good argument and I agree that this is the way to go...

Agree completely. I have in the past made attempts, very even-toned, to get conservatives to explain their position (*explain*, mind you, not justify). Given fertile ground and an attentive, receptive audience, time and time again I have been treated to variations on the theme "we don't have to adjust to you liberals; America is conservative. Change your ways".

At the risk of repeating myself, this was the response to a request for unopposed statements of the conservative viewpoint. If conservatives in general are not prepared to articulate views in one-on-one discourse, there clearly can be no hope for compromise. I guess it's the lobsters in a bucket syndrome

The immediate goal should not be so much to "grow liberalism", because that takes time, but rather to "grow moderatism", or at least exploit it.

The real goal for us in the upcoming elections is not so much to try to legitimize liberalism, but to demonize the dominant portion of Bush's support, just as they have demonized "liberals". We must learn to understand the potential of, and take advantage of, the negative attacks this election now enables.

While this election, precisely because it appears to have been driven by the Christian Right, seems as horrible as possible to us, in fact it is a nearly ideal result from the standpoint of having a clear counterattack in the next election.

Why so? Because the very thing we most loathe, the ignorance and intolerance of the Christian Right, is also disliked by moderates.

Millions upon millions of moderate voters plunked down for Bush for reasons having nothing to do with so-called "moral values". A great many of these voters are VERY uncomfortable with the radical agenda of the Christian Right. Happily for us, the Christian Right is taking full credit for the outcome of this election, and it looks very much as if the Bush WH is going to grant them their demanded due.

What we have to do, clearly, is demonize the Bush support as being driven by the nutcases on the extreme Christian Right. We have to talk about how creationism is being forced on schools. We have to talk about the gay reporgramming they engage in. We have to talk about their hypocrisy. We have to talk about the obstacles they have put in path of stem cell research. We have to talk about their opposition even to contraception. We have to talk about the crazy assertions that God punished us for gayness and abortion by inflicting 9/11 on us.

If you don't believe that "Christian Right" can be demonized, consider that many of them themselves are now demanding from the media that they not be called by that term, because it's considered a "slur". What this means for us, of course, is that we have to make sure it gets used every time we can manage to do so -- it is the exact political counterpart for our side to "liberal" for the right.

Look, Rove understands perfectly well that the Bush WH can't be too closely associated with the Christian Right, otherwise it loses big time. That is why Bush was always trying to make statements before the election that stepped back from the extreme, including his remarkable flip flop on the issue of gay civil unions, explicitly backing them in contradiction to previous statements by his spokesperson and the Republican Platform.

Republicans can't win a single national election without getting a substantial number of moderates to vote for them, moderates who are very much turned off by the intolerance and rigidity of the Christian Right. For many of them, the "Christian Right" is at least as much a scary thing as is "liberalism", if not more so. We have to fight to make sure that they note and understand the undying fealty the Bush WH will now be swearing to the Christian Right.

Grow liberalism or grow progressivism?

Oh my! You mean that The Greens might have the right idea?

Whoda thunk?

[/sarcasm]

Yes, we need to "grow liberalism" and in part that means putting it in a more attractive package so that it will sell better. It also helps to have an appealing salesman.

My 74-year old mother, who hails from southern Georgia and who now lives in the more purplish Wilmington, North Carolina, says that she knew that Kerry wouldn't win because as a Brahmin, he turned off the common man, while Bush . . . well, you're probably as sick of the beer-drinking analysis as I am. She agrees with my belief that Edwards, despite his apparent lack of success in NC, can make that vital connection with the common man (at least those that are within reach).

Yes, yes to all this. We need to "demonize" them by loudly calling them what they are: they are corporatists, they are anti-science, and they are anti-progress.

We can focus on who they are serving economically and how they are undermining the future of America with their anti- facts and reality approach to science and technology.

The immediate goal should not be so much to "grow liberalism", because that takes time, but rather to "grow moderatism", or at least exploit it.

--and--

Yes, yes to all this. We need to "demonize" them by loudly calling them what they are: they are corporatists, they are anti-science, and they are anti-progress.

Yes. We need to advance the theme that Republican policies are crazy--because they are. No more agreeing to disagree.

We shouldn't be afraid to use that word "crazy" once in a while, either. That way, when the press forces us to defend our use of the word "crazy," we can explain what sane policy looks like without sounding like a boring scold. We can even note what sane Republican policies of the past have looked like, and compare them to the current bull-ina-china-shop approach, for extra effect.

Serenity Now!!!

I gave money to and worked with the Dems this election, as did many people. The Dems MUST move to the LEFT and attack the right or they are dead. They must do this or MILLIONS of people like me will abandon them. No more money and no volunteer work.

We need to make it clear which issues out rank each other in the nation. For example, which is more important, one man one woman marriage, or clean air? Which is more important, looking strong abroad, or being uneducated and unhealthy? It's that simple, you know? The majority of Americans support stronger environmental regulation, stronger control on assault rifles, better lower education, cheaper higher education, less expensive health care for everyone. The list goes on and on...

Our job over the next four years is to make sure everyone knows this. To make sure in the South they know that jobs, education, and the environment trump morals once in a while. Coming from Arkansas, where we have 49th ranked education, some of the poorest citizens in the US, and record job loss, I cannot stress enough how little these "moral" Republicans care about us after the vote.

Over at my site they tell me things like this: "Democrats have 2 choices as far as I can see- 1. Move to the center and accept that most Americans don't like radical "progressive" politics or 2. Accept that in short span of time, America will be a 1 party system."

Our answer to them should not to become moderate, but to make America know, as frankly0 said, that liberalism is a good thing. That it is the Republicans who fight for intolerant legislation. It is Republicans who work for big business and forget about little America. It is the Republicans who claim that taking jobs away from Americans by sending them overseas somehow puts money back in our economy. It is the Republicans who want to privatize EVERYTHING so that every human right or basic need makes somebody money, and try to make us believe that will be a good thing.

Their party may be in control right now, but it just takes a single election cycle to take the power back. I'll end my rant here...

In the past I have encouraged Democrats to come to a understanding of their faith in a supreme power as it relates to their politics. I do not, however, advocate that Democrats become more conservative as a result. It is just that I believe that Democrats are being identified as the party of the "godless".

I believe it is possible to be liberal and still recognize the Divine in the principles we hold. As some others have noted, we have some strong Black Baptist preachers in our party who are men of strong faith. It really is not that difficult to see how many of the policies promoted by Republicans is "evil in the sight of God." There are also many Catholics who recognize the importance of social justice.

I am simply advocating the idea that we should not be afraid to use some of that terminology when communicating our views with people of faith.

Don't move the right. But we need to communicate better. Millions of people voted against their own self-interest.

That is because Kerry turned them off at key points. Like the "voted for before voted against" comment, or allowing the Swift Boat guys to dominate for weeks.

People formed perceptions at odds with reality. That is what we are up against. Rove etal. realize that politics is about perceptions, not reality. We need to change perceptions.

A large portion of the public think we are aliens with horns. We need to work on this by communicating better. We need a compelling message , and communicate it.

Read Thomas Franks' book "What's the Matter With Kansas?" It is very insightful into how the Republican party has made use of the religion card in places like Kansas to isolate people from their own interests by demonizing the Democratic party, liberalism, progressivism and things like the labor movement.

Well if the Dems do not move left drastically they have no chance. And I'm telling you, millions of people and millions of dollars will be lost. The Dems will never win again unless they have a clear leftist message.

Here's the problem with the online Democratic crowd, there is the prevailing assumption that Democrat is synonymous with liberal and that is not true. Moderate Democrats are no less Democrat than liberal Democrats. So the issue of moving to the center is not about doing what is alien to the Party, it is simply about re-claiming what is rightfully the party's.

We have to be careful not to create an insular online, insider party elite world, an echo chamber, that does not resonate with Democrats in Nevada. I personally know many Catholic Democrats who feel like strangers in the Party and that's because the Party powers that be have decided that the moderates and conservatives in the Party are dragging it down or off message. There are far more moderate and conservative Democrats out there than there are liberals, it's just that the liberals have the bull horn.

We've got to be careful how we frame this thing, we are Democrats, and liberals are part of the party, but it is not a liberal party.

Here's the problem with the online Democratic crowd, there is the prevailing assumption that Democrat is synonymous with liberal and that is not true. Moderate Democrats are no less Democrat than liberal Democrats. So the issue of moving to the center is not about doing what is alien to the Party, it is simply about re-claiming what is rightfully the party's.

We have to be careful not to create an insular online, insider party elite world, an echo chamber, that does not resonate with Democrats in Nevada. I personally know many Catholic Democrats who feel like strangers in the Party and that's because the Party powers that be have decided that the moderates and conservatives in the Party are dragging it down or off message. There are far more moderate and conservative Democrats out there than there are liberals, it's just that the liberals have the bull horn.

We've got to be careful how we frame this thing, we are Democrats, and liberals are part of the party, but it is not a liberal party.

Dear Senator :

The Democratic Party is at an important juncture and we must be more strategic in our thinking and how we organize.

The way I see it, Karl Rove has had some success merging Madison Ave, Oral Roberts with Slash and Burn Politics, but he still nearly lost against a less than optimal campaign organization . The issues are on our side, we must not give the GOP the cover of “ Faux Bipartisanship”, as they seek to crush the bedrock of American society. Party discipline is crucial to protect societal gains achieved under FDR , JFK and LBJ , we must be hard nosed and strategic if we are to turn the GOP tide, and we shall turn it .

As to strategy, Senator Harry Reid has offered to serve as Minority Leader. The Senator is a fine person and I applaud his years of service. That said, I feel leadership under him will suffer from the same constraints we often saw in the leadership of Tom Daschle , you can’t be an effective advocate for Democrats if you hail from a Republican leaning state ; Republicans have employed that strategy effectively , we must agree .


This is no time for interparty comity to supercede pragmatic intelligent strategic action , the GOP agenda puts our nation at risk. We need effective, fearless and unfettered leadership to counter it . I do not believe Senator Reid or anyone similarly positioned can fulfil that role.

Dear Senator :

The Democratic Party is at an important juncture and we must be more strategic in our thinking and how we organize.

The way I see it, Karl Rove has had some success merging Madison Ave, Oral Roberts with Slash and Burn Politics, but he still nearly lost against a less than optimal campaign organization . The issues are on our side, we must not give the GOP the cover of “ Faux Bipartisanship”, as they seek to crush the bedrock of American society. Party discipline is crucial to protect societal gains achieved under FDR , JFK and LBJ , we must be hard nosed and strategic if we are to turn the GOP tide, and we shall turn it .

As to strategy, Senator Harry Reid has offered to serve as Minority Leader. The Senator is a fine person and I applaud his years of service. That said, I feel leadership under him will suffer from the same constraints we often saw in the leadership of Tom Daschle , you can’t be an effective advocate for Democrats if you hail from a Republican leaning state ; Republicans have employed that strategy effectively , we must agree .


This is no time for interparty comity to supercede pragmatic intelligent strategic action , the GOP agenda puts our nation at risk. We need effective, fearless and unfettered leadership to counter it . I do not believe Senator Reid or anyone similarly positioned can fulfil that role.

I think that in the aftermath of this campaign, we are still erring in falling for the "framing" from the right about WHO we are, WHAT we stand for, and hence how to advance our position. We actually came very close to winning against an incumbent with an enormous propaganda machine who's convinced the largely factually-ignorant public he can keep them safe in this time of "terra". The poster above commenting on "perception as reality" and our failure to communicate is truly seeing the forest on this one, while lots of folks are getting hung up in the trees.

We need to reclaim our message (yes, we have one) and focus on organizing to disseminating it. We need fresh leadership with the proven skills to do this to take the lead at the DNC (Howard Dean is SO right for this).

We've let the right completely dominate political speech to the point of defining all terms in focus-group/market tested slogans to their advantage (e.g., "death" tax vs. "estate" tax, "libruls" as America-haters, the above direct attempt to rename the EXTREME CHRISTIAN RIGHT (ECR) as "evangelical" Christians" -- I know some evangelical Christians who are ashamed of what the ECR does in the name of Jesus). We don't need to go along with this. We can still discuss the estate tax that applies to less than 1% of Americans -- none of them family farmers; we can attack the ERC for being "old testament" extremists who have ignored the truly progressive teachings of Jesus in the new testament.

We need more savvy marketing.
We need new blood at the top and active roots.
We need to challenge the CORPORATE RIGHTWING PRESS (I suggest this term for OUR form of newspeak).

We need not to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Ono,

You're correct. The Democratic Party is not a liberal party.

But I think a lot of people, not just us online snobs, now recognize that the Democratic Party needs to become a proudly liberal party if it's going to defeat the Grand Old Plutocracy. For the GOP is clearly a conservative party. (At least in terms of social issues, even if Bush is more radical than conservative in regard to fiscal irresponsibility. Some also portray Bush's foreign policy as radical, but I view it as a form of aggressive conservatism not far removed from how "Real America" seeks to impose their "moral values" on others.)

To put an end to our 36-year losing trend, Democrats need to offer America an another distinct option, not a shadow.

I'm not saying that the Democratic Party needs to suddenly jerk hard to the left. I'm advocating moderate yet assertive liberalism in place of the defensive, self-flagellating, Avis variety.

Another way to look at it is the GOP is the Immoderate Party, conservative in the sense that they embrace absolutes. The Democratic Party needs to be the party of Aristotle, the party of moderation in terms of offering a liberal range of ideas that avoid extremism while promoting a healthy society and planet.

During the past week, I've noticed some libs pointing out that Red State voters are dupes--that is, they vote on issues like gay marriage and abortion, while the Republican honchos give them nothing in return

Republican honchos give nothing in return?

Two Tax Cuts
Reversed Clinton's pathetic economy he inherited.
Prescription Drug benefits for Seniors
No Child Left Behind
Homeland Security NOTE: Not one American Interest domestically/Internationally was attacked post 911,
US Airlines recorded two of its safest years ever post 911.
Declared war on Terror which escalated during the previous administrations incompetence whose attitude was simply "We'll bring those responsible to justice" which left 200 Americans dead in its wake.
Re-elected the chosen one "Saint GW Top Gun Bush"

God Bless those Republican honchos for delivering us from democrats who don't have a clue. One just needs to look at a county by county map and can only conclude God's America has totally rebuked the Democratic party in every state. Not "ONE" state is blue. NY and CA are over 90% RED. DEMS ought to be ashamed of thier disgusting performance. What kills me is you'll blame everything/everyone else for your miserable performance. "They Cheated", "They're Liars", "It's the Christian Right", "They're not to bright" "They're a Cult", etc. etc.. LOL DEMS keep digging that hole!!
Chevy

We need a compelling message , and communicate it.

Having listened to Ickes and Rosenbaum spout this yesterday -- how all Democrats need to do is find a better way to transmit our message -- gave me a sense of deja vu. This is precisely what Democrats have been prescribing for the past three decades. When something is that hard to communicate, there is something wrong with the message. The DLC changed the message to GOP-lite and that worked for maybe all of one election, although I still think it was Perot who took out GWB and was himself so unappealing that Clinton won by default. "GOP-lite" is no easier to articulate and communicate that what Democrats attempted to do before then.

The anti-socialist sentiment in this culture is very strong. Doesn't matter how much socialism or collectivism becomes embedded in and enriches our lives, a majority of Americans remain fundamentally opposed to it at an emotional level because they fear that they personally will lose more than they will gain with it or that somebody, god forbid, might get a free ride. They get more upset if they see an individual that doesn't look poor using food stamps than they do knowing that Halliburton is ripping billions of dollars from us because the former is tangible, something they can see and the other is some abstraction. The only way to get them there is in bite sized chunks that they are willing to eat. We can't bury them in minutia and laundry lists of differences between what we represent and the GOP practices. Average people can only absorb about three topic/messages/issues. Only the political junkies are interested in dissecting everything else.

Healthcare -- K/E offered some vague plan that poor people couldn't afford and others didn't feel they needed - or both assumed would cost the federal government more money than would be available for it. Dean offered a much smaller chunk -- let's cover all our children, here's how we do it and here's how we pay for it. Anyone who rejected that would have to be an ogre and indifferent to children.

Iraq - "we did a good thing but could have done it better" -- people may not have even rejected the idea that it could have been done better, but the costs to us would not have been appreciably lower. So, the "don't change horses in the middle of the stream" sentiment took hold. "Invading Iraq was wrong and we are never going to get the level of cooperation from around the world and within Iraq that we need to help the people of Iraq restore a measure of stability in their country." Unless we acknowledge that it was wrong the rest of the world will fear that we intend to do more of the same. We can't fix the world, but we can speak out about abuses of human rights, we can stop instances of genocide, we can stop propping up brutal dicators -- we can do a lot to make the world better but not as long as we continue to bomb and kill innocent people because that only makes them angry and hate us just as we hate OLB and al Qaeda.

Fiscal responsibility -- we can have fair tax policies and we can spend federal funds wisely. It is not wise for a healthy country to let the rich get richer and the poor poorer as has happened during the past thirty years. Corporations need to pay their fair share and corporate cronyism must end. A pox on all the corporate lobbyists who do not serve working Americans but their fat cat patrons.

Make that sale and then tackle equality, environment and investing in the future in subsequent election cycles.

Beyond the message, work needs to be done on the communication mechanism. If the vast majority of "fly over" states get their news from AM demogogues like Limbaugh and Hannity, then no matter how attractive the Democratic message is...it will be filtered, perverted, distorted and used against us...

Well it seems to me that the Democrats simply need to be willing to get as dirty as the Republicans. It seems to me that Republicans put a lot of effort in supporting Nader. Democrats need to do a better job in promoting libertarian candidates. Republicans have taken over the airwaves (esp. w/ regard to Sinclair and Fox), it seems we need some of top media people need more support and organization. Where are our think tanks?

Here is a list of tips that I would like to send to all Dems and convince them that this would "ensure" that they will garner a majority during the next election cycle.

1. Appoint Terry McAullife Party chairman for life. If McAuliffe isn't available, Howard Dean would be great!

2. More Massachusetts liberals. Give Teddy his turn.

3. Explain to 51% of the electorate that they're stupid. They will eventually realize that you are smarter than they are and will vote as you tell them to. It has only taken them this long because they really are sooo 'stoopid'!

4. More CBS News exposes.

5. There's no such thing as too much Michael Moore.

6. A nationwide Guardian letter writing campaign.

7. Don't just legalize gay marriage, make it mandatory.

8. Can Bob Shrum run a campaign or what?

9. A federal law making poll watching and "voter intimidation" a criminal offense.

10. "I'm Hillary Rodham Clinton and I'm reporting for duty."

11. Close the telepathic subliminal electioneering gap (read: send out a clear message and see if the majority of voters can relate to the message).

That should do it for ya DEMS

If you're driving a chevy, you probably didn't get much of a tax cut, and the stellar economy that Bill Clinton left behind has been trashed, not by Bill Clinton, but by bush and the Republican Dictated Congress. You don't fight a so-called war while gutting the resources of the government that conducts, funds, and pays for said "war."

A drug plan written by the Drug Companies and foisted on the American Public by the Republican Dictated Congress that costs seniors more money and, as trade-off, gives them fewer options, is not a plus.

No child left behind because they all get stuck behind, or force the States to fund their programs, because the Republican Dictated Congress won't provide adequete funding, because the Republican Dictated Congress had to accede to bush's budget formulations in order to disguise the fact that we can't afford the EXTREME RIGHT WINGERS tax looting to the wealthy and a war at the same time.

Apparently US Troops are not part of the EXTREMIST RIGHT WINGERS notion of an American Interest.

And the airlines had a safer year because no one is flying because who wants to be groped by poorly paid non-union, unaccountable screeners, eh?

Yeah, nothing like escalating a war to get the red blood pumping, huh?

Cheneys.

If you want to grow liberalism, the best way would be to increase poverty. Here is the 2004 voting breakdown:

...the $50,000 to $75,000 income group, which comprised 23 percent of the electorate, went for Bush by a whopping 56 percent to 43 percent. Just below that group is the $30,000 to $50,000 income earners, comprising 22 percent of the electorate, and their results were basically a push: 50 percent Kerry, 49 percent Bush. The bottom two categories comprising less than $30,000 income earners did go for Kerry. But they don’t pay any taxes... . In broader brush, $50,000 and above, making up 55 percent of the electorate, went for Bush 56 percent to 43 percent. That group includes $100,000 earners, who are 18 percent of the electorate, and went for Bush 58 percent to 41 percent. It also includes the much-attacked $200,000 and over group, which comprised 3 percent of the voters, and went for Bush 63 percent to 35 percent.

Link.

So, here's an agenda to grow liberalism:

1) Encourage single women to have kids.
2) Encourage parents to divorce.
3) Encourage kids to drop out of high school and college
4) Encourage credit card debt
5) Encourage renting over owning
6) Discourage saving and investing.

If you can grow the percentage of the population making less than $30K per year, you'd increase your ranks and win every election in sight. The last thing you want to see, is people succeed. As noted above, those making over $50K voted for Bush by a landslide: a 13% margin.

So, here's an agenda to grow liberalism:
1) Encourage single women to have kids.
2) Encourage parents to divorce.
3) Encourage kids to drop out of high school and college
4) Encourage credit card debt
5) Encourage renting over owning
6) Discourage saving and investing.

Muckdog, unfortunately I think Bush, and his cronies, are doing a great job of helping more of American reach the goals you listed above, with his policies. You have to remember that Republicans only have themselves to blame now. He should score the final blow with his regressive tax plan.

the $50,000 to $75,000 income group, which comprised 23 percent of the electorate, went for Bush by a whopping 56 percent to 43 percent.

whopping?

I'm underwelmed.

And I find it shocking! Yes shocking! That the wealthy voted two to one to avoid contributing more to the maintainance of our schools, our secuirity and our national finances.

Stats are stats.

As usual Yuval, you seem to have hit the nail squarely on its head.

There will be NO comprimise from THIS liberal democrat.

As usual Yuval, you seem to have hit the nail squarely on its head.

There will be NO comprimise from THIS liberal democrat.

How right you are - I think. Anyway, I agree totally and the Charlie Brown analogy is so fitting. Our constant compromising of our values makes us look weak. I'm not sure when it started, maybe when Clinton moved to the center and at that time it was probably appropriate for him to take us there (we won) but, we have to get back to our roots. Liberal is not a dirty word. What's wrong with being tolerant and compassionate? Not a darn thing! We should proudly embrace these values and expound more on what Conservative values are and their meaning! It wouldn't hurt to turn the tables.

Drives me nuts that they portray themselves as morally superior. That in itself suggests compromised values as they are the ones responsible for the hate mongering that started with rightwing talk radio! They spent eight years honing their skills on Clinton then set the sights of their lie machine on McCain, Clellan and finally Kerry. Christian? Not even close. How American was it to out Valerie Plame; an act that can be considered treasonous? Patriotism? How can one claim to love their country and support the damage this administration has done? Sorry, I digress. . .

One poster warns of the use of "liberal" reminding us that there are plenty of moderate Democrats and the use of the term could be alienating. Best take that advice, we cannot afford to be splintered, although we may loose some. Just how should we define ourselves? In my simple-minded opinion, the very definition of Democrat is Liberal. O.K., o.k., I know a democrat is an adherent to the democratic principles of a "government of the people"; a populist. Whatever, we are the party of tolerance and defenders of civil rights/liberties. That doesn't necessarily mean we are radical and I think we should guard against extremism of any sort but, to remain where we are will mean death to the party, death to the nation.

However we portray ourselves, it has to be by our definition and not theirs and we don't have four years, we have two.

I, also am not buying into the myth that 'they' are a majority, that their philosphy prevails. I believe, while we lost the popular vote, that there are far more of us out there (up to 40%)who for one reason or another did not vote. I suspect it has to do with the fact that, over time, we have compromised to the point where the parties are just too similiar. Had this not been such an important election, it would have been easy not to bother but, I'm a 'junkie' and I care about what is happening to this country.
We need not only a better message but, a movement to draw these people out and get them involved.

I also recommend reading digby's blog