Comments on: Restoring the liberal brand

By: Robert Fernandez

Robert Fernandez — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:23:26 +0000

If Liberal is to become a �clean� or, at the very least, neutral word, the Democrats will have to, from one conservative�s point of view:
a) recognize as real and deeply, widely held the Republican voter from Tennessee�s sentiments and disenfranchisement, as Mr. Grossman, if I am reading correctly, points out;
b) denounce, for example, when Pres. Clinton uses a position of authority to seduce a ‘young’ woman under his supervision, as the Liberal National Organization for Woman did not do immediately outright but would have for any high profile CEO, manager or Republican MOC, admin. official, party leader, etc., e.g. the hypocrisy point mentioned by Mr. Grossman that is also associated to Dem’s on issues such as wealth, race relations (within party), corruption, etc., etc. (Note: not at the exclusion of any Rep. hypocrisy; we’re talking about increasing the brand value of ‘Liberal’ vis a vi the American people, not vs. the Rep. brand, right?); and,
c) in essence, stop “shoving it down Americans throat,” as the Rep. voter bluntly and eloquently, in a way, stated. While many Americans, many conservatives certainly, disagree with Dem’s on several deeply held issues such as guns, marriage, federal assistance, and others mentioned by the Rep. voter, that “shoving it down Americans throat” as conservatives feel is done, if only through accusations of Rep. or conservative ill-intent or ill-will of one kind or another, is neither productive, nor, more importantly, Democratic.
The Civil Rights Act and its core values by comparison to some of the issues of today were a broadly held, underlying American belief, with the exception of in the South. Gay marriage, gun control or elimination, increased taxes for government hand-outs (instead of for highway projects or other actual employment/work programs) and for massively inefficient, ill-managed and often times unresponsive bureaucracies are not. Gay unions, perhaps, is broadly supported (if so, it would be b/c of the underlying values of protecting individual/civil rights); not gay ‘marriage’, which goes beyond that. Forcing these public policies on all the American people is unlike civil rights and, therefore, does not work. These public policies, especially through their promotion, contribute to the Liberal is a dirty word condition first for reasons they feel imposed upon (forced), they�re wrapped in aspersions of human ill-will, and they�re exclusionary, e.g. disenfranchising, of the deeply-held beliefs of a significant number of Americans rather than being ‘inclusive’ (a Dem. rallying theme).
Just like abortion, any change on these deeply held issues must come from broad American public support, not through force.

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:49:24 +0000

Did we actually have imprisonment for debt here? I guess my main reference here is literature – I remember reading about it especially in Dickens, but also in Thackeray and Trollope. But I can’t recall any references in the 19th century American lit I’ve read, and I’ve seen quite a bit.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:27:32 +0000

Well, that’s big-hearted of you Mark–how surprisingly generous you are to favor additional subsidies for higher education.
It seems to me that’s what’s needed on some of your ideas is simply some proof-of-concept. Let’s really try to help kids go to college, instead of these lame attempts we’ve seen so far. I envision a single purchaser–a federal program–with the power to negotiate prices on behalf of recipients of federal student financial aid. The Feds can use that power to negotiate for the best price from the universities that spend so much without being accountable to the middle class. After all, the cost of education goes up and up every year, much faster than inflation.
If it works like we expect it would, we can even try it on Medicare Part D.
As for your statements: It’s my understanding that modern liberals sue to keep No. 1 out of public schools. If you could find a way to knock of that kind of nonsense you might win. Suffice it to say that the real effects of modern liberalism have more salience–and will, fortunately and unfortunately–than an ad campaign.

By: Hal Grossman

Hal Grossman — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:13:01 +0000

I like Mark’s thinking, but I doubt that the ads would get at the core problem. We are so ahistorical as a nation that voters don’t see any real connection between FDR, say, and any current Democrat. Many have only a vague notion of who FDR was.
I think the core problem has to do with hypocrisy. In the late 1960s in New York, the term “limousine liberal” came into common use, to mean wealthy liberals imposing policies that affect the middle and working class but not themselves. A prime example was the plan to build housing for poor people in Forest Hills, Queens, a middle-class area. This aroused strong, and successful, neighborhood opposition. The people on both sides of the issue were liberals, but those in Forest Hills were not in the elite and felt that the neighborhood they’d worked hard to get into would be damaged by policies conceived on Park Avenue.
This assumption has gone national, I think. Nominating Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and, especially, John Kerry has made it worse. Too many people who would benefit from liberal policies feel that liberals are an elite who would toy with their lives. In this, at least, Thomas Frank was right in What’s the Matter With Kansas.
Maybe liberals need to accept some unpalatable aspects of mainstream opinion, such as gun ownership in the south and west, and the desire to live among people at a similar economic level as oneself. Maybe gay marriage falls in this category, much to my regret.
One more thing: instead of a history lesson, which unfortunately won’t register with the public, how about Maimonides two questions (correct me if I get it wrong):
“If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am for myself alone, what am I?”

By: Tom Edsall

Tom Edsall — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 04:00:48 +0000

Re potentially winning Democratic strategies, here is a piece of my argument from the first pages of my book:
“It is the argument of this book that unless the Democratic party finds a
way to defeat Republican ‘wedge issue’ strategies; radically improves its
organizational foundations; resolves its internal divisions on national
security; formulates a compelling position on the use of force; addresses
the schisms generated by its stands on moral, racial and cultural issues;
develops the capacity to turn Republican positions on social-cultural
matters into a liability; devises an economic program capable of generating
– and generating belief in — wealth; broadens its voter base; recruits
candidates who sufficiently embody (or can be portrayed to embody) credible
military leadership and mainstream populist values; develops a strategy to
hold together a biracial, multiethnic coalition — or unless the population
of the disadvantaged swells — the odds are that the Republican party will
continue to maintain, over the long-term, a thin but durable margin of
victory.
In order to reverse the rightward drift of the electorate, Democrats will
have to grapple with voters who hold ‘illiberal’ views — expressed by a
Republican voter from Memphis, Tennessee:
“Gun activists are sick of having to get a license, and a
stamp on that license, there are people who want government to stop forcing
integration down their throats, there are people who want government to stop
pushing the sameness of men and women that defies common sense, there are
people who want the government to keep its hands off their wallets and off
of their land, who are sick of getting a surly bureaucrat on the other end
of the phone, sick of getting a busy signal at Social Security, sick of
getting wrong answers from the IRS, sick of waiting in line at the Post
Office, sick of wasting a day at the DMV, sick of vagrants in the public
library, sick of incompetent school administrators, overcrowded classrooms,
dirty lavatories, and teachers who can’t spell, sick of police who are more
like criminals than law enforcement officers, sick of waiting on hold when
they call 911, sick of their garbage being spilled and their barrels being
bashed, sick of burned-out streetlights, potholes, road work that goes on
for months, traffic jams that double their commute time, paychecks going to
taxes for services like Social Security and Medicare they don’t believe will
be there when they need them – sick of the whole damn thing.’
It is this kind of worldview that Grover Norquist, president of Americans
for Tax Reform, has capitalized upon in building his “leave us alone
coalition” which has successfully demonized government and forged an
alliance of economic conservatives, libertarians , and social conservatives
in support of the Republican party.”
Building Red America, Basic Books, 2006, pp. 2-3

By: Michael Connolly

Michael Connolly — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:12:17 +0000

Great idea,Mark. I hope we see those ads.

By: Prup (aka Jim Benton)

Prup (aka Jim Benton) — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:00:27 +0000

Excellent suggestion and I hope it’s acted, but what we need is politicians willing to say “Yes, I’m a liberal, and here’s WHY…” using some of the same examples, and ending with “Maybe you’re a liberal too, and just didn’t realize it.”