{"id":1956,"date":"2017-06-24T12:58:16","date_gmt":"2017-06-24T16:58:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/000af36.netsolhost.com\/wordpress1\/?p=1956"},"modified":"2017-06-24T12:58:16","modified_gmt":"2017-06-24T16:58:16","slug":"the-false-dichotomy-between-progressive-moderate-democrats","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/2017\/06\/24\/the-false-dichotomy-between-progressive-moderate-democrats\/","title":{"rendered":"The false dichotomy between progressive &#038; moderate Democrats"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Much of the argument following Jon Ossoff\u2019s loss in the Georgia 6<sup>th<\/sup> district Congressional race suggests that Democrats need to be more progressive to win. Being a Bernie wannabe seems to be the prescription for firing up the bases to win such elections in an era when the GOP\u2019s leader is an orange-hair baboon.<\/p>\n<p>Others think it\u2019s enough to be simply anti-baboon but that we need to ramp up get out the vote efforts, especially in off year elections when Dems don\u2019t show up.<\/p>\n<p>Others think we need to remove Nancy Pelosi who regularly appears in GOP ads against whatever Democrat is running.<\/p>\n<p>Certainly, we need candidates with passion, but not the foaming at the mouth type we got from Bernie. We need to get progressives and the disenfranchised out to vote, but that\u2019s not a matter of more phone calls. And getting rid of Pelosi, alas, is an idea whose time has come. She simply is too great a symbol for Democrats to overcome. But more important, her strategies are not working. She\u2019s a lightning rod, but also an ineffective strategist.<\/p>\n<p>But missing most is a reason to vote <em>for <\/em>Democrats.<\/p>\n<p>Here\u2019s where I think we are as a country, politically:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Everyone hates the others side, i.e., hyper-partisanship<\/li>\n<li>The GOP holds one clear advantage: They appeal to people\u2019s greed. \u201cCut taxes\u201d has been a winning argument for 35 years.<\/li>\n<li>Yet, progressive ideas are actually shared by a majority of Americans. People want government <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/fact-tank\/2017\/05\/26\/few-americans-support-cuts-to-most-government-programs-including-medicaid\/\">to spend more money on a host of broad budget areas<\/a>.<\/li>\n<li>The GOP holds significant structure advantages in gerrymandering districts to ensure that though they get fewer votes than Democrats for Congress, they elect more members.<\/li>\n<li>Everyone seems to agree that government doesn\u2019t work anymore. That meme seems to be a given, and there is no solution. Government is riddled with waste, fraud and abuse and nothing can change it.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Matthew Yglesias comes closest to a sound prescription for Democrats: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vox.com\/2017\/6\/20\/15839452\/georgia-special-election-results-ossoff-handel\">Stand for something<\/a>. This makes sense for one compelling reason: Americans want vision. They want to know you stand for something, even if it is anti-immigrants, poor-people bashing racism. Tell us what you think. Be bold. This is where the GOP has always held an advantage. You know what guides their thinking. They\u2019re not afraid of their beliefs. They make no excuses for them.<\/p>\n<p>Who knows what Democrats envision for Americans, other than whatever you\u2019re identity, we\u2019re with you? Bernie tried to lay down some markers with free college, healthcare for all and bashing \u201cmillionaires and billionaires.\u201d But it wasn\u2019t grounded in any philosophy, no foundation of what he wanted for America, other than free stuff. People think Democrats want to please everyone and thus have no core principles other than to spend more money.<\/p>\n<p>So what to do? Not that anyone has asked me or that I have a pedigree in political campaigns. I\u2019ve been in a few, though, and spent a career trying to impact narratives. So why not take a crack at it.<\/p>\n<p>Leading Democrats in the House and Senate need to sit down and hammer out a vision of only a page or two and then figure how to reduce it to a 30-second elevator speech. I\u2019d suggest they bring in not only politicians and political activists but also experts in communications and cognitive behavior\u2014people who understand how people think. If I were among them, here\u2019s what I\u2019d suggest.<\/p>\n<p>First, adhere to the Constitution\u2019s mandate to \u201cpromote the General Welfare.\u201d Talk about how we see Americans as \u201cbeing in this together.\u201d Americans love our Founding Fathers. Ground our principles in theirs\u2014why they got us rolling as a nation.<\/p>\n<p>Second, admit that government isn\u2019t perfect, but talk about making government more efficient to better \u201cprotect\u201d (not regulate) Americans. (Already we\u2019re seeing that framing among progressives.) Be an agent of change. Part of the problem is that law making is now done hand in hand with lobbyists with so much detail in our laws that the bureaucrats tasked with implementing them have so many rules they must adhere to the process becomes tedious and inefficient.<\/p>\n<p>Cite how politicians have made government less effective in order to prove their view that it doesn\u2019t work. For example, if you cut the IRS staff to the bare bones, you can\u2019t then complain that it doesn\u2019t do its job of catching tax scofflaws.<\/p>\n<p>Talk about making the economy work for people without a college education and making a college education affordable for more people. Talk about vocational education, teaching the trades where there are a lack of skilled workers. Embrace \u201cfree enterprise,\u201d but point out that we don\u2019t have free enterprise anymore. We have corporations that have successfully written the laws that give them all the advantages that protect their profits and hurt consumers and workers. It\u2019s no longer a level playing field. Today, corporations cop out by saying they must provide \u201cshareholder value.\u201d That\u2019s not the only goal they should have, just as a father\u2019s role is not simply to bring home the bacon. They have a responsibility to their workers, the communities they operate in, and the taxpayers who provide the infrastructure they use to move their goods and services. As a simple example, if a businessman takes a prospect to lunch, he gets to claim part of the expense as a tax deduction. Why should taxpayers subsidize his marketing efforts? If it\u2019s a good idea to have lunch, let the shareholders pay for it.<\/p>\n<p>Fourth, be honest in saying that many jobs are not coming back unless Americans are willing to pay far higher prices for popular necessary goods such as clothing, autos, technology. We need to work together on making the future better for everyone. There will be upheavals as there were during industrialization at the end of the 19<sup>th<\/sup> century. People moved from the farm to the cities. They learned new skills. It was hard. It was a change of life style, but in the end it brought financial rewards. People who\u2019ve lost their jobs to globalization need to make a sacrifice to adapt.<\/p>\n<p>And yes, talk about taxes. Say exactly who will pay more in taxes, about how much and what benefits they will get for their higher taxes. As an example, if I said you could reduce your health care costs by $2000 if we raised your taxes by $1,000 is that a deal you\u2019d consider? The conversation doesn\u2019t start with taxes; it\u2019s starts with envisioning what we want as a society and then figuring out a way to pay for it. That\u2019s the way families work. Parents want a better future for their children and try to figure out how to get it by not only watching their spending but\u00a0 looking for ways to increase their incomes and invest smartly in their children\u2019s future.<\/p>\n<p>When we talk about taxes we need to put it in terms of what will people pay, not the aggregate costs. Years ago, I tried to convince Virginia Democrats who wanted to raise the gas tax that instead of talking about the dollars they needed to raise, talk about how much the tax would increase the average car owner. It was about $126 a year. That\u2019s a number people can understand. $1.5 billion is not.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/georgelakoff.com\/\">George Lakoff<\/a> has long had the right approach. Progressives spend too much time appealing to people\u2019s reason. People don\u2019t vote for reasoned arguments. They vote their values, which is why, for example, a Congressional district in Kentucky where a majority of the people receive food stamps, Medicaid and other benefits of the social safety net continually vote for a Congressman who wants to cut those programs.<\/p>\n<p>Lakoff believes the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the latter are paternalistic and the former maternalistic. Republicans believe in a strong father who lays down the law, expects obedience and believes in pulling yourself up the bootstraps. Democrats are more nurturing, want to see all boats lifted and empathize with those struggling.<\/p>\n<p>The message of inclusion, both socially and economically, needs to reach not only rural whites, but the top 20 percent of income earners (those making more than $120,000 annually), according to the author of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Dream-Hoarders-American-Leaving-Everyone\/dp\/081572912X\">\u201cDream Hoarders.\u201d<\/a> The 20 percenters think they&#8217;ve got where they are solely through hard work without a bit of privilege, mostly the white kind. Moreover, they don\u2019t think of themselves as rich because they compare themselves to others living in their sequestered neighborhoods. Many really have no idea how the other 80 percent live, where something as simple as a set of new tires can mean they can\u2019t pay their rent.<\/p>\n<p>What are Democratic values? Can we articulate them without worrying about offending someone? Can we say that, yes, many people have succeeded due to hard work (but with good luck, too), but not everyone can find that good luck that allows them to work hard to succeed? Can we return to those days when we saw all ourselves as being Americans who were \u201cin this together?\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Much of the argument following Jon Ossoff\u2019s loss in the Georgia 6th district Congressional race suggests that Democrats need to be more progressive to win. Being a Bernie wannabe seems to be the prescription for firing up the bases to win such elections in an era when the GOP\u2019s leader is an orange-hair baboon. Others&hellip; <a href=\"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/2017\/06\/24\/the-false-dichotomy-between-progressive-moderate-democrats\/\">Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[31,49,126,104,3,23,52,12,4,32,53],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1956"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1956"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1956\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1957,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1956\/revisions\/1957"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1956"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1956"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1956"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}