Jim Webb says Democrats should focus on kitchen-table populism before global warming

[jefferson_dem]

This may be a controversial mix of priorities to some but I like it...politically. It certainly firms up my desire for Obama-Webb in 2008.

Appearing yesterday on Meet the Press, Webb discussed his party's challenge on bringing back security-minded voters who believe Democrats have become anti-military.

But I was struck by another, less prominent, passage in the book in which he takes his party to task for veering away from kitchen-table populism. Some Democrats, Webb writes, have learned from the GOP's using social issues to bring over working-class voters:

But at this writing, there are probably as many among the Democratic Party's top leadership who are touting hard-to-grasp themes such as the environment and global warming as the prime political issues of the coming decade as there are leaders who are willing to face the political minefield of economic fairness to our workers.

Issues such as gobal warming are indeed troubling, but at a time when our national security is in such disarray and our workers are watching their jobs disappear, those themes are no clear enough to r strong enough to generate a defining, rock-hard support any broadly based political platform. To understand this reality, one need only consider basic human nature, according to the hierarchy of needs. First, people want to eat and to be clothed and to procreate. Then they want employment and personal security. Once they have that, they look for meaningful careers and community stability, which also translates into national security. And once all of that is accomplished, they will be able to turn toward global issues such as the suffering on other continents and whether thet polar ice cap is melting.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Jim_Webb_unplugged.html

[ananda]

1. This is so FUCKING insane.

The only reason people believe that Dems
are anti military or soft on defense or
security is because they are very very
stupid, limited, or ignorant.

Media propaganda and incessant attacks
without proper rebuttal have caused people
to think this way. However, they were
more than willing to be swayed because
they are .. to repeat.. so stupid and full
of ignorance, bias, and hate.

[cynatnite]

3. Well said! n/t

[N4457S]

6. No...

...people believe it because they remember McGovern and Carter and Mondale and Dukakis.

If they are a little ignorant, biased and hateful (which sort of describes the average white southerner), given that there are more of them than there are of you...and you need their vote...just what in hell are you going to do about it?

The south is important and it will remain important. One thousand people per day move to Florida and it was one of the first states to pass a concealed carry handgun bill. I just talked to a tech support guy in Austin and the growth down there is completely nuts. Neither one of those states will go blue this year. Absolutely no fucking way.

This is the Democrats' problem. This why they can't win national elections.

There's a huge cultural divide and because of it they're not focused on the prize. I've actually heard people say they'd rather lose than betray their principles. I hear it every time Obama opens his mouth. That smug elitism and arrogance...it's there. People can taste it and smell it.

So, now we lose again. That's precisely what happened in 1968, 1972, 1984, 1988 and 2004.

Next case.

You can start calling us the American version of the NDP. They're the party everyone in Canada laughs at.

[liberal N proud]

9. The right wing propaganda keeps that image in their minds

And a majority of the public is too close minded to see it any other way

[N4457S]

10. Okay...

...so that's how it is.

What do you do about it?

Reorganize, realign and start winning again.

[Winterblues]

15. Every person you mentioned served in the military

How many in the Bush* Administration did? It is because of ignorance that the weak on defense is an acceptable topic. For forty years under Democratic rule America was kept safe and sound. During the ten years of Republican rule we were attacked on our very soil and the Administration had plenty of early warning for it.. Just because Republicans want to throw money at Defense Contractors does not mean they are good on National Defense. It means they love their kick backs...

[N4457S]

17. For Forty Years...

...we had a Democratic party that wasn't a captive of the progressive left.

Think less Bernie Sanders and more Sam Nunn.

Look at Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. She's taken a lot of shit lately but she's usually a safe bet to hold her seat.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. The people you mention above were right about Vietnam and right about Iraq

Maybe if we'd listened to people like Bernie Sanders a bit more, we wouldn't be stuck in an endless war. Seriously on what specific foreign policy issues were those people you mentioned above wrong about? Were we wrong to support an end to the pointless war in Vietnam? Were we wrong to not want to fund the Contras so that they could murder more children?

The people you have mentioned above all are interested in protecting America's interests in the realm of foreign policy. Just because they don't support every single far right wing idea like Sam Nunn does, doesn't mean that they are weak on defense. Sam Nunn also helped give Newt Gingrich control of Congress by derailing Clinton's proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the military. I don't see how it helps our national security to dismiss Arabic translators from the military for their sexual orientation when we have a severe shortage of them.

[N4457S]

19. Sure...

...but I can tell you for fact that both sides do this.

I worked for a engineering company in Pasadena that does a fair amount of black budget stuff for the DoD and DoE. Their CEO is so tight with Chris Dodd, you'd think they were brothers.

[Island Blue]

2. Sure, why not put off worrying about the fate of the planet

until after we destroy it. That will solve all of our problems. :crazy: This puts him at the bottom of my Obama VP list.

[VP505]

4. What good does it do

to ignore the health of the planet while addressing other so called problems to discover after its too late that this rock we live on is beyond revival? Then jobs/careers, eating, community stability and security just won't matter.

[asthmaticeog]

12. Nobody's suggesting ignoring the health of the planet.

Webb's suggesting putting a campaign emphasis on issues that are less abstract to the average person, who, it's worth mentioning in case you hadn't noticed, is bleeding resources right now. He isn't calling for blowing off the environment.

[jefferson_dem]

13. Exactly. Thanks for clarifying.

n/t

[Forkboy]

5. The trouble is that what's right politically isn't always right for the world.

This is Example A.

[N4457S]

7. Jim Webb...

...is a smart egg. We would do well to follow his advice.

And guess what? He's a Blue Dog.

Welcome to the future of the Democratic party.

[kentuck]

8. This is as simple as Maslow's hierarchy of needs...

It's difficult to think of other matters until the basics of food and shelter are satisfied. It's basic Psychology 101...

[cloudythescribbler]

11. So where's all those Democrats focusing on Global Warming before kitchen table populism???

This 'priority' is really a red-herring.

Obviously, if we get a Democrat in, we need to do what Clinton did not, namely focus the country on nationally televised hearings in Congress etc showing the public what is at stake and what we need to do to prevent catastrophe, instead of riveting the country on 'gays in the military' and other wedge issues that benefit the RW at the expense of authentic progressives.

I would add that CONCRETE policies addressing kitchen table populism need to be passed, and periodic significant reminders of the public of these things (eg raising the minimum wage, helping veterans, green collar jobs in a WPA analogue program, getting policy on New Orleans finally right (ie progressive left), more aid from the feds to state and local government etc) need to be made.

But the focus on global warming is PRIMARILY AFTER the election and PRIMARILY to raise the awareness of the public as policies are enacted to address the concerns at issue.

[TheFarseer]

14. This is what I think

Even if you don't believe in global warming, you can believe in saving money and not wasting resources. Burning up valuable oil makes us less secure by making oil more expensive and harder to get for our military. It increases our taxes by driving up the price that not only we pay, but also the government - they have more automobiles than anyone. It also hurts our economy by sending more of our money overseas. RWers want to pretend that global warming is the only reason to not waste our natural resources, but in fact there are plenty of reasons for everyone of any political persuasion. Call a RWer out on their bullshit by forcefully stating that not wasting fossil fuels and developing renewable energy is vital to our national security, our economy and our environment.

[RB TexLa]

16. That's how most Americans think, Me, Me, Me....

[OmahaBlueDog]

18. Many of the same solutions to global warming also fit the "energy independence" criteria

Fuel efficiency, alternatives to gasoline, self reliance, balancing trade by not importing oil from the Middle East -- these are all issues that can be seen as national security by those who choose not to believe in global warming.

[Toucano]

21. I think he has a point. It is possible to tailor our message to different audiences.

It is possible to accomplish both.

We're good enough. We're smart enough. And, doggoneit! People like us!