For the right "price", I expect the anti-democratic, pro-authoritarian element of Republicans (read: seemingly most of them) would have little to no problem with that. I'm sure their leader would be more than accommodating, as long as he was satisfied with his cut. Sadly, I'm not even half joking.
Robert, I write because, although fundamentally you and I are on the same page, I do perceive a fundamental difference that I can’t dismiss because it’s too important. On one hand, in your Concluding Thoughts, you write that “problem-spotting” is “worthless as political currency. The key is to find solutions.” On the other, I believe we generally need to understand the nature of a situation and the factors involved in order to find solutions.
For example, in recent years, Republicans have been remarkably successful at turbo-charging fears of Democrats embracing socialist policies. Essentially, Republicans bank on our not sharing a basic understanding of Socialism. They exploit Americans’ overall inexperience distinguishing between, say, Democratic Socialism, that merely calls for a more equitable distribution of a nation’s wealth, and Socialism, that advocates for government control and ownership of the means of production. Consequently, Americans largely are susceptible to Republicans conflating the two to serve their own interests.
A devastating effect has been our Party’s failure, despite its 50 Senate Democrats, to pass its promised transformative set of economic policies. Not surprisingly, as we speak, the failure to extend the child tax credit already is causing an increase in poverty.
My point is that sometimes we can’t find solutions until we fully understand the nature of the problem. Meanwhile, we’re losing elections we should be winning.
I firmly believe that a significant problem is that the average voter has the attention span of a goldfish (not long). Democrats have a tendency to campaign with the "and I've got a plan for that" style (apologies to Senator Warren who I really do like and admire). While Republicans campaign with slogans and sound bites that fit on the crown of a baseball cap. Think about it ...
Most voters have neither the knowledge nor the experience to understand the subtleties of a complicated, multi-point plan or policy to address complicated issues they generally do not genuinely understand. One side still tends to publish white papers and essays and complicated proposals and the other operates without a platform longer than can appear on a billboard being passed at 70mph on an interstate.
I believe personally candidates would be far better to first listen to their voters and show them how they hold the same core values and it is those core values that will inform their views on issues (this is sometimes known as the old two ears, one mouth style of communications). The one thing we can be certain about the future is that it is uncertain. Anyone taking a public office will likely face issues and challenges if elected, we cannot even anticipate at present. If voters believe a candidate's values align well with their own, they are more likely to believe the decisions and positions on issues taken by that candidate will also align with their own views.
So first listen and try to start conversations with values and show how those are tied to any positions and views. Explain how as a candidate you came to hold those values and how they inform your views on issues. Do not try to explain complex, multi-point plans.
BruceC, Though I, too, admittedly would acknowledge that democracy largely is about giving each person a dignified voice in the decision-making that will guide and regulate the person’s life, in my view, the lifeblood of democracy is predicated on something bigger than our individual selves, a moral awakening of sorts that is rooted in a sense of the public, a sense of what it is to be a citizen among citizens.
You perhaps give too many voters too much credit regarding their attention spans, and that's no knock on them. They have many more immediate concerns than policy details and wonkery. Like paying their bills or figuring out how to address whatever the next looming challenge is to just living their lives and hanging on to and preserving what they have, while hoping to improve their positions in life over time. But you are absolutely correct in what voters believe, or at least want to believe, about the candidates they choose to vote for vis a vie that candidate's "values." That belief is driven by a few different things, one of the most important of which is "messaging", a very hot topic of late. And from my perspective, the Democrats, unlike the Republicans, are lousy at being effective at this.
The Right is not completely monolithic, but it is a lot more homogenous than the Left. And messaging is, I believe, a simpler proposition there. Still, The D's could do a much better job of using more unified and better directed messaging to retain and energize not only their base and a good portion of the various wings, but to get the attention of and persuade non-affiliated independent voters such as myself. And one reason I think they fail at this is because they aren't good at narrative, neither creating it, or seizing and controlling it when necessary.
The mainstream media outside of the Murdoch enterprise are becoming masters of narrative, no longer lagging in their skills when compared to his and more fringe elements in the news and information (or disinformation) milieu. They know that negative narrative sells very well, and they are, after all, capitalists. So, they're sellin' the hell out of it, even when it goes against their so-called Liberal bias. If they weren't, there might be a different "message" in Today's Edition than is often the case. They will happily paint Biden and the D's in often underserved unflattering shades of grey or worse if it suits their narrative purpose, a prime example of which was discussed here yesterday.
Human nature being what it is, Boos mostly sell better than Cheers more often than not, and the D's aren't very good cheerleaders to begin with. They need to be more disciplined and unified. And a lot more direct and forceful in what they say. The narrative shouldn't be a California school board, defund law enforcement, or some poor fashion decision on the part of a fundraiser attendee (sorry, that was just beyond stupid). Folks I know who might be persuaded to go against their conservative instincts (note the small "c") and vote Democratic are not encouraged to do so when these types of things take their place in the media's chosen narrative and are sustained there. They can't stop the decision to do that, but they could do a much better job of making sure that when these types of things happen, their "message" is loud enough, clear enough and sustained enough that it overcomes the deleterious effects such things inevitably have. They surely must realize that to be successful, they need a big piece of the middle, and to get that they need a narrative that speaks to that place and those people, in a language they can easily understand and relate to, and hopefully believe in.
Unreasoned support of Putin is unfortunately not limited to weak-minded fools on the Right. A friend of mind tirelessly, and tiresomely, references Ralph Nader and "constitutional scholar" Bruce Fein, who argue in support of Putin's ruse that NATO's existence is an existential threat to Russia. (My friend happens to have been a philosophy major, which may account for a generally tentative relationship with the real world. Or is it his chronic gaming? Tough call. Now where'd I leave my Ocham's razor?)
Under Putin's "existential threat" analysis, then the recent communique between China and Russia is an existential threat to the world. Putin is a master liar. Ralph Nader belongs with Jill Stein and other libertarians whose minds have been besotted by Putin's doublespeak.
And to think that once upon a time, libertarians thought for themselves and stood by their beliefs while taking responsibility for their actions. The only thing certain in life, especially political life, is change.
"But most importantly, Democrats should stop spreading the false rumor that Democrats are focused on identity politics. They are not; they are focused on making the lives of all Americans better." Well said. Well done.
Unfortunately, Democrats do practice identity politics sometimes. Seattle, for instance, just repealed an ordinance requiring bicycle riders to wear helmets, on the ground that the ordinance was enforced unequally toward minorities and the homeless. So Seattle will trade human lives and well-being for better enforcement or even, perhaps, giving out free helmets. That’s both identity politics and gross stupidity (the two often accompany one another).
Jon, in your example, the party practicing identity politics is the police. The better approach would have been to address that problem more directly, but we shouldn't blame Democrats for attempting to protect groups targeted by their identities.
We can and should blame Democrats for being stupid. Like the San Francisco Board of Education members (do I have that name right?) who were recalled last week after they tried to rename schools named after Lincoln and Jefferson--at a time when there were real issues confronting the city's schools. Moral purity only gets you so far--and in politics, that's about an inch.
Love the “ Anyone can find fault. Let us find solutions.“ and it’s a great retort to Republican attacks. Bottom line is Republicans don’t have any solutions only faults. Our slogan should be “ Show me your solutions “.
“Unamerican Activities” seem to be a moot point in the GOP’s current incarnation. LGBTQ kids will survive because they must. Or not. Yet how dare these parents and politicians try to stigmatize them. They are bullies of the first order who use edicts and policies instead of fists and whips.
Dear Ralph Nader: Stick to promoting automotive safety. Dear Candace Owens: Stick to researching viruses and vaccines. Dear Josh Hawley: Take note that your Republican colleagues Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley and Ben Sasse are decidedly NOT in the Putin camp and re-assess your own fawning statements, so reminiscent of Charles Lindbergh and Prescott Bush, in an earlier, "simpler" time.
I am appalled at the Republicans' lying and support of Putin. Do you remember when Romney said that Russia was the geo-political threat, and nobody listened to him? (I am glad he wasn't elected, but he still spoke the truth on this subject). If you'd like to hear an excellent description of what REALLY happened with Ukraine's claim to sovereignty, and it's NOT what Putin said, please listen to Timothy Snyder from last night's "The Last Word" with Lawrence O'Donnell: https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/why-invading-ukraine-could-be-a-real-problem-for-putin-133720133759
And in accordance with Putin's logic, the members of the Republican party who agree with Putin's version of history would understand that the U.S.A. is actually entirely a creation of well ... lets see ... Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal ... and perhaps we should also properly include those who were actually here first the indigenous people from whom all those others actually stole the land.
I haven't turned on my TV today (yet), so I'm not "up" on the status of things. But one thing I will add to this is that with that amazing cast of brains assembled around Biden, it's no wonder he's playing a masterful game of three-dimensional chess. He actually pays attention to those who give him their best ideas...and that's an attribute of real leadership.
Context for Putin's version of history of Ukraine:
Kyiv is one among the oldest cities in Europe and was founded in 482, while Moscow was founded in 1147 by Yuriy Dolgoruky, the son of Volodymyr Monomakh. So, Kyiv is older than Moscow by 665 years.
Courtesy of and with permission of U.S. embassy in Kyiv:
It would be nice if Republicans remembered the old adage that politics stops at the water’s edge, even better if they were stand-defenders of democracy. But the next best thing is for them to deepen the split in the party over Putin and Ukraine. For now, I’ll take it.
Since Robert released today’s edition, Germany has announced it is stopping the Nordstream II pipeline. Good for Germany (although I shouldn’t be surprised to see them reverse themselves if Putin extends a fig-leaf). Now it’s up to Biden to tighten the screws, because Russia has sent troops into Lukhansk and the Donbas.
Alaska was once Russian territory. Will Republicans let Putin make a play for it?
On the other hand, Lithuanian and Poland once held most of European Russia. So…
For the right "price", I expect the anti-democratic, pro-authoritarian element of Republicans (read: seemingly most of them) would have little to no problem with that. I'm sure their leader would be more than accommodating, as long as he was satisfied with his cut. Sadly, I'm not even half joking.
Robert, I write because, although fundamentally you and I are on the same page, I do perceive a fundamental difference that I can’t dismiss because it’s too important. On one hand, in your Concluding Thoughts, you write that “problem-spotting” is “worthless as political currency. The key is to find solutions.” On the other, I believe we generally need to understand the nature of a situation and the factors involved in order to find solutions.
For example, in recent years, Republicans have been remarkably successful at turbo-charging fears of Democrats embracing socialist policies. Essentially, Republicans bank on our not sharing a basic understanding of Socialism. They exploit Americans’ overall inexperience distinguishing between, say, Democratic Socialism, that merely calls for a more equitable distribution of a nation’s wealth, and Socialism, that advocates for government control and ownership of the means of production. Consequently, Americans largely are susceptible to Republicans conflating the two to serve their own interests.
A devastating effect has been our Party’s failure, despite its 50 Senate Democrats, to pass its promised transformative set of economic policies. Not surprisingly, as we speak, the failure to extend the child tax credit already is causing an increase in poverty.
My point is that sometimes we can’t find solutions until we fully understand the nature of the problem. Meanwhile, we’re losing elections we should be winning.
I firmly believe that a significant problem is that the average voter has the attention span of a goldfish (not long). Democrats have a tendency to campaign with the "and I've got a plan for that" style (apologies to Senator Warren who I really do like and admire). While Republicans campaign with slogans and sound bites that fit on the crown of a baseball cap. Think about it ...
Most voters have neither the knowledge nor the experience to understand the subtleties of a complicated, multi-point plan or policy to address complicated issues they generally do not genuinely understand. One side still tends to publish white papers and essays and complicated proposals and the other operates without a platform longer than can appear on a billboard being passed at 70mph on an interstate.
I believe personally candidates would be far better to first listen to their voters and show them how they hold the same core values and it is those core values that will inform their views on issues (this is sometimes known as the old two ears, one mouth style of communications). The one thing we can be certain about the future is that it is uncertain. Anyone taking a public office will likely face issues and challenges if elected, we cannot even anticipate at present. If voters believe a candidate's values align well with their own, they are more likely to believe the decisions and positions on issues taken by that candidate will also align with their own views.
So first listen and try to start conversations with values and show how those are tied to any positions and views. Explain how as a candidate you came to hold those values and how they inform your views on issues. Do not try to explain complex, multi-point plans.
Here is my contribution for a new campaign slogan:
Make America democratic Again
And, it fits on the crown of a dozen blue baseball caps I just ordered to get it started.
BruceC, Though I, too, admittedly would acknowledge that democracy largely is about giving each person a dignified voice in the decision-making that will guide and regulate the person’s life, in my view, the lifeblood of democracy is predicated on something bigger than our individual selves, a moral awakening of sorts that is rooted in a sense of the public, a sense of what it is to be a citizen among citizens.
You perhaps give too many voters too much credit regarding their attention spans, and that's no knock on them. They have many more immediate concerns than policy details and wonkery. Like paying their bills or figuring out how to address whatever the next looming challenge is to just living their lives and hanging on to and preserving what they have, while hoping to improve their positions in life over time. But you are absolutely correct in what voters believe, or at least want to believe, about the candidates they choose to vote for vis a vie that candidate's "values." That belief is driven by a few different things, one of the most important of which is "messaging", a very hot topic of late. And from my perspective, the Democrats, unlike the Republicans, are lousy at being effective at this.
The Right is not completely monolithic, but it is a lot more homogenous than the Left. And messaging is, I believe, a simpler proposition there. Still, The D's could do a much better job of using more unified and better directed messaging to retain and energize not only their base and a good portion of the various wings, but to get the attention of and persuade non-affiliated independent voters such as myself. And one reason I think they fail at this is because they aren't good at narrative, neither creating it, or seizing and controlling it when necessary.
The mainstream media outside of the Murdoch enterprise are becoming masters of narrative, no longer lagging in their skills when compared to his and more fringe elements in the news and information (or disinformation) milieu. They know that negative narrative sells very well, and they are, after all, capitalists. So, they're sellin' the hell out of it, even when it goes against their so-called Liberal bias. If they weren't, there might be a different "message" in Today's Edition than is often the case. They will happily paint Biden and the D's in often underserved unflattering shades of grey or worse if it suits their narrative purpose, a prime example of which was discussed here yesterday.
Human nature being what it is, Boos mostly sell better than Cheers more often than not, and the D's aren't very good cheerleaders to begin with. They need to be more disciplined and unified. And a lot more direct and forceful in what they say. The narrative shouldn't be a California school board, defund law enforcement, or some poor fashion decision on the part of a fundraiser attendee (sorry, that was just beyond stupid). Folks I know who might be persuaded to go against their conservative instincts (note the small "c") and vote Democratic are not encouraged to do so when these types of things take their place in the media's chosen narrative and are sustained there. They can't stop the decision to do that, but they could do a much better job of making sure that when these types of things happen, their "message" is loud enough, clear enough and sustained enough that it overcomes the deleterious effects such things inevitably have. They surely must realize that to be successful, they need a big piece of the middle, and to get that they need a narrative that speaks to that place and those people, in a language they can easily understand and relate to, and hopefully believe in.
Call it what is...treason.
Technically and legally not the right word. But morally and ethically, absolutely 100% correct.
Unreasoned support of Putin is unfortunately not limited to weak-minded fools on the Right. A friend of mind tirelessly, and tiresomely, references Ralph Nader and "constitutional scholar" Bruce Fein, who argue in support of Putin's ruse that NATO's existence is an existential threat to Russia. (My friend happens to have been a philosophy major, which may account for a generally tentative relationship with the real world. Or is it his chronic gaming? Tough call. Now where'd I leave my Ocham's razor?)
Under Putin's "existential threat" analysis, then the recent communique between China and Russia is an existential threat to the world. Putin is a master liar. Ralph Nader belongs with Jill Stein and other libertarians whose minds have been besotted by Putin's doublespeak.
And to think that once upon a time, libertarians thought for themselves and stood by their beliefs while taking responsibility for their actions. The only thing certain in life, especially political life, is change.
I realize I'm splitting hairs, but it's Occam.
"But most importantly, Democrats should stop spreading the false rumor that Democrats are focused on identity politics. They are not; they are focused on making the lives of all Americans better." Well said. Well done.
Unfortunately, Democrats do practice identity politics sometimes. Seattle, for instance, just repealed an ordinance requiring bicycle riders to wear helmets, on the ground that the ordinance was enforced unequally toward minorities and the homeless. So Seattle will trade human lives and well-being for better enforcement or even, perhaps, giving out free helmets. That’s both identity politics and gross stupidity (the two often accompany one another).
Jon, in your example, the party practicing identity politics is the police. The better approach would have been to address that problem more directly, but we shouldn't blame Democrats for attempting to protect groups targeted by their identities.
We can and should blame Democrats for being stupid. Like the San Francisco Board of Education members (do I have that name right?) who were recalled last week after they tried to rename schools named after Lincoln and Jefferson--at a time when there were real issues confronting the city's schools. Moral purity only gets you so far--and in politics, that's about an inch.
Love the “ Anyone can find fault. Let us find solutions.“ and it’s a great retort to Republican attacks. Bottom line is Republicans don’t have any solutions only faults. Our slogan should be “ Show me your solutions “.
“Show me your solutions” 💙
“What did the TFG do for our country “🤔 Silence
“Let me tell you what President Biden has done for our country in just over a year”…
And, Katie Porter does this on a whiteboard.
“Unamerican Activities” seem to be a moot point in the GOP’s current incarnation. LGBTQ kids will survive because they must. Or not. Yet how dare these parents and politicians try to stigmatize them. They are bullies of the first order who use edicts and policies instead of fists and whips.
Dear Ralph Nader: Stick to promoting automotive safety. Dear Candace Owens: Stick to researching viruses and vaccines. Dear Josh Hawley: Take note that your Republican colleagues Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley and Ben Sasse are decidedly NOT in the Putin camp and re-assess your own fawning statements, so reminiscent of Charles Lindbergh and Prescott Bush, in an earlier, "simpler" time.
I am appalled at the Republicans' lying and support of Putin. Do you remember when Romney said that Russia was the geo-political threat, and nobody listened to him? (I am glad he wasn't elected, but he still spoke the truth on this subject). If you'd like to hear an excellent description of what REALLY happened with Ukraine's claim to sovereignty, and it's NOT what Putin said, please listen to Timothy Snyder from last night's "The Last Word" with Lawrence O'Donnell: https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/why-invading-ukraine-could-be-a-real-problem-for-putin-133720133759
And in accordance with Putin's logic, the members of the Republican party who agree with Putin's version of history would understand that the U.S.A. is actually entirely a creation of well ... lets see ... Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal ... and perhaps we should also properly include those who were actually here first the indigenous people from whom all those others actually stole the land.
I haven't turned on my TV today (yet), so I'm not "up" on the status of things. But one thing I will add to this is that with that amazing cast of brains assembled around Biden, it's no wonder he's playing a masterful game of three-dimensional chess. He actually pays attention to those who give him their best ideas...and that's an attribute of real leadership.
Context for Putin's version of history of Ukraine:
Kyiv is one among the oldest cities in Europe and was founded in 482, while Moscow was founded in 1147 by Yuriy Dolgoruky, the son of Volodymyr Monomakh. So, Kyiv is older than Moscow by 665 years.
Courtesy of and with permission of U.S. embassy in Kyiv:
https://twitter.com/USEmbassyKyiv/status/1496115593149358081?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1496115593149358081%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublish.twitter.com%2F%3Fquery%3Dhttps3A2F2Ftwitter.com2FUSEmbassyKyiv2Fstatus2F1496115593149358081widget%3DTweet
Perhaps Putin has it all the wrong way around and Russia is actually a part of Ukraine and should be properly governed from Kyiv by its President?
Bumper Sticker: Democrats are Pro-democracy, are you?
Or maybe - Make America democratic Again
Splitting a hair into three parts! Wikipedia gives Occam, Ockham, and Ocham. Either his idea of a little joke on history, or the name of his law firm?
Interesting, I've only known of Occam's razor. You are indeed splitting hairs. 😆
It would be nice if Republicans remembered the old adage that politics stops at the water’s edge, even better if they were stand-defenders of democracy. But the next best thing is for them to deepen the split in the party over Putin and Ukraine. For now, I’ll take it.
Since Robert released today’s edition, Germany has announced it is stopping the Nordstream II pipeline. Good for Germany (although I shouldn’t be surprised to see them reverse themselves if Putin extends a fig-leaf). Now it’s up to Biden to tighten the screws, because Russia has sent troops into Lukhansk and the Donbas.
O', ccam now! (Corny jokes welcome here. 😂)