A little while ago I wrote about Why Democrats Compromise When Republicans Won't, noting that one reason is that more Americans self-identify as conservatives than as liberals.
And, as I noted back then, this is so even though they support liberal policies.
Now comes a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showing just how stark is this apparent contradiction. Look at these samples, on the subject of how we should deal with federal deficits:
And what should we not do?
Meanwhile, 77% of those surveyed support collective bargaining for public sector workers.
And yet: 36% of those same voters self-identified as conservatives, while only 24% called themselves liberals.
Liberals can of course be heartened by the results having to do with policies. But there's an important lesson to learn about identity. It's taking a while to sink in.
Many Democratic candidates see poll results showing conservative self-identification and think they need to tweak their policies, or maybe just explain them better. They should learn to take Yes for an answer. Americans like liberal policies.
What Democrats, the party of ordinary Americans, need to do is re-connect with ordinary Americans. This happens on the level of identity, not ideas. The success of FDR-era Democrats and unions in creating a mass middle class had an unforeseen consequence: Education and upward mobility led subsequent generations up and away from their roots. It led some among those generations to embarrassedly spurn those roots -- strenuously distancing themselves from "gun-toting rednecks" or "tacky suburbanites", for example. This is why "elite" as an anti-liberal slur now has some sticking power. (Of course, it's been helped along by decades of Republican political marketing).
Reconnecting with working Americans does not mean pandering or patronizing. Franklin Roosevelt could hardly have been more of an "elite". Yet it was clear that he knew, understood and cared about ordinary Americans. They could tell.
Last Saturday, Zach Friend and I were panelists at a conference of the American Constitution Society, at which a keynote speech was given by Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA 31). Becerra was eloquently direct on how Democrats need to connect more from the heart than the head -- more on identity, less on ideas. Quoting Rene Zellweger in Jerry McGuire, he said voters are telling Democrats, "Shut up... You had me at hello."
Follow Spencer Critchley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/scritchley
So The Democracy Party does not lose on ideas, they are mostly bought: they are accomplishing what they believe in and what their employers want them to do.
Obama and other corporatist folks do indeed seem to buy into trickle down, deregulatiÂon and privatizatÂion -
But Hillary Clinton pushed for heavier regulation than Bill wanted in 93, and the DLC has many flavors of respect for businessmen.amongst their members.
Respect? They sold out, that's how they win.
Simply put, the Democratic Party, as a general term, lives, almost entirely, in nuance, while, quite honestly, there's little nuance left in the Republican Party. If, in the most abstract terms, where Republicans campaign on their sole notion that "government, inherently, is the problem" and the Democrats campaign on their sole notion that "government can be an engine for good for the American people", Democrats probably win 65/35. The problem comes when people go deeper than that.
People, in general, support raising taxes on those who are already doing okay, since they can comfortably deal with such a hit. Democrats win. Still, when it comes down to figuring out how much and the scope of such an idea, the support collapses. Is $1 billion well enough off to take the hit? $1 million? $500,000? $250,000? How about how big of a hit? 1%? 4%? 10%? etc.
Republicans argue that tax increases, flatly, are all bad, while Democrats split up along the different scopes of changes to taxes. 35% against any tax increase, 30% in favor of raising taxes on billionaires, 20% in favor of raising taxes on millionaires, 10% in favor of raising taxes on people making $500,000, 5% in favor of raising taxes on people making $250,000.
Republicans win by near default. The same thing on every issue
For a long time I've been derided for claiming that the Democratic Party needed to take the "contract for America" concept and do it one better. Small minds get immediately side-tracked to the concept being associated with gingrich and their heads start rotating before actual thought can be put into the issue.
But my idea was to get a platform built upon some real numbers and have candidates sign on. It creates a united policy front, projects strength (for a change), and forces all the candidates to fight back when the republican talking points memos are released (they all own it, so they all have to defend it). It forces a team approach to policy that fights divide and conquer, allows policy wonks to dig in (how can you help defend policy that spans a huge swath of permutations?), and weeds out blue dogs (not on board? no campaign support for you...).
Without being as conscious of the underlying motivation as you have very clearly described in your comment, I was trying to solve the problem you identified. Pick a dang set of numbers and get out of the gate. In your example, a couple percent across a few million dollars isn't the issue - it's progressive taxation. After it's in place, season to your taste - but not until it's in place.
Thanks for shining a light on this.
He found a clear definition of what the Democratic Party ought to be, and he even went on to tie this vision of the Democratic Party to ways to actually face and deal with problems in the here and now.
"Government can't do everything for all, but the government has a definitive role to play, in making sure that every American has, at the very least, the opportunity to succeed."
The economy, national security, healthcare, education, tax code, financial rules, energy, immigration and other ideas are the basis for the success of our country, and there are defiantly Democratic Party solutions to all of these challenges that actually make sense.
Now, the vision may have not been as liberal as most of the folks on this site would've crafted, but it was still a clear vision of the Democratic Party that's viable across all 50 states.
Folks just didn't give the vision much of a shot, especially some of the folks in his own party, for whatever reason.
With the economy continuing to improve, and the Republican Party being completely unable to craft an affirmative vision for the country, hopefully folks jump on-board for the 2012 re-elect.
Last week he was celebrating Motown, Yesterday he was in Florida with Jeb Bush. Oh, he did make a short statement about labor at the governor's convention. Yet, I'm thinking, is that all? This is your base.
And then I get the sickening feeling that we've "been played" again. The democrats know that the alternative in 2012 is electing a republican. So they don't have to do anything of substance to get elected. So, capitulating while shouting is the order of the day. Clearly we need a new party: one with a spine.
Instead the source of the problem has two root causes, it seems to me:
1. Our culture has evolved away from the 1950's nuclear white family model into something more complex and the democrats have failed to adapt. The republicans have adapted by choosing to only serve the needs of the wealthiest 2 % and then conning enough others to support their agenda.
2. The Democrats are content to sit back and define themselves in relation to the GOP as the party of everyone, in effect resulting in a system in which both parties represent the rich and one party makes token gestures towards everyone else.
Unless these two problems are fixed, our democracy will continue to crumble. The Republicans have decided who they are and this gives them focus. We Democrats only seem vaguely aware that we are not Republicans and this puts us at their mercy. We democrats only have ourselves to blame yet instead of fixing this problem, we continue to point the finger (choose any finger you like) at George Bush and his ilk.
There has been much talk about the abuse of money in the electoral process and in lobbying for the wealthy. It is telling that we aren't discussing any legislation to change the situation. Two parties one big funnel.
No choices = no democracy.
It is beyond bizarre that the Dems haven't exploited the disastrous wealth transfer of the last 30 years to make the case for using taxes on the top earners to rebalance the budget. That top one percent are the true elite--and all their Republican peers want is more of same. As for compromising with the Republicans, just say "No." True negotiation aims for a collaborative outcome that benefits all parties. This is not in the Republican playbook. They are close to winning a counter-revolution that they've waged for 100 years. Why would they concede now?
Still, how can I stand with Democrats, when they don't stand for anything.?.
These are our principles, this is what we believe, but we're reasonable, we'll compromise".
When you give away the farm, you shouldn't be too surprised when no one is willing to "buy" your crops.
I'm sure the situation is more complex then I know, and their are no doubt many devious strategies involved that I don't know about, much less am able to understand.
Still..........I prefer the old fashioned way. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and back it up when it counts. Stand up for what you believe in, otherwise, what's the point?
"These are our principlesÂ, this is what we believe, but we're reasonableÂ, we'll compromiseÂ"."
This is exactly what bothers me about dems. Some compromise is reasonable but it seems like they are always the ones caving and compromising to the other side - or to big business and the corporations. Whatever happened to representing the people who elected you?
If you look at the Republican Party, all you really have are corporate conservatives, christian conservatives, neocons, and the emergence of a quasi-libertarian conservative movement that is arguably 10 years to late.
That's about it. Far easier to coordinate messaging with only 2-3 differing point of view. Just my two cents.