New Coke.

JKD offers a great commentary on a terrible article.

As he notes, the key passage from Paul Starr is:
"...liberal Democrats ought to ask themselves a big question: are they better off as the dominant force in an ideologically pure minority party, or as one of several influences in an ideologically varied party that can win at the polls? The latter, it seems clear, is the better choice."

You know when I was younger I used to assume that people rose to positions of influence and prominence because of ability. I used to think, "hey that guy gets paid to think about politics and tell me about it, there's a good chance he knows what he's talking about." Years later, turns out.... not so much. The idea that the failure of the Democratic Party is traceable to intransigence from ideologically pure liberals is horseshit. Or rather it's whatever item horseshit finds as objectionable as we find horsehit. Now, I don't propose we nominate Dennis Kucinich. But accomodationist efforts have simply neutered the message. The image that springs to mind is of a raft...when floating in shark infested waters, offering the sharks your remaining food in order to satiate them isn't wise. But then apparently wisdom doesn't get you anything these days.

I've come to believe more and more in the philosophy of strong and wrong vs. weak and right. And frankly I think it's a false choice, because being strong is right, and being weak is both wrong in strategic and policy terms. Parties, as I understand them, exist to create order and structure out of a chaotic political process. They are brands or intellectual shortcuts for voters. When confronted with myriad choices from President down to coroner.* People just want to know that the D and the R mean something. If a brand such as Coke where to come out with a commercial saying: "Pepsi, it's alright, and in fact we've decided to share bottles, from now on buy Coke's newest product: Coksi" they get hammered in the market. Just to offer some historical perspective, remember New Coke. New Coke started out as an attempt by Coke to counter a perceived move in consumer preference towards a sweeter soda. Pepsi did these silly taste tests and sure enough it beat Coke in the Pepsi conducted test. (Side note, turns out Pepsi still wins in a single sip taste test, but people buy 2liters or cans, and after a full can or 2liter people now, as always prefer Coke--because it's stronger and less syrupy). Coke flipped out, and decided that despite being the choice of millions of people for 75 years, it needed to be more like Pepsi. Sound familiar. Democrats do some focus grouping, find people like killing Iraqis, and boom...we jettison more than a century of Democratic ideals for New Democrat.

Instead, one option is to believe that we offer something that the American people like, and that if we continued to offer Classic Coke/Democrat or some pretty close facsimile that we might win. The metaphor breaks down a bit here, because I'm not suggesting we run Great Society II or New Deal: The Next Generation. But rather, that trying to copy, mimic and change our brand only muddies the water. The more we capitulate and the more we imitate the more we risk "New Coking" the Party even further.


*Coroner?! How the fuck am I qualified to judge who should be county coroner. I just picture an attack ad: Ominous voice over guy: "Bob Adams says you can trust him to be the Larimer County coroner, but on three ocassions he's been found slow dancing with dead bodies. (image shows Tom Petty's "Last Dance With Mary Jane" video)

These are not for use for propaganda means. They are the truth."

Editor and Publisher has an article about new talking points cards being issued to every soldier in Iraq. The cards list helpful things that the soldiers should say to embedded journalists. Things like: "We are a values-based, people-focused team that strives to uphold the dignity and respect of all." and "The Marine Corps is trained, resourced, and ready to accomplish its missions. We are committed to the cause and will remain in Iraq as long as we are needed."

It's not enough that this administration drapes it's agenda both foreign and domestic in fatigues, now it's vital to our safety that we have schilling soldiers. What if the talking points are wrong, for instance when the Marines are not "resourced." "Capt. Landis responded to such criticism by defending the promotion of positive aspect, but stressing that no one was being asked to lie. 'These are not for use for propaganda means,' he told E&P. 'They are the truth.'"

Fantastic.

Salvador Option

I went home for the weekend and when I return to the land of the wired, I learn that the US is considering returning to death squads. (or at least returning publicly). I don't have the capacity to address the actual horror that this represents, I'm just going to focus on the words.

A question I've asked before, only to be disappointed with teh answer: Has the Admin finally gone too far? Again, in this case, I'd love to believe that Ameican's have no stomach for death squads, but I'm not sure. In thinking about the groups, I hope that Democrats only ever refer to these groups as Death Squads. Newsweek uses the term The Salvador Option. The Salvador Option makes it seem like an entree, at a fancy restaurant.

Death Squad. That's what it is. We are promoting teams of people who go around and torture and terrorize others. Death squad. The inclination is to call it by it's other name...terrorist, as the proposed actions fall well within most definitions of the term. But I'd really be wary of the term "terrorist death squad." My sense is that terrorist no longer describes a set of actions but rather a perceived race, ethnicity, religious affiliation. So describing Americans leading terrorist death squads only makes the left look hysterical and the cognitive dissonance will get the message lost. So death squads it is. Thoughts....

UPDATED.

This applies to something I've been thinking for a while now. I think that the calculus being used by a lot of people goes something like this. What is the harm (real or perceived) that our enemies (whomever they are) wish us? The answer pushed by this administration is death and the destruction of our way of life. So what measures are morally justified in the attempt to thwart this? Answer: Anything short of "their" level of evil is morally appropriate. But because all our actions are taken in prevention of some evil X they are imbued with noble intention and therefore can never be so evil as the actions they seek to prevent. Therefore no matter what we do it is more moral than the actions we seek to prevent. So Abu Ghraib is fine because it's not as bad as a rape room, or September 11th. And death squads are fine because:

"Their aim is to establish a fascist theocracy. Our aim is free elections. If we need to kill them to do so, it is a righteous fight." (From Lucianne.com, a right wing site)

Any thoughts on how we get out of this moral do loop.

Cuba

What do you think about Cuba? Let that settle in for a minute.






Good. Now let's get down to business. It occured to me the other day that this is yet another issue on which conservatives have gotten the jump on liberals (say, 40-years-ish jump). Yes, this happened while watching The Godfather, Part II. But in any event...odd are that you, as a liberal, don't really have a particularly well-thought-out set of views with regards to Cuba - either in terms of present policies or post-Castro. Mostly, it's probably pretty oppositional to the interests of the rabid-right-wing Cuban exile community - which is something of a mistake, on some things.

Conservatives have a completely coherent set of views regarding Cuba and a very particular set of policies to implement now and post-Castro. Namely - they hate Castro, can't wait until he's dead, and are chomping at the bit to attempt to both restore ownership of seized assets to the Cuban exiles and then privatize the rest. Suffice to say, they don't think all too much about what the actual current occupants of Cuban - save for the "freedom" they rather meaninglessly extol, freedom meaning, in their minds, a dead Castro.

Now. Castro sucks. He is an arrogant windbag, represses free speech, tortures dissidents. He's stuck with a failed economic system that leaves his people with near zero economic production, and one of the lowest standards of living in the world - though, it's true, with excellent health care and education, and a pretty shockingly high life expectancy given the standard of living.

But Castro - and his brother, who will likely succeed him - can't be gone quick enough for my tastes. When that happens - and it will, in 10-15 years' time - this will be an enormous opportunity for both the American Left and the United States to improve its image all over the world, particularly Latin America.

How? Well, my feeling is that Cuba - as a state with high education and health - is a perfect laboratory for what can happen when post-welfare state, post-IMF social democratic policies are put into place. There will be a substantial social democratic political presence on the island among intellectuals and the populace who value the good things that Cuba has while also hating Castro's repression, and it will be important for the Left of the United States to support that movement, and keep it from getting steamrolled by the Bacardis/GOP/other extractive interests.

The issues are not simple - property ownership is a tricky river to navigate when you realize that, in addition to the Bacardis, there were indeed many Coreleone-style asset-holders, whose assets were perhaps not entirely legitimately acquired to begin with. [Side note - of special importance to yours truly is the preservation of Havana Club Rum's independence, and keeping it from getting smashed by the Bacardis, who are nervous as all hell about Americans actually being able to drink rum that is, you know, good]. But there are ways to do foreign investment that are of benefit to local populations, as well as being profitable.

Now, I haven't laid out anything much specific here, with good reason - I don't know quite what I think, myself (I had absolutely no idea what to think of the Elian Gonzalez deal lo these many years ago) . But I know that I ought to be thinking more about it; so, discuss.

Stand Up

Look, yesterday when I said on my other blog:

While we dither about on the American left talking about how to say the things we really want to say in order that we most effectively trick people into voting for us...

I meant it. I am sick of people talking about framing, just as I was sick of people talking about "electability" and what will "play well in the South." That dog don't hunt.

Iowa's two senators are Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin - Grassley is not a total unthinking Neanderthal, but he's definitely an old-school conservative. And all this blathering on about how Kerry was the most liberal senator? Please. The oldest of the old-school liberals is Tom Harkin. And yet both he and Grassley represent the same state - which voted for Gore in 2000, Bush in 2004 - and get elected with pretty much the same share of the vote. Which is to say, by massive majorities.

The Senate seat of Tom Harkin's good friend, the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, is now held by a man who, more or less, does whatever Bush wants.

There are very few true single-issue voters, as a share of the electorate. On anything. And there are almost zero situations where their party alleigance is not scripted in advance (that is, they aren't gonna vote for the other party no matter what, even if the candidate shares their views on the single-issue issue). Abortion is the one biggie, and the anti-abortion folks have more single-issue voters on that than we do for choice, but not, in practice, by a lot. It might even be a wash.

Most people vote with somebody they feel comfortable with. And people feel comfortable with leaders who do what they say and say what they mean - on either side. There is a vast pool of voters out there who are perfectly willing to disagree with mcuh of what a politician believes in but still vote for them 'cause they like 'em, and the other guy seems like too much of a 'politician.'

Be that, too - say what you mean, mean what you say, and respect people. 'k?

A common theme of common good.

So I'm thinking more and more about what I'd like to do, and speech writing or something near that continues to pop into my consciousness as an attractive endeavor.

I began to look through Americanrhetoric.com to read and reread some great speeches, and read parts of LBJ's "We Shall Overcome" speech. One section reminded me of a recently delivered speech. Each seems to be a call for unity and the common good that works.

The issue of equal rights for American Negroes is such an issue.
And should we defeat every enemy, and should we double our wealth and conquer the stars, and still be unequal to this issue, then we will have failed as a people and as a nation. For with a country as with a person, "What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem. And we are met here tonight as Americans -- not as Democrats or Republicans. We are met here as Americans to solve that problem.

And now Sen. Obama:

There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

Howard Dean from his December 7th speech:

In America, there is nothing black or white about having to live from one paycheck to the next.Hunger does not care what color we are.In America, a conversation between parents about taking on more debt might be in English or it might be in Spanish, worrying about making ends meet knows no racial identity.Black children and white children all get the flu and need the doctor. In both the inner city and in small rural towns, our schools need good teachers.When I was in medical school in the Bronx, one of my first ER patients was a 13-year-old African American girl who had an unwanted pregnancy. When I moved to Vermont to practice medicine, one of my first ER patients was a 13-year-old white girl who had an unwanted pregnancy.They were bound by their common human experience.There are no black concerns or white concerns or Hispanic concerns in America. There are only human concerns.

I don't quite know how, but these seem to me "words that work." Harnessing simple ideas that transcend some group distinction. Some small attempt to foster community through shared problems. I'd also suggest that we include shared successes. This seems ripe for environmental use. There is nothing black nor white about the water we drink, air we breathe and soil we plow. There are mighty forests in the red states and sprawling strip malls in the blue.

It's not about X or Y it's a matter of quality of life. If the air I breate is cleaner yours will be too. If my child gets a better education in the public schools I'd ask nothing less for yours.

There are other more cheesy things Local officials can talk about: There's nothing Democratic or Republican about loving the "Fighting Mustangs" or whatever. But by highlighting the size and breadth of the progressive vision we do ourselves a greater service. I don't quite know how to use this thought, but I hope someone can take it and give it legs.

See, There Was This Girl...

And her name was Jenna Bush. Did you hear that she will soon be working at a charter school in D.C.? Take this with a grain of salt (as you should given the Kevin Baconness of the degree to which I know this person) but she will be a teaching assistant whom the students call "Miss Jenna." Her primary responsibilities will include leading reading groups. It's unclear whether the students have actually realized "Miss Jenna" is the daughter of President Bush -- a fact that may prompt some untoward sixth-graders to cause a stir.

A few thoughts here: we always need more teachers, so fine. Should sixth-graders be able to recognize the President's family members? I think probably.

When did this blog get all Drudge-y? I'll try to post more enlightening items in the future...

What's Next

So I posted this over at my other blog, and wanted to post it here, too, as I think that,
a) I'm on to something, and
b) I haven't dug quite as deeply into it as can be done

So:

Next up after they end Social Security (or at least attempt to - that is what they're doing, make no mistake), the GOP is going to go after labor unions. Now, they've been going after labor unions for a while, but this next phase will be different. How?

They are going to challenge the ability of labor unions to even exist.

The way this will happen will be as follows: for the next several years, the economy is going to continue to sputter along (there's a growing chance that everything will just go to shit - this might help this particular effort, but it also would introduce certain elements of uncertainty that I can't quite account for yet), and there will be growing dissatisfaction with the economic situation. Then, sometime in 2005 or 2006 (maybe '06, after the midterms), the GOP will come up with the solution, the thing that is holding the economy back - unions.

Of course, this is ludicrous, as nearly all high-wage industries with heavy union saturation have been more or less eviscerated in this country (e.g., steel, heavy manufacturing). The remaining sectors of the workforce that are largely or partially unionized - teachers and other public-sector workers, hotel, hospital and service workers - are, for the most part, still underpaid relative to their value to society and/or their industry.

Breaking the back of America's remaining unions would do nothing but increase the debt level of middle class families who are already having trouble making it.

But no matter! The presence of unions - any unions, anywhere, in this country - keeps business from squeezing every last cent of short-term profit from the balance sheets (long-term, unions are essential for an advanced capitalist economy), which as far as the Bush administration is concerned is pretty much pure evil.

So, jabber away.