Response to Comments
A couple of commenters have raised questions concerning whether “greed and materialism” could be a winning issue for the Democrats. I realize I wasn’t being very clear. I was intending to use this as more a hypothetical example, one suggesting how we may begin the search for the key issues to frame a constant and consistent message.
In the grand scheme, it appears that the Democrats’ message consists largely of defensive reactions to Republican wedge issues, which the Republicans use very effectively to dominate the national debate. The overarching objective should be to bring the debate to our turf.
And that’s what I meant about changing the subject. If the debate is about values, then we shift it to a debate about Democratic values, rather than craft responses to their issue frames (frankly, I think this gives them an edge when voters begin considering an issue). Do as they do: knock down the opponent’s message quickly and succinctly, then hammer home yours.
As you can no doubt tell from my ramblings, I am not at all clever with packaging complex ideas into two- or three-word, soundbite-ready phrases. If I were, I could no doubt present a more effective argument. I am hoping that out of this debate -- and there's no shortage of debate -- will come some phrases we can use as weapons, rather than shields, in the rhetorical war.
That said, I do think greed and materialism could be effective as a populist message of reform. Think corporate welfare, job outsourcing, tax loopholes. Mr. Bush even handed the Democrats an example when he dismissed Sen. Kerry’s tax plan by claiming that those making $200,000 and up will always figure out how cheat on their taxes. That’s greed and materialism. Environmental destruction can be woven into this theme, with a message that unites environmentally-minded urbanites as well as hunters and fishermen.
I’ve said I think the Democratic National Committee chair must be responsible for distributing the party’s message by arming candidates with the Democratic message and forcing the narrative into the media. I do realize the party chair’s most critical role may be fundraising.
But there needs to be a transitional “bridge” to advance the Democratic message when we are between candidates and to keep the party’s message from being hijacked by the latest presidential candidate's image. Why shouldn't that be the DNC chair's role? Shift some of the fundraising burden, perhaps with co-chairs.
I’m seeing a lot of discussion about Democratic identity and messaging. Once I’ve been able to sort through it all, I’ll lend my thoughts.
2 comments:
A comment on the above comment and the post. Teresa actually paid around 12.5% on 6.5 million in income. Bush paid 30% in income taxes. This brings up one of my favorite subjects. Tax reform. I can hear the collective snoring now. The discrepancy in the to percentages stem from the manner in which the funds were earned. The bulk of Teresa's income is from investments. This means she can shelter funds in tax free muni's or use trusts to limit her tax liability. Bush has investment income as well, but he also has a salary that is taxed as regular income that is assessed a higher tax burden. The problem with our tax system is complexity and inherent unfairness. A dollar earned one way is taxed differently than a dollar earned in another fashion. There are several ways to correct this unfairness. A flat tax can be used that eliminates deductions. You can even keep a stepped system that keeps the progressive nature. A retail sales tax can be used with a prebate that protects the poor from paying any tax at all.
As for Republicans using wedge issues and the Democrats need for a values message. Issues like abortion and gay maariage are effective because they are so polarizing. Most people have strong opinions on the subjects and are unwilling to concede any ground in the debate. That makes them effective campaign tools that both sides use. The left uses the fear of a rollback of Roe to energize a segmant of its base while the right uses abortion to excite the evangelicals. The same is true with abortion and to a lesser extent gun control.
The real problem for the democrats is that they have won on all their core issues. Everyone, right and left want a clean environment. Segregaton is history. The welfare state is alive and kicking and consevatives have made peace with it. That leaves very little on the table for Democrats. So what is the Democrats big idea. Newt won congress for the right with the Contract for America. Whether you agree with the positions or not it was a series of big ideas. Partial privatization of social security is a big idea. Tax reform is a big idea. Where are the Democrats bold initiatives. Health care is looked upon as simply an expansion of the welfare state. Stem cell research, Democratic rhetoric aside, is supported and funded by the current administration. The left doesn't need to tweek their message. They need better ideas.
Post a Comment