Citizen's Rent 2005

A Housekeeping Note for Democrats

Bush pitches privatization by saying that when it comes to social security, everything is on the table. He gets to sound broad minded and open. The small print of course is that private accounts, benefits for folks 55 and over, and tax hikes are not on the table.

I just read a comment by a Democratic congressman where he said Democrats wouldn't engage in a discussion about social security until private accounts are off the table. (Yes, the metaphor falls apart.) We ought to be saying instead that when it comes to the solvency of social security, everything is on the table except privatization, since that accelerates insolvency.

Let's not fall into the trap of being the party that uses negative language. The Republicans are going to try and paint us as the party that just says no, that won't engage in the business of government. Let's not make it easier for them by using negative language in reaction to them.

Beinart Assumes Too Much

What a surprise to discover from Peter Beinart in today's Washington Post that Democrats have been alienated from the military, that we don't respect them, that we don't share the same culture as the men and women who serve.

Democrats have been alienated from the military since Vietnam, almost as long as Republicans have been alienated from African Americans. They need a generational strategy to repair the rift. Criticizing the Bush administration for failing to provide current and former troops and their families the medical and other benefits they deserve is a start. So is developing a cadre of national Democrats with real defense expertise -- something the party has often lacked since Sam Nunn left the Senate and Les Aspin the House -- so Democrats can speak the military's language.

But the biggest problem is cultural. Democrats should acknowledge that at times the left's understandable anger over Vietnam degenerated into a lack of respect for the military.

[snip]

Genuine multiculturalism is not just about race, ethnicity and gender. It's about embracing people whose culture differs from yours, in hopes of finding core principles that you share. Over the past four years, Republicans have done that. Now Democrats must too. (emphasis mine)

Hogwash. The military culture is not foreign to Democrats. There are veterans, active duty personnel, and military family members in the Democratic party. The military culture of honor, respect for country, loyalty to fellow servicemen and women, duty, integrity, respect for chain of command and responding to the call of your country is NOT a foreign culture. I'm offended that it's assumed to be so, that it's presented as fact. Bullshit. I will not sit idly by and be accused of seeing the military culture as foreign. (Yeah, it's personal. My Dad is a retired Navy officer with a tour in Vietnam and my sister and step-brother are Navy vets as well.)

It's not just me. The members of my local Veterans for Kerry group would be surprised to find that the Democratic party views them as living in a different culture, that democrats lack respect for the military, that opposition to the "don't ask don't tell" policy is really an anti-military stance. Retired military officers who organized to protest Bush's policies would be surprised to learn that the Democrats don't respect them. The veterans who need VA assistance and see it being cut by the Republicans would be surprised to learn that the Democratic support for the programs they need doesn't actually mean they support the military.

Someone needs to tell Beinart to put down his pen and think about what he's writing before he writes it. He provides fodder to those who want to smear Democrats as anti-military while providing no real insight for the party. His only advice after establishing the "fact" that the Democrats don't embrace the military is for Howard Dean to reprimand universities that don't allow military recruiters on campus because they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Is this really the big answer to the alleged problem? Will veterans everywhere suddenly breathe a sigh of relief and feel at home in the Democratic party if we insist that military recruiters can target the ivy league? Please.

If the Democrats want to improve their image in regard to the military - and I do believe that if there's a problem it's primarily one of perception - then support for military recruiting of ivy leaguers isn't the way to do it. We need to utilize Wesley Clark and other retired military men and women. We need to highlight our efforts to support our troops by providing the hardware they need to fight and stay alive. We need to promote the veteran's programs the Democrats have tried to protect from being cut in the Bush budgets. We need to push for a strong exit strategy for Iraq, hold civilian leaders accountable for choices that put our men and women at risk unnecessarily. We need to target attention on how Republican policies hurt the military. We need to consider expanding the size of our forces to reduce our reliance on the National Guard. We need to ensure that those Guard members who risked their lives in Iraq and suffered permanent disabilities have the same benefits and support that active military receive.  There's real work that can be done that communicates our support and respect for the military. It's far more valuable than breaching the gates of the ivy league.

The bottom line is that if you're going to smear the Democrats by saying we don't respect or understand the military culture, then have the decency to make a worthwhile suggestion or two. Otherwise, stay off the pages of the Washington Post.

Democrats: In Need of Marketing

As I've thought about the Democratic party and what it needs to do, I keep coming back to the belief that there isn't a fundamental error in our party positions (key word here - fundamental). Instead, we've got a marketing and sales weakness.

We are not marketing ourselves, our party, our ideas effectively. And we aren't selling anyone. We need to apply classic marketing practices here, as though our stand on issues, our candidates, are products being marketing to red, blue and purple America. We need to segment the market, identify "buyer objections" and frame our message and materials to eliminate them, package the product to target specific buyers, position the product in the market, create a compelling brand, develop market messages that communicate the brand values, etc.

Oso nails this in discussions about smart marketing, talking Republican. Once we've got an overriding them (I've proposed 'fairness' in this post), then we can begin to frame our message, market our ideas, and close the sale. Individually, we can accept Oso's challenge to 'convert' one Republican. On a larger scale, the DNC, NGOs, and 527s need to build out marketing plans based on market segmentation and knowing the market. Real market research is needed. What do Republicans think of the Democratic party? Of the left? What are their biggest objections? What positions keep them out? We know there are geographic segments that we need to target. What about economic segments? Educational?  You get the idea. I'd really like to see this done right and done now. We can't wait until the next election season gets under way.

Democrats: In Search of a Core Principle

As I've come to terms with the election results, I've found it challenging to shift from a short term focus to a long term one. When it came to blogging, there's been an urgency attached to the election that drove me forward, compelled me to post. With the Bush win, I've felt untethered. There are so many things to think about, post about, consider. Mostlly, I've been thinking about the Democrats message and methods and wondering how to modify or improve them so that we can peel off another 5% of the population from the purple zones.

While there's disagreement over whether the party needs to tilt right or left, everyone seems to agree that the Dems need better messaging, that a philosophical framework is needed. It's not that the party is without principles, but we seem to have a grab bag of them instead of a clear foundation or framework. The question is- what's the framework? And once we figure that out, what's the strategic message, what's the tactical plan for spreading it? There are interesting discussions on this going on at Feministe (cross posted with comments at PBA HQ), Oso and ISOU for starters. If you're only going to read one, read Oso.

I've been noodling on question of the left's philosophical framework or rather a core definig principle. It needs to be simple, compelling, accessible, and broad. It needs to be relevant whether the discussion is domestic policy, the war on terror, international relations, or values. The right targets personal responsibility. You can tie this to small government, faith-based initiatives, anti-abortion, abstinence programs, gun ownership, spreading freedom, et al.

We need an equally broad concept. The one I see popping up is tolerance. I do think that we are the party of tolerance, but I suspect that if we embrace this as our core principle that it will be interpreted as us telling the right that they have to tolerate us and our immoral ways. I don't think tolerance will fly but it's clearly a core element for our party.

My ideas on a core principle are focused on equality, leveling the playing field, and a commitment to fairness. Everyone can recall a time when they felt righteous indignation over a real or perceived unfair thing. "That's not fair!" "You play dirty!" Everyone knows that life isn't fair - but that doesn't mean we can't fight for fairness. Fairness is almost universally understood. We all have an almost instinctual understanding of "playing fair", a gut level defensive response to the unfair. I haven't figured out an easy or compelling phrase to communicate this, but I think it might work as a core principle for the Dems. Here's a first pass at communicating this.

America's greatness is rooted in the belief that "all men are created equal" and that we all have the same right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The very structure of our government is designed to protect those basic rights, to make it difficult to limit our rights to pursue our dreams. The bill of rights gives us all the same rights and protections - it's fair.

The Democratic party is committed to fairness in public and private life, to ensure a level playing field for every American as we each pursue our own version of the American dream, to be a model of fairness to the world in its relationships with other countries.

• Abortion: It's only fair that women be able to make their own decision about their bodies, their pregnancies, and their own moral position when it comes to abortion. 
• Gay Marriage: It's only fair to permit people with a life long, loving, committed, monogomous relationship to have the legal protections that marriage confers.
• Social Security: It's only fair that people who have paid into the system for their entire working lives receive the benefit they paid for, that we not put that at risk.
• Deficits: It's only fair that we pay for our own generation's spending.
• War: It's only fair that we truly exhaust all diplomatic options before sending our servicemen and women into war, before we ask them to risk their lives.

You get the idea. Of course, the beauty here is that we get to point out the unfairness of opposing positions, harnessing the natural reaction to unfairness to target opposing postions.

I'm curious to hear what others think. I don't think the language I'm using is the right language. But I do think the concept works.

America stands for freedom and justice. For freedom to prosper and justice to triumph, we need a level playing field.

Let me know what you think.