Dems Rebuild

[zoogs]

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

'Be right back'  

 

Although I propose that henceforth we tag @BigRedBuster in lieu of using any acronym indicating a soon-to-return status.

[knapplc]

I don't have time to type out at-BigRedBuster. I have things to do. Important things.

[deedsker]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

I don't have time to type out at-BigRedBuster. I have things to do. Important things.

All the things.

[Landlord]

4 minutes ago, zoogs said:

A competing idea I have for "the Democrats need catchy bromides and should be blamed by the discerning public for not having them" is "the public should be blamed for failing to discern good policy from extremely malicious policy". And to elevate our own level of policy literacy.

 

 

 

Reality is, that won't and can't happen. Not even because of any ideological reason, or because of cynicism or pessimism, but because of biology. Our brains aren't wired to be rational and logical and interested in a high degree of comprehension. We're capable of it, sure, but only with a ton of work by others raising us and a ton of work by us to deny our instincts and act contrary to our nature. 

 

Facts, stats, sound logic and proper policy are pretty worthless towards convincing people of anything at the end of the day. Storytelling is the only way to do that effectively. For better or worse (I mean, let's be honest, definitely for worst), the Republicans have spectacularly crafted a cohesive and effective narrative/story. The Democrats haven't.

[zoogs]

At what point on our shameless descent into iniquity do we stop so eagerly assigning vague blame to not-fresh-enough Democrats and think, "maybe the responsibility is on us", I wonder?

 

Maybe "be the party of personal responsibility" would be a suitably palatable rally cry for Democrats to adopt.

[BigRedBuster]

15 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I don't have time to type out at-BigRedBuster. I have things to do. Important things.

So...you're saying I'm not important?

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

We're talking about "Democrats who clearly articulate the other side of the issue". Can you name some?

To answer your question, yes, the old voices in the party you have listed have lost their effectiveness and need replaced.

 

I have been following Tulsi Gabbard on twitter.  I don't always agree with her totally, but she is a fresh voice and I greatly respect her background.

[Landlord]

8 minutes ago, zoogs said:

At what point on our shameless descent into iniquity do we stop so eagerly assigning vague blame to not-fresh-enough Democrats and think, "maybe the responsibility is on us", I wonder?

 

 

This is a pretty hyperbolic hot take, but at least personally, I'm not assigning any blame. I'm just pointing out that you have to do certain things to get certain results. If you want to capture the hearts and attention and allegiance of the masses, you need to craft an engaging and cohesive animating myth. 

[knapplc]

10 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So...you're saying I'm not important?

 

You're SO important that I've given you a nickname. BRB. It's catchy.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Someone once said "The trouble with the world is that the ignorant are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

 

I think it was Miley Cyrus. 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, zoogs said:

A competing idea I have for "the Democrats need catchy bromides and should be blamed by the discerning public for not having them" is "the public should be blamed for failing to discern good policy from extremely malicious policy". And to elevate our own level of policy literacy.

There's a lot of room between catchy phrases and having clear messaging.

[zoogs]

44 minutes ago, Landlord said:

This is a pretty hyperbolic hot take, but at least personally, I'm not assigning any blame. I'm just pointing out that you have to do certain things to get certain results. If you want to capture the hearts and attention and allegiance of the masses, you need to craft an engaging and cohesive animating myth. 

 

I think it's an observation.

 

If we get to sit here and say "the Democrats don't have a message", or "their old blood is boring and they don't have new blood" (I don't know how true any of this is, fwiw), we get to absolve everyone else of any blame in events getting to where they are today, or in continuing along this path. Why aren't we getting better governments? Well, it can't be that we may be fighting the wrong battles. It must be that there isn't a viable alternative as it exists today, thank you Schumer/Hillary/Pelosi/THE ESTABLISHMENT. 

 

Which is the better focus? Which is the better takeaway? Which, for that matter, is the "hot take"?
 

[NM11046]

7 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I fully understand and can appreciate this feeling.  I have felt it too.

 

I work hard to separate my own Christianity from what many Americans have made Christianity into.  They are two very different things.

Most notably, the difference between black and white evangelicals.  

[RedDenver]

14 minutes ago, zoogs said:

 

I think it's an observation.

 

If we get to sit here and say "the Democrats don't have a message", or "their old blood is boring and they don't have new blood" (I don't know how true any of this is, fwiw), we get to absolve everyone else of any blame in events getting to where they are today, or in continuing along this path. Why aren't we getting better governments? Well, it can't be that we may be fighting the wrong battles. It must be that there isn't a viable alternative as it exists today, thank you Schumer/Hillary/Pelosi/THE ESTABLISHMENT. 

 

Which is the better focus? Which is the better takeaway? Which, for that matter, is the "hot take"?
 

What? Saying we need a new message, new candidates, or new alternatives IS placing the blame on the existing structure and how we got here. No one is being absolved.

 

And if I want to vote for getting money out of politics, getting out of foreign wars, single payer healthcare, etc., how exactly do I do that without acknowledging there isn't a viable alternative to the existing parties/candidates to achieve those things?

[zoogs]

We are being absolved, by ourselves.

 

Perhaps you don't see this as a permission slip for your fellow American to not vote Democrat in order to get Republicans out of office, across the board. But from a messaging standpoint in particular, that's exactly what it is. 

 

I think that's why this is so frustrating for me. I see all this talk, and it is widespread, as our own failure and an important contributor to our tepid failure to remove the GOP (which, structurally, is hard enough as is). There is always this debate between "the current Democratic Party" and "the best version of the Democratic Party". There's also a really urgent fight on the ground and perhaps I'm just that rabid a leftist relative to you guys (I really don't think so), but in this endeavor tepidness absolutely will not do. They shouldn't be, but our political choices are so clear right now; an inability to keep that front and center (e.g. "Doug Jones is such an uninspiring candidate who isn't good for the black community", among other things) endangers every race.