Raphael Warnock knows the way forward

[superrific]

1. I swear to God, if Dems are still talking about this "we need better messaging" bullshit by next week, I'm going to lose my mind. Here's the problem:

A. Dems have traditionally had three core constituencies: working class whites (especially men), professional women (who care about issues like glass ceilings and reproductive rights more than the working class), and black people. Somewhere along the way, we also picked up gay people.

B. It turns out that the first category hates the people in the other categories. We literally just witnessed that play out over the past year, the past three years, the past ten years. It also turns out that black people don't like professional women all that much, and certainly not gay people. And professional women are not that numerous and some % of them are pro-life voters who are probably unreachable.

C. You cannot win elections consistently when parts of your base hates another part of your base.

There is no amount of messaging that can paper over this basic problem. Thus do we need a plan. And if the plan doesn't take account of this reality and address it head-on, then it is a shit plan that will guarantee future losses.

2. I've been thinking back to the DNC. To me, the most powerful part was the close of Raphael Warnock's speech. Link below for those who don't remember. It still gives me chills.

"In order for my children to be OK, I need all my neighbor's children to be OK" is what liberal politics is all about. That was the tenor of the MLK message. That was Barack Obama's message. And it's a message that everyone can rally around.

3. This is to say that we need more Christianity in Dem politics. The Pubs have given us an opening by embracing a Christianity of hate. And we can take that mantle by expressly embracing our shared religious traditions. That doesn't mean we need to be bigots. Warnock, after all, talked about the children of Gaza and of Israel to be OK in that speech.

What's the most enduring image or memory of Obama's presidency? For me, his singing at the Charleston funeral is high on the list, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Obama was a competent technocrat and a person fully conversant in the Christian tradition.

4. This isn't exactly my wheelhouse, and it's not my intuition either. [Note to people who think I'm arrogant: I'm literally suggesting that Dem politics move away from my areas of expertise, which is to say that I'm suggesting sidelining myself to some degree, so maybe ask yourself what arrogance really means.] I expect pushback. And if you ask me how, I won't be able to tell you because I don't really attend a church.

But if you look at the most resounding victories of liberalism over the years, they were the Civil Rights movement and Obama '08. Those two victories were based on the same principles.



The part that really got everyone going starts at 12:33 or so (or 12:42 if you want to skip the runup).

 

[BlueSmoke]

Well we are making progress I see on the attitude about changing Democrats. When I posted several weeks ago that there was something wrong with the Democratic Party, I was loudly booed. Seem like one poster called my opinion dribble.

 

[superrific]

Well we are making progress I see on the attitude about changing Democrats. When I posted several weeks ago that there was something wrong with the Democratic Party, I was loudly booed. Seem like one poster called my opinion dribble.

If you're referring to me, I definitely didn't say that because I would never use that word.

Here's a tip: during the middle of a hotly contested election is not the greatest time to be telling liberals that there is something wrong with the Democratic Party. If you think you're going to get buy-in on "we suck" from people all-in trying to win the election, I mean what are we doing here? A lot of us were out on the campaign trail working with the Democratic Party. There are so many good people making a real difference, so many people who were busting their ass and putting in time and money and blood and tears to get us to victory. Shitting on the Democrats during that campaign is never, ever going to be well received.

Obviously the election put things in a different light. And since everyone else is offering their own election post-mortems, I will offer mine. Of this I am quite confident: moving "left" is a bad strategy that Democrats will not adopt because it is a bad strategy. Moving to Bernie Sanders politics is probably the worst idea possible.

Stick to what has always worked for us. "In order for my children to be OK, I need my neighbors' children to be OK" is a message that is more or less undefeated when we've run with it. We can't always run with it, because it's a campaign message. It's not a governance message. It works best when people are feeling hopeless -- which is to say, when Republicans are in control. But I cannot think of a major campaign that liberals have undertaken with this message that has lost. WJC's campaign embraced some of this.

 

[Calheel]

C. You cannot win elections consistently when parts of your base hates another part of your base.

That is simply not true. In a two-party system, each party will have significant portions of its base that hates another part of its base. The Republicans have been better at demonizing the democrats to give a common enemy, but there is very significant animus between major blocs of Republican voters. It is a feature of a two-party system and is unavoidable. The solution is creating a common enemy that is greater than the intra-party enemy.

 

[superrific]

That is simply not true. In a two-party system, each party will have significant portions of its base that hates another part of its base. The Republicans have been better at demonizing the democrats to give a common enemy, but there is very significant animus between major blocs of Republican voters. It is a feature of a two-party system and is unavoidable. The solution is creating a common enemy that is greater than the intra-party enemy.

I said consistently. Maybe you're right, though. On the other hand, there are different types of animus. What we just saw should not give us any hope that we can forge an alliance there, at least not any time soon -- in my view, at least.

You're definitely right that, historically, a common enemy can temporarily bridge the gap. I'm not sure that's even true any more, but let's go with it. Still, Dems are more successful when building bridges than fighting internecine conflicts. Maybe that has changed as well.

I just think Warnock's mini-sermon at the end of the speech is the best, most inclusive and most likely reframing to succeed. It also helps that it's not so much a reframing as a return to form. What options are better? I mean, we have a lot of time to think about them, but I'd take Warnock politics over Bernie politics every day. What do you think?

 

[Centerpiece]

It’s hard to argue with the “love your neighbor” take. It’s worked for centuries. And the fact that organized religions are losing congregants left and right (especially Christian churches) simply indicates that those organizations have strayed too far from that message.

I agree with the OP. If the right wants to hang their hat on the Christian hook of “no gays, no abortions, don’t ban the use of Merry Christmas” side of religion, then it’s only fair that the left usurp the remainder of the “good word” for their messaging. It’s a a far more inclusive and wide-reaching message that most folks can grasp and get behind.

The right has left those things behind, and it’s like low hanging fruit for the left to gather up.

 

[finesse]

It’s hard to argue with the “love your neighbor” take. It’s worked for centuries. And the fact that organized religions are losing congregants left and right (especially Christian churches) simply indicates that those organizations have strayed too far from that message.

I agree with the OP. If the right wants to hang their hat on the Christian hook of “no gays, no abortions, don’t ban the use of Merry Christmas” side of religion, then it’s only fair that the left usurp the remainder of the “good word” for their messaging. It’s a a far more inclusive and wide-reaching message that most folks can grasp and get behind.

The right has left those things behind, and it’s like low hanging fruit for the left to gather up.

Banning Christmas is a Christian tradition.

In 1659, the Massachusetts Bay Colony enacted a law called Penalty for Keeping Christmas. The notion was that such “festivals as were superstitiously kept in other countries” were a “great dishonor of God and offence of others.” Anyone found celebrating Christmas by failing to work, “feasting, or any other way… shall pay for every such offence five shillings.” [This would be about $48 today].

 

[rodoheel]

I understand every part of the post except the hostile reaction to saying that Dems have a "messaging problem." Why the harsh reaction to that phrase? I don't see how Dems having a messaging problem is inconsistent with anything you just said. Everything you said can be true, and it can still be clear that Dems have a "messaging problem" in that they are really bad at talking to working-class people in a way that doesn't immediately turn them off. We can do everything you suggest, and also focus on dropping the preachy language policing, mealy-mouthed non-answers, and aloof tone that too often characterizes Dem party leaders.

 

[Centerpiece]

Banning Christmas is a Christian tradition.

In 1659, the Massachusetts Bay Colony enacted a law called Penalty for Keeping Christmas. The notion was that such “festivals as were superstitiously kept in other countries” were a “great dishonor of God and offence of others.” Anyone found celebrating Christmas by failing to work, “feasting, or any other way… shall pay for every such offence five shillings.” [This would be about $48 today].

That’s not what I said at all. And it’s not what the right has been whining about either. It’s the simple use of the phrase “merry Christmas”. They (the right) think the left has been “trying to ban the use of that term”. Which of course is pure T bullshite. Using terms like Seasons greetings and Happy Holidays is fine and has been for decades.

But to your historical point - which is obviously accurate - it only makes the right look even for hypocritical in that regard.

But let’s not get hung up on that bit… that’s the weakest part of my take from the comment I made. It’s really neither here nor there. I’ll stand firmly behind the other bits.

 

[finesse]

That’s not what I said at all. And it’s not what the right has been whining about either. It’s the simple use of the phrase “merry Christmas”. They (the right) think the left has been “trying to ban the use of that term”. Which of course is pure T bullshite. Using terms like Seasons greetings and Happy Holidays is fine and has been for decades.

But to your historical point - which is obviously accurate - it only makes the right look even for hypocritical in that regard.

But let’s not get hung up on that bit… that’s the weakest part of my take from the comment I made. It’s really neither here nor there. I’ll stand firmly behind the other bits.

Yeah, but it was the one that was most fun to mention.

 

[superrific]

I understand every part of the post except the hostile reaction to saying that Dems have a "messaging problem."

Because people are using it as an all-purpose excuse to push their priorities. Before we can think about our messaging problems, we need to have a plan. Plan comes first, then messaging.

I'm not attached to preachy language policing but that's not really a Dem thing as much as it's an on-campus liberal thing. And I don't think that's what people mean by messaging. But sure, if that's our messaging problem, and that's what we need to correct, fine.

I really don't understand the critique of "mealy-mouthed non-answers" when that's literally all the GOP has served up for a decade or longer. If it works for Trump and JD Vance, why shouldn't it work for us? I don't know about aloof tone, except to say that the GOP seems pretty damn aloof to me.

But the main point is that messaging is a feature of a plan, not an excuse for not having one. And messaging is a real challenge when the people who need to hear the messages aren't hearing them.

 

[Paine]

I understand every part of the post except the hostile reaction to saying that Dems have a "messaging problem." Why the harsh reaction to that phrase? I don't see how Dems having a messaging problem is inconsistent with anything you just said. Everything you said can be true, and it can still be clear that Dems have a "messaging problem" in that they are really bad at talking to working-class people in a way that doesn't immediately turn them off. We can do everything you suggest, and also focus on dropping the preachy language policing, mealy-mouthed non-answers, and aloof tone that too often characterizes Dem party leaders.

Just to build on this, I also don’t think a strategy of emphasizing morality is inconsistent with emphasizing progressive messaging.

Super fails to point out the other similarities between Obama 08 and the Civil Rights Movement: the presence of a universalist economic message.

Economic messaging was a the core of the civil rights movement. You can’t have one without the other. Another figure that we should all be familiar with is Rev. William Barber. He does an excellent job of weaving these Democratic traditions together.

 

[rodoheel]

Because people are using it as an all-purpose excuse to push their priorities. Before we can think about our messaging problems, we need to have a plan. Plan comes first, then messaging.

I'm not attached to preachy language policing but that's not really a Dem thing as much as it's an on-campus liberal thing. And I don't think that's what people mean by messaging. But sure, if that's our messaging problem, and that's what we need to correct, fine.

I really don't understand the critique of "mealy-mouthed non-answers" when that's literally all the GOP has served up for a decade or longer. If it works for Trump and JD Vance, why shouldn't it work for us? I don't know about aloof tone, except to say that the GOP seems pretty damn aloof to me.

But the main point is that messaging is a feature of a plan, not an excuse for not having one. And messaging is a real challenge when the people who need to hear the messages aren't hearing them.

I don't really disagree with the first two sentences.

With respect to "language policing" - if it were only a campus thing it wouldn't be that big a deal. But it's omnipresent in left-leaning media too, especially cable news, which often has left-wing academics and activists on. To be clear, most right-wing hysteria about "pronouns" and "PC" is bad-faith BS, but the way TV Dems talk (and more importantly, insist other people talk) generally turns off working-class voters. Constant harping about which words can and can't be used and in what contexts - and trying to come up with new wonky terminology that no one really asked for, like "latinx" - really drives Americans who aren't very politically engaged crazy.

 

[superrific]

I don't really disagree with the first two sentences.

With respect to "language policing" - if it were only a campus thing it wouldn't be that big a deal. But it's omnipresent in left-leaning media too, especially cable news, which often has left-wing academics and activists on. To be clear, most right-wing hysteria about "pronouns" and "PC" is bad-faith BS, but the way TV Dems talk (and more importantly, insist other people talk) generally turns off working-class voters. Constant harping about which words can and can't be used and in what contexts - and trying to come up with new wonky terminology that no one really asked for, like "latinx" - really drives Americans who aren't very politically engaged crazy.

That's fine, then. I don't take that to be what people mean when they say Dems have poor messaging, but maybe I'm wrong. I do not like language policing either, and Latinx is the worst. I don't ever watch MSNBC so I don't have an informed opinion on that.

 

[superrific]

Super fails to point out the other similarities between Obama 08 and the Civil Rights Movement: the presence of a universalist economic message.

Economic messaging was a the core of the civil rights movement.

Maybe I don't even understand what you're trying to say. There's not a person here who thinks that creating economic opportunities is a bad thing. I take you to be making stronger claims that Bernie Sanders style politics are the way to go. I'm confident that neither Obama nor the Civil Rights Movement embraced Bernie Sanders politics. They are completely different approaches. But that's not what I want to talk about on this thread.

Folks who think that universalist economic policies are the panacea really need to take the drained-pool problem more seriously (borrowing the phrase from Heather Mcghee). And then connect the drained-pool problem to, say, the failure of confederate states to adopt Obamacare Medicaid. Medicaid is, of course, a universalist economic program. It has never been terribly popular. The GOP runs against it pretty much all the time.

White folks have come to think of economic policy as a zero-sum game between them and minorities. That's certainly how Trump sees and frames it. And that's why economic policy isn't going to get us where we need to go. Trump voters are more concerned about minorities not getting nice things that they forgo nice things themselves. I don't know if we can break that.

This is why I think religion is the ordering principle we need, and liberal Christianity in particular. Christianity specifically teaches that salvation and justice are not zero-sum, and while the evangelicals reject a lot of actual Christian teachings, this is one that they still embrace to my knowledge. It's the zero-sum thinking that we have to fight.

 

[Paine]

Maybe I don't even understand what you're trying to say. There's not a person here who thinks that creating economic opportunities is a bad thing. I take you to be making stronger claims that Bernie Sanders style politics are the way to go. I'm confident that neither Obama nor the Civil Rights Movement embraced Bernie Sanders politics. They are completely different approaches. But that's not what I want to talk about on this thread.

Folks who think that universalist economic policies are the panacea really need to take the drained-pool problem more seriously (borrowing the phrase from Heather Mcghee). And then connect the drained-pool problem to, say, the failure of confederate states to adopt Obamacare Medicaid. Medicaid is, of course, a universalist economic program. It has never been terribly popular. The GOP runs against it pretty much all the time.

White folks have come to think of economic policy as a zero-sum game between them and minorities. That's certainly how Trump sees and frames it. And that's why economic policy isn't going to get us where we need to go. Trump voters are more concerned about minorities not getting nice things that they forgo nice things themselves. I don't know if we can break that.

This is why I think religion is the ordering principle we need, and liberal Christianity in particular. Christianity specifically teaches that salvation and justice are not zero-sum, and while the evangelicals reject a lot of actual Christian teachings, this is one that they still embrace to my knowledge. It's the zero-sum thinking that we have to fight.

It’s not a surprise that you don’t know what I’m trying to say.

 

[Duke Mu]

Abandoning the Populist messaging that draws in working class white, women, minorities.

Kamala did not do enough to differentiate herself from Biden (right or wrong) in October. In September there was some separation as Harris/Walz ran a more populist campaign. Then (forced upon) campaign manager Jen O'Malley undercut Kamala's populist messaging and went corporate/Republican. It was a massive tactical mistake, especially around the hurricanes.

 

[Duke Mu]

Keep in mind the mistrust between Latinos and blacks. Trump campaign leveraged this, Using whatsapp in Spanish in 2020 to TX, FL that blacks were going to take their jobs and rape their daughters. Probably happened again. HonesttoGod truth.

 

[Duke Mu]

Maybe I don't even understand what you're trying to say. There's not a person here who thinks that creating economic opportunities is a bad thing. I take you to be making stronger claims that Bernie Sanders style politics are the way to go. I'm confident that neither Obama nor the Civil Rights Movement embraced Bernie Sanders politics. They are completely different approaches. But that's not what I want to talk about on this thread.

Folks who think that universalist economic policies are the panacea really need to take the drained-pool problem more seriously (borrowing the phrase from Heather Mcghee). And then connect the drained-pool problem to, say, the failure of confederate states to adopt Obamacare Medicaid. Medicaid is, of course, a universalist economic program. It has never been terribly popular. The GOP runs against it pretty much all the time.

White folks have come to think of economic policy as a zero-sum game between them and minorities. That's certainly how Trump sees and frames it. And that's why economic policy isn't going to get us where we need to go. Trump voters are more concerned about minorities not getting nice things that they forgo nice things themselves. I don't know if we can break that.

This is why I think religion is the ordering principle we need, and liberal Christianity in particular. Christianity specifically teaches that salvation and justice are not zero-sum, and while the evangelicals reject a lot of actual Christian teachings, this is one that they still embrace to my knowledge. It's the zero-sum thinking that we have to fight.

Agree about Sanders messaging.

Just look at this Masterclass of messaging - the perfect political ad: People working, working together, finding motivation, connecting with each other for a united American ideal.

If there was a "coup" (besides the Putin thumb on the scale) it was the DNC stonewalling Sanders when he had momentum in 2016. He would have crushed Trump. I don't agree with a lot of Bernie's policies but McConnell and Bernie would have each had to compromise. It would have been fine. Bernie would have never fired the Pandemic Team in 2018...because there wasn't a pandemic. FAIL

 

[superrific]

Agree about Sanders messaging.

Just look at this Masterclass of messaging - the perfect political ad: People working, working together, finding motivation, connecting with each other for a united American ideal.

Are you being sarcastic? Watch that ad again. Almost everyone in it is white. The soundtrack is fucking Simon and Garfunkel, which is probably the whitest music this side of the Eagles. There's one black person on screen for less than half a second. There are two other glimpses of people of color, who look more South Asian to me but whatever.

There are more white farmers in that ad than minorities. You know, 'cause if there's anyone black and Latino people love, it's white farmers in Iowa. And then Bernie wonders why he didn't have support among black voters . . .