Mona’s piece on patriotism is excellent. Democrats should try to take the banner of patriotism away from Republicans. Fair and open elections are patriotic. Helping fellow Americans is patriotic. Support for democratic allies who share our values is patriotic. A just and fair immigration system is patriotic. Democrats should do a better job of figuratively embracing the American flag to contrast against the literal flag-kissers (Trump), the ass-kissers (Vance et al), and their faux patriotism.
When I go into a shop and the person behind the counter has an accent from a different country, it gives me a patriotic feeling: "This person chose to live in this country, among us!"
I've been saying that for years. Democrats need to stop being afraid of offending people who will not vote for them anyway, by doing what is right and even embrace the opportunity to take pages out of the Republican playbook where it has been successful.
Take back words like "freedom" and "patriot" and redefine them for what they really mean, not as the conservative stereotype that they have become.
Endorse socialism as a viable idea by explaining more and better how a society-first approach better represents what matters in their daily lives than the trickle-down idea that a handful of oligarchs and big corporations endorse in putting themselves first.
Explain more and better how tax cuts that favor those oligarchs are doing real harm to our infrastructure in areas like education and the environment, and that strategic reinvestment of public money is necessary to ensure fundamental safety and security for us all.
And above all stress accountability and rule of law toward insurrectionists and others on the right who have decided that they should be held to a different, lower standard than the rest of us and be allowed to make their own rules for themselves, to the detriment of all in the long run.
There is opportunity there for the taking, if they stand behind the courage of their convictions and put real meat on those bones. It's not like avoiding them has been a winning strategy as we continue our downward glide path toward autocracy.
I would modify the socialism one. I would extol the virtues of society first like you say, but I wouldn't use the word. When called on it, the response is, "You call it whatever you like, but putting community and the collective strength of our country first is something I believe strongly in, and I'm not going to let a 'scary' label keep me from advocating for that."
On the strategic reinvestment angle, I'd toss China in there. Go with, "The right likes to get all a tizzy about being outcompeted by China because we're so-called 'woke', caring about those China would just throw in camps. Meanwhile China is outspending us in education 4 to 1 (made up, but insert real stats) and all the Republicans want to do is cut taxes which will hamstring our ability to invest in ourselves."
On socialism, that's part of my point. We've allowed the right to redefine the term to its own purposes and not necessarily what it actually means -- like freedom and patriot. I think it can be made palatable if the messaging tells people what is good about it and what's in it for them. It works elsewhere, so it can work here too. Dress it up with a nicer name if you like, e.g. Social Democracy as opposed to Democratic Socialism. But the point remains the same, that there are many benefits in it for the average person, if they can move past wordplay and actually focus on the issues.
I agree on the benefits, but unlike freedom and patriot, I think the word is a lost cause for a generation more at least. The Boomers and Gen X were raised in the cold war mentality that linked socialism with communism and reclaiming the word isn't worth the fight vs. working to secure a better safety net and better services (education, health care, etc.) Hell, even use the word and definition against them. Socialism being the government owning the means of production, make the argument that two extra years of education (trade, college, etc.) provided to everyone is less socialism than K-12 is currently.
You may be right about the timeline. But in general you make a good point that generational change has to be a driving factor. Young people now see the idea of socialism very differently than previous generations did, and not for the same reasons. In many ways they live differently than we do and have a very different world view. Their priorities are similarly distinctive from ours. Wise leaders will understand that, every day a little more, the future belongs to them, and their voice eventually will carry the day.
Accordingly it would be wise to listen to and learn from what they are trying to tell us. Objectively speaking it's hard to argue with them when they say that the previous two generations (ours) have gifted them a shitty future to clean up, fix, and set right. Perhaps the best thing they could do would be to ignore us and try something different. Looking around, I don't see that our polarized, hyperpartisan way has been working.
This is a really thoughtful conversation and I agree with you both. As far as "socialism" goes, I agree that different terminology would be helpful. My two cents would be linking that to the Nordic model of democratic socialism and the success of that model as far as happiness etc. I know the US is not as homogeneous etc, but showing how they've surpassed the US in various ways and defusing the "socialist" fear (Nordic countries are not the USSR, Venezuela etc) might be a useful path forward. Just some thoughts.
The idea that it's somehow unpatriotic to recognize things that are unjust in our country and try to work to fix them is absurd.
As a parent, I love my children fiercely, but I don't think they're perfect. It's because I love them that I correct them when they're wrong and provide consequences when needed.
I firmly believe true patriots (and I cringe even using that phrase because of how it's been misused) should want the same for our country.
Democrats do need to get out of the weeds. Their platform needs to be bigger and simpler. Rather than single issues, they need to embrace freedom for all. Patriotism, peace and prosperity are issues all voters respond to.
In 2016, Pete Buttigieg talked about "freedom from" being a powerful argument. Republicans insist on "freedom to"...carry a gun in public, not wear a mask, not pay taxes...Democrats need to talk about "freedom from" financial worry about health care, being gunned down in school, having the government make your medical decisions, etc. I find it persuasive and I wish more Dems would talk that way.
Both "freedom from" and "freedom to" can be interchangeable for the same point with a simple word change. I am surrounded and I see this everyday. Freedom to not wear a mask = Freedom from being forced to wear a mask. Freedom to not pay taxes = Freedom from paying taxes. The GOP messaging is highly skilled at this. It is semantics but it seems there is psychology in the choice of words.
One issue is that "freedom from financial worry" doesn't mean "I can do what I want"; it means "Someone else must do this for me." It isn't a freedom properly speaking, but an entitlement that imposes obligations on others -- raising serious philosophical questions about why some are entitled to receive while others are obligated to provide.
Modern societies generally include a concept of mutual obligation, but there's a good reason to distinguish it from "freedom" or "liberty," which do not require one person to do something for someone else beyond tolerating the other person's choice.
Even there, complications arise -- at the simplest level in noise ordinances, e.g. Do you have the freedom to crank up the volume as much as you please -- or does that improperly infringe on my freedom to be free of that infernal noise?
Where's FDR when we need him? And no Pete ain't FDR. He could be with more years and experience on a state (governor) or national (Congress, maybe a VP) level. Why didn't he run for governor or Congress when he had the chance?
Have you looked at Indiana? A Democrat, especially a gay one, could never win a statewide election there? South Bend is a college town and more liberal than the rest of the state.
Did you mean to put a question mark at the end of your second sentence?
Which is why I think Pete is way over-hyped. If he can't win in Indiana, what makes people think he can win anywhere else? Maybe he should do the Hillary thing and move to a state where being a gay liberal is a plus and he might get elected to a national office or a governorship, and gain some actual experience. Until he does, sorry, he's not getting my vote.
Obama won it once with less than 50%. The last Democrat to win it with more than 50% was LBJ. Trump won it by 16 points in 2020. The R governor won by 24 points that year.
Indiana is not the litmus test for national appeal for a democrat.
The point is that FDR had a LONG history of public service ranging back in to the 1910s, interrupted only by his fight against the polio that he contracted in his 20s, ranging from serving as secretary of the Navy in WW1, ending with the governorship of NY. He started bucking the Tammany Hall wing of the Ds when others didn't. From nearly the first, he began advocating reforms that led to the New Deal programs of his presidency. By the time of the convention in 1932, he was a known candidate with a huge following. He even got the backing of several name Republicans and won with 56% of vote, and all but 6 states (oddly New England states!) In 1936, he lost only 2 states. Even in the last 2 elections, 40 and 42, he had substantial leads. In other words, he paid his dues in local and national politics, and people knew who he was. Even today I suspect if you ask an average voter who Pete is you're liable to get a "Pete who?"
Being the mayor of a small city in Indiana with a voting population of 25,000 is hardly equivalent to being the governor of California, which Reagan was. In his only state campaign, Pete lost.
I agree, but the suggestion was for him to run for governor or senate in Indiana. I love the guy! I'm not sure Biden has helped him by putting him in the position he has. He has done a good job, I just wish he was more high profile, though he does show up pretty often. I know he is in Michigan now and wondered if that might have been part of reason for the move. Though, I know Chasten's mother also lives there, so having family near with the kids is good too.
Pete not only understands how to highlight the benefits, he knows how to talk to voters without preaching to them. Also, he plays music and gets a vibe going!
You couldn't be more right, and I couldn't be more proud to have voted for Buttigieg in the Primary before he threw his support to Biden - who I also proudly voted for in the General...
Mona’s piece on patriotism is excellent. Democrats should try to take the banner of patriotism away from Republicans. Fair and open elections are patriotic. Helping fellow Americans is patriotic. Support for democratic allies who share our values is patriotic. A just and fair immigration system is patriotic. Democrats should do a better job of figuratively embracing the American flag to contrast against the literal flag-kissers (Trump), the ass-kissers (Vance et al), and their faux patriotism.
When I go into a shop and the person behind the counter has an accent from a different country, it gives me a patriotic feeling: "This person chose to live in this country, among us!"
I've been saying that for years. Democrats need to stop being afraid of offending people who will not vote for them anyway, by doing what is right and even embrace the opportunity to take pages out of the Republican playbook where it has been successful.
Take back words like "freedom" and "patriot" and redefine them for what they really mean, not as the conservative stereotype that they have become.
Endorse socialism as a viable idea by explaining more and better how a society-first approach better represents what matters in their daily lives than the trickle-down idea that a handful of oligarchs and big corporations endorse in putting themselves first.
Explain more and better how tax cuts that favor those oligarchs are doing real harm to our infrastructure in areas like education and the environment, and that strategic reinvestment of public money is necessary to ensure fundamental safety and security for us all.
And above all stress accountability and rule of law toward insurrectionists and others on the right who have decided that they should be held to a different, lower standard than the rest of us and be allowed to make their own rules for themselves, to the detriment of all in the long run.
There is opportunity there for the taking, if they stand behind the courage of their convictions and put real meat on those bones. It's not like avoiding them has been a winning strategy as we continue our downward glide path toward autocracy.
All good points.
I would modify the socialism one. I would extol the virtues of society first like you say, but I wouldn't use the word. When called on it, the response is, "You call it whatever you like, but putting community and the collective strength of our country first is something I believe strongly in, and I'm not going to let a 'scary' label keep me from advocating for that."
On the strategic reinvestment angle, I'd toss China in there. Go with, "The right likes to get all a tizzy about being outcompeted by China because we're so-called 'woke', caring about those China would just throw in camps. Meanwhile China is outspending us in education 4 to 1 (made up, but insert real stats) and all the Republicans want to do is cut taxes which will hamstring our ability to invest in ourselves."
On socialism, that's part of my point. We've allowed the right to redefine the term to its own purposes and not necessarily what it actually means -- like freedom and patriot. I think it can be made palatable if the messaging tells people what is good about it and what's in it for them. It works elsewhere, so it can work here too. Dress it up with a nicer name if you like, e.g. Social Democracy as opposed to Democratic Socialism. But the point remains the same, that there are many benefits in it for the average person, if they can move past wordplay and actually focus on the issues.
I agree on the benefits, but unlike freedom and patriot, I think the word is a lost cause for a generation more at least. The Boomers and Gen X were raised in the cold war mentality that linked socialism with communism and reclaiming the word isn't worth the fight vs. working to secure a better safety net and better services (education, health care, etc.) Hell, even use the word and definition against them. Socialism being the government owning the means of production, make the argument that two extra years of education (trade, college, etc.) provided to everyone is less socialism than K-12 is currently.
You may be right about the timeline. But in general you make a good point that generational change has to be a driving factor. Young people now see the idea of socialism very differently than previous generations did, and not for the same reasons. In many ways they live differently than we do and have a very different world view. Their priorities are similarly distinctive from ours. Wise leaders will understand that, every day a little more, the future belongs to them, and their voice eventually will carry the day.
Accordingly it would be wise to listen to and learn from what they are trying to tell us. Objectively speaking it's hard to argue with them when they say that the previous two generations (ours) have gifted them a shitty future to clean up, fix, and set right. Perhaps the best thing they could do would be to ignore us and try something different. Looking around, I don't see that our polarized, hyperpartisan way has been working.
This is a really thoughtful conversation and I agree with you both. As far as "socialism" goes, I agree that different terminology would be helpful. My two cents would be linking that to the Nordic model of democratic socialism and the success of that model as far as happiness etc. I know the US is not as homogeneous etc, but showing how they've surpassed the US in various ways and defusing the "socialist" fear (Nordic countries are not the USSR, Venezuela etc) might be a useful path forward. Just some thoughts.
Exactly this.
The idea that it's somehow unpatriotic to recognize things that are unjust in our country and try to work to fix them is absurd.
As a parent, I love my children fiercely, but I don't think they're perfect. It's because I love them that I correct them when they're wrong and provide consequences when needed.
I firmly believe true patriots (and I cringe even using that phrase because of how it's been misused) should want the same for our country.
Democrats do need to get out of the weeds. Their platform needs to be bigger and simpler. Rather than single issues, they need to embrace freedom for all. Patriotism, peace and prosperity are issues all voters respond to.
In 2016, Pete Buttigieg talked about "freedom from" being a powerful argument. Republicans insist on "freedom to"...carry a gun in public, not wear a mask, not pay taxes...Democrats need to talk about "freedom from" financial worry about health care, being gunned down in school, having the government make your medical decisions, etc. I find it persuasive and I wish more Dems would talk that way.
Both "freedom from" and "freedom to" can be interchangeable for the same point with a simple word change. I am surrounded and I see this everyday. Freedom to not wear a mask = Freedom from being forced to wear a mask. Freedom to not pay taxes = Freedom from paying taxes. The GOP messaging is highly skilled at this. It is semantics but it seems there is psychology in the choice of words.
One issue is that "freedom from financial worry" doesn't mean "I can do what I want"; it means "Someone else must do this for me." It isn't a freedom properly speaking, but an entitlement that imposes obligations on others -- raising serious philosophical questions about why some are entitled to receive while others are obligated to provide.
Modern societies generally include a concept of mutual obligation, but there's a good reason to distinguish it from "freedom" or "liberty," which do not require one person to do something for someone else beyond tolerating the other person's choice.
Even there, complications arise -- at the simplest level in noise ordinances, e.g. Do you have the freedom to crank up the volume as much as you please -- or does that improperly infringe on my freedom to be free of that infernal noise?
Where's FDR when we need him? And no Pete ain't FDR. He could be with more years and experience on a state (governor) or national (Congress, maybe a VP) level. Why didn't he run for governor or Congress when he had the chance?
He wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Indiana.
Have you looked at Indiana? A Democrat, especially a gay one, could never win a statewide election there? South Bend is a college town and more liberal than the rest of the state.
Did you mean to put a question mark at the end of your second sentence?
Which is why I think Pete is way over-hyped. If he can't win in Indiana, what makes people think he can win anywhere else? Maybe he should do the Hillary thing and move to a state where being a gay liberal is a plus and he might get elected to a national office or a governorship, and gain some actual experience. Until he does, sorry, he's not getting my vote.
"If he can't win in Indiana"
Obama won it once with less than 50%. The last Democrat to win it with more than 50% was LBJ. Trump won it by 16 points in 2020. The R governor won by 24 points that year.
Indiana is not the litmus test for national appeal for a democrat.
Also, I believe Pete has moved to Michigan...
Precisely this.
The point is that FDR had a LONG history of public service ranging back in to the 1910s, interrupted only by his fight against the polio that he contracted in his 20s, ranging from serving as secretary of the Navy in WW1, ending with the governorship of NY. He started bucking the Tammany Hall wing of the Ds when others didn't. From nearly the first, he began advocating reforms that led to the New Deal programs of his presidency. By the time of the convention in 1932, he was a known candidate with a huge following. He even got the backing of several name Republicans and won with 56% of vote, and all but 6 states (oddly New England states!) In 1936, he lost only 2 states. Even in the last 2 elections, 40 and 42, he had substantial leads. In other words, he paid his dues in local and national politics, and people knew who he was. Even today I suspect if you ask an average voter who Pete is you're liable to get a "Pete who?"
Being the mayor of a small city in Indiana with a voting population of 25,000 is hardly equivalent to being the governor of California, which Reagan was. In his only state campaign, Pete lost.
I agree, but the suggestion was for him to run for governor or senate in Indiana. I love the guy! I'm not sure Biden has helped him by putting him in the position he has. He has done a good job, I just wish he was more high profile, though he does show up pretty often. I know he is in Michigan now and wondered if that might have been part of reason for the move. Though, I know Chasten's mother also lives there, so having family near with the kids is good too.
Pete not only understands how to highlight the benefits, he knows how to talk to voters without preaching to them. Also, he plays music and gets a vibe going!
SallyJones
You couldn't be more right, and I couldn't be more proud to have voted for Buttigieg in the Primary before he threw his support to Biden - who I also proudly voted for in the General...
Why doesn't Hakeem Jeffries get more attention? I saw quite a bit of him during one of the impeachments, first?, and was impressed.
They know they control most of the media.