A New Progressivism: The Domestic Politics and Language to Usher in a New New Deal

While there has been an undeniable shift to the right politically in the last 20 years of American history it is imperative to keep in mind that almost all polling continues to demonstrate that the American voting public at large remains progressive and liberal on nearly every domestic policy position.

The question then is how to best frame domestic policy positions in political terms best able to connect to the voting public and demonstrate that they fall on the progressive side of the fence despite their repeated labeling of themselves as “conservative”. There is no use in lamenting the successful branding of the term liberal any longer. The Republicans, the right and especially the impressive and effective political machine created since just before the dawn of the Reagan era has rendered the old language of liberalism useless and counterproductive.

Therefore before even discussing the policy initiatives of a future progressivism liberal’s must begin to redefine the language we use to explain these positions. LANGUAGE MATTERS. As a society inundated with constant policy ideas and positions delivered in solemn tones by a media apparatus beholden to special interests and cravenly seeking favor and access with whichever group is most likely to continue the status quo, language is important. The average voter goes to a few different media sources and gets conflicting information and recommendations, all of these positions are explained by people with impressive credentials and so the media insists on reporting about domestic policy as if there were no right or wrong positions. It is precisely this “balanced” (I would say lazy at best, obstructionist at worst) style of reporting that brought us The New York Times and Judith Miller breathlessly quoting unnamed administration source after unnamed administration source to make a convincing case to the American public that there was no dissent about he fact that Saddam Hussein held an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

Since the current media climate (exempting excellent centrist outlets like PBS’s Frontline and similar programming) is no longer concerned with settling policy disagreements it is important to take a page from those masters of issue framing Newt Gingrich and more recently and damagingly Karl Rove. Newt Gingrich was an early conservative who understood the importance of using targeted language as a means of discrediting his policy opponents. Just before ushering in his conservative ”revolution” in the midterm elections of 1994 he flew around the country getting congressional candidates to sign his Contract With America. The CWA was a fantastic and revolutionary idea in modern American politics and should be studied, respected and treated as such. By laying out an already well established platform in easily digestible sound bite bullet points and getting a show of unity (though actual unity was tested very early in the that Congress and was eventually shattered) Gingrich and his conservative revolutionaries seized on a general state of dis-ease in the nation and offered a simple platform that they said would solve America’s problems. That the document it self offered nothing new or even remotely helpful is a topic for another forum, this examination is simply about LANGUAGE and PROCESS.

With his show of unity he was able to go to voters with a document signed by candidates, and more than just a political document A CONTRACT, which claimed to be commons sense answers for nuanced American problems. This was the process for coalescing around a platform that America understood. Shortly after election began the language form. Mr. Gingrich, a wonky language obsessed former professor began circulating memo’s from his speakers office that urged the conservative congressional movement to speak with one voice. He also asked that voice to be shrill, untruthful and vile. His widely read GOPAC handbook called “Language, a Key Mechanism of Control” included an index of words to use in speeches, policy debates and campaign materials. The list emphasized referring to Democrats with terms such as “sick, corrupt, anti-flag, liberal, traitors, pro-gay, pro-abortion” etc.

While no one should stoop to this level it is important to realize something. THIS WORKED. No progressive needs to do this because we do, after all, have actual facts and actual truth to rely on. But of course in 2000 and 2004 the truth and facts were no less on our sides and that didn’t go well for progressivism. There fore it is important for anyone who will be attempting to advance a progressive agenda to take a page from Gingrich and make sure to frame our arguments concisely and speak with one voice. Using the GOPAC formula liberals and progressives should immediately begin, truthfully mind, you describing conservatives as “pro-corporate welfare, anti-health, anti-family, pro-war, anti-fairness, corrupt, uninformed, clearly mistaken” etc. The difference is that we can back up our rhetoric. All canvassing should be done with charts showing the health of the economy and the environment during republican and democratic administrations. The fact remains that liberals have presided over economic growth and environmental stewardship far more often and consistently than their conservative counterparts. The fact remains that for the average American if there has been any change in his/her income over the last 12 years it has been a change for the worse.

It is easy to be very aggressive in attacking unfair and misguided policies without resorting to the kind of personal slime attacks that Karl Rove and the modern Republican machine have perfected. With the facts and numbers on our side we can use language to frame our issues. For instance; instead of being for “Gun Control” progressives should be “disturbed by the exponential rise in shooting deaths and injuries in our nations workplaces and campuses”. Who isn’t? The statement lends itself to an obvious answer without playing into the old “they’re gonna bust down your door and take away your guns.”

Also progressives hold the higher ground on libertarian issues of personal privacy and civil liberties. This is a crucial strategic issue. It is very likely that progressive’s can begin to effectively peel away libertarian conservative support for the Republican Party by stressing that while average government growth has perhaps slowed slightly under the last three Republican administrations’ (though not in the latest Bush term) the government is now able and willing to hold citizens incommunicado, arrest under suspicion of guilt without evidence, and punish for association. This is a targeted message best used in the west and rural south. The average voter seems content to give up these protections to be safe from the terror boogey man, but in rural communities they will be rightly worried about an extreme government intrusion in to personal rights that has occurred over the last 20 years. Canvassers and activists in these communities should take the “Big Brother is growing” message to every rural door they can reach. They should bring properly framed materials describing the TIPS program, Poindexter’s Total Information Awareness program etc. And they should use clear language. Example, “ Are you aware that Big Government is now able to eavesdrop on your phone calls, your shopping patterns and your associations without a warrant?” “Are you aware that Washington is attempting to create a computer database of personal health and financial information on every American?” These questions are sure to intrigue or outrage and lead into a very effective discussion of civil liberties and privacy on which progressives, again, have a far superior platform and record. Framed properly we can ask the rural conservative and/or libertarian what scares him/her more; Big government being used to help the poor and disadvantaged or big government being used to spy on and create massive databases on the average innocent American who can now be held without trial, charge or access to counsel on the flimsiest of warrantless, secret evidence?

The point is TARGETED MESSAGE. Not everyone is a wonk who can discuss all issues. The average voter is concerned by two or three issues they deem crucial. Canvassers’ and activists must demonstrate a flexibility and preparedness to win these arguments and talk WITH the opposition not at them. Each door to door stop should begin with the question, “What concerns you most.” “What issues seem to you the most important?” It can be assumed that most will say one of three things, health, security, economy. However by asking them you have already gained an advantage. The key is that any voter who does not answer “Gays getting married” or”Abolition of abortion” can be won. On economic and policy issues we can always split the difference while accurately framing the opposition as out of touch with America, in bed with special interests, and concerned only with their own wealth and power.

On social issues there can be no surrender. The progressive is rightly committed to a woman’s right to choose (though they are perfectly able and should NOT be condescend to for holding very different ideas about the MORALITY of that choice) and is absolutely committed to full and equal rights for ALL minorities, gays, lesbians, trans-gendered etc. There is absolutely nothing to be gained in discussing these issues. In fact we can save much time and energy by opening with questions. If someone answers our query with the above answers politely tip your cap, say thank you very much and move on to the next door.

We are not going to out argue someone’s God and we do a disservice to our core beliefs and electoral and policy ambitions by mocking a voters faith (no matter how misguided it may appear). Which brings us to another stand we make: Progressives are ABSOLUTELY committed to the freedom of religion and the free exercise there of. We are happy that people have found solace and comfort in religion and do not doubt that in the past religion has been an important aspect of both public and private life. However, as America is a pluralistic society that embraces equal and full rights for all, as a mater of principal progressive’s MUST stand against any official government sanction or preference for one religion. It is important to distance progressivism from “nannyism”. The battle to fight is NOT whether a Menorah is prominently displayed next to a Christmas tree in Wal-mart or at a town sponsored Christmas carol. We can leave these issues to the ACLU (who incidentally does an admirable job fighting these battles and taking the heat for the rest of us). As a matter of practical application, progressives take absolutely NO stand on the free exercise of religion. As long as government and government agencies refrain from ANY endorsement of a particular faith progressives happily encourage Americans to continue to worship as they see fit and hope that charitable giving continues unabated. People of faith do not need progressive’s protection in the religious marketplace. This issue only hurts us and should be avoided like the plague. In fact progressives can make common ground with devout religious voters by focusing on the good charitable works of local and national congregations and joining cause against human rights atrocities on the African continent and in Eastern and southern Asia.

Finally, while some liberal minded individuals will mourn the loss, the time has come to abandon the term “Liberal with a capital L”. It has been effectively stigmatized. Likewise the term to describe conservatives should henceforth be “radical” or “fundamentalist”. As the political right has run perhaps the most effective framing job in modern American politics it is time to move on. Language is becoming, if this is possible, even more important in American public life. All one needs do is see the inevitable flaps and stories that are “created” every time a candidate, official, or staff member says anything remotely controversial. In this new media environment the first side that is able to define a tight, consistent and attractively worded and framed agenda on each new issue will have an important advantage in the immensely important policy decisions that loom going into the 2010’s.

The Old Politics for A New Movement

There can be little doubt that the results of the Primaries in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont demonstrated something. Unfortunately there remains scant consensus on just what that something is. Still there are a few points going forward that bear pointing out. First there is the fact that, contrary to the constant whining from Terry McAuliffe and the rest of the Clinton camp, Hillary still enjoys a relatively easy ride from the mainstream press. After narrowly edging out a victory in Texas and scoring her first clear victory in weeks in Ohio Clinton has been treated in the press as if she had completed a stunning comeback. As if she had suddenly become a long shot underdog. Yet far from scoring an amazing come from behind victory Clinton nearly manage to blow a TWENTY POINT lead in Texas in a matter of two weeks and turned a massive victory into Ohio into merely a solid one.

The end result of this is that the Clinton camp picked up a maximum of fifteen and most likely closer to half that many delegates. Let’s, for the sake of fairness, run a little intellectual exercise here. Imagine if Barrack Obama had been leading by twenty points two weeks ago in Texas and ended up winning by a meager two points. Rest assured the press would be loudly sounding the death knell and not too subtly edging him out the back door. Now imagine if this scenario had played out in one of the states that Obama had been leading by large margins from day one, as Senator Clinton had in both Ohio and Texas.

Whether a result of familiarity, nervousness about Obama or simply as a result of the well deserved guilt most of the press should be feeling about their respective handlings of the Clinton presidency and the presidency of George Walker Bush, the simple fact remains that from day one the press has treated Hillary exactly as she wanted to be treated, as the presumptive nominee. When things started falling apart they allowed her to recreate her image as a fighter, as the comeback kid (which is laughable considering the immense advantages Hillary enjoyed in funding, organization, party support and press coverage).

They have allowed Ms. Clinton to take credit for everything good in Bill Clinton’s administration while distancing her from everything that went wrong. The Clinton camp is trying, with a straight face, to say that she has a better chance of surviving the negative ads that undoubtedly will be a part of this election cycle. It is reasonable to assume that there is plenty left in the Bill Clinton file sitting, dusty, on a young conservative researcher’s shelf for the past 8 years gleefully awaiting this moment. You can expect ads that try to portray her as a nakedly ambitious woman willing to stay with a constant philander to forward her political aims, ads harping about her closed door health care debacle, about whitewater, about the Lincoln bedroom, etc. etc. etc. That’s only the stuff in the public record. Is this fair? No. Is it inevitably going to happen? Of course.

Still there is no use in Obama whining about coverage. The Clinton camp has become extremely effective at getting the press to describe Obama as a fad, or a cult of personality. As someone tragically misleading millions of otherwise intelligent voters like a Svengali or some cheap vaudeville hypnotist. I’m sure the next step is a commercial featuring a pensive Obama superimposed above Jim Jones and the Kool Aid man. Cut to shots of Obama supporters caucusing, a young child, lips all red, sipping juice from a Styrofoam cup, “What do you REALLY know about Barrack Hussein Obama?”

The question before Senator Obama is no longer whether to fight back but rather how and how hard. There is no doubt that the Obama campaign has been much more reticent to engage in the kind of hardball politics that earned Senator Clinton the win in Texas that has been dutifully described as a momentum turning moment in this race (although, again, we are at the same spot now as we were before Tuesday). While there is ample juicy and devastating material for Senator Obama to attack with, this is a very delicate moment for him.

By trumpeting (and in fact RUNNING) a different kind of campaign, free from smear tactics, Obama has managed to win over massive amounts of people of all political stripes who are fed up with the current caustic political climate. By going on the offensive he runs the risk of looking hypocritical while playing into the Clinton campaign’s attempt to draw him into a slime fest where they can be expected, from years of practice, to be more effective. The Clinton campaign is filled with old school political operatives who thrive in this setting. Just this afternoon Terry McAuliffe, responding to the Obama campaign’s insistence that Senator Clinton release her last tax return, compared him to Kenneth Star. “I don’t think emulating Kenneth Star is the way to win the nomination.”

Still there seems to be very little choice for Obama now. The opposition seems determined to paint him as a man not ready to lead, never-mind the tragically unmentioned fact that he has spent more time as an elected official than she. In order to disprove this negative Mr. Obama is going to have to show some spunk and come out swinging this week. One can only hope it doesn’t go nuclear as there is enough on the Clinton’s to back Hillary against a wall and bring on precisely the kind of mud slinging election cycle nightmare that inevitably drives down turnout and favors the establishment candidate. But the fact remains that there are two ways to respond to negative attacks. One can take the higher road, which risks letting the opposition define them as they see fit (this didn’t work so well for John Kerry) or they can prove to the American people that they won’t be pushed around, that they can give as well as take. If Mr. Obama wants to bring about his new movement he may just have to engage in some old time political tricks.

The Anchor Woman Cameth and Goeth And The Horse Race Goes On.

I know it's old news but sometimes it takes us awhile to really gain perspective on what our world has come to. I recently found myslef thinking about the fall season of televsion on the Big Networks and the writers strike. I found myself making a mental list of all the reality shows that are on televsion and how many had original premises etc. Then I had an eerie feeling creep up my spine and I found myself remembering one show in particular that had stuck in my craw.
I wrote about it at the time for a newspaper column but I think it's still relevant so is a slightly updated version. Comments will be appreciated on this one.

A couple of months ago Fox had started the full court press for a new (not surprisingly soon cancelled) show it launched this fall season. Maybe you remember seeing the commercials for “Anchor Woman”. The spots featured a gravely voiced narrator intoning that most important of American Journalistic questions: “What happens when a bikini model becomes the anchor woman of a network news broadcast?”
The first time I saw the ad it just rolled off my jaded exterior. I don’t expect much from television anymore. Aside from a few good shows a decade and the credible work of a few news magazines, television is like the villain from the book and move “The Never Ending Story”. The Nothing was a huge black hole that kept expanding, dragging everything good and right down into the abyss. Now that’s television.
However the second time I saw the commercial, watching this admittedly quite pretty and buxom blond reveling in her obvious ignorance, I felt a mild revulsion. Not extreme mind you, more along the lines of what I feel when I go into a rural gas station and see that they are selling “food”. I go over to the deli case, press my palms against the glass and peer down at the greasy, deep fried cuts of grade F meat and I get a small shiver in my gut. I know someone is going to be made sick from this stuff but they are only selling because there is someone buying and when I see that someone I think to myself, “Well I wouldn’t eat it but hey, to each his own. . . “
By the 200th time I saw the spot fir “Anchor Woman” my mild revulsion had turned to full blown self righteous outrage. Why the change of attitude? Well, I suddenly realized that there is an un-shown subtext to this abomination. Somewhere out there is a community turning on the television each night, expecting a news broadcast and are instead getting a stream of meaningless inanities delivered by a person whose sole qualification is that she looks fantastic in a bathing suit. Call me crazy, call me naïve but I think that if someone has decided to plop themselves down and turn on the news they should be able to reasonably expect to see . . . news. And is it an unreasonable expectation that the news be delivered by, well, news people? Heck, journalists even?
Now by the 600th time I’d seen the spot I became convinced that this was the 7th seal breaking. Ladies and gentleman, sanity has left the building. Would the last person out kindly remember to put out the lights?
Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian or Independent we are at a moment in American history where we face significant challenges. Whether you believe the terrorist threat to this nation is existential or has been blown out of proportion for partisan political gain, we are in the midst of an election cycle that demands a fully informed electorate. In a nation facing such crises as rising numbers of uninsured, questions about the balance between security and civil liberties, two wars, a faltering stock market, slowed job and wage growth, rising debt, mortgage foreclosures and more, even local news stations need to be reporting to their communities where they stand and what they need from government. Is it too much to ask that television news rooms spend less time having bikini models read cue cards about car accidents and more time having journalists do stories on the many, varied and hugely important local and national political issues and what they mean for communities across the country?
And, PLEASE, don’t tell me that this is to be expected from local news. I know that most anchors have their jobs because they have nice teeth and hair but in the past we maintained at least the veneer of journalistic credibility. By removing even the façade we have given the inmates the keys to the asylum. If local news producers are comfortable giving an anchor chair to a bikini model you can’t honestly tell me that the same network executives who thought up this brilliant idea haven’t been giving national news chairs to people based on things other than journalistic pedigree. There are so many capable male and female journalists who aren’t even considered for network anchor jobs because the network executives think your decision about which news show to watch depends on which channel’s anchor looks best.
The printed word is a dying thing. Why would you read this when you can ogle a blond with a knockout body and STILL feel you’ve done your civic responsibility to keep up with the news. And, yes, it is a civic duty to consume news, but what choices are left. The Big Three primetime news shows are worse than they have ever been.
“Advertising dollars rule television and ratings are what get those advertisers,” the executives say. But I say maybe it is time to finally enforce the spirit of the rules that say television must, in return for the free use of our airwaves (an amazingly lucrative resource these days), must report on issues of public importance. And I’m not talking about airing a Presidential debate once every four years. If that’s all we get for the use of our airwaves then forget it. You can keep the debates and start paying fair market value for the resource you are using.
“Yes, there are problems but we are only giving the people what they want. They won’t watch news and there is no solution to people’s tastes," the executives say. Wrong. I have a great place to start. Once a week, in primetime, every single channel, should be forced to do one hour of programming on issues facing America. We can give it a Patriotic name so every one can get behind it, something like “America’s Hour”. It should be done with minimal
advertising. Say . . . six minutes on the hour, and this goes for cable too. If you don’t want to do the programming you can go dark for the hour
Sure, no one can force us to watch, but I’m betting that given the chance an awful lot of people will. Now the only question is which channel’s “America’s Hour” will you decide to watch? If you hate news that much, if you have absolutely no desire to be informed, well that is still your right. However, now your only choice will be to turn off the television and read, or play with your kids or maybe call your mother. You won’t be learning anything about he issues but at least you’ll be spending your time more constructively that watching a model straining to pronounce the big words on the cue cards, just like a real network anchor woman.