Centerfield

One thing that Lakoff adds to this puzzle is that one of the major factors in the GOP/conservative successes over the past 25+ years is having developed and honed language that embodies and communicates (as cultural memes) their value system. (Thus even Clinton had to position himself in the language and values of the right in order to command enough electoral support.) The news, the opinion and the talk around the water-cooler became saturated with this language and -- because of the way the human mind works -- the value system behind the language.

So, the left now has project Phoenix in the works, with $100 million as the startup cost. What the left needs to do is begin having a conversation among themselves with an awareness that language must convey the value system of the left. Developing that language and making it part of the public discussion is a process that will take time. But -- especially with the internet as part of the conversation -- in 5-10 years we should see some distinct progress. (In the short term there is at least a heightened awareness of framing issues. Armed with knowledge of the 'rules', the left should at least be able to make a dent in the public discourse.)

It is in the interest of centrists that BOTH the left and right are able to communicate their value systems well, because neither by itself will provide a sufficient balancing of human needs and priorities. To me, to be a centrist, the idea of BALANCE is very important. Maybe even central to 'centrism'.

The purpose of the article is making the Democrat party into a stable, governing majority.

Much of the advice is obvious, telling the Democrats to move towards the right if they want to return to power, on such issues as gay rights, abortion, and gun control. It's hard to see the current leadership making substantive governing changes on these issues, but the author tells them exactly what they want to hear... The author downplays the need for a change of actual positions, suggesting that merely inclusive campaign rhetoric would mostly suffice. Poseur centrism. I'm skeptical.

"It could do more to signal that it welcomes a range of views on [abortion]. It could also relax its intransigent opposition to what many moderate voters see as reasonable limits on abortion. The exclusion of pro-life Democrat Bob Casey from the convention podium in 1992 continues to rankle many voters who are only moderately opposed to abortion, as does the party’s stance on partial-birth abortion procedures. "

"The dynamics of the primary campaign in 2000 led Gore toward stances on gun control and gay rights that did not serve him well among most white male voters in the general election. If Democrats speak about gun control and gay rights in ways that imply that no decent and reasonable person could have a different view, voters who feel marginalized, even demonized, by such rhetoric are bound to retaliate."

The author seems to totally dismiss conservative southern democrats, whose voters gave the party decades long control of the house of representatives. This write off is probably is not the attitude needed to regain a majority: "There is no principled and practical way of stemming the flight of Georgia Senator Zell Miller and the people he represents from the Democratic party."

There's an extensive historical review, but the author leaves a gaping hole by totally ignoring the dramatic (and seemingly permanent) 1994 shift in the house of representatives from Democrat to Republican control. The paragraph that lists the reasons for Gore's surprise loss in West Virginia doesn't even mention gun control. The author did mention taxes several times, but I still feel he downplayed the effect of the issue in moving the electorate.

Sometimes I think about our current leadership - Daschle, Pelosi, McCauliffe - and despair. But then I remember how the Republicans were when Clinton was President. And for all the Democratic coalition troubles, Republicans have worse defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory problems through their vast arrogance in power E.g., just watch, Bush' coalition in TX is about to be shredded due to way overstepping in redistricting. And many US Senate Republicans want to do the same kind of thing, try to get rid of cloture. We Democrats have no better friend than the GOP's mistakes....

I have some problem with saying the Democrats need to move to the right on certain issues. They already have to a large extent. At some point, do we really want two parties that are mirror images of each other, except, perhaps, on economics? What are people who favor gun control or gay marriage supposed to do--start their own party? I recognize the problems the Democrats have in winning on some of these issues. But look at the Republicans. For a long time during the 50s and 60s, they were very similar to Democrats on many issues. They became more successful when they developed their own defining identity (even though I don't particularly like the identity). I certainly don't want the Democrats to become a left-wing party, but I think they need to maintain an identity separate from the Republicans. IMO, that means a RELATIVELY more liberal stance on social and economic issues than the Republicans. If that means writing off certain parts of the country, so be it; I doubt the GOP spends much time trying to figure out how to win San Francisco and New York. I do believe that the parties should be generally centrist in nature, but I don't think they should be tweedledum and tweedledee. People need a choice.