee is there would be no way to confirm those who visit are from DU.

I often wish there were some way to thematically organize great ideas and posts here. Wiki is a perfect format. I'm in.

:kick:

Set long term goals and the steps needed to reach them. Make the info available to us in the grass roots so we can act (and vote) accordingly. Perhaps even a set of endorsements?

Progressives first need to develop a common sense vision for where they want America to be in 50 years, then a plan to get there. After the vision is finalized, then specific policies proposals have to be drawn up... most will be interim. It's essential for the policies to reinforce the principles and vice versa. The principles should permeate ever thought Progressives have. We have to have a 50 year plan and be prepared to stick to it.

If we can find core ideas we REALLY believe, then it's that much easier to sell them. I think that's what's lacking in the Democratic Party. General principles have been replaced with constituency group issues.

and would love to plan for something that my children will see, after I am gone. Say, perhaps that could be one of the core values?

I'm an author and a journalist. My latest book is 100 Books That Shaped World History. I'd love to help on this project!

feel free to play with it.

http://www.BigTentDemocrats.com

We had a wiki site set up here http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/Democratic%20Futures/Democratic%20Futures.htm to work on a proposal for CGCS. It was never completed. As you can see from the drafts and discussion the person I was collaborating with tried to radically change the direction of the proposal.

I'd love to think Skinner would jump on this project since has great potential to shape progressive thought... and possibly the Democratic Party. Idealy, there should be a forum and a corresponding wiki workspace. The first tier of forums... basic values... may number... no more than 20? But I expect the second tier forums... where we finish a discussion of values and move on to applying them... that might be 50-60 forums.

Because of DU's reputation and membership base I'd like to see if we can convince DU to go along so everything (forums/wiki) are integrated. It'd be a real feather in their cap if they can pull it off. If that doesn't work out... and I've raised this issue before with Skinner... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=120x24383 then other alternatives have to be considered. My only additional thought is that I realize many may feel threatened by the process. I don't want the concept bastardized into oblivion as happened when I tried to work with mainstream Democrats at CGCS. I'd like to have higher hopes for DU... but they may have their own ideological constraints.

I don't think you can have a Common Sense written by committee.

The Wikipedia idea ain't half bad.

Because such a project would probably originate out of a site like this, it will have to be a collective process. But all those separate discussions which generate statements of principle, will have to be looked at to insure the whole is an internally consistent paradigm. Then there will have to be some stylistic consistency. But I believe it can be done... and even if it's slow in coming, I believe there's IMMENSE value in having values clarification discussions.

For instance, if it was a freeper scum web-site with tons of posts, we could delete it every day! While we would enjoy that small effort of fun, it would make some freepers very unhappy after all of their hard fascist work was deleted.

ahhh, never mind... I see your previous implementation used a login which is not the default way it installs.

There would have to be wiki safeguards... but I suspect that the majority of what is being written would still go on in forum discussions like this. The critical guideline is to have a structure that guides discussion to conclusions. In theory draft statements can be done in a ordinary forums using C&P... but coordinating it would be difficult. That piece of the project would be easier done in wiki.

He wrote it in December 2003 while a candidate.

It's much different than your ambitious proposal. I don't mean to suggest that it affects what you want to do, but I thought you should be aware of it. It made a very nice piece of campaign literature, and perhaps laid the groundwork for Democracy For America.

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Common_Sense_For_A_New_Century-Dean.html

I have an autographed copy of Dean's booklet!

The original Common Sense was such an influential phamplet that it's legendary. I like the name but if it's overused the concept is more important.

If you want to propose a collection of Common Sense, one may consider that the ideas be truly "common". There are a lot of ideas we hold as true but Republicans disagree with and vice versa. I suggest the new Common Sense be as universal as possible in the sense that while it may be used to promote progressive ideals, the content should consist of statements that are both apolitical and indisputable by Republicans.

A for instance of what is NOT Common Sense: "Life begins at birth." This is too debatable. A better, but still arguable way of talking about life issues would be "Life, in all its forms, is precious."

Another thought might be "The greater good is served when the greatest possible number of people benefit." This sounds very common sensical and I would think a good many Republicans would agree. It's a pretty straightforward definition of "greater good". Once you get a moderate Repulican to agree with this Common Sense statement, one could point out how a great many people have been hurt by the cutbacks in domestic spending due to the Iraq War and tax cuts.

Another Common Sense proposal is that "The government should not interfere in one's personal affairs." I bet if you surveyed this, most Repubs would agree.

If we can get several of these statements out there as memes, and DON'T discuss the politics of them, we may, at some future time, be able to show how progressive planks in the Democratic platform support these Common Sense statements.

Ultimately, I think the Democratic Party will again rise when it can unite the people. Bush has used their fears to manipulate them and we try to fight his tactics, but are not successful. We need to establish our own tactics. Perhaps the spreading of Common Sense is a good first step.

Avoid specific positions until AFTER we identify the "themes" that bind them together in our progressive vision of the future.

Take a donut out of petty cash. You earned it

Perhaps several of these new memes could be polled, and the ones that polled the best among both Democrats and Republicans could become the central planks of the new Democratic platform. I am not talking about leaving our roots or moving to the right; I'm talking about finding those aspects of the left that resonate with people on the right.

I'm tired of the Republicans setting the agenda for political discussion. By figuring out what Democrats believe that the Republicans also agree with, I think we can come up with new issues that have not yet been discussed.

I would love to see Zogby play with these ideas, tweeking the wording of my suggestions for attitudes toward "value of life", "greater good" and "the role of government" to see what best resonates with people, then going on to explore other future memes.

We keep criticizing Bush for being a polarizer and divider. I think the Democratic Party could use this as an opportunity to become the Party of Unity for Americans.

I think I'll forward these ideas to Zogby.....

While I think understanding what resonates with voters is important... that is short term strategy. What I'm proposing is not appealing to popular prejudice in the short but finding principles that underlie a vision for a progressive America, principles that once articulated we'll have some passionate belief in.

THEN we can find ways to sell these ideas.

I only see what already resonates as a base for future strategic planning.

How can we be agreeing when we seem to disagree? LOL I see the exercise to develop a real vision for where Progressives want to take America in 50 years... ideas we may not have now but once articulated we can be passionate about. I want to reinvent the Progressive movement so it can start planning to reinvent America.

I fear most is seeing this project diverted from developing the BEST ideas that we want to fight for, to appealing to the popular prejudices of Americans who subscribe to dysfunctional and contradictory belief systems. It's a sure way to never develop any of those desperately needed new ideas.

And there is a lot of bridg-building that needs to happen before that occurs.

The best ideas should be easier to sell if they are based in a coherent paradigm. One can't dismiss ideas unless they also rethink the basic assumptions which presumably would be "self evident" and not that controversial.

But I believe Progressives need a 50 year plan based upon a coherent paradigm. These principles would at the heart of policies, and policy discussion reinforce the core assumptions.

Say we come to agree that if democracy is at the heart of morally legitimate government and democracy requires all votes weigh the same. If we BELIEVE that we'd soon want a long term goal to bring democratic reform to the federal government... something even the Democratic Party does NOT now support. This could be broken into interim steps to overcome and redirect that mainstream ideological inertia and to build an eventual consensus for that reform. Reforms could begin on the state level. Here's some thoughts on how this process might work: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/index.php?showtopic=5891

I just noticed I'm a 1000+ poster!

That's kind of like a birthday, isn't it?

that there's something important lying underneath it.

i began my third year on DU 2 days ago ... I wrote a very detailed (well, long anyway) plan outlining the key elements the Democrats need to put in place to become a majority party again ... to say the least, the response was underwhelming ... imagine the frustration I felt when the "bush's fly was unzipped" thread had over a hundred responses and mine had little more than 20 or so ...

the point is, that I think a good first step will be to move the "Common Sense Think Tank" out of the General Discussion forums ... it appears there would be plenty of support for a new forum with the mission you proposed ... I'd like to see the group start off within the confines of DU ... if we need to migrate to take advantage of specialized software, I'm sure that could easily be arranged ... but I think starting on DU in our own little world might add some real value ...

i'm not sure that starting numerous issue forums is the best way to get started ... i'd like to build a red hot core of participants all in one location ... once we have a little "sub-community" going, we can always branch out with a more specialized issue focus ... build the group, build the energy, establish a basic framework and then expand and diversify ...

it is time for DU to move out of its infancy and start delivering a more tangible product ... thanks for the post ... it's exactly what we need to start doing ...

Whoa!!!! I think I suggested elsewhere that the think tank proposal was consistent with the DU mission statement... yet reading it, it doesn't actually state any values or "shared goals" that DU stands for. Like I said... WHOA!!!! Stop the presses!!!!!

From: http://www.democraticunderground.com/about.html

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

Democratic Underground would not be possible without the participation of like-minded individuals from across the country and, indeed, from around the world. The content for the site is provided by people who feel that their views are not represented by the conservative "mainstream" media in the U.S. We accept article submissions from those on the left who wish to write, so that DU represents a variety of progressive viewpoints. We have a particular appreciation for satire and humor.

Visitors may also participate in our discussion forums, which have become one of the most popular places on the Web for members of the political left to share ideas and discuss the issues.

This website exists so our members and guests are assured that there are many others across the country who share their outrage at the unilateral, arrogant, and extreme right-wing approach taken by George W. Bush and his team, the conservative Republicans in Congress, and the five conservative partisans on the Supreme Court. We address the right in harsh terms, and we fully intend to make the word "conservative" absolutely radioactive. In that spirit, DU has already gained countrywide notoriety as the originator of the weekly Top Ten Conservative Idiots list, which is published (almost) every Monday.

Democratic Underground gets lots of visitors and we rely mostly on donations to pay our expenses. We therefore invite you to make a contribution to our efforts in whatever amount you can afford. Democratic Underground is legally a for-profit organization, therefore, you won't get a tax deduction for your contribution. However, you will get the satisfaction of knowing that as long as there are conservative idiots, Democratic Underground will be here to hold them accountable (and maybe even make fun of them).

Great idea. I'm getting a rush just thinking about it!

There was certainly lots of enthusiasm for the original concept here
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/index.php?showtopic=4946

But the ideological constipation of mainstream Democrats soon bastardized the concept into oblivion.

Once bitten twice shy.

Given the lack of a clear statement of principles in the DU mission statement and immense pressures of those who will feel threatened by this project... how can we insure what happened at CGCS doesn't happen here?

As someone who will have to live his adult life during the time period given, I am very anxious that the Democratic Party should be a vital force. I do not want to wander in the wilderness.

This is our Barry Goldwater moment. We rebound from this like he and his cohorts did, and we can write our own tickets in about 20-30 years. Will we have long memories? I will. Will there be no mercy? Quite possibly. Will the radical right rue the day they ever registered to vote? I hope so. Sorry if this is too passionate, but I hate losing.

When do we get started? I can't wait!

this whole thread reminds me of the scene from Life of Brian where the People's front try to get organized.

The Judean Peoples Front or the People's Front of Judea? ROTF

The Progressive movement and the Democratic party are in such sad shape because no one had a vision 50 years ago to bring fundamental reforms to the US. But the Right had a vision... and they are 40 years into their plan.

Yes this is a Barry Goldwater moment.

Much better than ranting. Now we can act. As a thought, perhaps we could send monthly or bi-monthly editions to all the Congress etc.?

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Common_Sense_For_A_New_Century-Dean.html

SNIP..."Over two hundred years ago, Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet that would light the fire that forged our nation. He called it “Common Sense.” Passed from hand to hand, patriot to patriot, it was a call to action for those Americans who believed their government had to change. It spelled out the values of a new republic. And King George III—who had forgotten his own people in favor of special interests—was replaced by a government of, by and for the people. America was born.

Like those early patriots, we face a growing threat to our liberty and justice in America today. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison spoke of the fear that economic power would one day seize political power.

That fear is now being realized—under the Bush administration, pharmaceutical companies draft our Medicare laws. Oil executives sit in the Vice President’s office and write energy bills. A majority of the reconstruction contracts in Iraq goes to corporations headed by campaign contributors to the president.

In the last six years, despite massive corporate scandals and the crash of the NASDAQ, the financial services industry managed to find almost $168 million to influence the political process. A pharmaceutical and health products industry that can’t afford to sell our seniors cheaper prescription drugs did manage to find $60 million to influence our elections. And the national debt has exploded to the point where it will cost the median American family $26,000—because the president ran up the largest deficit in the history of our country in order to pass $3 trillion worth of tax cuts tilted toward his campaign contributors.

In the matter of war and peace, there was virtually no debate by either party before the invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration uses fear to rally people to its causes. Our nation, once looked to as a beacon of hope from around the globe, now is looked at with suspicion and distrust....."

We need to do a good job getting the right messages out to the masses. Beyond brainstorming and theorizing, we need promoters and publicists...people who can market the best of our books, websites, etc.

We need to have a compelling message. I think too much effort goes into promoting what's little more than Democratic vaporware... like Kerry's budget plans. Ya anything is better than Bush's willful sabotage of the government's finances but Kerry's plan didn't address the real fiscal problems. We need to do better than cutting the deficit in half in 5 years. And Kerry didn't even mean the REAL deficit... but the unified deficit. He gave himself a 150 billion fudge factor.

You are absolutely right about the problems with these forums. Brilliance is so easily lost amidst all the crap sometimes.

Do you really think everyone here could actually agree on a single Manifesto?

There has to be a goal. I've proposed an ambitious one. Will everyone agree? Probably not. But we need to work toward agreement.

I'd like to see the basic axioms as uncontroversial and self-evident as possible. I believe that there's a great deal of value in such a values clarification process. Those who buy into the core values will tend to agree more on policies based upon them than, say, a mainstream Democrat that just goes along with Party politics.

But there will be some contentious times if we deal with core issues such as faith and life.

in a way. It seems 3 things are in order:
1. Let's decide what we CAN agree on, and put off til later the things we cannot.
2. Let's set a time limit - or some schedule - for ourselves.
3. We need an editor - just finished reading a book on the authorship of the Oxford English Dictionary. It took decades. It only moved forward when an editor (rather than a board) took over. I suggest that would be helpful.

I nominate the original poster: ulTRAX. No good deed goes unpunished.

I think discussion on this proposal has to be moved to a quieter forum so we can hear ourselves think... but going though the list nothing seems appropriate or quiet enough with the exception of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=216

Then we need to draw up a proposal... some drafts are available from the original project at CGCS.

Then we have to convince Skinner this project is important and might make DU a real player in shaping the future of the Progressive movement.

eom

got some ideas - email me thru DU.

you can count on the two of us..let me know. 24/7.

In this DU. if for one or two days can be only one topic to discuss on were everyone can jump on it with out getting distract it from the main purpose of DU. :shrug: just count on me anyway...

All this energy is going to waste... the exception being the campaign underground.

I would like to be included in this very important project. The DNC makes me furious, they are so political.

We need a bold new direction. My point of view is more conservative than some of my very liberal friends, but I think my views represent more people. I think we can actually cover all bases, by being inclusive.

The repukes have think tanks like the Heritage foundation and other groups, but we Dems are not as cohesive a party.

Let's do it!!

if you would be interested in receiving a PM when a formal "Request for Forum" proposal is issued on this topic please drop me a PM ...

I'll PM you back when the proposal thread is posted ... the formal request thread will probably be posted either this Sunday or Monday ... Elad suggested that things might be a bit slow because of the holiday so we thought we should wait a few days ...

Several people have already expressed interest ... we'd like to get as many charter members as possible to help us define the process we'll use in the "Core Values Think Tank" ... btw, feel free to suggest a better name for the forum if you don't like this one ...

For more details about the mission of the new forum, check out the thread I posted in Ask the Admins ...