repairing the damage of conservative domination will take years.

[ulysses]

(This isn't meant to be one of those handwringing, "woe is us" posts we see from time to time, but rather a call to action on our parts, individually and collectively. Forgive me if I start to ramble.)

I've been thinking for a long time about my support for Howard Dean. I'm not exactly wavering, but it's support that comes at occasional cost to my peace of mind. I fully expect that that cost will become greater as time goes on, especially if Dean wins the nomination. Truth be told, I agree far more with Dennis Kucinich on the issues than I do with Dean, but I'm supporting Dean in the primaries because I've come to disagree with the idea that we have to blue-sky it in the primaries and then accept the inevitable for the general election. The American left needs to think strategically, but not in November. It needs to start earlier.

None of the candidates is a magic bullet or a savior. Not Dean, not Kucinich, not Clark, not Kerry. None of them will reach any kind of overall progressive goal line, even in two terms, even with a Democratic Congress. Some, however, can be a start and for me, Dean is that start. Your mileage may vary on who best represents that start - I'm not particularly worried about that here.

I think two things have held us back in effectively answering the conservative onslaught in full swing since 1980 - a compliant (or bumbling) national presence and a lack of involvement and unity at the local level. The first I think is best addressed through the nomination of someone to the national ticket who will at minimum make a break from the failed strategy of the DLC and get into office with a mandate and a commitment to stop, not just slow, the rightwing trend.

Addressing the second issue is harder, because it will depend on our willingness to get off our asses (and I very much include myself in this) and do the hard work of organization and activism. The conservative counterrevolution would never have come about without the quieter work of many thousands of little people who made phone calls, raised money, ran for office, rang doorbells, disseminated talking points both subtle and overt and generally agitated for the conservative dream. We have to do the same thing in reverse.

Involvement leads to unity, not particularly of party, but of action. The left is notoriously factional, but where at all possible, we have to fight for each other's causes, not just our own. We're simply stronger that way, as tricky as it can be getting different constituencies to realize that we all are, or can be, on the same side. We have to stop being triangulated.

Again. We. Have. To. Stop. Being. Triangulated. Until we put a stop, at the personal and local levels, to the kind of bullshit that pits environmentalists against labor and gay folks against people of faith, conservatives will continue to win. That's our work. That's what *we* have to do, to work for, regardless of who wins the Dem nomination or the election next year.

And it's the work of years. The winner of the 2004 primaries/general election will not change the nature of OUR work one whit. Dean will not magically unify the left. Kucinich will not magically spur a resurgence in citizenship. Neither Clark nor Kerry will magically erase the "liberals hate America" meme. We don't need heroes, which is a good thing since none are in the offing. We only need the right general direction and ourselves, on our feet.

Any thoughts? This is roughly put - sorry for the brain dump. :)

[CatWoman]

1. *wringing hands*

:evilgrin:

[ulysses]

2. goddamnit

I SAID NO HANDWRINGING!

;-)

You up for another round of campaigning if McKinney runs again?

[CatWoman]

4. are you kidding???

I still have the yard sign from her last run :D

[ulysses]

6. I think I tossed mine in disgust.

Wonder who Zell will back for the 4th if Majette runs for his seat...

[CatWoman]

7. maybe he'll dig up Lester Maddux?

:D

[ulysses]

11. he hasn't already?

Thought I saw Zell traipsing around with an axe handle not long ago...

[CatWoman]

13. bwahahahahahahahaha

:thumbsup:

[SOteric]

3. Ayup.

I've rather recently been inspired a great deal by Lakoff's 'framing' article.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

I think we need to start reframing some of the topical issues of the day and generate a few memes of our own.

[ulysses]

8. true stuff there

Let's have that url again...

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

I think we need to start reframing some of the topical issues of the day and generate a few memes of our own.

Entirely agreed. Of course, we're missing the mass media advantage, but we do have truth on our side...:)

[buddhamama]

5. i disagree

on one point, we do heroes. i don't consider myself to be a weak person but, i draw strength from my heroes. they inspire me to act or not, whatever the case may be.

question for you ulysses, what if my issue conflicts with another's?

i am all for supporting issues but to what degree, wouldn't we then become assimilated.

i do think much of what you've said needs to happen and, to large extent has already begun. look at the FTAA protests going on, lots of different groups came together for this.

it would help too imho, to not focus too much on the Presidential race and fail in the Congressional. As we know from past experience, you can have a Democratic President but with the Repubs controlling the House, it makes pretty difficult to get anything done.

i'm rambling a bit myself.

:hi:

[ulysses]

10. I would say

that we need to be our own heroes. The heroic don't get to the national stage any more, or if they do, they draw like 1% of the vote. That's where we come in.

question for you ulysses, what if my issue conflicts with another's?

i am all for supporting issues but to what degree, wouldn't we then become assimilated.

That's the tricky part. I'm honestly not sure how that happens. I think there can be general agreement on what makes up "progressive goals" on some issues, not on some others. Where there's direct conflict we shouldn't waste our time, but what if the differences are a lot smaller than we've been led to believe? I'm thinking of environmentalists and labor in Seattle here.

:hi: yourself. :)

[buddhamama]

18. the article above mentioned identity

the repubs have it and the democrats don't.

where i have trouble is where the lines begin to blur.

for instance, the Democrats have, for the most part, been associated with Civil Rights; that is part of our indentity. How do then indentify ourselves as the party of Civil Rights, while at the same time appealing to the Democrat who believes in Civil Rights, just not for gays and lesbians.

i understand that dialog is important and it is going on as we speak, but in all honesty, i have come to believe that things need to get worst before than can get better.

Seattle is an example of this. In the beginning is was mostly enviromental groups and indigenous gorups, but when the Labor sector was affected badly by the WTO,NAFTA, their position began to change and so did their willingness to listen to the before labeled *whackos*.

[ulysses]

19. good question

for instance, the Democrats have, for the most part, been associated with Civil Rights; that is part of our indentity. How do then indentify ourselves as the party of Civil Rights, while at the same time appealing to the Democrat who believes in Civil Rights, just not for gays and lesbians.

First off, I'm not talking about an "official" party position which, as it stands now, isn't too bad. (http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2000platform.pdf) As a personal/local issue, I don't mean to pander to those who oppose gay civil rights, but rather to make common cause with those in the religious community who do not. My point isn't that we should compromise basic stances, but rather work outside our own primary points of interest where we can.

i understand that dialog is important and it is going on as we speak, but in all honesty, i have come to believe that things need to get worst before than can get better.

You may well be right.

[buddhamama]

21. okay, on to image and identity

can't we just puff out chests grunt a little and be proud of our party and what it stands for, instead of hiding behind the 'repair the damage' language? on that one issue we need to get tough.

look at how much excitement is generated around here when a pol or other public figure says exactly what we've been saying about the repubs and don't shy away from the DEM party.

on the local issue, i'm with you.

[ulysses]

22. we're agreed here

can't we just puff out chests grunt a little and be proud of our party and what it stands for, instead of hiding behind the 'repair the damage' language? on that one issue we need to get tough.

The problem is that "what it stands for" has been largely rendered meaningless by the "go along to get along" camp. And by "damage" I meant the damage to the nation. We do need to get tough, and in a hurry.

look at how much excitement is generated around here when a pol or other public figure says exactly what we've been saying about the repubs and don't shy away from the DEM party.

Right. What we have to do is to translate our excitement here into concrete action beyond DU.

[buddhamama]

23. i wasn't quoting you there

"repair the damage", is how refer to the language used by the "go along to get along camp" or the "holy smokes, we may have just lost a independent voter with that one" camp.

you know what scares me away, when i think of local politics and stuff, i think school boards,etc, and i lose all interest.

i hate politics and really don't have the personality for it.

if i can do what i've been doing dealing with localized issues then i am cool.

[KG]

9. you are totally incoherent.

but answer me this, why do i keep get russian spam in cryllic? :shrug:

[ulysses]

12. LOL

We're on the same mailing lists, evidently. :D

[Brewman_Jax]

14. G'day, ulysses!

Unfortunately, you're correct. The "greed is good" mindset extolled in the movie Wall Street, and reminescent of the 80's won't be turned any time soon.

As long as "big" people get away with crimes, (e.g. Rush, Ken Lay) and "little" people want to be like them, I don't have a lot of hope.

I'd ramble more, but it's time to go home. :hi:

[ulysses]

15. we have to fight the mindset.

The entire thing. The culture of greed will forever trip us up until we can effectively answer it.

[Cleita]

16. My whole life seems to be about Democrats cleaning up

Republican messes. I was born in 1940 and Roosevelt had the task not only of cleaning up after Hoover and the depression, but he had to steer us through WWII. Things went well after Truman and fortunately Eisenhower was too much of a centrist to muck up what Truman had accomplished. We had Kennedy and Johnson, who did a lot of good things domestically but erred in Vietnam. After that, things started going downhill with Nixon.

Each succeeding Republican administration has trashed any good that was done by Democratic administrations. So instead of moving forward with domestic and national programs to improve the lot of our country and the world, it seems every new Democratic administration has to go in with a broom to get us back to where we were and we aren't moving forward.

Radical change is really in order.

[ulysses]

17. "Radical change is really in order."

Yes. That's largely what animates my opposition to the DLC.

[ulysses]

20. a little

:kick: for the just-home-from-work crowd...

[tigereye]

24. That is scary and telling stuff

You do hear people parroting those types of phrases a lot and I always wonder why they refuse to think about what the words actually mean and then think through the subtext. I had a colleague who used to rant about "pork" and taxes, and when I asked him what he thought these things were he had no idea what he was actually talking about.

Although I am afraid that Prof Lakoff is right on some level, as someone who:

1. spends a lot of time challenging set beliefs in my work and asking people to ask themselves questions about that current belief system

2. Someone who has done a lot of family therapy,

I can't help but see almost a John Rosemond vs. Benjamin Spock construct operating here. BTW John is right sometimes, but don't we as adults have the ability to see past a child-think structure- I guess put out by the Republicans- in our reasoning? I know I am wading into deconstructionist waters here without a paddle, so sorry. I am fascinated by deconstruction and it's powers, but can't say I understand it.

The Republican plot also seems similar to the work of that psychologist(?) the SUV people paid to help marketers pitch the Hummer and other gas guzzling vehicles as " this large vehicle will keep you safer since the world is scary, but you will be bigger than anything else" ( 60 Minutes last year.) Or Conservative use of Sociobiology?