How to Turn Your Red State Blue

Nicely written, very thoughtful.

A few “nitpicks”:

1) While i am for sharing of the wealth, it would behoove us all to a) live within our means, when possible (i.e., middle class folks - not poor folks); b) learn to be happy with much less STUFF (everybody). To believe “personal responsibility” is at odds with maintaining a social safety net is just plain foolish.

2) It is good to see that the mature liberal folks have conceded not only that Bush really won the election, but more importantly why (interesting demographics in the article). This leads to hope that upcoming elections will be more competitive. It serves no ones interest to have a one party syste (although from ~WWII till ~1980, Democrats essentially had this a fair amount of the time).

3) Abortion is a complex issue. I would think both parties would be inclusive enough to represent both sides of this complicated and passionate issue (made even more contentious by the way it was enacted by the courts, as opposed to legislation).

4) Liberals clearly have the universities (even there, we all should be for free speech, or so i believe), but also have much of the press, Hollywood (for cultural issues, at the least), and black voters (but this latter group is in danger of being lost, or so it appears to me - see item 3 above).

Key to the “liberal comeback” will be inspiring citizens with what changes/improvements are on the agenda. This will mean not only being the party who cares for the poor (very important) but also one that cares for the middle class (who, like it or not are happy with tax cuts and may embrace the privatization of Social Security). This latter group has largely gone over to the republicans, in this unprecedented age of affluence.

This is a battle for hearts and minds. I wholeheartedly agree that people are converted to political views in much the same way they are to religious views. Really, in a fundamental way, political views and religious views are very very similar - both are matters of faith. (That is, in both regimes facts are scarce, but opinions are both plentiful and extremely strongly held.)

Tess wrote:
“Liberals clearly have the universities (even there, we all should be for free speech, or so i believe), but also have much of the press...”

I take it that by ‘The Press’ you are referring strictly to written media, because knowing that by far most Americans get their news from electronic sources, this fact would seem rather benign. Thanks to deregulation, our news media have become pure corporate profit-centers with a neo-conservative agenda. With money as the driving force, our media have turned into a bunch of complicit flag-waving jingoists presenting us with whatever dumbed-down propaganda they can spash onto the teleprompter. Conservative talk radio, in all its hateful glory, has successfully monopolized the market thanks to endless corporate takeovers and the death of equal time standards.

Astonishingly, there are STILL conservatives that think we have a ‘liberal’ media. To them, it would seem, any attempt to present both sides of any story without a nationalistic bias can be deemed ‘liberal’.

I’m ambivalent on whether “debt clubs” are the right vehicle, but I agree on the basic point - that FTF outreach should be an important part of what we do to ‘move the center’ in America.

I think the time to try this out is THIS YEAR, and we’ve got a good test case right across the river from me, in Virginia’s gubernatorial election this fall.

That way the Democratic party could try some things this year, get a sense of what works and what doesn’t, and go into 2006 with the lessons learned from Virginia in 2005.

Well written. Tess and Christopher appear logical and cogent, qualities inherent in fostering civilized debate. Bob appears the more typical angry partisan that so many independents shun. Being passionate is great, as long as it doesn’t blind one to what everyone else can see clearly.

Political discussions can get very heated, only those who can keep their emotions under control should engage in such activity. Otherwise, you won’t get your message across, which is the point, isn’t it?

This was one of the few pieces I’ve read from the left, that while I don’t necessarily agree with everything, found it interesting and logical.

Thanks!

>>>>>Then there’s the fact that both the government’s policies and the electorate’s voting behavior have shifted dramatically to the right in the last 30 years. Common sense would suggest that the best explanation for this is that most voters are conservative and the Republicans are the conservative party. If this is true, we cannot continue to imagine there exists a slumbering progressive majority waiting to be awakened with the right trumpet call. We cannot cling to the fiction that conservatives have somehow hypnotized the electorate, hoodwinking them into voting for Republicans and reactionaries while leaving untouched their internal worldviews, which somehow remain fundamentally progressive. It is important that we stare directly into the sun on this point. The right has fundamentally reconstituted the way Americans view government, politics, policy and the public sphere. We need to change it back.<<<<<<<<

How refreshing to see someone on the left recognize this.

Very well said, Chris. My experiences helping to run the web-end of Music for America through the campaign year certainly reinforced the idea that face to face contact is a powerful way of winning converts. Even better is peer to peer, assuming you have enough peers in enough places. Along with other groups like The League of Pissed-Off Voters, the 21st Century Dems, Driving Votes and a host of others, we collectively ran a nationwide, grassroots, culturally-based peer to peer voter registration and outreach effort.

The result? Youth turnout was the highest it’s been since 1972, and broke for Kerry by a 10 point margin. For reference, in 2000 it was an even split (with 3% for Nader), and underperformed in overall turnout. That’s no reason to rest on our laurels, but it does show that this stuff works. You can go door to door. You can work at concerts. You can work at movie theaters. You can work at house parties and study groups.

The real hope for progressives is that a cheap and far-reaching communications medium—like the one I’m typing into right now—can mobilize and organize a broad enough population of social activists to tip the balance away from the reactionary right before anything else really awful happens. It’s a real hope. Thanks for giving it another boost.

Well I’ll be.  That’s about the best set of planks for the next 25 years of the Democratic platform as I’ve ever seen.

Let me toss one more piece into the picture: small business.

Despite greatly expanded corporate presence and control, most people in the US and worldwide still work for a small business or one sort or another.  And don’t forget that some key Democratic constituents - lawyers, doctors, academics are all essentially small businesspeople.  From what I’ve seen personally and in helping workers with access to legal advice, small business can be either great champions for their workers or they can be an oppressive force (especially if business dries up and the owners get desperate).  They are naturally local rather than international, and they are a key part of the democratization of capitalism.  Democratic capitalism means all people have opportunities to participate at all levels of the economy, and the door to that equality of opportunity is small business and access to business capital.  And one piece of democratic capitalim where Republicans say right and do wrong is this: people need good jobs to advance, and somebody’s gotta employ them.

Small business also happens to be a confounding constituency for progressives - they sometimes side with workers and individuals (protecting local markets) and sometimes with big business (lower fiscal and regulatory burden).  They also tend to get caught in the cross-currents of regulation, because strict rules and business taxes impose a burden that they are much less equipped to handle than big business.  They were and are a key set of defectors that got the Republicans off the ground, but they are still fundamentally winnable (viz. Brian Schweitzer).

So while we are organizing people around debt, let’s keep our eye on small business.

Quote from Gene Webb,

“Political discussions can get very heated, only those who can keep their emotions under control should engage in such activity.”

This is a typical statement from someone on the right. Are you so afraid of others emotions that you feel the need to shut them out of the discussion?
I think it can be fairly stated that many important changes in our country’s political and social life have happened because of angry, strongly partisan people having the guts to reject the status quo they saw as wrong. Start with the Boston Tea Party or the Civil War.

Quoting further directly:
“Otherwise, you won’t get your message across, which is the point, isn’t it?”

And this is a spurious argument designed to silence opposition and frame the argument so that you have the advantage. You are a clever man. Shame and fear are potent weapons to use, even when they are thinly disguised with logic, and surrounded by smug self righteousness, as you have done here.

I suggest you leave your cleverness at the door and have the courage to debate ALL the people including the passionate ones.

The “debt clubs” idea is brilliant.  I hope progressive activists jump on this.

I grew up in rural Mississippi.  Most of the people I grew up with are now members of the religious right and hopelessly in debt.

One of the reasons that most of them are now members of the religious right is because they believe “Christian Politicians” will help out there families.

We need to get in there and educate them.

>>>>>>>>This is a typical statement from someone on the right. Are you so afraid of others emotions that you feel the need to shut them out of the discussion?<<<<<<<

I read Bob’s post that Gene Webb was commenting on. I don’t think Bob was so much emotional as he was just spewing the same old blather of charges.

Such as

>>>>Thanks to deregulation, our news media have become pure corporate profit-centers with a neo-conservative agenda.<<<<<<

Same old blather.

>>>>>>>>>With money as the driving force, our media have turned into a bunch of complicit flag-waving jingoists presenting us with whatever dumbed-down propaganda they can spash onto the teleprompter.<<<<<<<<

Same old blather.

>>>>>>>>>>>>Conservative talk radio, in all its hateful glory, has successfully monopolized the market thanks to endless corporate takeovers and the death of equal time standards.<<<<<<<<<<<<

Same old blather.

>>>>>>>>>and broke for Kerry by a 10 point margin. For reference, in 2000 it was an even split (with 3% for Nader), and underperformed in overall turnout.<<<<<<<<<<<

The remarkable thing is not that Kerry did well among youth. the Democrat has taken the youth vote in the last 4 elections. This 10 point margin is a pretty normal margin for a Democrat.  (Clinton took the youth vote by 9 points and 18 points)

The question is why did Gore with less than a 2 point margin do so much worse than normal?

A 10 point margin doesn’t really signify change.

Merlin, I completely agree with you and I feel the same way, nevertheless, our friend Gene has a point. It is hard to be a well-informed and passionate liberal and not be extremely angry at the right-wing media machine that has so deftly changed the political landscape of the country. It is hard also to not be angry and frustrated at those who have bought into it. However, an angry screed against someone is never, never going to change his or her mind. If you say to someone “You’re wrong! Now let me tell you why” you can follow with the most eloquent case for liberalism that has ever graced the human ear, and your intended audience will never hear it because she’s busy formulating a response to defend herself. (Notice the response of Tom Finley Jr, not one mention of the article itself) You see people like Tess and Gene are the people we need to engage in a rational discussion of the issues. They are obviously not hard-core right-wingers or they wouldn’t be responding as they have. They probably don’t consider themselves liberal and frankly, what is it about your response that would make them want to? The whole point of the article is how we expand the progressive base, not alienate those who are open to discussion. If we truly believe in the message of progressivism then we must speak the message. We must explain how the Republican Party has been overrun by the neo-conservatives. We must explain that they have successfully waged a decades long battle to meld cultural conservatism and state sponsored corporatism. We must explain how even though they may want to vote for the pro-life party, they are really voting for those who seek to use the good and decent motives of culturally conservative blue-collar Americans to advance an agenda that is wholly at odds with the economic needs of the lower and middle classes of this county. We must explain that Progressivism is the true legacy of this country. We must explain that the freedom to work and the freedom to earn a living wage from that work are a fundamental human right and a necessary part of a healthy economy. We must explain that corporations exist only as institutions among men and thus should be tolerated only to the extent that their activities are beneficial to the livelihoods of those they employ. We must explain that although violence is sometimes a necessity in the affairs of men, it is always and only a last resort, and that we believe this not because we are godless and unpatriotic, rather exactly the opposite. Every time a so-called Christian gets on the airwaves to support war, there should be a true Christian reading the Gospel and the Ten Commandments. These things are not hard to do, if we can engage people and present them with a credible alternative to the spin of the right wing our message will speak for itself. However, making them angry enough that they ignore any valid points you might make is exactly the wrong way to approach the problem.

Debt clubs. That is an interesting political idea. What I’m about to say doesn’t really speak to that broader political concept. It has more to do with the specific suggested platform.

>>>>>>>>>a “credit reform” platform that would reregulate the credit industry, empower those filing for bankruptcy, cap annual interest rates and outlaw predatory lending practices.<<<<<<<

Brilliant. Interest rate caps are price controls. Empowering those filing for bankruptcy by tilting the scales in their favor raises lender costs. (On the other hand, the recent legislation tilting the scales in the favor of lenders lowers lender costs.)

Anyone favoring such policies should at least acknowledge the inevitable result: less credit availability, especially to those that most need it. (The recent bankruptcy legislation, while making bankruptcy harder on some filers, will lower costs to lenders and result in more credit availability.)

>>>>>>>>>>>These things are not hard to do, if we can engage people and present them with a credible alternative to the spin of the right wing our message will speak for itself.<<<<<<<<

What a crock. The spin of the right wing? The left is all about truth and goodness and the right is evil and deceptive huh? Spare me the crap. There are PLENTY of spinners on BOTH sides, but for the most part both sides sincerely believe that the policies they support will be good for society as a whole.

You disagree with the ideas of the right. Isn’t it enough to just disagree? Isn’t it enough just to see yourself as right on the issues and your opponents as wrong on the issues? Must you paint those with whom you disagree as spinners and yourself and those with whom you agree as fonts of truth and goodness?

Ironically, you do in your post exactly what you are trying to convince others not to do. Or is this just behind the scenes strategy, and in debate you’re the picture of respect for the intentions of your opponents?

Very interesting piece and I wholly endorse its emphasis on grassroots organizing around real issues. That said, I have to object to the caricaturing of my argument in the introduction to my book Big Lies, quoted above. That essay, and indeed the entire book, are about the reasons why Americans see themselves as conservative despite their consistently liberal views on many issues. Nowhere in the book do I suggest that progressives shouldn’t seek to extend their reach, or that somehow American voters will automatically trend back toward liberalism.

Excellent article! Great strategy, great optimism. I think this is going to help a lot.

Abortion is a complex issue. I would think both parties would be inclusive enough to represent both sides of this complicated and passionate issue (made even more contentious by the way it was enacted by the courts, as opposed to legislation). The claim that the courts made abortion contentious is a prime example of one side having successfully framed the question for all. Remember, the legislation against abortion came first.  That was the original point of contention, the criminalizing of a medical procedure.  The Supreme Court then overturned what it concluded was an unconstitutional set of laws. Instead of accepting the proposal that “activist judges” are reinterpreting the Constitution, why not look at issues like abortion as “activist legislatures” trying to override the Constitution?  Many issues that divide liberals and conservatives can be reformulated in the same way.  It is important, when encouraging opponents to stick to calm discussion, to appreciate that the perspectives and definitions applied to a problem may be relative to the arguer’s point of reference.  If there is no agreement on definitions, for example, there will never be resolution of a disagreement.  Let’s keep the psychology and rhetoric of argument in mind while we debate our differences.

I think (and I guess my thoughts are as valid as the next guy’s) that we have a real demographic problem.  Let’s be honest here, the average candidate today is going to be a ‘boomer’.  This age group is simply NOT INTERESTED in anyone but themselves.  They were glad to leave home and their parents, were notoriously bad parents, (they couldn’t even be bothered by their own kids) and have now reached the point in life that their primary motivation appears to be; “I have mine, the hell with you!”

Hence, the ‘great haters’, as I think of the conservative right, is right up their alley.  Everything they say fits perfectly into the cultural view of this generation.  They do not honestly believe that anyone ‘sacrificed’ anything for them to lead the lives they have.  (And even if they did, THEY obviously deserved it!)

So anyone who tries to convince someone of this generation to sincerely speak about the importance of many Democratic principles is going to fail.  The only reason Clinton was able to ‘triangulate’ was his good ole boy routine,to which at least the southerners could agree.
I mean, think about it.  Can you really hear someone of the Bush/Clinton generation talking about paying higher taxes to support universal health care, or higher education programs, or social security (which does so much more than pay off old people.)

The only approach would be to talk them into such programs by telling them how it would benefit THEM!
Do they really want to live with their kids when they lose all their money in a stock bubble?  Do they want their parents to live with them when they can’t afford the future medical and social problems they encounter?  The only way we will be able to get universal health care is to convince the corporate honchos and physicians groups to support it simply because it will be cheaper for them and save them money and mean more profit. 

I guess what I want to get across is the basic fact that simply telling people the basic facts and getting them to agree will not cut it, when the right is out there chanting their mantra, ‘Hate, hate, hate, it!’ We must find the most persuasive words to convince these people we are just as greedy, self interested, and uninterested in our fellow man as the right is.  Only then will we be able to bring them ‘into the tent’.

Quote from Tom:
“You disagree with the ideas of the right. Isn’t it enough to just disagree? Isn’t it enough just to see yourself as right on the issues and your opponents as wrong on the issues?”

Tom, you are making the argument as if it is between the “right” (conservative) and the “left” (liberal.) That would have been true years ago but in 2005 it simply is not the case. Today our country is in the grip of the neoconservatives not the conservatives. These are radical politicians who are way to the right of conservatives, and there are more than a few real conservatives of note, that have spoken out about this phenomenon. If you look at what we progressives are saying, often with emotion, in the light of this definition you will see a different picture. The progressives I know have no problem with conservative ideas coming from true conservatives who really have the heart of the country in mind. It is the negotiation between these two opposing philosophies that pulls both toward the middle.

If you really want to know why we progressives are both frightened for our country and angry with the Bush Administration, controlled and run by these radical neocons, I highly recommend you read the book written by Michael Ledeen. He is one of the principal neocon thinkers affecting the actions being taken today. The book is: “Michiavelli on Modern Leadership.” It was written in 1999 so it is quite up date neocon thinking. It is a frightening look at what ideology is in charge of our political process today.
I give you this quote from pg. 115 to give you just a taste of his book “Michiavelli on Modern Leadership.”

“The tools of discipline-arms, law and religion-are common to all well-constituted states, and if any of the three is lacking or enfeebled, the survival of the state is mortally threatened. The leader’s primary task is therefore to maintain these three crucial elements of statecraft, and periodically to renew, refresh and reinvigorate them. All three compel men to repress their dangerous instincts and act virtuously. This is accomplished by fear. Without fear of God no state can last long, for the dread of eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for the common good.

Tom, I hope you are a good solid conservative and not one who believes in the draconian neocon ideology Ledeen espouses in his book. Ruling by fear, controlling by confining laws and using and subverting religion in order to maintain power is what the above proposes.

These are the things we see this current administration doing and it scares the hell out of us, and it makes us react in anger for the love of our country

Ace analysis, and excellent talking points. The progressives need coherence, message, and discipline to slap down the traitors of the right (now before conservatives start to cry, I’m sorry you’re so sensitive, try group therapy with Dr. James “Wak’job” Dobson). 

Start with a militant left using the con’jobs scorched earth policy. This allows larger political territory to be carved out of the GOP, and declares war on the political right. At the same time, it provides cover for the progressive middle to legislate. Make no mistake; this is an ideological war over The Bill of Rights and Constitution. To lose is unacceptable.

The Three Scriptures of Progressives. We need to spell out three concrete American themes. Christopher spells out one such issue, Corporate money lending. Sorry, Tom Jr., but huge consumer credit debt is bad for America (yes, I do have an economics degree Jr, notice consumer debt as opposed to corporate debt here). Perhaps the next American Progressive Scripture could be Corporate Media Corruption. Forget, for now, about the right wing sound machine. No, we need to go after perverse programming and monopolistic structuring. Start with reality programs video games (huge tumor here, plenty of cancer to carve up). I know there are first amendment issues that need to be addressed with such attacks, but face it, Corporate Media uses the base mental state of violence and sex to SELL!  When they go the defensive, swing the FCC axe. Finally, mayhaps Social Security? Or the con’jobs sleazy grab for YOUR FAMILY’S PRIVATE GREIF AND DIGNITY! So many to choose from, but keep to a few (three) and hammer them over the head every day, every speech, every editorial!

Forget the Dems and Greens. Libertarians are the real progressives.

It is counterintuitive, but the overwhelming majority of people (everyone except the politically-connected super-rich) would be better served by minimal government. The sad fact is that politicians and business leaders are natural allies in looting the general public. As government expands, politicians and business leaders only become more and more brazen in this regard. Looting takes the form of clever tax evasion schemes, corruption and corporate welfare. Corporate welfare takes many forms that most people don’t even recognize as such—-public works projects and war, for example.

The upshot is that the general public loses much more as a result of these things than it gains from social programs.

You would certainly approve of a large state apparatus so long as virtuous people are at the controls. But how do you ensure this when the possibilities for looting are so great? And how do you ensure that vicious people won’t take control at a later date?

The answer is you can’t. The solution is to get this simple message out to the general public and clamor for smaller government at every opportunity.

Libertarians provide the most insightful analysis of today’s events in a historical context. For more information, visit www.lewrockwell.com and www.mises.org.

>>>>>>>>>>>The only way we will be able to get universal health care is to convince the corporate honchos and physicians groups to support it simply because it will be cheaper for them and save them money and mean more profit.<<<<<<<<<<

The only way you will get universal health care is to compromise by including something that appeals to the right. for example coverage for all but funded with vouchers. The government would do almost nothing more than collect thrrough taxes (like Medicare now) and provide vouchers to purchase a high deductible policy and partially fund a medical savings account. That’s the only way you’ll get anyone right of center to get on board with a universal health care plan. It’s not because they’re selfish. It’s because they genuinely don’t think the universal plan that you have in mind would work well. But I have a feeling you’d have nothing to do with this, even though it would achieve what appears to be your goal: universal health care.

Merlin:

I read the quote you gave from Ledeen. Then you said this:

>>>>>>>>These are the things we see this current administration doing and it scares the hell out of us, and it makes us react in anger for the love of our country<<<<<<<<<

I’m concerned with specific policy from those with power. What enacted policies, proposed policies or at least realistically feasible potential proposals exist that are an implementation of Ledeen’s philosophy?

>>>Must you paint those with whom you disagree as spinners and yourself and those with whom you agree as fonts of truth and goodness?

Ironically, you do in your post exactly what you are trying to convince others not to do. Or is this just behind the scenes strategy, and in debate you’re the picture of respect for the intentions of your opponents?
<<<

If you didn’t breathe in the bitter morning air of 11/3 you are most likely numb to the FACT that the right’s spin-doctors are running the show as far as media is concerned.  And, speaking as a friend, in debate and in the field, talking with people he desperately wants to help, Chris IS the picture of respect.  He knows what works because we made it happen in Dane County, WI.  The Democratic Party will be reformed only after those who care walk the talk, literally.  Let’s proselytize proudly, hold hands with and listen to our purple neighbors.  The passionate, the stoics, the modest, the loud--all hands on deck.  Debt clubs, small business loans, healthcare--let’s do it.  I’m in.  Where do I sign up? 

Finally, a leftist using the left side of his brain!  Thanks for your contributions, Chris.

Joe Economics:

“Sorry, Tom Jr., but huge consumer credit debt is bad for America (yes, I do have an economics degree Jr, notice consumer debt as opposed to corporate debt here).”

I didn’t say whether it is good or bad for America. I simply observed that raising costs and lowering profits for lenders will result in less credit availability for those that need it the most.

I think those that support the anti-creditor platform don’t realize that the credit availablity will go away. I think such people like that people have access to this credit (which happens to come at a high price because of high risk) but thinks that legislatively raising lenders costs and lowering profits will simply allow the same people to have access to credit but on better terms. Such a rosy scenario is naive. Credit availability will decline.

Take the payday lender for example: in terms of interest costs, it appears a horrible deal for the borrower. Yet that borrower is willing to give up a good chunk of his check to have the cash now. He thinks it’s worht it for him. The lender thinks it’s worth doing. Legislation means a third party will come in and tell these two parties that they can’t do a transaction that they both see benefit in. Payday lending will dry up, and this individual that needs the money now will have the anti-creditor constituency to thank for not allowing him to do a financial transaction that he sees as in his best interest. 

I’m not saying whether the payday lender is good for America or not. I’m saying that as a matter of fact raising costs and lowering profits will result in a decline in credit availability at the margin.

but on the topic of whether big credit card debt is good for America, why do you feel the need to mention your degree? Do you feel that your point does not stand well on its own? Why don’t you explain your point further instead of citing your degree?

Andrea:

I wasn’t speaking to the author of the piece (Chris). I was speaking to the author of the post that I quoted (Phaedreus).

I agree with the comments others have made that this was very nicely written. There is a number of major issues that were not discussed and I think progressives need to consider. America has a long history of not educating it people. Today, the national census reports that merely twenty-five percent of Americans over the age of about 25 have a four-year college degree. With television, movies, videos, music CD’s, working class people are reading less today and consequently the ability of people to think and reason is being compromised. Many surveys have reported that there is a direct correlation between education and progressive political views.

A second issue is the social class divisions that are becoming much more rigid today. The World War II war babies were told that they could achieve upward social mobility with education. They could live lives at a higher social class status than their parents. For many this was true. It is less true today.

Globalization and technology have eliminated the working class jobs that provided comfortable economic lives for many people from the 1940s through the 1960s. The decline began in the 1970s and has accelerated. Many who depended on those high-paying production jobs will never be able to return to that kind of life.

Progressives don’t have an answer for what working class people are to do to return to an economic prosperity that they can achieve. There is a great danger that well-educated, middle-class progressives will increasingly turn their backs on the plight of a population that is increasingly becoming superfluous labor. Robert B. Reich, in his book Work of Nations, predicted that this well-educated middle-class would more strongly identify with their counterparts globally than with their working-class nationals. This is happening.

As well intentioned as progressive people may be, we have to recognize the social class divisions that are increasingly separating us from each other. I don’t know if it is possible to turn the clock back in order to restore well paying middle class production jobs. Without that we face an enormous crisis. People seek shelter in religious evangelicalism. Barbara Ehrenreich (sp?) explained this very clearly in her recent book (the title of which I can’t recall). She described how “progressive” evangelical churches are in providing a very large range of services to their congregants, and a source for networking and financing in many of the rural and semi-rural “red” states. Progressives need to create similar networks that can compete with what the evangelical churches are doing.

Progressive values need to speak directly to the social and economic stress that many working-class people are feeling. Simply organizing traditional unions isn’t enough, and these working-class people know it. In America government and private ownership of industry have always maintained an alliance against the working class. This is as true today as it was in the 1890s. Progressives don’t have a program to deal with this problem.

Democrats need to take a realistic look at the problems we face today and in the near future and realistically evaluate what we can do about it. Simply pandering to people’s fears is no better than what the neo-conservatives are doing. Sarcasm and resentment won’t help. We need a more creative and visionary conception of how we are to relate with each other in an economic era that will look more like an inverted wineglass than a pyramid (a small but substantial economic plutocracy, a very small middle class, and a large and bulbous working class and lower income strata).

>>>>>>>In America government and private ownership of industry have always maintained an alliance against the working class.<<<<<<<<

Yeah, like with this horrible Republican/private ownership of industry alliance that intends to decimate the working class by....giving them an opportunity to become owners themselves. The nerve!

Two main points:

to Tom Finley Jr: there is a difference between payday (predatory) lending and subprime lending. subprime lending is for those with less than perfect credit, and has slightly higher rates. However, it is still responsible lending, which payday lenders do not do. Payday lenders lend without regard for the borrower’s ability to repay the loan. Their fees and rates are exorbitant. People go there because of their marketing strategies and because of ignorance. Many credit unions offer similar types of loans (cash in a flash at one bronx location), at a higher rate than you’d get at a bank, but at a much lower rate (say, 10%) than the 600% you’d get at a payday lender.

Overall, I think it’s obvious predatory lending is worse than no lending at all. The best case scenario are responsible lenders that are willing to offer both prime and subprime loans, but always offer a borrower the best loan they can qualify for.

Secondly: Chris… right on, dude! Organize, organize, organize! I’ve been following the progressive evangelical religious movement of recent times (i.e. Sojourners, Call to Renewal, James Forbes, Bill Moyers, Jim Wallis) and this seems to be in line with their strategies. Wallis says there are more progressive churches than right-wing churches, but they are just not organized as well. That’s part of what they are trying to change. I like your ideas on organizing around issues where the safety nets are disappearing (debtors, etc.).

Keep up the good work.

Greg:

>>>>>>>Keep up the good work.<<<<<<<<

Thanks. (Did you mean me or Chris?)

I used payday lending because the extreme examples often serve to demonstrate a point. What happens when reining in payday lenders is similar to what happens when increasing other lenders’ costs and limiting their profits.

>>>>>>>>>Overall, I think it’s obvious predatory lending is worse than no lending at all.<<<<<<<<

You, like Joe Economics, should make a case.

Overall, I think it’s obvious predatory lending is worse than no lending at all.<<<<<<<<

You, like Joe Economics, should make a case

ok… so you rent an apartment. you can A)buy a house with a predatory lender, default on your mortgage, lose your downpayment, screw up your credit, and end up back renting. Or B) keep on renting, not lose your life savings, and keep your credit score up. and have someone else shovel the snow off your sidewalk.

Wanted to respond to Tess’s earlier comment regarding the ‘hate-filled’ Conservitive Talk Radio. 

I listen to conservative and liberal talk radio regularly and can say confidently that, as a liberal, Air America is not only inadequate, but a little embarrassing as well.  Conservatives have had their thumb on the talk radio business for some time (Rush debuted in 1988), so I will allow for increased savvy on their part. But honestly, are the stereotypical ‘angry liberals’ that populate Air America really the best we can do?  Conservative hosts are generally eloquent, educated, and apt at defending their views (however disturbing some of those may be).  Liberals desperately need to take a cue from Conservatives in this arena, for it is no less than political suicide to ask Janeane Garofelo and Al Franken to represent us.  I, as a progressive, find them intolerable as compared to Rush Limbaugh.

I see the Boomer generation as almost evenly split between conservative and liberal. The key right now is to swing the younger voters. Myself, I’m a progressive libertarian - I voted Reagan when I worked in the defense industry, and right now I am seeing the weakening of the social net just when our country can least afford it. Yes, businesses will come to support some form of national heath care, because they can’t afford to keep paying for health care much longer. Already many companies require employees to pay a good portion of their health care, and many people work simply for health care benefits. I’ve been in that position myself.

My basic objection to the current policies of the right is they create an economy which is unsustainable. The rich cannot keep getting richer without providing for the less well off. We are simply too used to living well in this country, and those on the short end of the right-wing stick are eventually going to realize they’ve been taken for a ride by the right’s supporting social conservatism but not paying heed to fiscal conservatism. America is in debt, and I for one don’t believe deficits don’t matter. Eventually, China calls in the debt, or the rest of the world gets tired of funding our deficit spending, especially if most of it is going to support a military which is increasingly being seen as a threat to everyone.

Peak oil is coming, and we can’t fight hard enough to control enough of it that we won’t hit an economic crunch at some point. The right has positioned the rich quite well, with its tax cuts (and yes, I’m part of that top 1% myself). But the average person, unless they are a homeowner, won’t have much. Fortunately home ownership is high currently - but what if the bankruptcy bill forces some out of their homes? What if social security is cut and there isn’t enough for seniors? What if my kids can’t get jobs, or worse, get drafted? There are just too many what ifs in the right-wing scenario.

But there’s been no viable scenario presented by the Dems. I’m working with MoveOn and other groups to try and help build one, but the Dem party has to change. It can’t keep playing to the middle and ignoring the progressive base, just as this article says. And we need the alternatives, desperately.

I’m not sure debt is a big enough issue.  I am sure that for the white males in their 50s that have to be moved into the D column at the Presidential election time, universal affordable health insurance will be that issue within 4-8 years. That’s where we need to get our story out.

If you don’t believe me try reading this post over in The Health Care Blog

Donna:

>>>>>>>>>>>Myself, I’m a progressive libertarian - I voted Reagan when I worked in the defense industry, and right now I am seeing the weakening of the social net just when our country can least afford it.<<<<<<<<<<

You’re about the only libertarian in existence that wouldn’t want to see at least a good amount of weakening of the social net.

I read your whole post. Are you sure you are a libertarian in any way? Typical “progressive” policies don’t go too well with libertarianism. The Libertarian Party platform is about as close as you will come to a thorough laundry list of ideas close to libertarianism. Have you ever read it? You seem too much of a statist.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html

Greg:

>>>>>>>ok… so you rent an apartment. you can A)buy a house with a predatory lender, default on your mortgage, lose your downpayment, screw up your credit, and end up back renting. Or B) keep on renting, not lose your life savings, and keep your credit score up. and have someone else shovel the snow off your sidewalk.<<<<<<<

That’s really not a case against predatory lending. That’s wise caution against any borrowing that there is a fair chance you might default on. Just take out the word predatory:

you can A)buy a house with a lender, default on your mortgage, lose your downpayment, screw up your credit, and end up back renting. Or B) keep on renting, not lose your life savings, and keep your credit score up. and have someone else shovel the snow off your sidewalk.

“Predatory lenders” are just offering financing to a customer at the customer’s option. I don’t have a problem with any lender that follows current law, even those that charge very high fees and/or interest.

Why are you wasting time on the Dems? Strengthen the Green party if you’re a real progressive… the Dems are still a corporate party…

Sorry Tom for the confusion, my mistake, thank you for clarifying.  I guess I see the whole picture as Phaedreus does (except for the whole passion thing) and I also see Chris’ ideas as the anti-spin, a “font of truth and goodness”.  The latter which you rightly criticize.  Forgive me, I’m a little more than biased in my opinions having spent 6 months canvassing prior to the presidential election, the last part with Chris, whom I obviously have a great amount of respect for. 

I too do not support answering spin with spin, it’s too reactionary.  I hope, like Caitlin, more intellectually-appealing liberal talk will introduce a pragmatic platform we can actually DO SOMETHING with before the cynics and “angry liberals” turn everyone off.  So, thanks Tom and every whistle-blower out there who want to fill in the debate with questions worth answering.  We need to be honest with ourselves and the public, do our research, etc.  But forgive me, I’m a devout Democrat and a certain amount of times during the day I just think I’m right.  Just like the nicely dressed Mormons--they wouldn’t be pedaling through a rainstorm if they didn’t believe in what they were doing. 

Here in India I’m learning about non-violent communication and I’m beginning to think I’m sitting on the next great goldmine for grassroots-level organizing.  Here’s the pitch: instead of preaching (to the choir or to a revival tent) we pose series of questions that help others come to realize for themselves the power structures that are controlling aspects of their lives.  Then they are self-motivated to do something about it.  The Paulo Freiren model of transformation--it worked in Chile and So. Africa, why not the Heartland?  I realize these are drastically different social movements, but the technique is key.  I know for myself I’m much more eager to try something when I think that it’s my idea.  No one will agree they’ve been duped so easily, we all have our pride.  Heck, it was even hard for me to admit I made a mistake when I misunderstood Tom.  But I think this is the ultimate goal if we’re going to do conversions--we must transform worldviews by provoking new thought processes (e.g. How many credit card offers do you get a week? How do you think they afford to do all those mailings?  Why do you think they raise your credit limit while you’re only paying the minimum balance? etc.) Treat people like intelligent, thoughtful and caring people and not a demographic or a means to an end and they may pay attention...just some more ideas I’m sending home.

The sick reality is that nothing is going to get better for Democrats until a mass majority of people in this country are forced to suffer the consequences of the policies of the current neocon controlled Republican party. The tables are now set for this to happen, with the Republicans having absolute control of the federal government. It really doesn’t matter much what Democrats do or don’t do. All they can hope for is to maintain what they have until the Republican party, with it’s deluded sense of invincibility, runs itself and the country off the cliff.

I think I actually frightened a number of my liberal friends by not being traumatized by Bush’s reelection.  Reality Check’s comment sort of speaks to why I was not terrified.  I look at his reelection as a wake up call for the Democratic Party, one which catalyzed increased focus on grassroots organizing and better salesmanship among Progressives.  Though I am a little afraid for what could still happen over the next three years, I am hopeful for the long term, for it seems that the Democratic Party is beginning to transform into one that I can support without compromising my views in certain areas.

Reality Check:

>>>>>>>>>It really doesn’t matter much what Democrats do or don’t do. All they can hope for is to maintain what they have until the Republican party, with it’s deluded sense of invincibility, runs itself and the country off the cliff.<<<<<<<

Of course, you need to be open to the possibility that Republican policies might make things better (or at least coincide with generally good things), and they’ll strenghten their majorities. That’s certainly a possibility if economic growth continues at around the 4% pace of the last 21 months.

“This is a typical statement from someone on the right. Are you so afraid of others emotions that you feel the need to shut them out of the discussion?”

Um, no. This is a typical statement of the exasperated middle. The ones whose votes you are ostensibly trying to win. Those who put our country above party.

We are not afraid of your emotions, but we are afraid of your ability to channel those emotions productively. More articles like this one will go a long way to ameliorate that fear. More posts like yours will do the opposite.

Quoting first comment, by Bob:
“Liberals clearly have the. . .black voters (but this latter group is in danger of being lost, or so it appears to me - see item 3 [abortion] above).”

I sincerely doubt it.  Black people are aware of race in a way that white people rarely understand, and they know who’s on their side in the government.  Even Ken Blackwell’s color won’t help him win any votes in Cleveland when he runs for Gov., because his actions last fall speak for themselves.  Bush spent four years trying to get the black vote and he failed miserably.  If there’s any core Dem group that’s “rock-solid”, it’s black America.

Jesse Squire:

>>>>>>.Black people are aware of race in a way that white people rarely understand, and they know who’s on their side in the government.<<<<<<<<<

What do Democrats do for blacks? (You are not talking about group rights are you? Like doing things specifically designed for blacks? You’re talking about doing things that help people in general, which include blacks, right?)

What do Republicans not do for blacks (or what do they do against blacks)?

Sorry, I wasn’t specific enough about the neocon policies:

- Trade policy: Even some conservatives agree that the race to the bottom and exporting of our jobs is going to be disastrous in the long run. The trade deficit may not have a short term effect but long term is a different story.
- Fiscal policy: Running up massive debt with no end in site is again disastrous in the long term. Any true conservative would know better than to defend this type of policy. Making the rich richer and the poor poorer by handing tax cuts to the rich and putting it on the future’s credit card is going to convert us into a Third World country.
- Environmental policy: allowing a free-for-all for pollution and ignoring global warming is another recipe for disaster.
- Foreign policy: the bombs and bullets of freedom are being spread, but at what cost? How many American lives and billions of taxpayers dollars is it worth to fool us into thinking that our form of democracy is going to be embraced by theocracies and fundamental Islamic regimes?

I could go on, but I think I made my point.

Reality Check:

I don’t think you made your point. Every point you made is certainly debatable.

>>>>>>Trade policy: Even some conservatives agree that the race to the bottom and exporting of our jobs is going to be disastrous in the long run. The trade deficit may not have a short term effect but long term is a different story.<<<<<

Your analysis suffers from the misconception that there are no dynamic effects of cost-lowering job exportation. A lost job is not just a lost job. The savings end up in the pockets of businesses and/or consumers (in the form of lower prices). Those savings are used in the economy elsewhere (either investment or consumption), and contribute to job creation to offset job losses. Losing a job to exportation is no different than losing a job to technology or any other improvement in cost or efficiency. How is it that our standard of living has risen so consistently over all these years with all these jobs disappearing? How can it be, with all these jobs disappearing, that there are now more jobs in the U.S. than at any time in history?

>>>>>>Fiscal policy: Running up massive debt with no end in site is again disastrous in the long term. Any true conservative would know better than to defend this type of policy. Making the rich richer and the poor poorer by handing tax cuts to the rich and putting it on the future’s credit card is going to convert us into a Third World country.<<<<<<<<

Running up debt with no end in sight is not necessarily disastrous. Running up “massive” debt (what is massive? relative to the size of the economy?) perhaps is. But an annual addition (aka the budget deficit) to the national debt that is relatively modest can occur over the long run without doing damage. The debt on a relative basis is not now massive, and if Republicans were to have their way (notice, with the help of a couple of RINOs, that their attempts to rein in Medicaid spending was at least temporarily thwarted), deficits would be even smaller going forward. It is not just the Republicans tax cuts that contribute to deficits. It is also the Democrats (and RINOs) refusal to further cut spending that contributes to deficits.

Are the poor getting poorer? Or is everybody getting richer, just some more than others?

>>>>>>>Environmental policy: allowing a free-for-all for pollution and ignoring global warming is another recipe for disaster.<<<<<<<

What “free-for-all”? You exaggerate changes in environmental policy.

>>>>>>>Foreign policy: the bombs and bullets of freedom are being spread, but at what cost? How many American lives and billions of taxpayers dollars is it worth to fool us into thinking that our form of democracy is going to be embraced by theocracies and fundamental Islamic regimes?<<<<<

It is apparently worth a lot of dollars and a relatively (compared to other major military actions) small number of American lives, if not more. The money was spent and the majority of the American deaths had occurred when the American people decided it was worth continuing down the path Bush started us on.

They are theocracies and fundamental Islamic regimes now. Europe was once full of monarchies. Japan had an emperor. Germany had an elected dictatorship. What do you know that overrides states obvious abilities to evolve into healthy democracies?
______________

I’m not saying all good will happen. I’m just saying what I said before: don’t be so certain bad will happen. As I said: Of course, you need to be open to the possibility that Republican policies might make things better (or at least coincide with generally good things), and they’ll strengthen their majorities.

First of all get your facts straight. Madison is not a big city surrounded by suburbs it is a medium sized city of around 200,000 people with autonomous towns and smaller cities nearby. The US is not made up or divided by Big Cities and ‘their’ suburbs. We have medium cities, rural areas, etc.

HB

Reality Check:

I think you made your point and very concisely so.  Much appreciated here on the TFJ Rambling Thread.  While it is true your points are debatable, just about all points are.

Matt Harris:

TFJ Rambling Thread? Reality Check makes off the cuff points to demonstrate certainty, forcing me to respond (quite concisely, actually) to demonstrate that the certainty is unfounded, and you suggest I’m rambling? How so?

>>>>>>>>>While it is true your points are debatable, just about all points are.<<<<<<<<

Points that are so debatable don’t warrant the certain conclusions he derives from them.

Very well reasoned except for the fact that in reality we will be reaching out to the already converted.  Facts are, that right now, 44 Democratic senators represent over 3 million more people than the 55 Republicans.  Until we have one person, one vote, the rich and powerful will prevail and increase their control over all aspects of American life.

Yes, everything is debatable, but there are certain facts that are not. Such as the fact that we have both the largest national debt and budget deficits in our country’s history. Now if it is relatively small in comparison to the entire economic picture, then why go into debt in the first place? Why not pay it off if it’s not that big of deal? My opinion here is that the neocons want to explode the debt so they can turn around and start cutting and gutting any government program they don’t like. I am basically believe in a government that is small, but responsive to the basic needs of our country. Large tax cuts combined with massive spending just doesn’t make sense to me.

Aside from the issues, what I see in the Republican party is a party of greed, hunger for power, dishonesty, over-confidence, and a major departure from true conservative principles. They have so much power now they have a sense of invincibility that is dangerous and they only seem to want more power. They don’t want debate or dissent. They want it their way or the highway, and I honestly think they want a one party system, where the Democratic party is gone, as well as all the other smaller parties (Green, Libertarian, etc). As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It takes both wings to fly, and I think America functions best with a reasonable balance between conservatism and liberalism. We have made it over 200 years that way. I seriously doubt that is how a lot of these neocons see it.

Caitlin,
May I ask one question regarding your comment
that conservatives are generally eloquent,educated,apt at defendind their views.

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?

I live in Fayetteville,North Carolina where we have an AM radio station,WFNC(Fascist Nitwit Channel or any other abbreviations that fit f-n-c).I have spent many hours listening to their broadcasts,which run weekdays from 9a.m. to 10p.m.talk about a violation of Fairness Doctrine.Nearly every right-wing host is ,or has been featured there:Hannity,Limbaugh,Liddy,Dr.Laura,Boortz,O’Reilly,Savage,and so on.They are not educated ror eloquent.Rather,they use sophistry,cant,bias,ad hominem,fallacy of accident,converse fallacy of accident,appeals to pity,precedent,authority,and tradition,personal and irrelevant counterattacks,and a stringently selective caller screening process to put forth their reactionary propaganda.I might add,this propaganda comes directly from the Republican Party on a daily basis.

Sadly,these party mouthpieces have lowered the bar,if not dropped to the ground,political discourse by instilling in their devotees three guiding principles.First,there is always an enemy.Second you are always in conflict with that enemy.Third,defeat the enemy by ANY means possible.

Furthermore,as a result of corporations with right-wing ties buying and subsequently strangling new markets,there will be little opposition or dissenting voices.Air America is as good as it will ever get,at least until the right-wing can some method of eliminating Garofalo and Franken from the radio.

If liberals(a word which means to reactionaries:ENEMY!DESTROY IT!)are angry,they have a right to be.As ewll,in their anger they ,at times appear to be unfocussed as they see so many wrong they don’t know where to begin.If time,marketand opportunity wre granted,the non-right would be able to present organized arguments which could counteract reactionary propaganda.Right-wing controlled media will not allow this.The noose will grow tighter.

“Do you begin to see,then,what kind of a world we are creating?...A world of fear and treachery and torment,a world trampling and being trampled upon,a world which will grow not less,but more merciless as it refines itself.”
quoted by O’Brien

-1984

Orwell

this could easily be spoken by the right-wing,as they are taking steps to bring it to fruition.Right wing talk-radio and a party controlled media are steps there.

Very good piece and all worthwhile.  However, “mature” voters have spent enough time looking at electronic voting and statistical studies of the numbers to realize that the election was STOLEN.  Bush lost a close race in 2000.  He did not win in 2004 with the number of Republicans he alienated and the number of fence sitters he motivated to vote against him.  Arnold has replaced the Sec. of State in California and the machines will be returning.  If you haven’t seen Invisible Ballots, you need to.  Try www.invisibleballots.com it had the local Democratic party sucking wind and howling here in Honolulu.  If studies call for an investigation and the media doesn’t report it, are they real?

>>>>>>>>>>>Such as the fact that we have both the largest national debt and budget deficits in our country’s history. Now if it is relatively small in comparison to the entire economic picture, then why go into debt in the first place? Why not pay it off if it’s not that big of deal?<<<<<<

The debt and deficits are only the largest in nominal terms, which is irrelevant because it doesn’t take into account inflation and the economic base. I didn’t say it is relatively small. I said it is not massive relative to other times. The debt as a share of GDP is near the historical average. The deficit as a share of GDP is above average.

Why go into debt at all? Because it is a relatively cheap way to finance the government because the government is such a strong credit. It is also a way to get capital to finance the government without taking the capital; borrowing allows lower rates of taxation, which is good for the economy. It actually facilitates bigger government than a government that relies solely on taxation could. A strong economy and a manageable, perpetual government debt can go hand in hand.

>>>>>>>>My opinion here is that the neocons want to explode the debt so they can turn around and start cutting and gutting any government program they don’t like.<<<<<<<<<<

Some on the right do want to do that. Why do you call them “neocons”? As I understand it, neocon policies are primarily concerned with foreign policy. I’ve never understood neocon policy to include “starve the beast.” That certainly is an idea among the right, but it can hardly be classified as a neocon idea. It seems neocon is just becoming a label for many of the policies on the right that the left sees as particularly despicable.

>>>>>>>>>>I am basically believe in a government that is small, but responsive to the basic needs of our country. Large tax cuts combined with massive spending just doesn’t make sense to me.<<<<<<<<

What we did makes sense to me. We had little choice but to increase spending on defense (even if we hadn’t gone into Iraq) and homeland security after 9/11. And of course some other spending went up as well, seeing how Republicans must to some extent compete with Democrats in public spending to satisfy the public’s appetite for big government. And with the faltering economy, revenues were falling. Deficits were a part of the picture even if none of Bush’s tax cuts went into effect.

But how would we be doing without the tax cuts? I’d say we’d still be stumbling along with a modest recovery at best, maybe with a second mild recession in there somewhere.

Instead, we get strong growth since mid-2003 and recovering tax receipts at both the federal and state level. There is something to supply side tax cuts. To say that they increase revenue is probably overstating it. But to say that they generate revenue beyond what the static models say they will is not overstating it. (A static model says if a rate is 10% and brings in $10, then cutting that rate to 5% will bring in $5. That’s how government projections work. But if the economic incentives contribute to a stronger economy, that change to 5% will probably bring in something more than $5 - but probably not $10.)

I’m a big believer in the federal government always having a manageable debt to help keep tax rates low, especially since we seem insistent on such a big government. The tax rates to support such a big government without debt would be even more damaging to economic growth than they are now. Things are better after Bush’s cuts, but they are still too damaging. The current tax cuts should be made permanent, and the corporate tax rate should be cut in half. 

There’s more. (You’re thrilled, right?) See the next post.

>>>>>>>>Aside from the issues, what I see in the Republican party is a party of greed, hunger for power, dishonesty, over-confidence, and a major departure from true conservative principles.<<<<<<<<<

Substitute “Democrat” for “Republican” and “liberal” for “conservative,” and many on the right believe exactly the same thing about the left. “Over-confidence?” you ask? Yes. Overconfident that it is their presentation and not their message that is responsible for their bad performance as of late.

>>>>>>>>>I honestly think they want a one party system<<<<<<<<<

No more so than Democrats want a one party system. What, you think Nancy Pelosi likes having Republicans around? I think both parties want to dominate a two party system.

>>>>>>As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.<<<<<<

Well I guess the Republicans aren’t corrupted absolutely. You’d have to go back almost eighty years to find a Republican party that came even close to absolute power. Johnson and the Democrats, with a lock on the house and as many as 68 senators, were much closer to absolute power than today’s Republicans.

But I’ll give you this: substantial majority power results in substantial legislation, and that can be bad to the extent that the legislation is poorly crafted (including, in my opinion, Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare under Johnson’s big majorities, and to a lesser degree Social Security under Roosevelt’s big majorities).

>>>>>>>>It takes both wings to fly, and I think America functions best with a reasonable balance between conservatism and liberalism.<<<<<<<

I’m fine with that as well.

wwoods:

>>>>>>talk about a violation of Fairness Doctrine.<<<<<<<

I believe the Fairness Doctrine is no longer in effect.

wwoods:

>>>>>>>>Furthermore,as a result of corporations with right-wing ties buying and subsequently strangling new markets,there will be little opposition or dissenting voices.<<<<<<<<<

Clear Channel, with right wing ties, is one of Air America’s biggest broadcasters.

Pardon me for saying, but you have a lot of anger inside, don’t you?

>>>>>>>>>the election was STOLEN.<<<<<<<<<<

It seems about every fifth post, the lunatic fringe speaks up.

wwood,

Firstly, I said that the hosts of conservative talk radio were eloquent and well-educated, not conservatives generally (trust me, the callers are an entirely different story).  And actually, if you read the host’s bios, they are usually extraordinarily well-educated. 

What determines what goes on the air is ratings, not politics.  If Rush Limbaugh’s audience tuned in to Al Franken instead, you can bet that Franken would be broadcast on nearly every “right-wing” station in the country.  To assume that the reason Air America is not more widely broadcast because of a Republican media conspiracy is to ignore the real issue: Why do millions more listen to Limbaugh over Franken? 

In my opinion, the answer lies in their varying approaches.  Both know they are largely preaching to the converted, yet it only the conservatives who also acknowledge those in the audience who have yet to brought to their side.  With every reactionary statement comes evidence (albeit selective) to bolster their claim.  Franken, on the other hand, fails to adequately justify his anger for those who do not support his views. 

It is clear that a number of prominent media persons have been eager for an outlet like Air America.  However, hosts such as Franken and Garofelo (this statement does not necessarily apply to the entire network staff, for I have not heard every program) are simply not qualified to hold the positions they do currently.  For instance, a few months ago I listened to James Fallows be interviewed by Al Franken.  Now clearly Fallows is one who should be given as much air time as possible, for his articles have offered biting, well-substantiated critiques of the actions of this administration.  Nonetheless, the ‘interview’ was almost entirely consumed by Franken’s hackneyed jokes and reactionary contentions about this administration (all spoken in his trademark, obviously-not-made for-radio voice). 

In short, Orwellian claims are a cop-out.  The problem lies in the way the views are being articulated.

“Points that are so debatable don’t warrant the certain conclusions he derives from them.” The Rambler.

That’s debatable.

>>>>It seems about every fifth post, the lunatic fringe speaks up.<<<<<<<

Took me a while to get the hang of the arrow thing.  Think I’ve got it now. 

If it’s every fifth post, that’s good news.  It suggests that more and more folks are reading the studies and thinking rather than keeping their noses in the corporate news oatbag. 

And that means the ranks of the lunatic fringe will grow while those of the douchebag middle will shrink.  I’m lovin’ it.

“It seems about every fifth post, the lunatic fringe speaks up.” The Rambler.

By my count you have about 18 of 47 posts on this thread, oh lunatic rambler, so that would make it about one in 2.5 posts by my math.  Give yourself some credit.

Stop me if someone said this already, more concisely-- Debt relief and credit education are brilliant platforms that can capture the hearts of working families, military families, youth, seniors-- almost any group on the spectrum.  A great place to start is in area churches-- there are audiences who are very receptive to programs, coffees, etc. It’s a version of the Kitchen Cabinet or coffee conversation that worked so well for the Christian Coalition.  Unfortunately, it won’t happen with Biden or Leiberman as “elder statesmen” of the Democratic party-- but it’s a great chance to remind people that Kerry and Clinton were very pro-consumer with regard to credit and predatory lending.  It also provides a great way to expose the truth abouth the Bush “ownership society.”

It probably won’t happen without some sort of National Health Insurance, though.

Tom,
Absolutely,I had my democracy stolen from me.

Caitlin,
What qualifications do the right-wing mouthpieces have other than being party myrmidons?

Re-read 1984,then look at this party.The parallels are chilling.

Foxnews goodspeakfulwise.Foxnews truthtell.
Ungoodthinkful truthask.Truthask is thoughtcrime.

Foxnews biglies upstick asswise.

Substitute English Socialism(IngSoc) with U.S.Freedomism(USfree--catchy isn’t it?)

USfree are freemakeful.USfree are goodthinkful.USfree upround badthinkful truthaskers placewise joycamp.

The devolution will be complete when the last vestiges of democratism are purged from the language. 

Sorry,but the more I watch,the more I fear.

>>>>>>>>.And that means the ranks of the lunatic fringe will grow while those of the douchebag middle will shrink.  I’m lovin’ it.<<<<<<<<<

Agreed. The middle is their home. But it’s not their only home. As one moves away from the middle, one crosses over the threshhold. But then, as one heads to the fringes, one once again finds it his home.

See here, in admittedly crude graphic form:

...not................x.x.............x.x
douchebag......x.....x.........x.....x
....................x.......x.......x........x
------------------x----------x-----x----------x---
douche.....x..............x.x...............x
.bag.....x.<-----Jeff............................x
______________________________________
fringe left................middle.............fringe right

wwoods:

>>>>>Absolutely,I had my democracy stolen from me.<<<<

How so?

Well, I had fun, especially that last graphic, but my time here is done. Thanks to those who managed to write without emotion. To the others: I’ll bother you no longer. I shall continue to read ITT regularly, but this is the last of my posts to ITT articles.

Tom, don’t go.  I really need to apologize for my alarmist tendencies and thank you for the graphic explanation.  Your knowledge of the douchebag distribution curve is a revelation.  Now I see that the exit poll - bullshit vote total discrepancies that disturbed so many statisticians and pollsters WERE really due to Republican voter SHYNESS.  Praise Jesus, I seen the lite, pass the oats.

He had plenty to say, our friend TFJ
In fact I called him the Rambler.
But in his Dear John, he says he is gone
I’d bet not if I were a gambler.
Now I will grieve, TFJ do not leave
Sorry I write this with emotion.
But writing’s a crock, sans emotion like Spock
It’s like a piss lost in a large ocean.

We’re gonna miss ya Arrow Man.

Excellent article and suggestions, Chris. I would like to offer one of my own. Progressives need physical places to meet up, get informed, and get inspired on a regular basis. The right uses churches for this purpose. Move On and Democracy for America sponsor occasional house parties, but they don’t happen often enough. I don’t care much for Democratic clubs because they have such an establishment feel, but I would go to regular Move On meetings.

I think that the Dems won’t have to wait long. But instead of bickering, why can’t we all join together and invest in the kind of educations for all of us that will allow us to keep at least SOME good jobs in America. Otherwise our economy will implode, as we will lose our middle class as jobs are lost to new technologies. Sure those technologies create jobs, but as it stands now, those jobs will probably be created elsewhere. And they take years of highly technical training.

Technology’s goal is to free us from repetitive work of all kinds. Unless you are very creative, your job is in danger.

Again, technology’s goal is to free us from work.

We have to take it from there and decide what we want..

Or others will ‘decide’ for us.. and we wont like it..

Bigger government...bigger CIA...bigger al-CIA-da…

School Books

You want to make a differance in the blue state red state mix? Start a movement to get New York and California to buy their school books in a block.... the far right would go off the deep end… they have a lock on what is taught our kids now because they buy books this way… I am willing to bet that California and New York buy more books than Texas.... This comes to me via Boing Boing and it should scare the hell out of you if you have kids that you believe should learn the facts in school… Texas is making the choice on what books your kids get in school…

http://thealguy.blogspot.com/

TFJ wrote: Well I guess the Republicans aren’t corrupted absolutely. You’d have to go back almost eighty years to find a Republican party that came even close to absolute power. Johnson and the Democrats, with a lock on the house and as many as 68 senators, were much closer to absolute power than today’s Republicans.
-------------------------------------------------
Read my lips asshole: Republican control of the House. Republican control of the senate. Republican Prez. New “Nuclear Option” is on the table to prevent Democratic fillibusters in the senate especially pertaining to the appointment of judges. You can split hairs about who had how many senators at what point in history but I know of no legislation at any point in history seeking to block fillibusters. I also know of no party more closely organized around a particular agenda then the neoconservative party of right now (barring perhaps the republican party immediately before the civil war, but that is a completely different situation). They have what like 8 moderates in the senate who arent afraid to vote against party initiatives? Beyond that this party is emboldened and reacionary in nature. The issue goes beyond trivial measures of how much power is absolute and into what ways this party is willing to wield its power. Consider the patriot act, extrordinary extradition, the “Nuclear Option”, any investigation this administration has ever faced. This party is not willing to have any checks on its power and will do anything it can to broden its degree of power including any Machiavellian tactic you can dream of. This makes them more powerful than any supermajority willing to play by the rules.

Agreed. The middle is their home. But it’s not their only home. As one moves away from the middle, one crosses over the threshhold. But then, as one heads to the fringes, one once again finds it his home.

See here, in admittedly crude graphic form:

...not................x.x.............x.x
douchebag......x.....x.........x.....x
....................x.......x.......x........x
------------------x----------x-----x----------x---
douche.....x..............x.x...............x
.bag.....x.<-----Jeff............................x <---- GOP (current)
______________________________________
fringe left................middle.............fringe right
__________________________________________________
Just felt the need to add a little to your graphic TFJ.

Great article Chris,
Something that caught my interest was the extended metaphor between religious and progressive “evangelizing.” While the metaphor of face-to-face encounter certainly holds, it tellingly overlooks a critical organizing opportunity that the “blue-state” left consistently overlooks: communities of faith. By emphasizing fear and personal salvation, the right has managed to monopolize public perception of a social network with a long history of radical social progressivism. The major barrier? Fed-up leftys, especially young ones, tend to dismiss people of faith as zealots and lost causes. We allow a dedicated cabal of nuts to color our perception, rather than recognizing potential partners in dialogue towards helping the most vulnerable members of society. Respecting deep differences even as we search for solutions to common problems is the most difficult and critical challenge in a pluralist democracy. So, new organizations yes, but how about revitalizing and utilizing the social networks that already exist? After all, it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle and all that. Check out Chicago’s Interfaith Worker Justice for a great example.

ps- there is a connection here with communities of color that tends to get a lot of lip service around election time, but not a lot of sustained or serious attention.

“Mormons are the fastest-growing church in the country.”

Simply not true. The LDS Church repeated this lie over and over again and finally stopped say it a few years ago. Great article, however stating false facts does not help.

Maybe we can learn from the LDS Church and just keep repeating “Demecrats are now in the majority” and everyone will vote that way. Heck it worked for the author…

Tom Finley,

We’ve had our democracy stolen through corporate abuse of power,through deregulation which has given the corporations the ability to do as they will.Which,by the way,they are doing.
The current war has nothing to do with WMD’s.Rather,it’s a matter of controlling the oil fields,something the oil companies have wanted to do for decades.This entire farce of Hussein,the Ayatolla Khomeini hatred of the 80’s,Iran vs.Iraq,Iran-Contra,and Gulf War One stem directly from this.

Which party has facilitated this?Republicans.One hand washes the other.Get us the ability to control the oil,and we’ll ensure you are in office long enough to benefit.Even if it means rigging a presidential election or two.

The average citizen,the demos in democracy,has been shut out.We may vote,however,if the results don’t satisfy those who really run things,they will be changed or ignored.Those who complain will be vilified by Fox News as traitors,with the other"news"networks saying nothing or plying with more non-information.

We are perilously close to losing our democracy completely.Right now we are a republic,
which pompous right-wing loudmouths love to spout,taking pride in claiming that our country is one syllable away from their party.I really don’t want to say we’re fascist yet.I can’t bring myself to say it yet.

I will say this,twenty years ago,my friends and I volunteered for service,we we’re willing to die,and kill,for our country.Because of the nature of the Soviet government and what it did(command economy,KGB,repession of free speech)we could justify a war in which million would die and life on Earth could possibly cease.We never dreamed ANYONE would dare use those tactics to govern our country.Boy,werewe wrong Of course,we never counted on Cheney,Rove,Ashcroft,and Rice.
Wherever Stalin is,be it Great Inferno or Paradisical Dacha.he is looking at our current government and laughing his ass off.

I can appreciate creating needed groups to reach out to the ‘unchurched’ for the progressive movement, but I think you missed a few points.
I am a born-again Christian who appreciates the sanity of the policies and issues presented by the Democratic Party or progressives.  I’m in favor of fair job practices, etc but what the progressives don’t seem to understand is the chasm that exists between them and Christians in matters of morals of the heart.  People of faith believe the Bible is true and the bible condemns immoral behavior.  I think it would help progressives get support to stop Christian bashing (there is noticable contempt on this topic) The abortion and gay topics will not be compromised.  I wish these items could be removed from the Democratic Platform because the true issues that shape policy for the Dem party are clouded by these 2 moral issues.  I think it’s a pity that the Democrats are driving Christians from the party.  Thanks for your good ideas.

Mary Lou,

Interesting post.  You are right, it would be nice if we could do away with both abortion and gay rights issues, but I don’t see either party dropping them from their repective platforms.  Both sides have powerful constituent groups that would never let it happen.  Unfortunately, it’s hard to get past either of them, even when many other issues clamor for attention.  I’m not sure how you do, other than, as the author suggests, switching the topic to something else, such as debt.  Some folks won’t be willing to switch topics, but many will.  Isn’t social justice and caring for the weak and the poor, also in the Bible?  Aren’t they also the moral thing to do?  And there are plenty of other examples too, of course.  It is a shame that they don’t get the same amount of press that the two issues you mentioned do.

If Howard Dean is the farthest left person Democrats can find to lead their Party, they are and will remain losers.  The Radical Right is continuing to solidify control over the land by hook and by crook. Their control of the media of which the cable news networks are most obscene examples is almost absolute; their buying out of religious establishments by lavishing money on Faith Based Partnerships,Healthy Marriage Initiative ,and No Child Left Behind, which allow the diversion of public funds to various private organizations. I estimate $15 billion in all, dispersed through the Justice Department.  Since most Americans find dogmatism and discord appalling, Democrats would have to move much further to the left than Dean, to even hope for a convergence that would fall anywhere left of far right. Convergence is a Cold War term and is believed helped to bring the Soviet Union and US to a mutual understanding since Maoist China was seen as a frightening spectre to both.

The Democratic Party isn’t going to make any headway as long as they keep supporting the killing of babies.  The nation is becoming increasingly pro-life, and you are progressing the wrong direction.