« Heart and Soul (Part 2) - What Would You Ask the DNC Chair? | Main | When Poll Conclusions Are Nonsense »
A Self Defeating Paradigm - And Why It Must Shift
In February, the DCP Book Chat will be focused on the much talked about book by George Lakoff, "Don't Think Of An Elephant." Personally I think it's a mind-blowing book and a must read for anyone interested in developing democracy cells.
Much of the buzz about the book has been focused on how Dems can get better at framing. And I think framing is exceedingly important. The Republicans are great at developing "constructs" and then using framing techniques and language to shape the debate about the issues to fit their constructs.
But Lakoff looks at so much more; there are many layers to this short but powerful book. He also discusses the differences in how Republicans and Democrats view issues of infrastructure and organization and he lays out some pretty disturbing facts about why the Republicans seem to be so far ahead.
We've had many discussions on the DCP blog about framing versus building infrastructure and I think we all agree that the Dems have work to do on both. But which gets priority?
Here is an excerpt from Lakoff's book that lays out the sharp contrast in approaches.
"In the right's hierarchy of moral values, the top value is preserving and defending the moral system itself. If that is your main goal, what do you do? You build infrastructure. You buy up media in advance. You plan ahead. You do things like give fellowships to right-wing law students to get them through law school if they join the Federalist Society. And you get them nice jobs after that. If you want to extend your worldview, it is very smart to make sure that over the long haul you have the people and the resources that you need.
"On the left, the highest value is helping individuals who need help. So if you are a foundation or you are setting up a foundation, what makes you a good person? You help as many people as you can. And the more public budgets get cut, the more people there are who need help. So you spread the money around to the grassroots organizations, and therefore you do not have any money left for infrastructure or talent development, and certainly not for intellectuals. Do not waste a penny in duplicating efforts, because you have to help more and more people. How do you show that you are a good, moral person or foundation? By listing all the people you help; the more the better.
"And so you perpetuate a system that helps the right. In the process, it also does help people. Certainly, it is not that people do not need help. They do. But what has happened as budgets and taxes get cut is that the right is privatizing the left. The right is forcing the left to spend ever more private money on what the government should be supporting."
Are you shocked? What's your reaction? What would you do to shift the paradigm?
Very thought-provoking topic, even though I have yet to read Lakoff myself.
I've always believed that the right is led by its brains (whatever little there is, anyway) and the left is led by its hearts. We need to think smarter and more strategically. After all, we do have our intellectual capital in the colleges and universities, which tend to be more progressive than the rest of the society.
It's bad enough that the right does dominate places like business schools and law schools. The thought of going to a business school myself and having to read neocon editorials on the WSJ scares me. We need to target more people into following such careers, to prove, for example, that being a right-winger is not a prerequisite for being a great business executive. We need to take over the education system like the right has taken over the media and the government.
On the subject of business school, I guess if I do make it in I could live off of the Financial Times...
Elsewhere, Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales continued to disavow torture today, but told reporters, "This is harder than quitting smoking."
Tag line from borowitzreportl.com
correction: borowitzreport.com
i just started reading lakoff's book last night. i also believe that humor is effective just as noted above in borowitz's report and the popularity of the daily show. humor takes a serious matter and makes it a point of discussion. Certainly, it is hard to find humor with some of today's problems. But if we can get people to laugh, then they will start to think. With that will come the realization that the neocons and bushco propaganda have been working against their interests.
Elsewhere, Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales continued to disavow torture today, but told reporters, "This is harder than quitting smoking."
Posted by: oncall at January 27, 2005 12:05 PM
First of all, oncall, did Gonzales make that reference to how tough it is to give up torture? Or was he referring to the process he's going through to be confirmed?
Heaven help us if it was the first reference.
And I agree, humor helps put things in perspective and helps drop barriers. Borowitz has a great sense of the ridiculous, and is usually right on the money.
I've been disappointed in Stewart lately - he really has it in for Kerry and has made quite a few cheap shots. I know he tries to be fair, but at least be honest about the humor, don't edit and distort to make a funny point. I hope this has been a brief blip for TDS comedy writers and that they will lay off the "Kerry is a panderer" jokes for a while.
Regarding Lakoff - I think he makes a lot of brilliant observations that others probably have made but he brings it all together very cogently. I think skinny is right, we Dems seem to think with our hearts - to do what is right and fair to help the underdog - and we're not thinking about how to set the stage for 10 years from now.
One thing we really need to do is start a "farm team" of young Dems coming up from the ranks, and we certainly should be funding "incubators" to help grow organizations that want to advance the progressive infrastructure and agenda (like DCP).
SOCIAL SECURITY – DEJA VU:
Turns out this isn't the first time President Bush has warned that Social Security was about to go broke.
In 1978, while running for Congress in Texas, Bush was quoted by USA Today and the Texas Observer as saying the system would go broke by 1988 if Congress failed to privatize the system.
The Observer notes that Bush "warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves." USA Today also had the congressional candidate saying that "Social Security would go broke in 10 years."
Asked about his remarks by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) at a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus Wednesday, Bush reportedly responded, "I lost." Rangel said he responded, "the Lord works in mysterious ways."
(American Progress Report)
My personally biased opinion is derived from the fact that for my generation there many obstacles we must face, such as the reclamation of this country to the people, not the right or the left.
The structuring and framing of the democratic party although a short term requirement isn't the end all solution to the problem. My point being is, how can you have your mind made up on any topic before you hear a single bit of fact knowledge pertaining to the issue. The bipartisan BS that we hear on both sides isn't productive. The goals needing to be set deal with a unified american people, and unilaterally working together as neither republicans or democrats but american patriots to better the future for my generation and the ones to follow.
Posted by: PCDocJR at January 27, 2005 01:03 PM
I'm afraid that is idealistic in the extreme. Unfortunately, the right wing isn't playing that game. We can continue to - but we'll keep losing.
I am coming back a little late to the previous subject concerning Dean as DNC Chair.
As much as I did not support Dean as President, I think that he would be a wonderful DNC Chair. He hs proven during the general election that, contrarely to many DLC people, he could stand behind an idea or a nominee and support him strongly. This is a great point in his favor while many of the other candidates were whining about windsurf and lack of charisma (sorry, I came to like Dean during the second part of the campaign).
I understand that many Kerry supporters are frustrated by some of Dean supporters behaviour during the campaign and now. However, if you look into this more closely, you will notice that most of these supporters did not take any time looking into Dean's positions (they see him as the leftist he is not) and are often at odds with him when it comes to policies.
I have a lot of problems supporting most of the other peope who are running as chair as they have shown very little positive actions when it came to the presidential election. As for Roemer, why not chose a Republican. Some are more liberal than he is.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Weblog
http://blog.dccc.org/mt/
mass: not thrilled with these kinds of comments
"This is a great point in his favor while many of the other candidates were whining about windsurf and lack of charisma" some of us, no most of us are pretty sensitive about these kinds pof comments.
Party Chair is much more than being about left, right etc, issue positions of Dean. Party Chair is much different and in some sense more impt role than Presidential candidate takes.
Maybe I speak for myself here but I think most of us here are a lot more pragmatic and view Dean as a risk we should not take, tho he deserves a prominent role in the party. Roemer being conservative does not bother me in the least, its whether he has what it takes to lead us out of the wildnerness. I take this selection process very seriously as I think most of us here do. Going to pick up my copy of Don't Think of an Elephant to read this weekend. Are there other political/religious books that we need to be reading?
The topic story is really accurate. As most of you know, I volunteer several times per month at a homeless kitchen and build homes with Habitat for Humanity. We are seeing less government involvement as money dries up.
Former wealthy donors are backing out also because the far right has made it ok to be selfish and mean again.
As the middle class gets squeezed, they have less and less funds to donate because it is harder for them to deal with their own life issues.
As a result, services are reduced and more and more people lack the basic necessities of live: food, shelter, and clothing.
As far I can tell, the faith-based initiative program that Bush raves about has done nothing in my area. As there is no accounting requirement, how does anyone know what has been done and where the money has gone?
Senator John Kerry’s "Kids First" Address to Families USA
27 January 2005
In a speech today to Families USA, John Kerry laid out his plans for the "Kids Come First Act":
For the past two years, I experienced a special privilege of meeting those families every single day all across our country - good people who love their communities, love their country, and are determined to build a better life for their kids.
More - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=284
Senator Kennedy calls Bush's Iraq War "a fraud made up in Texas"
Kennedy Calls for Troop Withdrawal in Iraq
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The American military's continued presence in Iraq is fanning the flames of conflict, and signals the need for a new detailed timeline to bring the troops home, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said Thursday.
Just three days before the Iraqi people go to the polls to elect a new government, the Massachusetts Democrat said America must give Iraq back to its people rather than continue an occupation that parallels the failed politics of the Vietnam war.
"The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution," Kennedy said in remarks prepared for delivery at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. "We need a new plan that sets fair and realistic goals for self-government in Iraq, and works with the Iraqi government on a specific timetable for the honorable homecoming of our forces."
While not the first member of Congress to call for a withdrawal of the troops, Kennedy is the first senator to do so. And his remarks continued what has been a long and blistering assault on the administration's Iraq policies.
snip~
He has called the war a "fraud made up in Texas," and said the administration misled the people about the threats leading up to the war.
Now, Kennedy said, the United States and the insurgents are both battling for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and the U.S. is losing.
"There may well be violence as we disengage militarily from Iraq and Iraq disengages politically from us, but there will be much more violence if we continue our present dangerous and destabilizing course," said Kennedy. "It will not be easy to extricate ourselves from Iraq, but we must begin."
snip~
Kennedy, who has called Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam," drew parallels between that failed conflict and the current deadly battle against guerrilla insurgents. He said the United States must learn from the mistakes of Vietnam — which he termed a misguided war that carried on too long and was not honestly portrayed by officials to the American people.
Kennedy said the first goal in the current situation should be for the United Nations — not the United States — to convene an international meeting to help the new government take shape and draft a constitution.
http://tinyurl.com/5u8wq
Posted by: Ira at January 27, 2005 02:39 PM
Ira, there are a few additional books listed in the Book Club forum, with more to come. We hope to offer "additional readings" with every book selection so anyone can go as far afield as they might like in any particular area.
Also, if you have books you'd like to recommend, there's a place to post them there.
DCP Forum
http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php
Book Club Chat
http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showforum=30
Our new Gov, a Republican, held his "State of the State" address yesterday. It's a lovely mess. He plans to cut thousands of people from Medicaid coverage (low-income folks, of course), eliminate 1,000 state jobs and close a facility that houses disabled and mentally retarded adults (those people will just have to find private housing!).
He does plan to take the savings from the cuts and increase funding for schools.
All in all, Dems here are just jumping for joy.
BTW, my above comments above about "jumping for joy" were tinged with sarcasm.
kj: What sad state is this sad state?
Tis the sad state of Misery. Otherwise known as Missouri.
Blunt plans to tighten up the eligibility requirements for Medicaid. For some people, the income levels will be way below poverty level. This can affect tens of thousands of people here.
And closing the facility for the disabled... that is beyond unconscionable.
kj this is strange because this always draws a lawsuit that ends up in District Court and gives the state and gov bad days ahead...maaybe the dist court for missouri has already gone the ways of the gonzales reign?
Dont Think Like An Elephant is a great book (I read it during these holidays), and it has the great advantage to be very quick to read and very well framed (as we can imagine).
I am happy to see that the Democrats are starting to use some of these teachings in these last weeks (Social Security is not a crisis, Kid First, ...).
It is clear that the RNC has used framing (and particularly misleading framing) to his advantage for the last years. It is time now for the Democrats to use it to to present their ideas.
Posted by: kj at January 27, 2005 03:41 PM
Here I think of the metaphor I referred to a while back - we need to change the tires while our car is going 60 miles an hour down the thruway.
Obviously a lot of people are going to start suffering, in the short term. And the Dems/Independents must be there to offer them a construct, framework, explanation for the reality they are experiencing and why they are experiencing it.
Instead of allowing Bush to talk about this in terms of establishing an "ownership" society in a way that people envision that if only taxes were cut they'd be sitting on the beach in San Juan, enjoying life with their extra money - we need to drive home that taxes are an investment we make in our society, without which our children and grandchildren will live a diminished life and will have to pay for our excesses. And we can paint that picture and pound away at it. Selfish and short-term gains vs. Caring and farsighted.
This is just an off the cuff example, but I think you see what I mean. Let's not leave a vacuum for people who are struggling to make sense of lost support and services - which will then be filled with garbage by spewed by Rush or the lads at Fox. Let's paint a picture of what is really happening in a way that every day folks can understand and relate to.
Health Savings Accounts Hurt Poor, Care - Report
By Kim Dixon
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Health plans with high patient-paid deductibles, embraced by many Republicans as a market-based solution to quell soaring medical-care costs, lead to poorer quality care and increasing patient debt, a study released on Thursday said.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=751&e=1&u=/nm/20050127/hl_nm/health_accounts_dc
Not yet taking the time to sit and think (with the cat, and she always helps with thinking) :-) All I can come up with is something along the lines of a slogan, "Responsible Government, Responsible Healthcare." Obviously not clearly thought out at all. But yes, I need to sit down and dig into this. Re: the district courts, hmmmm, battlebob, something else to look into. Thanks for the idea.
kj...we went through the same thing in az. The 9th dist court made the gov't clean up its act..
Got this from Terry M.
George W. Bush is leading the charge when it comes to the Republicans' all-out effort to dismantle Social Security. Next Wednesday, February 2, is a critical day for him: the first State of the Union address of his second term. He's planning on using his State of the Union speech as a powerful launching pad for his Social Security scare campaign. But we've got some plans of our own.
Today, the Democratic National Committee is launching a "Million Dollars in Seven Days" Social Security campaign. We'll use those funds as the seed money for the most extensive, far-reaching, and effective grassroots issues campaign America has ever seen.
This week we have two key tasks. First, we need your help to launch our campaign with your donation today:
https://www.democrats.org/support
Second, we'll be distributing a "Watch Bush Mislead" fact sheet across the nation prior to the Bush's State of the Union Speech, and we'll need your help to spread the word. Keep an eye on your email in box for your copy.
battlebob, thanks for the headsup re: the 9th and AZ.
Blunt's "state of the state" was just last night, so the response has yet to begin...
Benjamin Barber’s opinion piece in today’s Los Angeles Times focuses on what’s really at stake in the debate over Social Security privatization: American democracy.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-barber27jan27,1,56623.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
COMMENTARY
Privatizing Social Security: 'Me' Over 'We'
By Benjamin R. Barber
January 27, 2005
Social Security privatization has been vigorously challenged on both economic and technical grounds. It has been said again and again that privatization increases risk for prospective retirees without solving the long-term Social Security financing shortfall (if there actually is one). It has been argued that privatization is merely a scheme to divert money from the Social Security trust fund for speculative stock market investments. And it has been noted that it creates new costs (portfolio management, government oversight) without being able to guarantee workers future retirement benefits.
Yet the most profound cost of privatization has been wholly ignored: the systemic cost to our public way of life. By turning a public social insurance and pension policy into a private bet in which personal and private decisions determine who does well and who does badly, we do irreparable harm to our democratic "common ground." After all, one of this nation's greatest public goods has been its promise to give every working family a guarantee of support at retirement, or in case of disability or death. This promise, offered to all citizens, wipes away all the distorting traces of class, race and gender that often play out so dismayingly in the private realm. You cannot simply take justice out of the public realm and put it into the private realm without fundamentally weakening the democracy on which the very possibility of justice depends.
Conservatives ought to recognize even more quickly than liberals that privatization — whether of education, housing or Social Security — makes us less of a public. It diminishes the republic — the res publica, or public things that define our commonweal. It turns the common "we" into a collection of private "me's." It opts for market Darwinism, in which smart investors prosper but others lose, rather than social justice as its organizing principle. It demeans the "us" by turning "us" into "it" — the big, bad, faceless government bureaucracy. And it privileges the private and individual by appealing to market liberty, as if people could really be free one by one or as consumers alone.
Private market liberty is not political liberty; it is only personal choice. It may generate private benefits ("I want an SUV!" or "Give me 100 shares of EBay!") but offers nothing for the common good (a fuel conservation policy, for instance). It is as citizens that we pay our Social Security taxes, and it should be as citizens that we enjoy the fruits of our labor.
Yet privatization tries to convince us that the consumer is simply another, more efficient, form of the citizen. The citizen who votes with her dollars rather than her ballots. But dollars don't deliberate. They don't seek common ground. They are not bearers of empathy and imagination. As education consumers in Chicago or Washington, we can select the "best schools" for our children, but as citizens we need public schools that help make us all public citizens. As consumers in Los Angeles, we can choose among hundreds of automobile models, but only as citizens can we make the choices that create a public transportation system serving all.
Privatization is a kind of reverse social contract: It dissolves the bonds that tie us together. The social contract takes us out of the state of nature; it asks us to give up a part of our private liberty to do whatever we want in order to secure common liberty for all. Privatization puts us back in the state of nature where we possess the natural power to get whatever we can but lose the common power to secure everything to which we have a natural right.
Private choices rest on individual power and skills and on personal luck. Public choices rest on civic rights and common responsibilities. With privatization, this administration is trying to seduce us back into the state of nature, where the strong dominate the weak and anarchy ultimately dominates the strong and the weak, undermining security for both. Under these conditions, Thomas Hobbes reminds us, we are perfectly free to do as we choose, but as a consequence we live lives that are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Not an ideal recipe for social security.
The Social Security entitlement should not be toyed with and altered in accord with today's economic fashions. It is an emblem of civic membership and a reflection of the benefits that come with the responsibilities of citizenship.
For us as individuals, privatizing Social Security is probably a bad bet on technical grounds. But for us as citizens, it is a certain disaster. As prospective retirees and private consumers we may want to argue about it, but as citizens, if we care about our democratic republic, we are bound to condemn it.
French Insurgents in Iraq Concern Official
By JAMEY KEATEN, Associated Press Writer
PARIS - French militants who travel to Iraq to fight in the insurgency against U.S.-led forces could strike terror elsewhere, including France, the defense minister warned Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press.
[SNIP]
While the number of French-born fighters appears small — perhaps a dozen or more — anti-terror officials in France worry that some of the men of mostly North African descent will return home with combat skills to wage jihad, or holy war.
MORE: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=8&u=/ap/20050127/ap_on_re_eu/france_defense_minister
[What the story failed to mention is that this new development poses a real dilemma for U.S. right-wingers. Remember "freedom fries"? So, French insurgents = "freedom insurgents" . . . uh-oh!]
Bob Evans,
This is not the first time this happens, and those cells sending jihadists to Irak through Syria exist in France, Italy and Germany. Some were already arrested last July, and they are under close watch of the DST (Direction of Security of Territory).
We have a special judiciary team only investigating about islamists, ran by Super judge Brughiere, whose powers are more extended than those of a normal judge. He is extremely effective and collaborates a lot with other European judges to track the islamists through the boarders.
About French Fries, yes they are bad... for the health.
2 lbs of boiled potatoes = 450cal
2 lbs of French Fries = 4500 cal
Get (oil) free, have them boiled!
Andrée,
You're right -- there's nothing new about radical islamists in Europe. All the more surprising that they suddenly make a big deal about this, raising the prospect that these people (all 12 or so of them) will return to wage holy war in France! Better to worry about your fat and cholesterol -- but boiled french fries? No, thanks.
Posted by: Bob Evans at January 27, 2005 07:53 PM
Actually, there was a terrifying Frontline on Tuesday night about radical islamists/terrorists throughout Europe called "Al Qaeda's New Front." Unfortunately, there are more than 12 - it's a huge, huge problem.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/
I hate Bush and understand why most European countries don't want to play his game in Iraq. On the other hand, as Kerry said repeatedly, Europe has a hell of a lot at stake if the U.S. loses total control and the world ends up with a bigger mess than Afghanistan.
Resolute,
You're right, this has been a big problem in Europe. What the French defense minister was expressing concern about, though, was a dozen or so French islamists fighting with the insurgents in Iraq. Since they are in France in greater numbers, the concern with a dozen in Iraq seemed a non sequiter.
Posted by: Bob Evans at January 27, 2005 09:32 PM
Very true. I wonder how he figured only 12.
The Frontline episode indicated that muslims were flocking from Europe into Iraq because it was becoming a proving ground for up-and-coming terrorists (since they've lost their training camps in Afghanistan). Just chilling. I don't know what I'd do if I had a loved one over there.
If you get a chance to see it, I recommend it highly - although it's distrubing and terrifying. (They played the audio of Berg being beheaded, which made me physically ill - I couldn't hit the mute button fast enough.)
Resolute,
I'll try to catch the Frontline piece -- and, thanks to you heads-up, I'll be ready to mute the disturbing segment.
About the foreign nationals training in Iraq as jihadists, I recall recent reports that most of them were not being allowed to fight in the insurgency. They were being trained to pursue jihad elsewhere, and the impression given was that they were not being put at risk.