Centerfield

I thought they were already doing this?

In the last two cycles, they have pursued both electoral and non-electoral means. I would argue that their electoral impact has been negative on the Democrats, with Nader making the difference in 2000, and with folks like Michael Moore being a counterproductive asset in 2004.

That said, I think they are going to have to come up with some new ideas, not just hawking the traditional ones which are unpopular with the public. In particular, ideas which can be implemented cheaply and in a decentralized rather than big government manner would be welcome.

What's an example of such an idea? I would argue that gay marriage is one. It doesn't cost a lot, it's done at the state level, and it creates contractual ties which may reduce dependency on social services. It may a good position for short-term political advantage, but I believe it will be a winning one in the long term.

I suggest they focus on quality and testing -- test where their ideas are tried and measure the results against alternatives.

For example, is "fair trade" or "free trade" better for poor people? Take two similar countries and try to see in which country do more poor people get jobs.

Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for life. Maybe. But he still needs clothes and housing -- money. Offer him a job and you offer him civilization.

Helping the poor means helping more entreprenuers make more profit so as to offer more jobs. The sustainability of the job is measured in the profit of the company...

NOT gay "marriage" -- gay civil union. Most of the two person benefits, but NOT adopting children (third person).

Ban partial birth abortion. Catholics may well be leaving the Dems, BIG TIME, if the Femi-nazis don't learn to be tolerant of pro-life folk as Dems.

That's interesting, Tom. I do separate the issues of gay marriage/civil union from adoption. I have my doubts about whether men should be able to adopt an unrelated child--and by that I mean both a single man and a male couple. Men, both heterosexual and homosexual, are the chief sexual predators in our society.

I agree that among the real challenges facing the Dems is their considerable failure on the idea side of the equation. Or, let me say I think it is equal parts a failure of ideas and a failure to effectively articulate those they have.

However, it is important to remember that the most recent successes of the conservatives are the result of some forty plus years of investment. Buckley's commitment to his beliefs and the Goldwater loss energized the conservative movement when it needed it most. They systematically built the infrastructure necessary to develop, nurture and promote their ideas. They were helped in many ways by the liberals/progressives themselves who suffered from the hubris that develops when unchallenged for a significant period of time. And, finally, they have very successfully defined and then maintained control of the language of the debate. This last piece of the puzzle was much better discussed by Thomas Frank than I am able to do here.

The sooner the ideas question is addressed the better. It is more important, though, that the ideas developed resonate with that vast middle of the country, dare I say the centrists, that I believe make up the overwhelming majority of my fellow citizens. These are the folks who hold us together, move us forward and assure our ultimate success.

They are not those who would try to convince us that we are so different from each other that we can never possibly come to consensus. The only winners of that bit of manipulation are those who desire to maintain control of the levers.

So ~ get on with it ~ and quickly!

NB: I have also posted the above comment at CommonSenseDesk.

I have been arguing for years that the left needs to stop assuming that people should vote for them and try to persuade them to. I think this approach makes a lot of sense, whether I agree with the particular ideas or not.

I don't think it makes any sense to say they need to "test" the ideas. You can't really test ideas; they are matters of belief and they also reflect different political values. I doubt that the conservatives have "tested" the ideas that they sold to the public. The fact is it makes no more sense to criticize a liberal for not being a conservative than it does to criticize a conservative for not being a liberal. I think we need both liberal and conservative ideas out there in the marketplace and let voters decide. Because the fact is, there is NO objective way of deciding whether a particular policy idea "works." Conservatives would argue that, based on data, neo-liberal policies have overall helped the poor around the world. Liberals would look at the same data and decide that they have hurt the poor. The truth, as a good centrist would say, probably lies in the middle, but the only way you get to the middle is having both sides out there arguing.

My point is that it's good if the left is out making arguments in favor of their policies (as opposed to simply hectoring people as racists--of course, they might still do that) and it makes no sense to say that they should evaluate the validity of their arguments based on conservative or centrist criteria.

I have been arguing for years that the left needs to stop assuming that people should vote for them and try to persuade them to. I think this approach makes a lot of sense, whether I agree with the particular ideas or not.

I don't think it makes any sense to say they need to "test" the ideas. You can't really test ideas; they are matters of belief and they also reflect different political values. I doubt that the conservatives have "tested" the ideas that they sold to the public. The fact is it makes no more sense to criticize a liberal for not being a conservative than it does to criticize a conservative for not being a liberal. I think we need both liberal and conservative ideas out there in the marketplace and let voters decide. Because the fact is, there is NO objective way of deciding whether a particular policy idea "works." Conservatives would argue that, based on data, neo-liberal policies have overall helped the poor around the world. Liberals would look at the same data and decide that they have hurt the poor. The truth, as a good centrist would say, probably lies in the middle, but the only way you get to the middle is having both sides out there arguing.

My point is that it's good if the left is out making arguments in favor of their policies (as opposed to simply hectoring people as racists--of course, they might still do that) and it makes no sense to say that they should evaluate the validity of their arguments based on conservative or centrist criteria.

Sorry about the double post. I accidentally hit the button twice. It doesn't mean I think my comments are twice as good!