Food for Thought from NOW (with Sparkly's editorial - and yours?)

Disclaimer: I'm a liberal Democrat, a card-carrying member of NOW, and also a staunch loyalist to the Democratic party.

For all viewpoints within our party, I think this piece from NOW is well worth reading, and debating.



Sparkly's Editorial (fwiw): First, a technical note: I'd have replaced the initial "the Democrats' strategy" in this excerpt with "some Democrats' strategy," but the points are well-taken.

Both this year and in 2008, we DO need to appeal to people who voted Republican in the past two elections. But we do NOT need to appeal to them by adopting rightwing positions!!

On policy, poll after poll shows that OUR positions are the favored ones! A majority of voters want sensible gun control, reproductive rights, environmental protection, religious freedom, funding for education, fiscal responsibility, and the list goes on and on... We saw Bush adopting Kerry's policies on such issues because they KNOW the people are with US on policy.

There is NO need to go "Republican-lite" on issues. NONE.

There IS a need to dispose of the Republican-controlled STEREOTYPES of Democrats, the STRAWMEN they've created, the LIES they've established as cultural myth. And make no mistake, nothing here is a recent development. They've spent 35+ years and billions of dollars to establish institutes, thinktanks, training centers, networks, publishing companies, media consolidations, etc. They've tapped into the very worst of America, leveraging divisions that go back not only to Vietnam and the social schism between the 50s and the 60s, but even to the Civil War, north and south, and everything inbetween (civil rights, women's rights, Europe as an enemy, etc. etc.).

They've worked quite diligently, and successfully, at building an Empire of Propaganda that now -- as polls show -- have a majority of voters DUPED into believing falsehoods that the White House, up against the wall, quietly and innocently denies. (Rule #1: The top echelon maintains clean hands.)

("Gee, we can't IMAGINE why people think Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. We were very careful not to say that.")

I say NOW is absolutely right -- and I trust they'll be there to support any and all Democrats who end up nominated to fight for seats in Congress.

I, too, will be there to campaign and vote for any Democratic nominee this year and in 2008, but I suggest we keep NOW's points in mind in the meantime. Don't take the base for granted; we are NOT a fringe minority. Instead, wake up the rest of the country with a message, and messengers, who can penetrate and dispose of the myths -- the stereotypes, strawmen, and lies they've been building up since Vietnam (and with a heritage that goes back long before).

Winning does NOT mean ignoring our base, our principles, our stands; it means reaching out, with feet firmly planted on OUR ground, to a mere portion of the deluded.

Now your turn -- what do you think?

We will never, ever get evangelicals. This does not mean CHRISTIANS, this means people who believe God made GW president. Part of it is balls- you have to show that you're willing to stand for something even if it means losing. After all, if we aren't risking something, we probably shouldn't expect to win too much. This doesn't mean we need to adopt a communist platform, but I'd like to see us do a better job of explaining things on our terms without falling into Rethug traps.

I was thinking it and forgot to include it. There are people we will NEVER convince -- LET THEM GO!!!

We have to accept that! At least 90% of Freepers will NEVER agree with us, ever, for whatever pathetic reasons. They are NOT our audience. Forget them for the time being.

There are SO many people who agree with us already -- they are just swayed by the RNC machine that paints Democrats as unacceptable for one manufactured reason or another.

That is their only leverage -- OPPOSING someone or something, based on fear (and fear's stepchild, anger).

You can bet they'll leverage demonization of Democrats this year, like never before. The stakes are higher than ever for them.

I think I fussed at you on another thread about sneering at Christians - and maybe I misunderstood you.

I thank you for pointing out that not all Christians are of the fundie variety.

quote........
Mr Bush oversimplified, using one word—isolationist—for several disparate opponents. But he is right to worry. Partly in reaction to the president's hyperactive foreign entanglements, various forms of isolationist sentiment are indeed on the rise. A Pew poll in October (2005) found 42% of Americans agreeing that the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.” That figure had jumped by 12 points in three years to its highest level since the mid-1970s (after the humiliation of Vietnam).


Although Mr Bush was hardly fair when he described all advocates of a less muscular foreign policy as “isolationist”, he has correctly identified one of the strongest currents against which he must swim. Many Americans wish to disengage from the world in one or more of four ways: by fighting fewer wars, by trading less freely, by allowing fewer foreigners into their country or by giving less foreign aid.
end quote......
http://www.economist.com/world/na/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=5499501

We may actually be able to nominate Feingold or DK and WIN! Bushit may have given us a gift.....nothing like an Angry American

I think BushCo IS "isolationist." I think global cooperation, including fair trade, is important.

I think the very term "less muscular" to describe BushCo's opponents is WRONG. This administration isn't "muscular," it's weak, fear-driven, and bullying. There's a big difference.

I think we DO need to be engaged in the world, in the same ways privileged people need to stay engaged with underprivileged communities. We need to be HELPing. We need to secure our own interests not as an imperialist power out to conquer the world, but as a force for doing GOOD.

Avoiding unnecessary war is NOT the equivalent of being "isolationist."

peaceful ways. Not something Bushit & Co understand. They have manufactured this war/enemies. 99% of the world's population wants to live in peace.Its the leaders that don't. MIC is BIG business to those whom make their livelihood in it. I aways believed that is one of the reasons JFK was assassinated.Some didn't want Vietnam to be ended.

"We need to secure our own interests not as an imperialist power out to conquer the world, but as a force for doing GOOD."

What a sterling example of doubletalk.

let's not lump "male veterans, NASCAR dads, Alabama guys with gun racks in their pickup trucks" in with "the ban abortion crowd," "uber-patriots," etc. That's a crude stereotype, and quite untrue. The resort to it suggests that some Democrats are inclined to look down on working-class people, which is both counter-productive and a disgrace.

We can attract voters with strong convictions and plain talk. On the issue of the Iraq War, that means endorsing Rep. Jack Murtha's frank and clear-eyed evaluation and program for withdrawal, rather than weaseling around with Wesley Clark's plan of rearranging the deployments and keeping the war going, in obedience to the moneyed special interests who demand that we stay for the oil and the military bases.

there's two big problems here, and both of them are outlined in the article. one of them, however, is unintentional.

part of the reason democrats are in this mess is because many of them exude the kind of snobbery exhibited in NOW's essay: they would really, really rather win elections without having to deal with working class types. 50% of America is pro-life. About half are red-staters, and a vast majority are sympathetic to the military (or work for it), and most people consider themselves patriotic.

this is "limousine liberalism", folks: lecturing people about how to live their lives, without wanting to get your hands "dirty" by associating with them.

And he does not pander to special interests.

:eyes:

We can reach SOME of these white male NASCAR, gun-toting voters WITHOUT changing our stances IF we could get more populist candidates some air time.

These guys aren't Martians. My step-Dad is one. He's pure country, but through his conversations with me and my liberal Mom he's realized that supporting Democrats means he's supporting his own "average Joe" pocketbook. He'll have more money to spend on NASCAR events, a better environment in which to hunt and farm AND the freedom to worship how he chooses. We have to throttle the media's misconception that liberals are trying to take God away - we're just trying to limit the THOUSANDS of religions that would demand, and rightly so, to be allowed in public places if we allow Christianity. Can you imagine how many different monuments the taxpayers would have to build to accommodate all those religions? Either that, or we'd have to give up our Constitutional right to the freedom of worship (and even most Republicans don't want to do that!).

So, no, we don't need to ignore our base, we need to better get our message out - and that will require a lot more word of mouth because the corporate media isn't going to help us any.

:kick:

TC