I’m gonna tell you about a little hunch I have. We are on the eve of a new political era. All the battles we have been fighting among ourselves? We are going to be fighting new ones soon. All this argument about why we keep losing elections (by absolutely miniscule to non-existent margins)? We are going to move on.
We won’t be seeing stuff like this from Kos anymore:
New school progressives are also less tolerant of ideological orthodoxy. We don’t fall in line with the “acceptable” liberal position, frankly, because we’re not trained to fall in line. We are more likely to be educated in an economy that values “proactiveness” and “self-initiative” and “problem solving” over blindly following the orders of our boss.
Why? I’ll explain below the fold.
In our two-party system things change slowly. Over the course of the last 150 years we have seen the Republican Party go from a northern party to a southern party. In the late 19th and early 20th century we saw the country invade Mexico, Guatemala, Haiti, the Philippines, and Cuba, then turn strongly isolationist, then intervene in World War One, then become extremely isolationist again, then fight World War Two, Korea, Vietnam…take a break, and then launch two wars in the Middle East.
If, in the long view, our nation’s politics look schizophrenic, we must remember that each era lasted a long time, usually ten or more years. And each era came to an end with an exclamation point: the Stock Market Crash, Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima. Or in the case of the sixties, a series of exclamation points: the JFK assassination, the Civil Rights Act, the Vietnam War and the 1968 Democratic Convention.
Since 1968 the dynamics of the two major parties have changed dramatically. In nominating George McGovern the Democratic Party alienated the hawkish wing of the Party (the Richard Perles and Paul Wolfowitzs). The Party also set itself up for a crushing defeat in 1972.
In 2004, the party refused to take that risk again, and it nominated a man who would not repudiate the war. There will be endless debates about whether nominating Kerry prevented an anti-war candidate from winning, or whether he fought to a near draw and prevented a 1972-like catastrophe. Whichever is the case, just as in 1973, the party is looking around and trying to figure out what went wrong. Everyone has a theory: Kerry lacked charisma, or convictions, or didn’t fight, or the election was rigged, or Edwards was ineffective, or the media was biased, or the party was too centrist, or the party was too liberal.
Maybe Kos thinks the party is too fragmented and too concerned with turf battles and pet issues. Maybe other people think the party isn’t standing up for its core principles.
In 1973, a scandal broke over the Watergate tapes. All the hand wringing and self doubt of the Democrats was left behind in the single-minded pursuit of bringing down the law-breaking thugs in the White House. By the time Nixon resigned, his second term was nearly half over. But in the 1974 elections the Democrats cleaned the Republicans clock, and brought in 75 new Democratic members of the house. The GOP brought in seventeen.
And what happened?
After forcing Ways and Means Committee Chairman Wilbur Mills to resign from his chairmanship following a scandal with a famous Argentine stripper, the Watergate Babies demanded that senior chairmen appear before them and justify why they should retain their posts.
Television reporter Roger Mudd said that it was “the ultimate indignity” for senior chairs to be required to do this. Congress would “never be the same again,” quipped one legislator. When three
chairmen, Edward Herbert, W.R. Poage, and Wright Patman did not provide satisfactory answers, the caucus moved to unseat them. The New York Times editorial page boasted:
“The House Democrats have now ended the tyranny of the committee chairmen and introduced majority rule as the principle ordering their affairs.
The removal of powerful committee chairmen in 1975 was a landmark moment in the history of America’s Congress.
link (.pdf)
The Class of ’74, aka the Watergate Babies, didn’t succeed in stamping out corruption, or in building a new sustainable majority for the Democratic Party. But they did permanently change how Congress is run…and for the better. They took on the entrenched power structure in Congress and they put a Democratic president in the White House two years later.
We are the kernel, or the nucleus of a new class: The class of ’06. While the DLC putters around the fringes, polling on how to frame a national message that will sell in the heartland, we have been calling this Bush regime and their congressional goons a bunch of lawless thieves and transparent crooks. We’ve been exposing their lies every day for several years. And when the hammer comes down on this administration in the coming days, we will be vindicated, and it will be our mantra to clean up government that will have the high road. All this talk of ‘framing’ health care and women’s rights for the common man will be irrelevant. It will be time for the progressives to once again stand up strong and begin the process of leading our party out of the hinterlands.
DeLay, Frist, Rove, Libby, Cheney, Bush… they’re nearly finished. Their revolution is about to get mired down in the mud of their own hubris and corruption. It will be up to us to lead this country out of the morass. And we will have the opportunity to do so.
Who do you see as being members of “the class of ’06”? Do you have specific people/candidates in mind?
you can be one of the Plamegate babies. Maybe Janet Strange can be your campaign manager.
LOL!!
Even in Travis County, I think I’d be better behind the scenes, my past would NOT withstand the scrutinty! But thanks for the vote of confidence!
brinnainne, to hell with your past….if you have honesty in your bones, then you have my vote….:o)
I have often siad to my husband that if I didn’t have small children, I would already been running for office — he can take whatever they dish out about me, I don’t know that the little guys could, or should have to for that matter….I am seriously thinking about school board though!
brinnainne, I really think you should go for it. REALLY! The school board should have ppl like you on it. Parents of all ppl, should have a greater say on such. I like the idea…hugs…
run for office. School board is every bit if not more important than congress.
In a microcosm of the national picture we are running two guys for Town Council here in Stephentown for the first time in about 8 years. It has been one party rule to the point of no challengers. We are changing that and it is clear that the people of this time are ready for that change. Open government with elected officials that are once again held accountable for their actions and inactions. Reform, responsibility, accountability, that’s what we are about.
Run for office. You’ll win if you try.
a bunch of us old progressives pointed out that it was in the city councils and school boards where the Religious Reich made their slow, pernicious march to Take Over America For God; if progressives are going to take back this country, it’s going to have to start the same way, with us encouraging younger folks to get involved in the process, no matter how boring it sounds…
Go for it!
What do I know about campaign managing? Luckily, at the US Congress level, we have three seats that have Austin included as part of the districts, and there are progressive candidates running in each one – two new ones who remind me a lot of the “Watergate babies” – and yes, I’m old enough to remember that rout in 74. And yes, I feel the same thing in the air as I did then.
But if Brinn wants to run for school board, she and I can both learn on the job how to do this campaigning thingy.
Oh, BooMan… from your lips to God’s ears. This is why I love reading your stuff… we all can dance around and speculate endlessly. You have the ability to step back and see the whole picture, then explain it all for the rest of us. Great piece!
Merci, Bon Amie…..Very well written. I want to be along side of you young fellows here that do this job. I know of this change and I totally agree with you. We are leaders and always have been. Those of the DLC are just fringe feathers of fanning the breeze…otherwise knows as bullfeces with $$$. We/You all have substantial substance to our words.
This is why I remain independent. Booman, you have got to be the best of the best…Hugs
It would be awesome for your hunch to be true….
This old cynic isn’t so sure…for the past 25 years (starting with Reagan) I’m more and more cynical….
But then again the news this morning had the Preznit’s approval at 39% and congress’s approval at 28%…maybe you are right.
Please let it be so….
I like the optimism. Hope you are right. The politics of framing and pandering and vote counting: I am beyond sick of it. I would stand behind any candidate who stands up with a purpose aligned with my own. An epochal change. Sounds good.
I am a bit surprised to see this coming from you, an attorney. Surely you know that language matters.
Framing is not the answer, but it is a piece of the puzzle. This country is not comprised of people like us, knowledgeable about most issues and involved outside of the normal four year election cycle. We have to recognize that most people probably don’t even know who the hell Karl Rove is.
Framing doesn’t have to be cynical or manipulative, it just acknowledges that how you present issues can have a major impact on how they are perceived by the masses.
It has to do with stating issues with a sense of conviction – not nuance. This is what people are waiting for. I am convinced of it!
The two are not mutually exclusive.
I agree that they are not mutually exclusive. But I just wish the Democrats would spend as much time on talking with conviction as they do on “framing.” At least give it equal time (although I think the “conviction thing” is more important.)
The only core party value that there is for me is people……..and what isn’t working for the betterment of the people isn’t working for me and isn’t working for the party I belong to. What the people need is what I am about. We need healthcare where every 30 cents of every dollar we spend isn’t going to an Administrative structure trying to figure out how to deny us healthcare……that’s nuts. It needs to go to nurses and aides and xray equipment, fuck that kind of nuts! We need a lot of things and that is what MY PARTY is about, IT IS ABOUT WHAT IS NEEDED! Not framing shit to sell it, you don’t have to sell what the people need – they’ll take it off your hands right there! Tired of annoying analysis from computer chairs, Kos is just about as out of touch with the real world as the DLC anymore. Get out in the trenches! Get yourself dirty in the real world where all the answers to all of our party questions can be easily found!
Tracy Girl, you are one remarkable person. Hugs…I am getting more familar with your ways of thinking as time goes on. Hearts that think alike stand together in the land of politics. Applaud!!!!!!!!!!!
Brenda, you are right about our Tracy. She has a talent for clear thinking, using her uncanny common sense as her guide. Great comment, Tracy.
The only core party value that there is for me is people……..and what isn’t working for the betterment of the people isn’t working for me and isn’t working for the party I belong to. What the people need is what I am about.
Perfect. Awesome.
Since I don’t post at dKos…
I swear kos wakes up in the morning and asks himself, “let’s see…who can I alienate today?”.
You want proactiveness and self-initiative? Learn your history! I guess all of those anti-war and civil rights and women’s liberation movements in the 50s, 60s and 70s were just about falling in line, right?
C’mon…geez…”ideological othodoxy” my ass.
(And great diary, Boo.)
Catnip, I like you do not go to the other site unless a link to that site is given for reading. I used to, just to see what is being said. I do not need it for thought since I have you all here. You are right..lots of ppl over there are out of touch, simply, with the rest of us here in the real world.
As far as I’m concerned, people who have no respect for history ought not be predicting what will happen in the future.
perhaps he envisions himself the new school nostradamos… no need to learn history if you think you already have all the answers about the future.
:o)..so true!!!!!!!!!!
Catnip –
You’ve got great comments throughout this thread today.
I’m reluctant to pile on about Kos because I think we have more productive things to do, but I’ll just say this – as one of those old-school ideologues I see precious little thought on his part about WHAT we’re going to do once we’re back in power and WHY we want to get there – it’s not about the winning, it’s about helping the people once we run the bums out! And if we’re not planning that now (“ideology”) we’re going to win and end up saying “OK, now what?” while the Republicans are planning their comeback, as they did to Carter.
I made the comment the other day that we needed to get our think tanks going, and someone commented that they didn’t like think tanks. Perhaps I expressed myself poorly – what I meant was just the above: we need to figure WHY we deserve to win and WHAT we’re going to do once in power, or otherwise we’re rudderless and prone to lethargy and corruption once in power. We need the discipline of a public statement that puts us on the hook for results, or we’ll just slosh around and fritter away our chance. And Lord knows the world can’t afford that!
not to get greedy. Our job is to win the next election, not to win the next four in a row. And the two goals are not mutually exclusive. And the work on the goals can go on in tandem, and should.
But we do not have to resolve the split within the party before we take power, we must prevail once we gain power.
These are complex algorithms.
That was my thought exactly. As a proud member of the Question Authority generation, I don’t consider myself and my peers prone to “falling in line.”
Of course, the hubris of the young is to be expected. After all, we were guilty of the same. It is every generation’s birthright to believe they can change the world.
I agree that the pendulum may have swung about as far to the right as is possible. But I remain extremely annoyed with Kos’s dismissal of what he calls ‘ideology’ because it’s impossible to nuance that bias to express what looks very like an impatience and dismissal of deeply held values which Kos and the NDN do not share. He appears to be positioning himself as The Voice of Youth and the Future whereas he’s always been quite conservative and old fashioned in his thinking about social policy and particularly in his thinking about poverty and his dismissal of women’s issues. (Indeed, he completely dismisses ‘women’s issues’ as not worthy of his attention and treats this important demographic as unworthy of a seat in the so-called big tent.)
He’s a modular thinker and the fact of the matter is that modular thinkers aren’t the Voice of the Future. His success has been a result of grasping one of the potential uses for a new method of communication, not in Democratic strategy and certainly not public policy or forming a comprehensive and uniting message for a Democratic platform and that cannot be achieved by dismissing people’s values in favor of a world view which makes politics into a sort of sports competition with the parties as teams. That sort of thinking is completely alien and alienating to many voters and certainly many voters who used to be reliable Democratic voters.
Beyond that: Markos is a technocrat, and views things in technocratic terms. As a computer geek, he’s infected with the field’s pseudo-Libertarianism and level-playing-field mythology. In his world, anyone who’s anyone has gotten there because they know their stuff, not because they’re the right gender or class or race – and anything that challenges that perspective is heresy. It’s a tempting world view – but it ignores many of the realities of our society, realities that need to be accounted for in any progressive platform.
Also, when he writes about ‘results’ vs. ‘orthodoxy’, he’s writing it from the perspective of someone who isn’t holding power. It’s amazing how orthodox the revolutionaries become once they come into power; he’s deluding himself if he thinks his ‘New New Democrats’ will be any different.
the men & women at the top may be finished, as you say. And no-one is looking forward to the fucking frog-march parade more than me!
But while their “revolution” may be mired, these things are still round and still revolve.
The most important progressive step, bar none, is preparing the next generation to take control of the cycles. That is: all children need to learn to think critically and they need the food and shelter and love that allows education to work. Enacting this concept needs to be THE progressive goal.
{{{{The most important progressive step, bar none, is preparing the next generation to take control of the cycles. That is: all children need to learn to think critically and they need the food and shelter and love that allows education to work. Enacting this concept needs to be THE progressive goal.}}}} Why must one wait for the next generation to get the job done?! I want to have it before I demise…I am not getting any younger here, my dear. I have wanted this for ever so long…..
We can start sooner if you like.
Now that I have (six-month old) children, I see all the world through that filter.
how soon are we talking here? Might I be allowed to say yesterday or at least 5+ years ago….:o)
Well, I’ve got two diapers to change, and some cereal to feed, and then a walk to the store, but when the girls’ mom gets back, I might be able to start.
Of course maybe I can do some work while we stroll….
Today, I will help you with the chores…:o)
S2, Hon, I am not trying to argue with you here…I happen to agree with you, certainly. The children ARE our future..we have got to leave them with more than the crap we have now for their lives to be productive in many ways. I, for one, will depend on them for doing the right thing for me in the future. Hugs…….
of course we agree.
its all (gonna be) good.
best to you.
Yell it from the mountaintop Booman! The left is on the march!
You might be interested in what David Sirota has to say about this subject. He’s not as optimistic as you are.
I agree with his idea that movements are born outside of political parties and only direct the party platforms after the popular momentum has become irresistible.
I would love to know how Sirota is defining “progessive” because in reading the article, it seems that every thing he says about them is what we rail agsinst here on almost a daily basis. What do you think?
I would love to know how Sirota is defining “progessive”
I imagine that he’s refering to the originators of the term, at least in modern day politics.
disclaimer:(I’m not a ‘progressive’, I am now and always have been a liberal. Well, except for those 6 months of attraction to Ayn Rand when I was 17)
I have a lot of agreement with Sirota.
But… my thesis is that Sirota is not writing a description so much as an obituary on an era that is rapidly coming to an end.
It seems to me that if bloggers want to claim victories for uncovering and pushing on scandals, then they (we) must also take responsibility for taking the wrong lessons from events. You can’t cherry pick on this.
Also, why all this opposition to framing? All it means is talking about our values, our ideas, our policies on our terms, and not based on premises and using vocabulary defined by conservatives.
“Framing” has certainly had its fifteen minutes, but it’s silly to dismiss the good ideas it provides. It doesn’t fundamentally change anything, but an awareness of language as a tool helps a lot.
I sympathize with “framing fatigue,” but throwing Lakoff’s ideas out completely would be a lovely step backwards.
{{{Also, why all this opposition to framing? All it means is talking about our values, our ideas, our policies on our terms, and not based on premises and using vocabulary defined by conservatives. }}}} To me I would like to change the whole process of defination. I think we ought to call it something else other than framing. I do not know what the acutal word is I am thinking here but it is not framing…just my feeling tho…
…as long as we do it.
Are you saying we have to reframe “framing”?
No, fuck framing. Give me combat, give me education, give me unapologetic strength on an issue that is a loser in the polls, not framing to obfuscate its current weakness.
What I got from Lakoff is that liberals and progressives are trying to argue their positions using conservative ideas, conservative premises, conservative vocabulary.
It is set up for failure.
To put such a cynical marketing spin on it I believe is your work, not Lakoff’s.
Or do you think you really can just not think of an elephant?
BooMan, I agree with this:
Framing is a concession to the stupidity and impressionability of the electorate. It is cynical thru and thru.
Yes it is. It is sales and marketing, with a touch of manipulative psychology thrown in.
In a perfect world, a grassroots education campaign on the real impacts of restricting women’s health care choice could open the eyes of swing voters and win them to our side of the issue. But I am cynical through and through. That’s not happening. We have to compete in the sound bite space as well.
Perhaps “framing” as a brand name is tired. But you know what’s even more tired? Democrats who talk like Republicans, and are then surprised when they lose, lose, lose. If we ignore framing, we will continue to have Democrats kneecapping themselves by using terms like “pro-life” and “death tax” and “Social Security modernization.”
That is what leads to Bill Ritter for Governor in Colorado, and Bill Casey for Senator in Pennsylvania in my opinion. Framing simply says “be aware of how language works and why to avoid using Republican terminology.” We ignore it at our peril.
I think we had a better conclusion to our framing debate…sorry to engage you on two fronts.
…because if we can’t agree on the term, then we’re not communicating. (Disclosure: I’ve now framed the dialogue here in terms of the dialectic.)
From “Don’t Think of an Elephant” p. 100 in FAQ:
Page 105:
The book is 119 pages — a relatively short read. And it’s formatted to be easy to scan. If anyone reading this here has not actually read the book, I can’t recommend it highly enough.
At the very least, just pick it up and glance at it in the bookstore. Flip to chapter one and just read one or two pages. Flip to p. 110.
Framing is not something to be scared about or sickened over — it’s a short and incisive explication of what’s been happening in our political discourse. We ignore it at our peril.
Sirota:
Bingo.
Stick that in your progressive pipe and smoke it, kos.
Oh…and thanks for the French title. 🙂
we’re still waiting for a translation 🙂
It says, “catnip rocks!”. 🙂
It does not!
It says: “Bush is dead! Long live Connecticut Man1!”
I think it translates into The king is dead, long live the king. Taken from Lord of the Ring, if I am not mistaken.
“The Queen is dead… long live the King”
Shakespeare’s last performance before Elizabeth I takes place on February 2nd. Elizabeth dies on February 24th.
James VI of Scotland is proclaimed King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland as James I. James is very enthusiastic about the theatre, and in May Shakespeare’s company is given letter of patent to become the King’s acting company.
Despite the general optimism that greets James I’s accession, “political” sonnets written by Shakespeare at this time seem to show he finds his new role as a player/playwright/courtier hard to take. He is forty years old and, like most men of his age, probably becoming braver and more belligerent in his opinions.
The translation is correct. The source is actually historical, not literary — it refers to the immediacy of succession, that the rule of the next king began immediately upon the death of his predecessor, so there was an unbroken line of royal authority.
But a change in the kingship meant a change on many levels, or at least the potential for change (just as today, officers of government scramble to retain power however they can). And it raises the potential of another sea change on the horizon in American politics… may it be so. We need a serious change — not just in Administration (though that is also necessary) but the way government is run.
Booman, I sure hope you are right, because I am getting roundly sick up and fed of the current gang of thugs.
I suppose I could live through a new Dark Ages if that’s the hand I was dealt, but frankly, I look at my granddaughter and think there’s no way I want to subject her to what’s in store for her if this goes on.
future are being seeded now. We are seeing people come to the blogs when they are running for office. And we are seeing people like Cindy Sheehan creating a wholly new presence in the world – creating people out of casualty figures where Bush only wanted shadows. There is definitely more to come. I haven’t seen the entrenched dems yet embrace the concepts of cleaning house, but the lobbying scandals are hitting them as well. It is possible that some fed proscecuter will help us clean house there as well!
While Nixon crashed and burned, and the Dems enjoyed a bubble, the conservatives were waging their “war of ideas” … and what came of it?
Jimmy Carter served one term.
Democratic control that had existed even then for decades started to slip.
The Republicans ended up with the lasting victory.
So I would say the lesson of 1973 is to not avoid the war of ideas, not to avoid the values talk, because to play inside-the-beltway hardball without a game plan may win an inning or two, but will not win the ballgame.
Jimmy Carter served one term.
Democratic control that had existed even then for decades started to slip.
That’s why the Dems need oustanding leaders and a very clear agenda that is doable. That’s a tough challenge now that the Repubs have plunged the country into so much debt but it can be done by being practical and not to the detriment of Democratic ideals that are at the core of the party.
That’s why I disagree with kos when he refers to ideological orthodoxy in such a negative way. If you don’t have ideals, you don’t stand for anything and no amount of new-fangled, wiz bang strategy will save you.
Good point, catnip.
And look what else we have in common with 1973:
An atrociously expensive foreign war draining the coffers and splitting the populace. Only Iraq is proving to be much more expensive.
An oil crisis. But ours looks to continue until there is no more oil.
Simply taking over power without having a plan, so that the Democrats can simply inherit all these problems, is not a recipe for long-term success.
Anti-corruption talk only works until you’re elected. Then suddenly all the corruption talk is about you.
Not sure what you mean by that. I think one of the biggest failing of the liberals/Dems is the kneejerk response of “that would never fly”. You can see it here and on all the other liberal sites every time somebody wants to talk about ideas for the future. Things become doable because people make them doable.
What makes me less bubbly than Boo about the current situation is that I have no idea at all what the Dems would do if they did come to power. Which means, if they don’t figure it out quick, they won’t be in power for long.
doable=realistic
I’m a “practical idealist”. That’s what the Dems need to aim for.
What makes me less bubbly than Boo about the current situation is that I have no idea at all what the Dems would do if they did come to power.
And that’s where Dem supporters come in. Those with the power need to know exactly what you want and we can talk about definitions of “progressives” and “framing” and new whoop-dee-doo Democratic youth and netroots all we want, but if they don’t get the message about the issues, we have failed.
Compassionate Conservatives, meet the Practical Liberals.
Will have to follow your link, but as far as the Dems go, still no idea where they would take us if we gave them the wheel.
While I trust the destination will be to my liking and possibly somewhat of my choosing, many others do not share my trust.
In the battle of ideas, Dems have been pretty much satisfied to keep their powder dry. Qustion is whether it has all blown away along with their will.
First you win the argument, then you win the vote.
and allowed himself to be caught up in events, rather than taking control of events. It’s a horrific thought, but if Reagan or one of the Bushes had been in the Oval Office when the hostages were taken, we probably would have invaded Iraq, with the blessing of the United Nations.
We need a plan, we need to take a stand and define what we believe in, and we need a leader who can react definitively to crises. A lot of people thought they saw that in GWB — that’s why he got “elected”. (Whatever you think about whether the elections were rigged, GWB got enough votes to make a victory look plausible.) But we’re seeing now that it was pretty much just an act, or maybe now that he’s in his second term Bush is in “Fuck it, it’s not like I can run again” mode. Do the Democrats have such a leader? I’m not really sure…
that I typed “invaded Iraq” instead of “Iran” — but then again, if GWB had been in office, we would have invaded Iraq instead of Iran…
The politics of framing and pandering and vote counting: I am beyond sick of it.
Couldn’t agree more- I have always hated the ‘framing’ BS-smacks of lying and propaganda.
Attacking the GOP as the power-grabbing party of crime, corruption, and cronyism is the very essence of framing.
The GOP is trying to pre-emptively counter-frame by calling this “the criminalization of politics.” And they’ll get away with it, if your ostrich-like attitude toward framing prevails amongs Democrats and progressives.
Framing has nothing to do with pandering, any more than mathematics has to do with tax-cheating.
In fact, George Lakoff is very explicit in rejecting the GOP-lite route. From Don’t Think of An Elephant:
In fact, this is fundamental point that Markos missed about the whole Ohio vote fraud issue. He saw it as a distraction from the “real work of politics.” But it was actually a golden opportunity to reinforce the GOP power-grab frame–about which Lakoff also writes.
Of course the GOP will scream bloody murder whenever we do this. That’s how we know we’re doing the right thing.
on this at all.
You don’t just pick a frame because it sounds good. You pick it because it polls well.
Framing isn’t picking an issue like prescription drugs because the issue sells well. Framing is figuring out the best language to get people to support an insanely expensive new entitlement (to use a GOP frame).
It’s pure marketing.
I call it a dogshit scoop, you call it a pooper-scooper. You sell more of them.
I call it assistance to unwed mothers, you show a black crackhead on line at the welfare office.
I call it more money for schools, you say it is your money their spending.
I call it privacy, you call it murder.
I call it affirmative action, you call it reverse discrimination.
What is missed is the facts, the merits, the reason I want to pick up my dog’s shit in the first place.
You don’t just pick a frame because it sounds good. You pick it because it polls well.
No, you already have an issue position you want to promote, and then you frame it to your best advantage.
I do see where the “technology” of framing can itself be valueless, but framing is simply a way to get people to think about an issue in terms of your values. I don’t understand how using language this way strips the issue of its merits, although anything can be misused of course.
to be disagreeing with me but you aren’t.
Let’s say that we think it is important to have class sizes no bigger than 18 students in our public schools. That is our idea, the merit of which is based on studies that show that classes larger than that wind up ill-serving many students.
Framing is deciding how to communicate the merits of this idea, and/or hide its downside.
It’s not discussing it in a rational matter, citing studies, and pontificating on cost/benefit analysis.
It’s countering the accusations that it is a federal intrusion into local schoolboards, that it is throwing good money after bad, that it is your money, that it’s a give away to urban schools, etc.
An effective counterattack is difficult, but that is the job of framing. Framing is important. But it has taken over the job of policy formation.
And lastly, you can usually do better by just saying, “I’m for goddamn small class sizes, America’s children deserve it.”
Mind you, that is NOT framing. That is just a declarative statement.
And lastly, you can usually do better by just saying, “I’m for goddamn small class sizes, America’s children deserve it.”
Plain talk can be the best framing. [Ducks head]
No really. The above is a statement of values that does not employ Republican-leaning words like “school choice” or “performance accountability,” etc. It’s the kind of thing Howard Dean tosses out, usually after having used several lovingly crafted framing sentences, and it’s why I will still do anything the Governor asks me to.
So obviously we’re converging on a common ground, which is always good. I do see your point that framing can be used to hide details of what ideally should be an open policy debate that does not hide the tradeoffs or negative aspects of our position.
I guess I do see what you hope for–a renewal of civic debate and honest, open issue debate by candidates–as unrealistic and naive. We hear entire speeches that never mention details. Even some of our better leaders hurt us regularly by reinforcing Republican ways of thinking. I think framing provides a realization of the power of words that many Democratic politicians lack.
But your argument is persuasive. Dean’s plain and honest policy talk made him a hero well before he or I had read Lakoff, and somehow actively framing things became very natural for him. And he does it in a way that I don’t think leads to any of the intellectual dishonesty you see. Framing is a tool that can be used well or poorly, but we need it in our toolbox.
The GOP spends about 200 million dollars a year in just “framing” their lies… and people believe them.
come as a shock to a lot of people, although I’ve made it clear before…but
I could never stand Howard Dean. I didn’t like the way he talked, or his facial expressions, or his gestures, and I found him utterly unpersuasive even when I agreed with him.
The only thing I found appealing was when he dropped his comments about gunracks, his incredibly bad timing and tone-deaf downers (like poo-pooing the capture of Saddam the same day he was captured), and just called Bush a crook and a liar.
I said, “Hark, what did I hear? Did he just call the President a lying fraud?” That’s my man Howie.
In other words, his frank talk was his appeal, at least to me, but his lack of political skills meant that his frank talk, and inappropriate pep-rallies were as much of a downside as an upside.
I’ll make it up to you Deaniacs. I promise.
Well most Dean supporters got beyond the superficial and recognized that Dean was the best candidate to lead the country.
It was the Republican “framing” of Dean that killed his chances. It was done so well, the dems bought it. Just look at the Dean “scream” frame. Framing, imho, is not a bad word it is just how it is used. Take any issue and put it into its best light by framing it properly. Framing is a marketing tool. Let’s use it to our advantage. You don’t have to lie in order to frame something. Jeez, they even called the folks that wrote the Constitution “Framers”.
First impressions are hard to break.
I loved Howard from the moment I heard him yelling “What I Want to Know.” He’s the guy we told…ordered, actually…to bring a bat on stage for his next appearance. A bunch of bloggers posting just like this, and a few hours later, here’s Howard swinging the bat at his next stage appearance.
Now that is people power.
“Inappropriate pep rallies?” I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but I guaran-damn-tee you BooMan Tribune would be a ghost town without the energy Howard catalyzed.
I disagree strongly with several of Howard’s issue positions. But he has arrived at them honestly, through thought and debate and compromise. I ask for nothing more.
LOL. In any case I eshew the term “Deaniac”. It always was pejorative, esp when used by the press… despite the fact supporters embraced it…
One question, if I may, who did you support in the primary (that crowded horse race) and why.
Sorry, if you wanna swipe one guy (tho he led in spectacular fashion for a while and now is DNC Chair, an interesting trajectory) then, please, state who got your vote.
So,
-who did yuo support early on? And
-who did you vote for in the PA primary?
(I was Dean from July 2002 and voted for him March 2 in CA)
This statement is false:
Framing can be used to communicate the merits of an idea and/or hide its downside. But framing is much, much more than that.
For example, optical illusions work by showing us that we are subconsciously processing visual information that we didn’t even know existed. And a crucial part of that processing involves framing. The most obvious are the optical illusions involving a picture that can be read two different ways. But other optical illusions involve framing as well, because neural computing is heavily reliant on framing of information in order to further process it. (See, for example, illustrations involving checkerboards, where the ‘light’ square in shadow is the same shade as the ‘dark’ square in direct light.)
The same is true of cognitive processing. You can assert that framing and rational discourse are two opposite things. But mere assertion is not rational argument. Ironically, in this case, it’s simply the arbitrary invoction of the either/or frame.
the problem with the framologists is that they insist that absolutely everything is framing.
Framing must be defined, and that means limiting in some way. It can’t be both ‘Healthy Forests’ AND a dissertation on the benefits of clear-cutting for forest health.
If we are talking about cognitive function we are talking about the visceral, right? Not a damned debate.
The circulatory system pervades the entire human body. But that doesn’t mean it IS the entire human body. The same is true of framing and human cognition.
By focusing on one narrow manifestation–the conservative/GOP use of propagandistic framing ala Luntz, Gingrich, et al–you are blinding yourself to the big picture. And you need to reconnect to the big picture in order to have a truly accurate and effective critique of conservative framing, as well as an effective counter-response.
Janet Strange really did hit the nose on the head. It’s about getting clear on our values, and articulating our political positions as a direct expression of them. And Parker was right, too. It’s about realizing when we are using conservative frames ourselves, and reversing the process, so that they are using our frames.
In fact, the entire internal debate about frames among Democrats and progressives is, in a sense, another example of this. You have accepted the conservative frame on framing–“It’s what we do!” And this is highly misleading, both for those who oppose it and for those who endorse it.
There are a lot of people who misunderstand and misapply Lakoff’s message. That’s bound to happen with any newly introduced idea of sufficient scope. And you are right to criticize those who use framing as an excuse for not doing other things–or as a justification for moving to the center, which Lakoff explicitly rejects. I will join you wholeheartedly in either of these endeavors. But your critique will be far superior if you take the time to get inside the whole logic of framing, and develop a more precise critique of how people are misusing it.
I think framing is:
It is a focus on the non-rational or pre-rational or subconscious effects of words, and an attempt to exploit the susceptibility of the human mind to these types of coercive arguments.
If you repeat GOP frames you are doing their work for them. You can always improve the attractiveness of your policies by improving the wording you use to describe them. That is why I keep saying framing is important.
My critique is that the Democrats seem to think that they don’t have to change their policies, they just need to package them better. And when that packaging fails, as it almost always seems to do, they abandon framing in favor of actually moving to the right.
My idea is that framing is a losing argument when your policies are sound. If you are losing a framing argument, then just make a declarative statement. ‘I am for abortion on demand dammit, and if you don’t like it you can eat your hat’ will sell better in Okalahoma than any attempt to use ‘anti-choice’ ‘government intrusion’ or any other visceral triggers.
…Democrats seem to think that they don’t have to change their policies, they just need to package them better. And when that packaging fails, as it almost always seems to do, they abandon framing in favor of actually moving to the right.
This needs to be explained more…please give an example.
first we tried to talk about ‘rights’ then ‘choice’ always being sure that we are ‘pro’ and not ‘anti’.
When we discovered that all this framing bullshit had utterly failed to persuade Nebraskans and Louisianians to vote for pro-choice candidates, we stopped trying and recruited anti-choice candidates.
Now the virus has spread to Pennsylvania, and nearly Rhode Island.
My critique isn’t with Lakoff as a theorist, but with framing as a policy.
That is not true.
What happened in the meantime was that the GOP came up with some juicy whoppering frames:
They purposely set up frames to put the Democrats of the defensive.
Democrats suddenly became the party who wanted to let teenage girls kill their babies in between classes two days before they gave birth.
Framing killed the pro-choice position because instead of fighting back and throwing off of these frames … the Democrats (unsurprisingly) coward and accepted these frames and tried to moderaterate their position.
but we are just seeing things a tad differently.
You say they framed us to death.
I say they tricked us into engaging in a framing game in the first place, and we lost.
You’re getting more specific, which is good. But you’re still throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And you still seem to have totally ignored the fact that Lakoff is not a moderate! He is not arguing for a GOP-lite strategy, he is arguing against it! (How many exclamation marks do I need? Damn it!!!!!)
Now, I agree with your criticism where it applies. Those who misread and misapply Lakoff would lead us astray. And the failure of their misguided efforts would be used as further fuel by the rightward marchers. But your over-the-top straw-man attack does nothing to clarify the situation, and only further splits people apart. It’s a whole lot of heat and not much light. And it comes from someone who is generally just the opposite.
You are in fact proving the importance of framing by attempting to reframe how to discuss reproductive rights. You may be right about this issue — heaven knows the right has been dominating the debate for years — but your argument here is for a different frame.
this is what I hate about this debate.
Framing cannot be everything. You cannot state that every possible thing I say is but a different frame.
A frame is using a word or words that effect a person on a non-rational basis.
the word ‘anti’ is bad
the word ‘pro’ is good
that’s framing
‘I support x, take it or leave it’ IS NOT A FRAME.
What people are responding to is not the words but the self-assurance.
It’s not that everything you say is but a different frame. It’s that everything you say involves a different frame. It’s the old blood vessels/flesh thing I mention elsewhere.
That’s part of framing. So, too, is the subconscious processing that gives two different interpretations to various well-known optical illusions.
And self-presentation is another aspect of framing. When AWOL Bush put on a flight suit, that was framing, too. (Truth and falsity are another issue.)
Framing is ubiquitous. It’s everywhere, but that doesn’t mean it’s everything.
It’s a holographic universe, dude! Get used to it!
it means nothing.
You have never heard Democrats engaged in a serious discussion where they opined that we would win more elections if we only wore more red ties, used better posture, or blinked our eyes less.
You are confusing the cognitive theory of framing with the political theory of framing.
For the purposes of political theory this is what matters:
The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.
NOT WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE ASSERTIVE AND SELF-CONFIDENT.
That is my answer to the obsession with fighting back on the framing front.
You are arguing that if framing means everything, then it means nothing. But I’m not arguing that it means everything. I’m arguing that it touches everything. It’s the circulatory-system-in-the-body/holographic universe approach.
Framing is about cognitive processessing–perception, cognition, communication, all of it. Much of it is linguistic, much of it–such as the optical illusions I referred to–isn’t. Self-presentation in social animals is a pre-linguistic form of communication that is clearly part of this package.
No, you are confusing the misguided application of framing by some with the theory that has no boundaries separating “political” from “cognitive.”
Would you define evolution by the way political activists in Kansas or Pennsylvania respond to local creationist attempts to smuggle their ideas into the classroom? Or would you define it in terms of 100+ years of scientists advancing their understanding, and connecting it to various other branches of science?
I have a hunch it would be the later. And you would critique the activists in light of the later understanding, as well as other things.
You should take the same approach to framing. It’s not the activists who never thought of it before 2004 who can tell you what it means. It’s the scientists who’ve been studying it for decades who can do that.
…is that you don’t seem to define framing in the same way the rest of us are. That’s fine, but please don’t pretend to critique what we call framing because you hold to a different definition of the word.
Not true. A frame is what is evoked by language. Look at the gay debate:
“Should gays get special rights?”
“Should gays be denied basic civil rights?”
Two statements on the same issue: gay marriage. Neither is irrational — there’s a factual basis for either interpretation — but they evoke different frames, and how one talks about what one believes is essential if one hopes to convince people who might agree with you, but have been looking at things differently.
So ignoring frames, like Kerry did on this issue, will only backfire. (Kerry bought into the right-wing frame that gay marriage is wrong and an intrusion for special rights, and tried to moderate the position by supporting civil unions — and lost the argument on that issue.)
I responded in more detail in a different comment as to what framing is, as described by Lakoff.
is why it is not rational.
Is anyone proposing that gays get ‘special rights’?
No. Not really. Not rationally.
They are proposing that gays get the same rights, not special rights.
Therefore, this question is leading and dishonest. That is a frequent problem with frames.
A better example would be:
Are you anti-gay marriage?
Are you pro-the protection of marriage act?
Now, those two ways of asking the question are basically synonymous.
But you will get different poll results depending on which one you ask. The difference has nothing to do with the proposed act. Nothing.
That’s framing.
Now, you can increase your odds by being dishonest or inflammatory.
You can ask:
Do you support bigamy, beastiality, and gay marriage?
or:
Do think homos should be able to get married?
Those frames will bias the listener against a positive response.
Therefore, this question is leading and dishonest. That is a frequent problem with frames.
between you and Media Girl. I hope noone will mind if I ask a question to both of you.
So, what’s the difference between ‘frames’ and ‘spin’?
Because the startling degree of dishonesty which characterises our national political discourse and which you’re quite rightly objecting to seems to me to be far more widespread than ‘framing’. I do think that readers of Lakoff use the notion of framing in a slightly different manner than you are doing and tentatively suggest that the problem isn’t framing as much as a desire to package and sell policies and candidates with not only a disregard for the truth but an active antipathy towards honesty. It’s as if speaking truth isn’t considered a viable option and people are no longer able to call a lie what it is.
The “special rights” are being able to marry someone of the same legal sex.
Not rational? Spare me.
I have the right to get married to a woman.
You have the right to get married to a man.
You can call this ‘the right to get married’.
Do gay people have the right to get married? Yes. But not to a person of the same gender. Ergo, being gay, their right to get married is effectively annulled.
We can quibble about the degree of annullment since countless gay people have had straight marriages.
But if a gay person wins the right to marry a person of their own gender, I also win that right.
Therefore, they do not get any special right that I do not also receive.
Therefore, they have no advantage over me, and they have no ‘special right’.
If you suggest that they will get a right that I do not have, that is dishonest and will bias me against supporting the policy change.
I.e. per your example, they are not equivalent questions.
I don’t agree with it. I’m just saying that there’s a rationale behind the homophobic agenda.
State recognition of marriage as a legal contract is not a special right, if the principle of legal protection under the law is to be adhered to.
If this protection is to be based on gender, in a tiered system, it is not equal protection under the law, it is tiers of protection based on gender.
US has a history of tiered protection, most notably with regard to race, however the Civil Rights Act sought to remedy that, at least on paper, leaving tiered protection advocates forced to argue that ending apartheid granted special rights to non-whites. 😉
“legal protection” should be “equal protection.”
Why can’t we edit comments? Where is the outrage?
This is the jist of the whole problem… you just used a GOP frame….
What the hell is “abortion on demand” … this frame is making abortion as though you can waltz into a MacAbortion Clinic on your lunch break and kill your fetus.
This is what 200 million dollars a year spent on framing does… people use these frames without even realizing what they are doing.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ” abortion on demand “…. got it… it is a freaking harrowing journey that women have to go through fraught with millions of obstacles put in place by the anti-choice crowd…yes “anti-choice” because that is what they are …for damn sure they could not give a flying fig about life… knowing how many women will die if they persue to outlaw abortion.
I used the GOP frame on purpose. It adds to my point.
Go to any so-called librul blog and count how many times you read “Intelligent Design” when we all know it is the exact opposite of “intelligent”.
How many Dems spouted “Blame game” during the Katrina Massacre and let Bush off the hook.
Somewhere, somehow there is an errant frame running thru the blogs that Framing is somehow suppose to take the place of actual actions and policies…this is a complete falsehood and if those who keep touting this have never read one word of Lakoff.
You can’t stop framing, even when you’re attacking framing. By framing ‘framing’ as ‘lying’ you are blinding yourself to the fact that you are framing in the very act of denouncing framing.
Just because conservatives and Republicans use framing in a perverted fashion does not change the facts. Framing is an inescapable aspect of human cognition. It operates through a variety of different mechanisms, and has been studied by hundreds, probably thousands of different researchers. Denying framing is like denying evolution or global warming.
The problem with GOP/conservative framinig is two-fold: (1) Much of it is Orwellian.
And Lakoff points out:
(2) The rest reflects a flawed worldview–the Strict Father worldview. This worldview is extremely vulnerable to criticism. But only if you understand what it is. And if you understand the alternative–the Nurturant Parent worldview.
For example, when you look at data like the General Social Survey time series on supporting social spending, it’s clear that the vast majority of people–including self-identified extreme conservatives–adopt the Nurturant Parent worldview when it is presented to them in terms of specific policies and programs that meet an identifiable need. Our problem is, we have failed to develop consistent arguments and political narratives that connect those specific commitments to a larger vision. And this can only be done with the use of framing.
I’m not saying that framing alone will do it. But it can’t be done without framing.
with a tautology.
I can’t describe the framing debate without describing what I feel framing is. The second I do that you accuse me of framing what framing is.
Framing as a cognitive description goes to the visceral, the subconscious, the non-rational.
It works, which is why it is used. It is usually only necessary as a strategy when one is weak.
When one is strong, you lead with your ideas in a honest manner. When reason is on your side, there is less need to resort to the visceral.
Example: the word ‘discrimination’ has a bad connotation. On a visceral level the mind recoils from the word before the context is understood.
It used to be that gambling had such a connotation, so they invented gaming.
The left’s obsession with framing reflects (too often) a lack of faith in the rightness of our beliefs and their attractiveness.
Just as the right resorts to Orwellian language, the left attempts to trick people into supporting policies that studies show the people support without trickery.
It becomes a defense mechanism against Orwellian language. It’s weakness. I hate it.
Progressives have had reason and truth on their side for years and years, but that has not been enough. It’s the foundation for our political views, but it’s not enough to just say we have truth on our side, because people don’t vote facts, they vote identity.
I think we’re not so far apart on goals, but it seems to me you’re setting up a straw-man version of “framing” to knock down. What you describe bears no resemblance to what I’ve read from Lakoff and others.
It’s not my fault that framing is an inherent aspect of human cognition. And it’s certainly not my fault that you mistakenly equate framing with lying.
What you are articulating here is a philosophical position that has long been dominant in the West, but which Lakoff has consistently challenged at least since his first book on cognitive linguistics, Metaphors We Live By, co-authored with philosopher Mark Johnson back in 1980. The pair much later produced a book devoted largely to critiquing this tradition: Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought.
(I first read MWLB in 1989, and found it quite compatible with my own thinking, in opposition to the dominant strains I had encountered in philosophy of science back in the 1970s. So you have to understand that I’m not just spouting off fashionable nonsense when I raise these issues. I may be wrong, but you’ll have to do better than Popper & his gang to convince me of it.)
The idea that there is some ideal, disembodied form of reason, diametrically opposed to the illusions of the flesh, has a very strong hold on the Western mind. There’s just one problem: It ain’t so. We are inescapably creatures of flesh, and even our fantasies of disembodied reason are themselves the fantasies of flesh. If we recognize them as such, they can be extremely valuable for us. If not, they can be like the Siren’s song, and lead us to our doom.
This makes the job of critiquing unreason a good deal messier. But it does have the benefit of being true.
p.s. You say:
Speaking as a leftist who’s been obsessed for a long time (I reviewed Moral Politics for the Christian Science Monitor back in 1996), my obsession reflects a deep frustration that people agree with our us and our values on virtually every front, but then turn around and elect people who want to take them back to the Middle Ages.
I have profound faith in the rightness of our beliefs–and I think we need to talk about them far more openly and directly than we usually do. As Janet Strange rightly pointed out, this is really Lakoff’s bottom line.
I’ll be happy to debate this with you if you post a diary about it, today, tomorrow, whenever.
Having been equated with Popper I require a more fleshed out explanation or I may respond to a straw man.
That being said, I accuse you once again of tautological bullying.
If I support universities setting goals for diversity, but am convinced to oppose those policies because I hate discrimination viscerally, then I have been tricked by framing.
Are you saying that I cannot be tricked, but that I am only responding to be inner bigotry?
I doubt it. But your argument comes dangerously close to insisting that all descriptions are frames, and all responses to frames are the only responses possible.
Read what you wrote again, and see it you see my point.
Maybe not till tomorrow, but it really does seem we need it. So I accept.
As for the rest:
(1) I was not comparing you to Popper. I was simply saying that I’ve read a lot of arguments from Popper and his crowd, not to mention the logical positivists before them, so I’m familiar with a lot of arguments about the nature of science and reason. And my conclusion is that when philosophy of science says “X” and historians of science say “Y,” the historians are the ones who win. Why? Because they are empirical scientists, and the philosophers are theologians of “reason.”
So if you want to convince me I’m wrong, you will need to present some new reasons I haven’t heard from those precincts. That’s all I meant to imply with the Popper reference.
(2)
No. Why would you think that?
(3)
All descriptions involve framing. Just as all flesh contains blood vessels. But that doesn’t mean flesh is nothing but blood. Nor are descriptions nothing but frames. And of course the responses are matters of probabilities. Again, it seems like it’s your assumptions that you’re arguing with, not my arguments.
and you and I will never agree either.
It reminds me of the early 70’s when I had to endure countless non-productive hours arguing about the second wave feminists’ (I consider myself one) demand to not be “sex objects.”
The men in my circle constantly belittled and ridiculed the women for this. We got more and more frustrated and angry. How can they not see this? It’s so obvious!
Then I realized that we were each hearing different words in the phrase “sex object.” The men were hearing sex object, and took it to mean that the women didn’t like sex, disliked it when men indicated that they found them sexually attractive, were offended when showed that they were interested in having sex with them. Their common rejoinder was “I wish women would see me as a sex object!”
But the women were not saying that at all – at least I wasn’t, and I think I’m pretty typical. The operative word for us was sex object. I was saying, “I love sex, but I love it when a man is attracted to me. I don’t like it when I get the feeling that a man sees me as a thing, an object – relevant body parts -whose purpose is to relieve his horniness of the moment. When I am being used.”
I could go on – but this is just meant to be an analogy.
I see Lakoff as saying, let’s get clear what our values are, what is fundamentally important to us and how we think the world should be. You want universal health care? Why? Think about it. Why do you want this? I think about it and for me, it is because health care distributed according to whether one has enough money to pay for it is fundamentally unfair, it is unjust. Fairness and justice are my values that lead me to want to work for universal health care.
Then Lakoff says, how do we communicate to others that universal health care is something that America should have? How do we convince others to support it? Do we just rattle on about tax rates and the role (or not) of the insurance companies? Or do we seek to educate people about the real human costs of our current system and that the reason we care about this issue is because we want to live in a country that holds fairness and justice to be core principles?
I focus on the core values part and I like Lakoff. You focus on the how to communicate them part and you don’t.
It doesn’t matter. Fundamentally we agree – it’s the values that are important and it doesn’t matter what we call the educating people part. We both want to do it.
This is what I should have said. It’s much more to the point.
New school progressives are also less tolerant of ideological orthodoxy.
Translation: I saw the Democratic Party as a great market opportunity to supplement my sports blogs. I’m flexible on the actual details, because the issues don’t really interest me, and deep down I really hate the longhairs, union workers, and liberal activists who’ve been the core of the Democratic Party. So I’m going to do some aggressive “branding,” trying new names like “Reform Democrat” and “New Progressive” until something sticks, and then I’ll have replaced the DLC completely.
I hope everyone tearing Kos apart will go and read the whole story he posted, not just the excerpt. It was a very poor choice of words, to be sure, but definitely has a different meaning when put in the context of the entire story.
once when media girl posted her diary and then agin with this one — I don’t see any “different meaning when put in context”. What did you take from it?
What did I take from it? That politics has become decentralized due to technology and that may be one reason for one of the fractures that have appeared within the party. Kos seems to want to bridge that divide, even if he goes about it in a very clumsy manner, and, as he often does, offends people along the way either intentionally or through very careless use of language.
You can’t have a massive progressive movement that has a detailed checklist or “oath” that everyone must take before they allowed to be part of the movement. There must be inter-party tolerance of differences, which have become exaggerated with the advancement of technology to the point where almost anyone can have a pretty loud voice and so much information is available.
Kos seems to want to bridge that divide
No he doesn’t… Kos has made it very clear that he wants “special interests” groups to shut up and follow the DLC(aka NDN) leadership.
I don’t follow all the Kos-drama so I don’t know what he wants overall. I was speaking only as to what he wrote in this specific diary.
Kos as publicly declared that those of us who hold political views based on values are “single issue voters” with “pet causes” who are “roadblocks” to be “shoved aside.”
Also, I think he has a naive perspective, as if we stand at the end of time, and now suddenly all things are different.
Politics has always been decentralized. The party insiders do one thing, but the people believe what they believe. It always has been that way. Look at the Federalist Papers. Look at US Grant’s autobiography. Look at Sinclair Lewis’ “It Can’t Happen Here.”
What’s different is that the people now have a voice that can speak against the establishment. That doesn’t mean that the people never even had opinions before — it’s just that now we can express them. Kos treats that with mistrust and attacks it. And that offends me in the deepest way.
If I were more cynical, I’d say Kos is a GOP operative working deliberately to destroy the progressive grassroots. Because I believe that his attitudes are a definite detriment to the potential opportunities progressives have today. He could be a Bobby Kennedy — entitled and connected to power, but working to empower the people — but he seems to follow the model of Boss Tweed, declaring authoritarian power.
Netroots need to have roots, but he’s busy hacking at them, dividing them with an axe. And I take issue with that.
totally different things.
Thanks for sharing your take.
I read the entire post when Kos put it up, I read it in media girl’s diary, and now here. Every time it’s looked worse.
I read Kos’s latest petulant rant, in its entirety. He is not so nuanced a writer that there can be much misunderstanding about his basic point. Once again, he has dismissed a huge segment of the political left-of-center because they do not conform to narrow world view. We can now add ageism to the growing list of biases he has thinly cloaked in the language of political expediency.
“New school progressives are also less tolerant of ideological orthodoxy. We don’t fall in line with the “acceptable” liberal position, frankly, because we’re not trained to fall in line. We are more likely to be educated in an economy that values “proactiveness” and “self-initiative” and “problem solving” over blindly following the orders of our boss.”
This is the biggest crock! First of all, it pretends to resolve one argument (or set of arguments) by starting another one. Second of all, it’s just plain false that “old school progressives” (and by this I assume he means those of us on the other side of the “generational gap”) formed our political ideals by “blindly following our boss.”
Get a klue, Kos! Read a history book. Or two. The so-called “old-school progressives” were (and still are) a group of wild-eyed iconoclasts who rebelled against the mindless status quo in a way that has never been seen before or since.
Maybe the “new school progressives” are just jealous that they joining a progressive movement, rather than inventing one as we “old-schoolers” did.
Anyhoo… thanks for this thoughtful piece, Booman. Fingers crossed and I’m hoping and praying that you’re right, but at the same trying not to count my chickens…
Here’s what the I Ching at tarot.com told me when I asked what would come after this bush era: Deliverance
Sorry for the intrusion, I just get tired of the struggle. This gave me some comfort.
were there any moving lines?
and Thank you.
Yes, but they charge $3 to get them, so I usually don’t if I’m satisfied with the first reading.
Boo –
Excellent analysis – I always find the wide-angle view you provide to be both instructive in tying things together/identifying trends and spot-on consistent with my recollections of those “ancient days.”
We’re always going to have some folks that are interested in the “Why” and “What for” questions, and others that are interested in the “How.” I fall in the former group, Kos in the latter. We need both. I think it’s an oversimplification to say that it’s a generational difference; certainly (as Catnip pointed out) there was a lot of strategy going on among social organizers in the 1965-75 period. If anything, maybe what he’s seeing is partly an age issue – as people get older they sometimes tend to be more interested in the big picture, the philosophical questions underpinning the system.
I’m glad if over at Big Orange they’re collecting poll data on all the horse races for each congressional seat for ’06 – it’s a job someone needs to do, and by temperament I’m not the person. I’ve got my hands full with what he’d call “ideology”: from trying to figure out how we’re going to restructure our environmental laws now that they look like Swiss cheese to the even more basic, long-term questions of how we look at the economic and government structures we’re about to inherit from the Republicans – How can we change things on a more basic level to provide more power to citizens, not corporations? How can we establish a more equitable and representative democracy? How can we restructure the economy to reward sustaining the environment not exploiting and degrading it?
These questions are “hard work,” LOL, and what keeps me here at the frog pond is that the community is interested in exploring these issues together, as well as cheering the storming of the Bastille.
Thanks again for all you do for the site, the pond community, and the wider movement.
and I agree about the new obsession with framing. I’m a good deal less optimistic than you seem to be at the moment, though. What difference will it make if another Kerry or Gephardt or Hillary comes to power? I don’t see much more than holding onto the status quo against further incursions by the plutocrat/Jesuscrazy coalition. Then the nation sees that nothing’s happened and we go back into the same old slide.
Can you think of a single thing Kerry said during the campaign that got your heart afluttering? I can’t. Maybe it’s just me, but right now the Dems, even the good ones, seem to have nothing substantial to offer, nothing, as Dan Burnham put it, to stir men’s minds.
Seems to me there are only two ways we can bring genuine fresh air into our politics instead of the same ol same ol New Deal Lite and Scared that has been the fodder of Dems and liberals since at least LBJ. Either there will be
1– a national catastrophe on the scale of the Depression, WWII, or Vietnam that allows radical change to take place, or
2– new sources of ideas. The Dems really haven’t had any for decades. For the GOP the fake thinktanks function as advance troops for their bad ideas. We have nothing comparable; we just keep nattering about marketing crap. I’ve come to think that the most important priority for progressives is the destruction of the two-party system — giving third parties a way to exert real vote-level influence and having a way to propose their ideas on a national platform just like tweedledum and tweedledee do.
We need a big Dem win next year and in 08. But it won’t mean a thing unless we’re ready to use that opportunity to press radical systematic change on Dem power holders who will have, in truth, done little more than take advantage of the GOP’s fall into self destruction.
This entire litany of modern “politics” is a history of one political movement being assaulted by a criminal, treasonous mafia actively taking posession of the assets of the nation and destroying democratic government.
This hasn’t been a political problem since Eisenhower at the latest.
I continue to be dumbfounded that we’re still discussing which poetry book to read on the battlefield.
Thank you so much Gooserock, for using the word mafia. I am also concerned that most of us are distracted, and perhaps too delicate to call a spade a spade.
Since we’re speaking French now what about calling it a coup d’etat? george’s l’etat, c’est moi administration is perfectly facilitating the corporate takeover of this continent that began four hundred years ago.
Bravo Booman! A wonderful piece. If we can keep the vision of hope and change before us, we can accomplish many things. It is easy to get cynical and discouraged, but let us keep this view of hopefulness ever present in our vision.
Thanks
We may in fact have the opportunity to do so, but I have seen little that leads me to believe that much of the party leadership is prepared to take that opportunity.
Yes, the self-sabotaging antics of the Republican extremists, their corruption, the crime, their basic disregard for the future of the country will be their undoing. But that is not enough. Elections are every 2 years and the tipping point may not be filling the seats of fallen wingnuts, but KEEPING those seats. Something we failed to do the last time we had this kind of opportunity.
What we absolutely have to do is offer the country a clear alternative. Hope. Stability. Prosperity. Dignity. We need to present a humane agenda and ENACT IT. We can try to take the throne when they hang the bastards, but voters are fickle and even if we do get a majority, we won’t be there long if we do not make some bold changes, clean our own house, and back up all our campaign speeches with actions.
We don’t win when the voters have to vote for us because the other guy is in jail, we win when they truly want to vote for us. And that will only happen when we stop relying on the idiocy of the right to get votes and start earning those votes on our own with a clear vision of the purpose and future of this country and the actions to make that vision a palapble reality for the average voter.
Whether Bush won or not, enough people voted for him to illustrate that half the voting public would rather have a lying, war-mongering monkey in charge than a Democrat. We have a loooong way to go, folks, before we can start congratulating ourselves.
This is only going to be a revolutionary moment if we actually do something revolutionary.
What we absolutely have to do is offer the country a clear alternative. Hope. Stability. Prosperity. Dignity. We need to present a humane agenda and ENACT IT. We can try to take the throne when they hang the bastards, but voters are fickle and even if we do get a majority, we won’t be there long if we do not make some bold changes, clean our own house, and back up all our campaign speeches with actions.
We don’t win when the voters have to vote for us because the other guy is in jail, we win when they truly want to vote for us.
This is what I think Lakoff is saying, and that’s why I like him.
The good thing about corrupt governments is that they spawn generations of political activists.
It’s a good thing conservatives fail to understand that.
Go Booman! Go!