Where Do We Go From Here?

Social Component (3.00 / 1)

I think this is all excellent, but I think we need some kind of social component. Here's what I mean: Republicans get reinforcement from a lot of groups that on their face are almost totally apolitical in the party sense. For instance, church groups...lots of those are the anti-abortion troops. Or civic leagues...which seem to have been taken over by the anti tax zealots "they're taking MY money and giving it to THEM." Or business groups...many very conservative and anti-tax. Organizations like the VFW and so forth. So what happens is you can go through your day and never really come across anything that challenges your basic beliefs, especially if your TV of choice is Fox.
The upshot of this is that we seem to only get together for political activity, which I think can make us kind of one-dimensional and even boring. I don't know how you address that, but I think it's part of the recovery.
I also give a lot of credit to the party "insiders." They are there, win or lose, rain or shine, year in and year out, doing the stuff that keeps the Democrats at least ticking over. Maybe they don't do it as well as we think we could, or in the way we would like, but they do it and I say God bless them.
I would also like to put in a plug for a new plan that does not rely on calling committed Democrats 50 times each before each election.  

---

by: kathstack @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 08:14:08 AM CST

Agree (3.00 / 1)

that "insiders" deserve kudos and gratitude, especially for keeping on the lights during the long night of Repub dominance.  Times change and we must move on into the 21st century, and that is the object of this exercise.  

One of the points in "Hard Times" was the many think tanks, fronts, and side organizations like NRA supporting the Republicans, as compared to Democrats. I agree that, despite MoveOn.org and Planned Parenthood our side is lacking the same variety and clout when it comes to having sympathizer groups---- partly because Repubs have been successful in demonizing and marginalizing such Dem-leaning outfits as "liberal." Dealing with the lack of think tanks is necessary, but it's outside the purview of this immediate endeavor.  

Your idea of expanding the reach of the Democratic Party by having events and interests beyond the political is excellent.  I also think it is key to bringing in the so-called new Obama voters amd minorities (whose lives and interests are not absorbed by politics) who could be snagged by community-centric projects like maybe school interests (especially if McDonnell starts cutting public education)... Democrats could do a lot with stuff like this without being explicitly proselyting. What do you think?  And the there's always just fun, well, parties.  

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:18:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Schools would be good (0.00 / 0)

So, I think, might be community sort of efforts like park or beach cleanup and repair, bicycle safety, senior stuff. Things that carry out the Democrats' core beliefs but are also fun. (I think the idea of core beliefs that would fit on an index card is a definite keeper.)
Stuff like this needs to be brainstormed by a whole bunch of different party demographics.  

---

by: kathstack @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 13:25:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Couple thoughts (0.00 / 0)

I have found that while every campaign has a relatively new set of issues, there are rarely a set of guiding principles that everyone recognizes as the DPVA's. The Republican Party has always good at messaging because they have a set of core values that do fit nicely onto a postcard: small government, low taxes, free market, family values. While we are the opposing party it would be silly to simply say we are for the opposite values and sometimes, the nuanced response does not fit as nicely on the same postcard. We have a philosophy here but it needs to boiled down without succumbing to catchall words like smart. Regardless, this does need to get done and soon.

During the Obama campaign, I found many people were interested in coming to the local campaign office because there were several of us hanging around available to simply talk through issues and news. I can't even express how many Republicans came in to vent about their own party and in the course of the discussion were able to get a less 24hr-news-polluted view of the campaign. I feel like we turned a lot of moderate Republicans and even conservative Independents simply because we were able to talk to them at length on their time. The problem with campaigns is that there is usually no time to discuss issues with voters. They get fed brief chunks of data and are then asked to donate and/or volunteer. Rinse and repeat. Even in door-to-door or phonebanking efforts, the goal is to liberate some voter information and then advertise your candidates' solutions to their problems, if need be. With the volume of people to be contacted there is not a lot of time to chitchat.

So what do we do?

Well, I have been advocating for party offices in localities for a while now. I don't know how much it would cost or how to pay for it, but we always have an election going on in Virginia. It seems foolish in the long run to not own offices for use at least by the coordinated campaign in favor of renting whenever we feel the need to open an office. If buying a home is cheaper long-term than renting, why don't we buy a home? The goal here is to always have a party presence in communities we know we need to win state offices, minimum. Local committees are great but my observations of them is that they are not always the most accessible to the public and many dwindle without strong candidates bringing in interested parties. We have got to be seen as being a part of voters' local communities on a regular basis and offer them plenty of opportunities to find us on their own time. We can help them find the resources they need in their community and easier access to our state officials. We can even do all of this in a nonpartisan way, which may be crazy to some but shows a genuine concern for our communities.

I just no longer believe we can expect to show up every summer begging for voter support for six months without having a major political platform (transformative change, hope, Gilmore is an idiot) or giving something back to the communities. I am sure there were plenty of Obama voters who voted our way simply out of anger or fear of the Republican Party. Given access to our party, they might become more permanent members. Because the bottom line here is that the Democratic Party is the party of the people... all of them. The only danger of accepting that fact is that we get the diversity of opinion as well as the diversity of people.

---

by: Tiderion @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 08:54:26 AM CST

Remarkable ideas (0.00 / 0)

to have both a set of over-arching DPVA principles and a permanent physical Democratic Party place  in politically important communities. Discussions around "Hard Lessons" always seemed to agree, coming down to two main points: 1) need for an explicit short list of basic, specifically Democratic principles, and 2) a higher profile for the Democratic brand, which in your suggestion would start with a community-based house or office suite.  

How do you envision such a community center being used? What would happen there? Would it be Democratic Party's operational headquarters, a coffee shop get-together place for community projects altruistic in nature as well as political, or what? (We'll worry about paying for it later). Incidentally, the Republican Party in City of Fairfax does rent a small office suite in town; they store their stuff there, probably have computers etc, but it is not used as a campaign headquarters by any of their candidates, so far as I know.  

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:05:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

As Tiderion mentions, expand the base (0.00 / 0)

And as Kathstack mentions, the GOP has the support (tacit or otherwise) of a lot of apolitical groups.  

To get support of such groups -- if that is tolerable to decision makers in the Democratic Party -- the Democrats, and more importantly, the gateways to the Democratic community such as this site, should be open to more viewpoints. The "danger", as Tiderion mentions, is that you get diversity of opinion as well as diversity of people.

I cannot get to first base speaking to a teapartier or a like-minded person about the Democratic party if I criticize religion and abortion positions.  The same applies to a religious leader.  Since I would consider at least 25 states to be generally religious and/or "teapartier" states, it is difficult to take true Democratic control of the Senate by simply ignoring the constituents in those states.  Democrats do not have real control of the Senate now -- Republicans and Blue Dogs do.  And the same goes for the House.  

But how do you get the support of religious-minded constituents?  Try a meme which is extracted from the words in this recent letter from the Catholic Bishops of Virginia:

[T]o correctly form our consciences, we must recognize the importance of all issues affecting human issues and dignity -- from the moment of conception until natural death and at every stage in between -- and appreciate that such issues are not abstractions but rather realities that determine whether families thrive or struggle, whether individuals are respected or exploited, and even whether people live or die.  At the same time, the proper formation of conscience also means discerning the differences in moral gravity among various issues.  Disregarding the right to life itself -- the foundation upon which all human rights are based and without which no other right could possibly exist -- is more serious than any other human rights violation.

I do not quote this passage to persuade, but to rather indicate the challenge that is faced by the Democratic Party if it persists in pushing religious-minded people from the Party.  Opinions on abortion are deeply held on both sides of the issue, but the death of a (perceived) pre-born child is a much more motivating cause than a personal "right" to a "choice" which is only exercisable by about 25% of our population at any given time.  What motivates people more, a child screaming from the second floor of a burning building, the scandals of our politicians, thousands of people begging on the streets for food and shelter, millions of starving people in foreign countries, or the calls from the fraction of those 25% of Americans capable of bearing children who wish to preserve at all costs their ephemeral "right to choose"?

There are a lot of answers to that question, but many (if not most), including the Catholic Church, pick the screaming child.    

As Tiberion states, "the Democratic Party is the party of the people...all of them."  Now that is a great meme.  But to get there, hard choices need to be made.  Inclusive, or exclusive?  What is really important to you?  Can we make the playing field of human rights more level by different tactics?  Using your heart and facts, instead of meaningless labels and vitriol?

I express no opinion here, other than to say that the base should be expanded, and that thoughtful choices must be made to expand that base.  I suppose that means giving meaning to the currently "meaningless label" of Democrat.    

Thank you Teddy for starting this helpful thread.

 

---

by: RichardWard @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:30:43 AM CST

In the Fifth District (4.00 / 1)

Tom Perriello won by running as a progressive Christian.  When people wanted to talk about Leviticus (stone the homosexuals), he wanted to talk about the Gospel According to Matthew (feed the hungry).  Part of the problem is that "Christians" have arrogated to themselves the right to decide who is or is not "Christian," and those who do not identify themselves affirmatively as "Christian" regard with suspicion those who do.  I had a lot of people in Charlottesville in 2008 express reluctance to back Tom because he was overtly a Christian; they were afraid that that meant that he was a Catholic Jerry Falwell.

In the South, and in most of Virginia, you have to be willing to engage with and to persuade people for whom religious faith is their major guidepost in life.

I am also afraid that part of the Democratic Party's problem in talking about abortion is that some feminists do not want to give an inch in the abortion debate.  My sense of the "middle" in the abortion debate is the position that says, "Every abortion is a tragedy, but sometimes it is not the worst tragedy.  Sometimes it a worse tragedy to have an unwanted child born to a teenage mother whose future was going to be tough without having a child, but will became a disaster with a child."  Once you decide that there are interests that can and must be balanced, the only issue is "who decides -- the General Assembly, or the woman whose life is affected?"

If you pose the abortion/choice problem that way, you get widespread agreement.  I have found, when I have tried to talk to people with whom I disagree on choice issues, that if I express my view of the matter that way, I can then have a reasonable discussion that can lead to at least respectful dialogue.  

I saw something during the confirmation hearing process this past summer about one of Obama's female Justice Department nominees (I can't now remember who it was) who was being faulted because she was quoted as having argued that the pro-choice side must not accede to the argument that "Sure, abortion is a tragedy, but..."  She was quoted as saying, basically, "We can't give in even this much."  So we are supposed to argue that abortion is NOT a tragedy?  And we're supposed to sell that to Joe and Suzie Sixpack?

Mark Warner talks about the "radical center," an expression that is more attention-grabbing than informative.  I would rather talk about the "principled center" -- the notion that one can take a position that recognizes conflicting but nonetheless legitimate interests, and attempts, using consistent principles, to find common ground in the middle, between the two extremes.  If we keep framing the issue as "abortion is bad" vs. "abortion is good," there is no middle ground, and we as Democrats and we as members of the public who want rational discourse in government all lose.  If it is framed as "abortion is bad" vs. "give women the choice to kill the baby," we lose just as badly.  If it is "abortion is bad" vs. "abortion is bad, but it is not the only tragedy here," we at least can have a second round of discussions.

I would like to see the Democratic Party be brave in the attempt to find common ground with those who do not now agree with us.  That is not the same as saying that we must cave in to those who do not now agree with us.  Part of the need for courage is to be able to have confidence that when one of our number walks toward the other side with a truce flag, that it is not a flag of surrender.  Too many times, we see someone like that and shoot them in the back rather than letting them try to meet the other side in the middle.

---

by: cvllelaw @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:00:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Question should be, who does the GOP have to run against Dems in 2010? (2.00 / 1)

And the answer is nobody. Stephen Colbert had a show on in which he mocked Rush Limbaugh, when Limbaugh frothed at the mouth about how Obama is vulnerable and will be defeated in 2012. Rush frothed when he was asked by FOX news, "is Obama in trouble?" Ironically FOX then gave Colbert his ammo when they asked Rush, "who is this person that's going to defeat Obama," and Rush said,"I don't really know." Colbert then showed a bumper sticker "I don't really know Huckabee for 2012."

So, I recommend for now, sitting on our asses, because unless a person harnesses anger,its meaningless, and beyond Mark Rubio of Florida,which still might not happen, who's running against Charlie Crist, name me someone running against the incumbent Democrat that the Republicans got? And even then, Crist is a Republican who can get elected. Hoffman was a Conservative,embraced by the GOP who couldn't. And Grover Norquist initiatives of TABOR(taxpayer bill of rights) failed in Washington State and Maine;see E. J. Dionne Jr. Monday column.  This does not mean close up shop for good, but I would start making executive decisions based on where the GOP is with candidates, closer to mid-terms. And I would keep an eye on the Gubernatorial contests as well,even more so, in the midterms, for the same thing. And then retool accordingly.  

---

by: brian12 @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:59:40 AM CST

Hrer Is the List of Roanoke DFA Principles (3.00 / 1)

four years ago, the Roanoke chapter of DFA came up with this list:

We believe in:

Fiscal responsibility at all levels of government
Health care for all Americans
A foreign policy that reflects America's founding ideals
Investment in education
Protection of the environment
Equal right for all Americans
Fair tax policies
The right of workers to organize

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:01:48 PM CST

Good for starters, EalineinRoanoke (4.00 / 1)

Not bad for starters, ElaineinRoanoke (and they are great for election grip cards, but I would say that most of these items are actually reflections of deeper principles of government. Example: "Equal rights for all Americans" is ultimately based on "Respect for the dignity of every human being" and that principle when applied means ensuring equality of opportunity, establishing a level playing field, upholding the right to control one's own own body (including end-of-life decisions as well as use of contraceptive and also the termination of a pregnancy) because that is the difference between slave and being free, the right to vote, to free speech....

When it comes to things like "fair tax policies" we need to dig down to the fundamental reason we even live together in a society and have government at all. "Fair" does not occur in Nature; it is a human invention.  Every child instinctively grasps the idea of fair (when it applies to himself), yet it is hard to define, but we need the concept on our grip card somehow. Here is where Democrats kick out pure Free Market ideology and introduce voters to an alternative; it may take more than one general principle to get the idea across (I'll work on it, and so should cvllelaw).

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 14:51:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is focal. And btw, (0.00 / 0)

there is no better demarcation between Dems and GOPhers.  Even as we speak, GOPhers are angling to keep out of finance reform legislation wording that prevents slavery and exploitation of children.

Stay tuned.  I will have a blog about that in the morning. Got a headache tonight.

PS good comments from a wide variety of contributors.  I encourage you all to keep the ideas coming.  And remember, if you have blog-length ideas, feel free to write a diary/blog article.

"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 21:33:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Where does "decent, affordable housing within a short commute to our jobs" fit in those Roanoke DFA principles (0.00 / 0)

Or adequate food and clothing

Or the access to a decent job paying a living wage.

---

by: martinlomasney @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 18:49:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There really is no need to re-invent the handcard - FDR wrote if for us 70 years ago: (3.67 / 3)

Freedom from Want

Freedom from Fear

Freedom of Religion

Freedom of Speech, and

Equal Justice for All under the Law

The rest is commentary.  

---

by: martinlomasney @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 18:44:49 PM CST

Four Freedoms (4.00 / 1)

They were cobbled together by FDR and Churchill on a battleship in the North Atlantic in early World War II were they not? I'm not sure about the Equal Justice one, but I remember big posters showcasing the others; the Four Freedoms were designed to give us a reason to oppose the Nazis and to continue the fight at what was a very dark time in Western history... and also, to inspire all the other diverse people in the world, many of them surly colonials under Western domination, to join us.  

I agree, those Freedoms have been in the back of my mind, too. In a way one can consider them to be the basis of the (otherwise) inexpressible social contract.  We are all in this together, like it or not, we take care of the least among us and the most vulnerable even the less "deserving" because we are together.  In other words, it is not Greed that makes our society work, as the pure Free Market theory would imply, but our Social Contract; being human we are social creatures and live together by choice, even when we do not agree about everything, or even like each other.  The Greed Party, the GOP, may sneer at altruism, but they clearly have it wrong.

Good thinking, martinlomasney, thank you.

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 10:07:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ya caught me - the last one is over the entrance to the Supreme Court which I added (0.00 / 0)

because the other 4 didn't quite get to civil rights as readily and obviously as that aphorism.

The posters you remember were Norman Rockwell paintings of each Freedom: one is the family thanksgiving, another is young parents tucking their sons into bed, a third is a Lincoln lookalike figure standing and speaking in a community gathering. I know there was one for religion but can't remember it now.

---

by: martinlomasney @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 17:34:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Praying (0.00 / 0)

hands together praying is what I recall was the poster for religion. Thanks.

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 07:58:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Elections are about candidates (0.00 / 0)

We can come up with 3X5 card sized "manifestos" until the cows come home, but unless we have candidates that mesh with our core beliefs, our base vote will suppress itself and the independent voters will sense that there is no "courage of conviction" in sight.

Perriello and Nye were elected in part because of the Obama factor, but also because their campaigns were in general sync with the core values of the party and with their specific constituencies. Nye would never be a Democratic nominee for any minor office "North of the Rappahannock," but he "works" in Va. Beach.

By all means, brainstorm about beliefs and thematics, but please also keep in mind that candidates are the face we ultimately use to convince voters -- both our base and undecided/"indies" -- that we are the better option.

---

by: Egalitare @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 19:39:10 PM CST

Yes, the face of the Party (0.00 / 0)

is the face of its candidates... an institution is just an institution, and it means nothing until animated by the human occupants--- no matter how good it may sound in the abstract, you can only only judge it by how it has worked out in the hands of the occupants of the institution. Better candidates, people with integrity who whole-heartedly agree with the precepts of the Party can make all the difference---- especially if they do not change their stripes after they're in office.

On the other hand, we lost some very very good candidates in this past election, people with integrity who adhered to excellent pricniples, especially when compared to some of their opponents, who defeated them. So there is more to winning elections than just good candidates, right?

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 10:18:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

These are some great ideas (0.00 / 0)

The outreach has got to be around Community development and or an issue Group.

While I am a Party Chair - it is important that we do not just ask for help and money associated with elections and politics.

We have to have a venue that gets our Dems / Progressives engaged 24 / 7 and that would be through Progressive community groups that then supports elections and candidates etc.

Develop local Democratic Clubs
Look @ organizations like  Democrats Work @ http://democratswork.org/

---

by: totallynext @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 08:14:57 AM CST

That's right. (0.00 / 0)

Totallynext, I particularly appreciate that you are open to Democratic clubs working in parallel with the party structure.  Not all of those within the party structure agree.  And I think they are missing something. People who give away their work for free must be motivated by a driving focus on the issues.  Oftentimes in races, those get obscured.  

As I have said here before, some of the more higher placed folks in DPVA have previously expressed that there is only room for their structure.  DFA and PDA, for example, were not just scorned,but hated by some near the top of the DPVA.  And, we are reminded, DPVA is NOT a debate society.  We are reminded over and over.  

Indeed, there are limitations as to what the party structure can do on the issues.  Even from a practical matter of election materials, there are problems.

Our area never had enough brochures, bumper stickers and signs until Henry Tieleman founded his PAC, Democracy Prevails.  DP focuses on issues much of the time.  But before elections it uses its donations to buy signs, bumper stickers etc to distribute all over the 9th CD.  Previously, we never had any "visibility" around here.

So, Henry accomplishes something the party cannot afford.  Also, it is not realistic to expect that everyone focus all the time on party housekeeping (and it is all essentially housekeeping). Not that there's anything wrong with that.  But those of us who work primarily because of progressive issues, get bored, unmotivated, etc. if we only tend to party housekeeping (hostessing events, staffing at election time, phone banking, etc.) Additionally, the official party has no full-time office (only open one a couple months before each election).  So there is no central meeting place.  Monthly meetings typically address upcoming events, staffing for them, etc.  But DP offers a meeting over (no-host) dinner every month. Topics such as election machine reform,economic reform, the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. and other issues are addressed each month.


"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:14:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I have a novel idea (0.00 / 0)

(which shouldn't be novel).  I think the official state party should have a Progressive Listening Post, where progressives can weigh in and note concerns, particularly as they relate to the base of the Democratic Party and the issues they hold dear.

We would need the assurance that they respectfully read/listen, though, or the exercise would be meaningless.  Imagine a Party which listened to its base!  The Republican Party does it, but Dems do not.  It keeps living under old assumptions that we are a DLC Nation.  Indeed the exit poll (following our defeat last week) revealed by Lowell at Blue Virginia revealed that we lost because Deeds wasn't progressive enough!  If only they had a mechanism off the blogs, to listen to us beforehand!

"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:19:16 AM CST

Listening Posts (0.00 / 0)

sound a bit like Brit "surgeries" -- a permanent office, often very small, often staffed by volunteers, but usually financed (mostly) by the party. We have those -- the representative's offices -- but only when we have an incumbent, and not all that many of those, either (if I wanted to contact Goodlatte directly, the nearest office is in Lynchburg).

As Teddy said, we could use those permanent offices, as "incumbent incubators", even when we're out of power, to provide continuity. Prospective challengers could come there and listen (as well as be listened to).

---

by: libra @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 18:52:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Environment/Schools (0.00 / 0)

If we think we need some year-round presence and some additional group tags, I think environmental service and/or school service projects offer possibilities. They might draw in younger and less "political" people, and we would  be doing some good besides.
I also like the idea of centers, either solid or virtual.
Finally, I thought this was interesting.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo...

---

by: kathstack @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 10:32:50 AM CST