![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Having lost a presidential election, and looking backwards, having seen a large number of electoral losses over the past fifteen years, one wonders what the problem is with the Democratic party. Based on the economy and the war, they shouldn't be losing seats.
But that doesn't speak to the larger issue I think the party has. And frankly, has been having since the latter years of the Johnson administration.
For various reasons, the old New Deal coalition just isn't holding together. And as far as I can tell, the primary effort among the party has been to try to hold together whatever they could, in no small part, by trying to cherry-pick voters with targeted efforts here or there.
What's been missing, IMHO, and what cost the last two elections, is the "Heart". When asked, almost anyone can give you a short comment on what W is about. Or what they believe the Republican party is about. And that's powerful. But can people tell you waht John Kerry's vision was? What the party's mission was? What the democratic party is missing, IMHO, is that narrative.
What's your vision of what America's supposed to be. What's the moral argument for progressivism. In the US, we have a separation of church and state, but that doesn't mean discussion of morality is absent from public life. Or should be. And in the absence of a strong vision for a civic religion foundeded in progressive ethics, morality, and community -- the Right has been free to define Morality in terms of Sex, Abortion and Otherness. The Right has a mission. A mission that I disagree with, but they have one, and it gives them power to sway.
So, I think that's the real challenge for the Democrats. What is your mission? Why do you come to serve in public life? What is your vision for America? And then, only then, do you talk about the programmatic effort to enact that vision.
I think back to my financial situation. I've got money. I've got people who are supposed to be taking care of my money. The details matter, but I don't care nearly as much about the details as I care about the overall goals that we've set. Having established that I know what the vision is, and that we're mostly on the same page, I can generally trust my guys to take care of the details I don't have the time to handle myself.
But I can look at the voting map, and say with some degree of confidence, that I don't think a lot of America is particularly comfortable with whatever passes for vision coming from the Democratic party. And consequently, they're not voting for it.
The answer isn't for the Democrats to move left, or move right, or find a fundamentalist, or what have you. The answer is to go back to the beginning, to go back to that Mission Statement. And to articulate a compelling, relatively coherent, progressive vision for public life that competes with the vision offered by the Right. Because I very much believe there's an audience. Do that, and they'll start picking up seats, counties, and votes instead of seeing old majorities continue to erode.
But that doesn't speak to the larger issue I think the party has. And frankly, has been having since the latter years of the Johnson administration.
For various reasons, the old New Deal coalition just isn't holding together. And as far as I can tell, the primary effort among the party has been to try to hold together whatever they could, in no small part, by trying to cherry-pick voters with targeted efforts here or there.
What's been missing, IMHO, and what cost the last two elections, is the "Heart". When asked, almost anyone can give you a short comment on what W is about. Or what they believe the Republican party is about. And that's powerful. But can people tell you waht John Kerry's vision was? What the party's mission was? What the democratic party is missing, IMHO, is that narrative.
What's your vision of what America's supposed to be. What's the moral argument for progressivism. In the US, we have a separation of church and state, but that doesn't mean discussion of morality is absent from public life. Or should be. And in the absence of a strong vision for a civic religion foundeded in progressive ethics, morality, and community -- the Right has been free to define Morality in terms of Sex, Abortion and Otherness. The Right has a mission. A mission that I disagree with, but they have one, and it gives them power to sway.
So, I think that's the real challenge for the Democrats. What is your mission? Why do you come to serve in public life? What is your vision for America? And then, only then, do you talk about the programmatic effort to enact that vision.
I think back to my financial situation. I've got money. I've got people who are supposed to be taking care of my money. The details matter, but I don't care nearly as much about the details as I care about the overall goals that we've set. Having established that I know what the vision is, and that we're mostly on the same page, I can generally trust my guys to take care of the details I don't have the time to handle myself.
But I can look at the voting map, and say with some degree of confidence, that I don't think a lot of America is particularly comfortable with whatever passes for vision coming from the Democratic party. And consequently, they're not voting for it.
The answer isn't for the Democrats to move left, or move right, or find a fundamentalist, or what have you. The answer is to go back to the beginning, to go back to that Mission Statement. And to articulate a compelling, relatively coherent, progressive vision for public life that competes with the vision offered by the Right. Because I very much believe there's an audience. Do that, and they'll start picking up seats, counties, and votes instead of seeing old majorities continue to erode.
Tags:
no subject
We need to do something to regain the south which right now is being taken over by the religious right--their moral value position is strong. And Missouri! My god, my whole life Missouri was the Democratic state in the midwest. A friend of mine in St. Louis says the religious conservatives are very powerful there and they've convinced former Democrats that gays and women and pro-choicers are too scary to have anything to do with and candidates who support those issues need to be voted down because of "moral values" ie religion.
*sigh*
no subject
Yeah. But see, you can talk about moral arguments for policy without necessarily establishing religion or violating church/state. But you have demonstrate a moral vision.
I happen to be Jewish, and the ethical/moral teachings of my family and rabbi had as much an influence on me as my academic and professional experience. That's four different sources that make a whole: family, faith, school, and work.
And the more you talk in terms of basic progressive values that affect people every day, rooted family, work, and the community's responsibility to each other -- about how that's what's really important -- the better chance you have of crowding out all that hate speech. And to some extent, that may mean fighting religious fire with all the religion that the Right is ignoring. (like all that "love thy neighbor" and "poverty is bad" stuff)