New Article by George Lakoff: "Building on the Progressive Victory"

One of the more interesting things I've found from this election thus far, is that some Republicans look at the loss as a very logistical one. For example, Tom Delay has started his own blog in hopes of "breaking through the liberal mainstream media clutter" and working to organize conservatives online like the way some progressives (see: this site) have. So many people on both sides still look at elections like an equation of effort and location.

We talk about Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy, but there was something he said in an interview on The Daily Show that was the real "strategy" to me. He said that you show somebody a lot of respect by asking for their vote. It wasn't Dean's door hangers that won the election, it was the fact that Democrats didn't forget about serving ALL of America. People respond to that. They respond to the value of respect. The logistics of getting people to the polls, or getting them excited online is a small portion of what makes a movement (and thus an election) work. What matters is connecting with them, and doing so authentically (as Lakoff says).

Democrats need to remember this. Barack Obama, the current star of politics, is not gaining popularity because he's somehow found the one platform that appeals to everyone. There is no such platform. Instead, he is authentically speaking of the shared values of America. And people are responding. Let's hope this model is the future of progressive politics.

Seth

As a progressive that supported Bob Casey from day 1, I couldn't agree more. Pennsylvania, with the exception of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh (the city only) is dominated by social consrevatives, democratic and republican. While I am personally progressive across the board, I was excited about Casey's decision to run. I believed that he possessed the right combination of economic progressivism and social conservativism to beat Rick Santorum.

Although most of the progressive community was not happy with Casey as a candidate, he effectively highlighted his progressive economic values from the beginning, downplaying his stance on abortion and gay rights. At the Democratic debate in Slippery Rock against two progressive opponents, the abortion issue inevitably surfaced. Casey handled it extremely well without avoiding the issue. He directly stated to a progressive group that he would not deny being a pro-life democrat, but stressed showing respect for those with different views. He added that we should not let this issue divide us, when we agree on the minimum wage, fair trade, etc. He clearly was not running as "Santorum Lite" as many progressive democrats contended.

Just as importantly, after having spoken with Bob Casey on a few occasions, it was evident to me that he was honest and sincere. In speaking with others who have gotten to know Bob, the overriding impression is that, agree with his positions or not, he is a good man.

In the general election campaign, Casey never brought up guns, gays, or abortion. When asked, he clearly and honestly stated his views, but did not run as the anti-abortion democrat; he ran as the economic populist candidate. All of his campaign ads concerned economic issues,corruption, and the rubber stamp congress.

Aniother Campaign I worked on was the Jason Altmire campaign (PA-4). For the most part, everything I have said about Casey can be said about Altmire. Again we had a socially conservative democrat that ran exclusively on economic progressive issues, and beat a three term incumbent (Melissa Hart) in what was considered a major upset. This is a truly incredible story; anyone running against a supposedly strong republican would do well to consult Jason, as his campaign was flawless. The district registration was 51D/38R/11I, but had not elected a democrat since 1998. Again, economic populism was the overriding theme of the campaign.

The republican-lite DLCers are free to interpret this however they want, but there is a movement in this country toward progressive values. If we play our cards right, this can be the start of something great.

First, I would like to say congratulations on the new website and the work that Rockridge does. I’m a longtime listener, first time caller…

In response to a few things:

“Rahm Emanuel sprang to the podium in front of national TV cameras to announce a victory for centrism. Two days later fellow centrist James Carville called, unsuccessfully, for the resignation from the DNC of Howard Dean.”

The centrist frame is strong and has the appeal of being "moderate" which comes off as level headed. When coming off a victory, by claiming centrism, the winners walk away as good sports and as though they are trying to save face. So, while I believe that the centrists are too far to the right, it seems like it’s a good label when coming off such a conservative majority. It makes the transition sound easier to people like my parents who have voted conservatively for generations.

I think that the Ford situation is much more complex than simply being an issue of centrist vs. progressive framing. Considering that Ford's family has a history with Tennessee politics and the Memphis political institutions, and a reputation for being part of the "big government" machine that implies corruption. Tennessean conservatives view Harold Ford and his family the same way strong conservatives loathe Hillary or liberals loathe GW, choosing to talk about political corruption scandals that his family was associated with. (similar to the same way car accidents seem to come up when many people mention Ted Kennedy, irregardless of the topic of his speech)


"What does this say about what the direction of the Democratic Party should be — and not be? It says that the Democratic Party should not be moving to the right on the positions its candidates ran on. Success as a party depends, instead, on having a clear moral vision and carrying it out. Right now, it is the progressive moral vision that has brought them electoral success and a mandate for change."

You make an important point here, especially considering the “waffling” image that is often given to "liberals." Moving to the right on issues would make supporters on the left see the party as acting without vision. This just made me curious to try my hand at corpus linguistics, in a google query, I just found:

162,000 for liberal waffling.
184,000 for conservative waffling
189,000 for democrat waffling.
139,000 for republican waffling

83,400 for moderate waffling
86,800 for progressive waffling.

421,000 for liberal waffle.
377,000 for conservative waffle

Though none of the numbers demonstrate hands down that left is associated with not “staying the course,” it’s interesting to consider


“In the process they have started a new progressive populism. Not a mere economic populism, but a thoroughgoing progressive populism"

Is populism too dangerous a label? I think it would be so; especially, with visions of populism in Latin America and the increasing importance of Latin American voters.


http://economist.com/World/la/displayStory.cfm?story_id=6802448
In this April 12 article in the Economist, The return of populism, associations are made between socialism, Marxism, populism. Selling "populism" invokes communist imagery that can ultimately hurt progressive candidates.


"The party, as a party, therefore should not be moving to the right and adopting conservative positions, even if a number of party members happen to hold such positions. To move to the right is to give up any claim to a consistent moral vision at the heart of the party. At the same time, the party, as a party, need not, probably should not, and certainly will not adopt all progressive positions."
This is such a moderate sounding suggestion to me!


“A populist progressive movement has begun and it needs to be both studied and nurtured.” ---It needs a new name. The “progressive movement” frame is tainted when you add in populism after years of anti commie, pinko, etc. language. This is still ingrained in our national identity as a result of the cold war. It is the same reason that it was so easy to sell liberal as a vulgar word.

I remember chuckling to myself in the car, listening to NPR, about the elections. There was all this talk of the centrists really winning in the democratic party... but the language they were using was straight out of this new progressive vocabulary.

The fact that this has happened this way is not just a victory for Democrats, but a victory for the ideas behind progressive framing as well - the fact that, when such framing is used correctly, it is invisible. Media's acute awareness of conservative framing has been a long time in the making, and the fact that centrist candidates are using progressive framing and still being labeled centrists is impressive.

Hey Evan,

I read the article at Daily Kos and thought it was great. I tend to think everything that Lakoff and Rockridge do is excellent. I'm excited about this blog and hope it can become a place to exchange ideas.

I wanted to register here early to get my low UID number, haha. You can use that as a selling point at dkos: "Get your three-digit UIDs before their gone forever!"

I guess I'm assuming that we even have UIDs here... hope so!

Keep up the good work!

Ben

I felt inspired by many progressive candidates during the past election, much more than I have in the past, and I am certain it had everything to do with values-based campaigning. I appreciate this dialog very much; I wonder if some of you will respond to what concerns me:

So much money has been/is being/will be spent on the political objectives of the right... Couldn't they buy campaign workers/actors/strategists who could build "authenticity" and values communication? How do we, as the movement, protect ourselves from genuine-seeming politicians who, while they might campaign on socially positive, values-based issues, bring about opposite outcomes while in office? How do we deal with this kind of false authenticity?

I suppose the election results could be viewed as a collective rejection of this very thing. But

waiting for voters to find out that the authenticity of the right is not genuine took too long. It would be a tragedy to have to run this cycle again.

There are moderate positions, but no moderate values. I think one of the most important points from Lakoff's piece is that a "moderate" is someone who holds a mixture of progressive and conservative values

there is no particular set of moderate values. This means that the Democrats can afford to have a big tent and unite around our progressive values. Most of us have conservative values too, but we all have different ones; we're not going to act on them because we can't agree on a set of conservative values. We can agree on most progressive values, so that is what we will act on.

We should encourage "moderates" in our party -- they bring us diversity, make us a party of inclusion, and on occasion, innoculate us from attacks by conservatives. However, our party should not move to the right. We should instead learn how to articulate the values we share.

I want to take one issue with Mr. Lakoff. I don't think the Democrats won this election through their good framing. I think they won because Republicans lost. What I do hope is that we can use our (at least) two years in the majority to really start getting our frames out to the general public. Now we know how to do it, AND we have a platform to speak from. By 2008, we should be shifting language back toward the left.

I think Mr. Lakoff's article is essential reading for every person with a pulse. But it reminds me how I was shocked that Katrina did not come up more during the elections. It also reminds me that while Katrina's aftermath was playing out, I truly believed it was a wake-up call to America that conservatives hijacked their government and capitalism had run amok and everything we take for granted had been stolen before our very eyes. The outrage and the disbelief ... how could this be happening here, how could New Orleans look like a third world country ... dragging out race issues and poverty ... it was such a moment of promise to me. And then it just seemed to fade away.

I think referring to Katrina is an absolute key to reframing public discourse and defending democracy and returning everyone to the same page about what government is and what it should be. Everyone took for granted that the government would take care of the mess on the Gulf Coast. Well, guess what people, I kept shouting at the TV, this is what you have wrought, this is what you voted for in 2000 and 2004 (well, perhaps not but the stolen elections are a separate issue)

It seemed to me that Katrina was finally going to provoke a national debate on conservatism vs. progressivism. If you are so indignant that this crisis is going on, then you must believe it is the role of government to help its citizens. So why are the people in power in power?!?!?!?!? They do not believe it is government's role to help its citizens. They want people to help themselves, and if they don't, oh well. There is no room for "oh maybe these people can't help themselves" or maybe people define "help" differently and we need to respect each other

OK no one is reading this anymore but I really feel strongly that Katrina is a key in turning all of this around and making it stick. If it is said that George Sr. lost his reelection because he didn't know the price of a gallon of milk, or whatever other out-of-touch symbol was used, then we should be able to communicate with many given how dangerously detached the current administration is from the plight of the average American.

As interesting as I find the mental gymnastics of the Credit Grab Olympics

particularly the amusing attempt here to even claim strategic use of "reality" -- there is a rather large elephant sitting in the middle of this stadium.

The election was not about the Dems, it was about the bushkid.

As Curtis Curtis, Director Center for the Study of the American Electorate, put it on Politically Direct with David Bender: it was about "a gestalt around George Bush."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&;forum=132&topic_id=3004846&mesg_id=3005369

The Dems were handed an opportunity. But it was not an opportunity to advance anyone's tattered laundry list of issues or to more deftly manipulate and/or pander to some new defintion of that darned fickle electorate.

They were asked to impeach and remove a never-elected, never-legitimate, lawless regime. One which has Terrorized the American People (mushroom clouds!) and put them on the moral hook for crimes, both domestic and foreign, to which they never provided their consent.

Impeachment is the "resounding defense of democracy" that Bob Burnett is looking for. It is the ultimate "values frame." It IS our positive agenda.

Beyond that, it is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

Only Impeachment: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/11

--
How's that for "accurately framing reality?"

--

I thought the article was extremely insightful and very helpful in understanding what was accomplished on November 7th. However, at least from my viewpoint, there was a total lack of understanding on what it means to be a moderate or a centrist.

Professor Lakoff framed his comments about the "centrists" by clainming that centrists were about adopting conservative values. As a self identified moderate, I don't believe this is entirely true. This "moral of the election" penned by the Professor has the key to his false frame (at least as it related to me):

"The party, as a party, therefore should not be moving to the right and adopting conservative positions, even if a number of party members happen to hold such positions. To move to the right is to give up any claim to a consistent moral vision at the heart of the party. At the same time, the party, as a party, need not, probably should not, and certainly will not adopt all progressive positions"

For me, being moderate or, "centrist is more about not accepting the extreme positions of either conservative or progressive. It is not about adopting conservative positions or values. It is more about espousing those positions and values which the majority of the voters and the candidate truly holds and believes.

This balancing act requires that a canidate NOT run on the more extreme positions from from each of their "bi-conceptual" poles. Lakoff framed the centrists as adopting conservative policies and values. I just don't believe that is entirely accurate.

I believe that in order for progressives to get elected and thus to be able to dominate the agenda, it is necessary to not espouse the more extreme positions of progressives. However, once in power, progressives can begin the process of moving the center of the country back towards the progressive side of the scale.

It is my considered opinion that the conservative movement has been successfull in dragging the political center of this country a considerable distance to the right. The party in power, with its ability to set the agenda and to achieve its objectives, has the ability to reverse this process. This is much more difficult, if not impossible to accomplish when you are not in power.

I firmly believe in the maxim that "You can't govern if you can't win."

Really great. Thank you I wish you come back to my blog soon.

CEO of Vertex Battery
http://www.kendoo.com/vertex-battery.asp