Controlling the debate: Subverting the message of the Regressives.

[chaska]

In another discussion http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2800136 I raised the point that if we were to threaten to guillotine the rich the pugs would shut up about gays, race and abortion pretty darn quick.

I think I may have stumbled upon the truth there. The reason the Republicans can get away with talking about such things is that they recognize that people need enemies. I don't think this is a controversial point. I have heard it from sources that I don't, at the moment, feel the need to challenge. People need enemies, and the pugs are providing them. We must provide them our own set of enemies.

The reason the pugs can attack gays is because we are not attacking them with our own redmeat issues. Like I said before, if you want to shut 'em up about gays, race and abortion talk about their shrinking paycheck. And do it with all the force and anger that the blue collar guys (and I have been one most of my working life) exhibit when they get their paychecks. Not all rich people are evil (wink), but they are our demon. Attack the rich with all the ferocity that the pugs attack gays. And because the working man is extremely receptive (believe you me) to this message we will have them on our side in no time.

To sum up: When gays, et al are attacked, hit them with an attack on the rich. Poor folk hate a man taking food off their families more than they hate gays.

How's that sound to ya'll? Make sense? Care to help me refine this?

[tk2kewl]

1. I agree

I also think we should loudly start blaming corporate money and runaway profit motive for cultral decline.

Its not the liberal-elite (do it 'casue if fells good) that is causing cultural decline. it is the relentless profit motive (do it 'cause it sells)

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

2. Religious zealots blurring the lines of church and state...

they are my enemies because there is no issue they find too insignificant to meddle in. By demonizing "the rich", which, depending on your definition, includes many educated professionals seeking hope from the rational Democrats, you may end up alienating groups of people who are future supporters.

[chaska]

5. Yes, that's exactly what we want.

Sorry Mod, but it's you who should be struggling to decide which party you want to be in. the Democratic party is the party of the worker. We welcome all who will support the worker, first.

Not intended to be a personal attack.

[Gold Metal Flake]

10. Fat cat is still an effective image.

We do NOT need to split hairs when it comes to demonizing fat cats. Good wealthy folks are not fat cats, and they know it.

Hand-wringing will hurt us more.

[KT2000]

3. How about healthcare?

People do not realize that when a person does not have health insurance, doctors will not see them. How moral is that?
WA state is ready to add 40,000 more to the uninsured soon because of program cuts.
The charity clinic in my town is swamped with people between the ages of 20 and 50. Many have chronic illnesses that have spiraled out of control - but they could have been controlled if caught earlier. I am talking about diabetes and heart disease.

The repugs framed that issue to make people without insurance the enemy. Not very moral.

[sandnsea]

4. It's old and tired

and working people now believe the rich man gives them their jobs and work hard and put up the capital to earn their riches. Plenty of Democrats believe it too. It won't work. It's part of what was wrong in this election, too much of it sounded like a hate the rich campaign.

What might work is to appeal to their pride. That old Abe Lincoln quote,

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

The working man has as much right to fight for his share of the pie as the capitalist and nobody ever gave anybody anything without a fight.

[chaska]

6. Apologies sand and sea, but I couldn't disagree more.

No, we never played the class warfare card. We were accused of it every other second of the day, but.... And the reason we were accused of it is because the pugs know that this is the issue that sinks them. The reason we haven't been able to use it is because our leadership are rich pug lite types themselves. That's why those people have to go.

[sandnsea]

15. It sounded like it

Even the roll back of the tax cuts for the top 2% ended up sounding too much like "tax the rich". It really isn't a question of whether class warfare is ever the intention, they are able to frame it that way. Working people are thoroughly convinced that their bosses need those tax breaks in order to keep them working. You can ignore it if you want, but that doesn't make it any less true. You may think Kerry pulled back from Benedict Arnold CEO's to appease business; but it's just as likely he pulled back from it because working people were offended that the companies they'd spent their lives working for were being called Benedict Arnolds. I think attacking the corporate structure will work alot better than straight out attack the rich, and I think appealing to working people's pride to fight for what is rightfully theirs will work better too.

[bvar22]

23. It sounded like "tax the rich"....

...because Kerry let the corporatists frame it that way. He could have shot right back, "This isn't a tax the rich program. It is a Make the Rich pay their Fair Share Program!!!

Right back at em!

[sandnsea]

25. He did

So did Bill Clinton. Wealthy people are ready to do pay their fair share in a time of crisis, bla bla, we've never cut taxes during a war. People preferred to believe the wealthy needed those tax cuts to create business and jobs. If you don't understand how the voters really think, you're never going to be able to reach them. The old ideas aren't going to work anymore.

[bvar22]

29. Your "explanation" is a perfect example.

The American electorate showed us "how the voters really think" in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, & 2004. They aren't listening to detailed explanations (at least the majority of them aren't). The attention span of most modern voters is as long as a bumper sticker. If it is over 5 secs, it won't make the soundbyte on the news.

Kerry didn't need to explain why repealing the tax cut for the upper 2% was justified in light of the precedent of taxation during wartime, he only need to shout "that the rich pay their fair share!" and move on to the next slogan!

For those of us who need more detail, the campaign committee could publish written, detailed policy and platform reports weekly in major newspapers. Most of us who need this data READ. The majority vote on soundbytes, not well constructed arguments and rebuttals.


You said:
"If you don't understand how the voters really think, you're never going to be able to reach them."

I say:
If it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, it won't reach the video voters!

[Gold Metal Flake]

11. Didn't folks believe that once before?

Like in the late 1800s? How did Progressives persevere then? You know, before the depression?

I think we may need to go back and read the speaches and the papers. This fight was faught before. The forces of *co and the neocons are students of history. So must we become.

Hand wringing will kill us.

[sandnsea]

16. I read Dewey's campaign against FDR

I'm going to post it some time in the next week. It might be quite an eye-opener. You have a good idea to go back and read some of those old labor union speeches too, maybe we can get some ideas there.

[Gold Metal Flake]

22. I look forward to your post!

Thanks.

[BillZBubb]

7. This thread makes me sad.

When I read the responses that say, "Oh, no don't do that we'll alienate so and so...".

That's why the Democrats will keep losing to imbeciles like Bush. We are wimps. We want to be nice. We want to be liked. We can't have "class warfare". We lose.

The right has successfully returned the public to the pre-1929 adulation of the capitalist class. The heroes are again business people. The ones most people would trust to control the economy are again business people. The memory of the Depression brought on by this type of self-serving moron is lost. Advantage Repugs.

The attack cannot be against the rich per se. It has to be against a certain types--the type that make millions and lay people off without qualms. The type who inherit millions and are parasites. The type who ship jobs overseas for a healthy bonus. The type who incorporate off shore to beat paying taxes. Etc, Etc. People can fit that to whichever individuals they see fit.

[chaska]

8. Anyone ever tell you ya look an awful lot like John Lennon?

I agree with most of what you said, but I think we might need to fight dirtier. I think that to attack the CEOs etc. may be too impersonal. It may not always be fair (Dems playing unfairly - heaven forfend) but every working person knows and sees rich people every day. If we point out to them that that asshole is driving a Beamer that came at the expense of his raise, I think that works better than blaming Rupert Murdoch ("Rupert who?"). I have heard the offshoring argument used many times before and while on the right track I don't think it was as effective as it could have been.

People need to realize, we gotta get down in the mud.

[sandnsea]

13. It isn't about being liked

It's about doing what works to win. I live with these working people who vote for Bush. They are not impressed with tax the rich anymore. Take it or leave it, but that's the way it is.

[Gold Metal Flake]

9. Brother, I am a southern poor working man now in SoCal and I am with you.

But, dammit, we need a national umbrella org in sych with us to synchronize and clarify the messages. Folks proved they could motivate and get the vote out. In doing so, we found the old Dem orgs are simply worn out, or possibly on the other side of the fence with the pigs.


I posted this in another thread (not that I make much sense):

-Waiting for something good to happen with the DNC chair is just time wasted. We all know that the DLC must be marginalized, but we need a big voice with which to launch the withering sacastic yet fact-based attacks that will be needed to stink up their punchbowl (they are at heart fat, lazy wussies, as we have seen. They will be no better at mounting a defense against an organized attack from the left than they have been from the right. Even if the Clintons join them). We need data, and data crunchers. We need voter roles and all the demographic shit the right posseses. We need an effective organization to guide the efforts, and we need it now. Let's try to make a decision.-

How do we get moving toether?

[XemaSab]

12. Fat cats

I think it's a good time to start attacking corporate fat cats.

The problem with an "eat the rich" strategy is that even Joe Lunch Pail identifies with the rich and wants to be wealthy someday.

A few years ago, I wasn't sure the anti-corporate dog would hunt, but that dog's RARING to get out with the offshoring and corporate scandals that have been big issues in the last few years.

The only problem is that the Democrats are taking corporate money almost as much as the republicans are, so no candidate who wants to have the cash to win an election will come out against the corporations, even the ones everyone knows are evil.

[sandnsea]

14. "Corporatism" isn't rich PEOPLE

Attack the faceless, unfair, subsidized, corporate structure; not rich PEOPLE.

[chaska]

17. What are corporations if not a conglomeration of stockholders?...

What are the rich if not stockholders? They also are getting the tax breaks, and voting for the Republicans. Sure, some don't deserve to be attacked. Too effin' bad. Do gays and racial minorities deserve to be attacked? Politics is a dirty business. Dirt wins.

Mature persons don't take personally what doesn't apply to them. The George Soros's of the world won't be offended that we choose this tactic. Those rich that side with us will realize this is what we must do to win. And who really cares what they think anyway. They are not our problem. Let the Republicans worry about them. We are a working class party. That's what it means to be a Democrat.

[sandnsea]

20. Geez, it's not THEM

It's the working people who do not think it is American, fair or economically smart to attack rich people just because they're rich. They really think that. I don't give two shits about what somebody with money thinks. I care about how the Democratic Party can get a message out, a message that is actually true and will make a change. Corporations are the most dangerous things we are facing, so let's attack the corporate structure because it is true and it takes class warfare completely out of the picture.

And by the way, when I suggested around here that the Democratic Party could END this mess in ONE DAY, just by pulling their investments, I got very few takers. They will stand together with people who want to make corporations be more responsible; but they won't give up their bucks to do it and neither will working people.

[XemaSab]

18. Corporatism

Is all about rich people wanting to make more money. What else would compel a CEO to fire all his American employees and move the business to Sri Lanka?

I think that CEO deserves the hatred of the people.

Discussing "outsourcing" like it's an abstract, unstoppable force of nature like continental drift ain't going to get people riled up.

We could stop outsourcing right now if there was the political will, but there just isn't, because both parties make money from that same CEO at campaign time.

[sandnsea]

21. "Corporatism" can be framed

Like socialism, communism, capitalism. You don't have to connect it to people, which immediately turns it back into a class warfare frame. You attack the economic unfairness of corporatism, the hidden costs to taxpayers, the brutalness of it overseas, and even outsourcing. People keep wanting to talk about framing the debate, but I guess they really mean they just want to keep running the same tape we've been playing for the last 40 years.

[chaska]

28. Yes, you are correct - of course.

We do need to hammer the hell away on corporatism. I agree wholeheartedly. Corporatism is probably the root cause of all our troubles in this company, uh, country.

But when so much of political money to mount these campaigns comes from corporations, can we get our leadership to bite the hand that feeds it? Lord knows, they need to take that leap of faith. We have proven that we can step in and finance the system. And doing so shames the other side if they don't follow our lead. And the majority of corporate money goes to the pugs anyway. But just like a cruise ship full of bloated pugs, the system does not turn easily - even when disaster is plainly dead ahead.

I have definite reservations. I think the whole anti-corporate thing may be a bit too impersonal and "intellectual" for Joe Sixpack. But Joe hates yuppies, this I know. He gets that. It relates to his life.

I don't know. I'm out on a limb. I don't know if this is a good idea or not, but I know we must target the working man. We have to get him back. This is of the absolute utmost importance. The Democratic party has become the party of the eggheads and yes, the yuppies.

And that, as we working class folk say, is fucked up.

[ThorsHammer]

19. Education; healthcare

Cheswick and I had a little dialog on one of the older threads (Dean speech), where we both agreed that everyone claims that they'd be willing to spend more if it went to education. I'd like to see the Dems on a national level push for something concrete here. NCLB may be a good idea in theory, but does nothing in practice if it's underfunded. The same idea works for healthcare. Something like this could really counteract the 'values' stuff, and should swing a lot of moderates over as well.

[bvar22]

24. My millionaire boss got a new Hummer...

...with his tax cut!

What did you get with yours?

[chaska]

26. I'd like to remind everyone...

that what I'm proposing here is giving our stolen working class base an enemy: Someone for them to hate, someone that brings them back to our side. The reason I want to give them an enemy is because people think in terms of diametric opposition. They need an enemy, and right now they choose gays, liberals and racial minorities. As a liberal, I feel a little uncomfortable recommending this strategy, but better they should direct their anger in a direction that actually helps move them toward a better life.

I want to give them as close as we can get to an actual real live face. The more personal we can make it the better. Remember how hated Newt Gingrich was? We need another Newt, but one that embodies the very concept of 'rich asshole'. 'Rich asshole' and practically nothing else - no other salient qualities, in other words.

I haven't thought this part through yet, but I strongly suspect that it's the middle class that doesn't hate the rich. I think the vast majority of working stiffs do. There are probably a lot of people that won't admit to it, or those that don't can be tipped in that direction easily enough.

And we must remember that public opinion is changeable.

We must get our base back. And consider this: Most Hispanics are part of this group, and they are by no means securely ours. If we lose them because of abortion (they are predominantly Catholic remember) and/or "moral values", we are done. Hispanics will outnumber every other group in the not too distant future. We must get our base back, and if this isn't the way to do it I'd like to hear suggestions as to how we can.

Retrieving our working class base should be our number one priority. It's not just necessary, it's the historical foundation of the party, and the right thing to do.

[XemaSab]

27. Rich asshole

Why does Dick Cheney spring suddenly to mind when I hear those words?